jmd wrote:Fair enough Steve... I suppose that, however, to my reflection there is an element in your statement that is similar to someone saying that in Petrarch those clouds 'clearly look like UFOs', and that the archer 'looks like he's clearly trying to shoot them down':

I suspect people of the 17th and 18th century were more familiar with penises than UFO's, but may be wrong. I don't think they do look like UFO's, they clearly look like clouds, but if you want to play Von Daniken...

...and if it was, there is no reason to assume that it was an intended similarity in the first instance.

...I have assumed nothing, the only assumptions being made by anyone so far are that it was unintended.

Regarding your addition to your post as I was posting my previous reply, re:

SteveM wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that no sharp eyed 'wit' of a tavern tarocchi player in the 17th/18th century could have observed with his mates 'hee hee, that guy's wand / gal's collar looks like a dick' ?

Of course it's possible that some player may have not only noted the folds in cloth as phallic, but may even have gone to the trouble of using such folds to identify cards without others generally knowing in order for two or more to cheat at a game by such coded identification.

I even acknowledged much earlier that it is even possible that a woodcarver/illustrator may have noted what may have been an originally unintended ambiguity of detail.

What I doubt given the current presentation of evidence, however, is that there was a play-on-words or pun that was originally intended in the Papess depiction, even though puns in general were common enough prior to the creation of this deck, and where no such depiction appears to have made it upon earlier decks.

jmd wrote:... and where no such depiction appears to have made it upon earlier decks.

I am not talking about non-specific earlier decks, but the particular decks in which the allusion appears. I am not interested in some 'one size fits all' interpretation to cover all decks and / or patterns. Each tells its own story.

I presume by 'this particular deck' is meant the Tarot de Marseille type-II - such as the Conver (and NOT the Noblet nor Tarot de Marseille type-I). In that case, the Bateleur's hand is irrelevant, or rather does NOT indicate a visual similarity to a penis.

Even of the Tarot de Marseille type-II, it is really only the very recent Rhodes-Sanchez that 'clearly' intends and shows a penis. The Conver and other 18th-C. decks do not 'clearly' show this. Unless to the eye wanting to see such, of course - and that was my point with the Petrarch & UFO note (using an example of visual 'similarity' that I would hope would 'clearly' be seen as neither intended nor likely to be noted as such by most people viewing the image).

Anyway... I'll leave it as that, as I may be reading too focussed on an aspect of the whole discussion...

SteveM wrote:

SteveM wrote: I have noted elsewhere similar plays in medieval poems such as in the Romance of the Rose...

If the context of finding inter-textual references in a 'moralised' game to popular and widespread texts such as the Romance of the Rose seems 'far-fetched'; and that it is mistaken to seek and find cross references between romance texts and games on the grounds that they are unrelated to each other without any intentional cross referencing or influence one upon the other to be found, it may be relevant to point out as example that we may find the Romance of the Rose actually bound together with texts such as 'the Game of Chess moralised."

Also Jeun de Meun is credited with developing a divination system using a 12 sided dice and astological references, and in the oldest extent 16th century edition it is linked also with cards. See post by Huck here:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.ph ... ost1855694

It is in question whether the original author was in fact Jean de Meun, but nonetheless we can show that in the 16th century at least he was being linked with both moralised games and divination systems.

The 1577 edition of Le DODECHEDRON par Jean de Meung has been transcribed online here:
http://www.geomance.com/dodecafr/jdemeung.htm

jmd wrote:I presume by 'this particular deck' is meant the Tarot de Marseille type-II - such as the Conver (and NOT the Noblet nor Tarot de Marseille type-I). In that case, the Bateleur's hand is irrelevant, or rather does NOT indicate a visual similarity to a penis.

..

The Bateleur of type II holds a 'verge de jacob' in his hand just as does the type I, the pun exists whether or not it is highlighted as in the Noblet.

Yes - of course puns exist even when not represented. That does not mean that these are implied or intended in the imagery, especially given the context of the depiction.

By contrast, the 'Golden Lion' inns do have a direct pun that can be 'read', as many times mentioned by, for example, Jean-Claude Flornoy: 'Au li-on d'or' (phonetically similar to ''At the Golden Lion" and "On a Bed we Sleep").

jmd wrote:Even of the Tarot de Marseille type-II, it is really only the very recent Rhodes-Sanchez that 'clearly' intends and shows a penis. The Conver and other 18th-C. decks do not 'clearly' show this.

Beside the question of the 'unanswerable' one of 'intent' I disagree, the Rhodes-Sanchez penis is no more or less clearly 'shown' than the penis of the chosson or conver:


Chosson:


Conver:

You guys might know better than I, but it seems to me the ridge is normally at the underside, rather than the top.

Also, dimension-wise, I have my doubts.

debra wrote:You guys might know better than I, but it seems to me the ridge is normally at the underside, rather than the top.

Also, dimension-wise, I have my doubts.

I think the fact that it has a glans penis at all is what makes it appear like a penis.

Dimension-wise it might be an animal like a horse, but then the glans doesn't work (I'm sure you can find images on the internet). Otherwise it might be a dildo. This leads then to other speculations about what might the Popess be doing with a dildo.

I have also never seen such a large glans on an organ of similar size in humans. Generally with huge human penises, the glans is very small compared to the length and width of the penis (or rather, I should say the glans is "normal" while the shaft is oversized).

In any case, it is an unrealistic depiction of any animal organ (again, in my experience). So the only possibility remains the dildo.