SteveM wrote:....Nothing excepting what I originally said, that if the block was not intentionally (re)worked to show such but was the result of damage, perhaps Noblet was happy to let the damage go as a happy accident that brought out the implicit pun (and then perhaps added that urethral like slit that makes the appearance even stronger)....
Hi Steve.
Ok, I can go along with the happy accident that implies a known pun.
I just don't go along with the "intentional symbolic meaning" interpretation.
SteveM wrote:....Perhaps you could do one of your wonderful corrections (such as in the 1c date) to show how it would have looked prior to any damage/adaption?
I don't think I can make a believable restoration in this case, because the original may not have been "believable".
My best guess is that Noblet's artist was working from an earlier reference card image that had been printed from a broken block. When it came time to draw the hand and wand, he didn't know what to make of it, so he just copied it pretty much as it appeared, with missing fingers and wand. (Perhaps he recognized a phallic symbol, or perhaps he just saw it as nonsense.)
Further to this, we see that in Heri's case, the artist recognized the problem with the reference (or Noblet's interpretation of it,) and came up with his own unique solution, giving us the "little horn" that his bateleur holds.
As a general comment, I will point out that MANY artists, over many YEARS, have struggled with the depiction of the hand holding the wand. Some depict it realistically, others defy the laws of anatomy, or gravity, or both. Is it intentional, or just a repetitious mistake??
Here is Claude Burdel, 1751, in violation of both anatomy and gravity: