surpeti
I can't remember where I read it, but I remember someone saying that sometimes the wood block for the engraving would break off in small, detailed places, and that it was probably a case of using (or re-using) a block that had the bit of hand and tip of the wand missing. So the phallic look is probably unintentional... or so I read.
Thanks, Rose, that now seems pretty obvious--doh! Though I am curious why Fluornoy chose to leave it as-is rather than restoring it as he masterfully did with the couple of missing cards...
Actually, this was mentioned in JMD's book, in this very chapter about Le Bateleur.
And yes, a shady character indeed. But in many folk tales it's not uncommon for the trickster to trick unfair people - usually the ones who were normally not punished by the law, like the rich and the influential, - and thus bring justice in a rather twisted way.
I guess this is part of the trickster archetype--it's not that the trickster is always bad--he's an ambiguous figure.
That interested me, too, and I LOVE the link you posted. Yes, it is curious to think about the deck of cards on that one card...I like it there. Makes me think about the Tarot reader as a version of Le Bateleur!
I'm curious how, or IF, what is on the table affects one's interpretation of the card? At this point, while I find it interesting to think about, I don't feel that it affects how I see the card if I use one deck vs. another, with different implements on the table.
Something touched on in jmd's book is the parallel between the bateleur and the priest, the articles on the table paralleling the articles on the altar. Which would make the bateleur a bit sacreligeous--mimicking the religious functions. JMD also mentions, I think, that the priests themselves were often seen as disreputable. After all, the reformation was prompted because of abuses like the selling of indulgences to reduce your time in purgatory, etc. So priests and bateleurs may have been closer than I would have initially thought.