View Single Post
MikeH  MikeH is offline
Join Date: 03 Nov 2007
Location: Oregon USA
Posts: 443

Yes, I see your reasoning. Very good. Since Papus refers to "Etteilla and his disciple D'Odoucet," and doesn't mention the Dictionnaire Synonymique he is relying on D'Odoucet as the interpreter of Etteilla. So Papus uses "consultant" rather than than "questionnant", and has the 35th card with "naissance" upright. The Dictionnaire must have used "questionnant" and had "chute" upright, because that's the way they appear in the LWB.

Cheking the c. 1838 "Julia Orsini" book, I see that not only does she have "chute" upright, but also in card 1 she uses the term "questionnant" for card 1. Therefore this author, like the LWB, must have used the Dictionnaire

In the English translation of La tarot divinitoire, oddly, the sentence you quoted as in chapter 6 appears in Chapter Two (p. 9). The translator's footnote says that
The material from the works of Paul Christian appears on the left hand page, followed by the interpretations of Etteilla and d'Odoucet.
However only two sets of interpretations actually appear, one in italics from Christian and the other, the synonyms, attributed to "Atteilla." Thus the translator seems to be saying that the "Etteilla" list is the same as the "D'Odoucet."

You must also be right that Revak was relying on Decker et al, and thus repeating their error. Thank you.

The actual cards of 1789 (in Decker et al) use "questionnant" and have "naissance" upright! So both the "Dictionnaire" and D'Odoucet seem to have departed from Etteilla, while also each keeping a different bit of him.
Top   #34