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

Cerulean: I was reading you as saying that you have an 1890 Lismon with "Chute" upright and that after 1900 this was changed, so that there is a 1910 Lismon with "Naissance" upright in the Ace of Batons.

Apparently I have misread you again. You are saying that the 1910 with "Naissance" upright in the Ace of Batons isn't a Lismon, or even an Etteilla II, but a Grimaud deck that is in the Etteilla I tradition. If so, I will write a correction to the part of my post that mentioned a 1910 Etteilla II with "Naissance" upright. You are saying that there is no such animal, as far as you are aware. That's fine by me. It makes tracking Etteilla II types simpler.

When you wrote
...and subsequent circa 1900 Grimaud Grand Etteilla instructions and designs has changed or corrected the Ace of Wands so it matches Papus Divinatory Tarot, Waite's Key to the Tarot, etc.
it was the words "changed or corrected" that confused me. I was assuming that you meant that the Grimaud Company issued an an Etteilla II after 1900 with the change in the Ace of Batons, which "changed or corrected" an earlier Etteilla II. But I guess you meant (and I might still be wrong) that Grimaud's 1910 Etteilla I was meant as a "correction" not to any previous deck of theirs but to the 1890 Lismon Etteilla II, which they deemed inauthentic.

I have a question about terminology. It would seem to me that since the c. 1838 book has as its first words "Le Grand Etteilla," then the deck it purports to interpret, the earliest known Etteilla II, by "Lismon," would also be called a Grand Etteilla. Moreover, that is also the term used by Decker et al (Wicked Pack p. 147), following Hoffmann and Kroppenstadt, for that deck and other "Lismon" decks, which they call "Grand Etteilla II." Moreover, the "Grand Jeu des Dames" is also for them a Grand Etteilla, namely, a "Grand Etteilla III." When we speak of Etteilla I, Etteilla II, and Etteilla III, we are using shorthand; the proper terms are "Grand Etteilla I," "Grand Etteilla II," and "Grand Etteilla III." Is that not correct? Samada raised a question about this terminology, and I notice that you don't always identify decks that way, in terms of I, II, and III. So it is confusing for me, as I am never sure whether a particular publisher only does decks of a certain type (e.g. Grimaud for type I, Lismon for Type II, Dusserre for type III, and who knows who doing who knows what). I am also not good at identifying decks by the title on the case. So calling something a "Grimaud Grand Etteilla," even though that may be the publisher's title, doesn't mean much to me: what kind of "Grand Etteilla"? I am not a collector of old Etteillas, although I love to see scans of those of others. I read books, not tarot deck cases. That is where my confusion comes from. Perhaps a few others are in my situation. But I am gradually growing to understand the terminology. I am fairly new to Etteilla decks; my previous interest was just in the word-lists in Papus.

I am not the Michael H. who has the fine website, if you mean the one who has the blog about the "pre-de Gebelin" tarot, and before that had the equally fine website about the "Riddle of Tarot."
Top   #57