Petit Oracles de les dames, c. 1807

[Huck]

I made a comparison between the 41-cards of the Moscow 42-cards deck of the year 1825 and the complete 66-cards French divination deck.

Result:

From the first 42 cards No. 1-42 (66-cards-deck) 39 meet a roughly identical motif in the 41 cards. The 2 ministres (No. 3 + 4) are missing (somehow logical) and the Lady with the number 38. Two cards are additional (not included).

The missing cards, whereby the Lady No. 38 should be really missing. The following both are new motifs:

**********

Whereby these both additional cards have some logic, if one considers the both following cards:

a Lady getting a letter

The commissaire wants to capture somebody.

**************

Added later:

I've paired the individual motifs for better overview in the thread ...
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?p=4546108&posted=1#post4546108

**************

For the previous discussion: I guess, that it is plausible hypothesis (not necessarily true, but with perhaps a higher degree of probability as the alternative version), that in the development of this divination game the 66-cards deck wasn't first, but a 42-cards deck, which we know from the Russian deck in Moscow from 1825.
The inclusion of the 4 ministres seems to be a rather individual idea, not really made for the big market.

 

[MikeH]

Huck wrote

For the previous discussion: I guess, that it is plausible hypothesis (not necessarily true, but with perhaps a higher degree of probability as the alternative version), that in the development of this divination game the 66-cards deck wasn't first, but a 42-cards deck, which we know from the Russian deck in Moscow from 1825.
The inclusion of the 4 ministres seems to be a rather individual idea, not really made for the big market.

We are dealing with the origin of oracle decks. I don't know of any before the 66 card one in 1790, which indeed is unique to a particular family. Other things being equal, it would seem to me that a 66 card deck in 1790 followed by a 42 card deck in 1825 would suggest the obvious as the most plausible hypothesis, that the deck was simply reduced from 66 to 42. By 1825 there were other oracle decks in commercial production, and they had 42 cards. I expect there was a method of divination that fit 42 cards.

The origin of the 66 card deck is another issue. Whether there were already standard oracle decks in production is purely hypothetical, and I can't see how comparative probability or plausability can be assigned. A relation to the 42 special cards of the Minchiate Francesi is possible and can be explored. The four card sequence at the beginning of the 66 card sequence corresponds nicely to cards 2-5 of the Florentine Minchiate (although not of the French).

However Etteilla, too, used motifs from the French Minchiate, as I think you have shown elsewhere, and there are the obvious similarities to the conventional tarot sequence. Given the geographical proximity of Saint Priest to Lyon and Gronoble, where Etteilla followers lived, and other coincidences. I would think a relation to Etteilla is a reasonable possibility. 66 is twice 33, the number of cards in the Petit Etteilla, a good source of divinatory meanings, especially if you count upright and reversed meanings as two separate cards (the 66 card deck has no reversed meanings). For pictures, there are the keywords for inspiration, as well as Etteilla's tarot and the usual Marseille and Besancon images. These have yet to be explored as possible sources.

Well, Merry Christmas, everyone. For myself, I may be taking a brief Christmas Truce.

 

[kwaw]

For the previous discussion: I guess, that it is plausible hypothesis (not necessarily true, but with perhaps a higher degree of probability as the alternative version), that in the development of this divination game the 66-cards deck wasn't first, but a 42-cards deck, which we know from the Russian deck in Moscow from 1825.
The inclusion of the 4 ministres seems to be a rather individual idea, not really made for the big market.

I am at a loss as to how consider this a plausible hypothesis, let alone a probable one... totally confused.

Anyways, Happy Christmas everyone, and here's to a less confused New Year (hic).

Cheers

Kwaw

 

[kwaw]

For the previous discussion: I guess, that it is plausible hypothesis (not necessarily true, but with perhaps a higher degree of probability as the alternative version), that in the development of this divination game the 66-cards deck wasn't first, but a 42-cards deck, which we know from the Russian deck in Moscow from 1825.
The inclusion of the 4 ministres seems to be a rather individual idea, not really made for the big market.

I am at a loss as to how consider this a plausible hypothesis, let alone a probable one... totally confused.

Anyways, Happy Christmas everyone, and here's to a less confused New Year (hic).

Cheers

Kwaw

 

[Huck]

hi Stephen,

I'm ready with the arrangement of the Nouvel Eteila for the moment. Thanks for your understanding. Happy Christmas

Huck wrote

We are dealing with the origin of oracle decks. I don't know of any before the 66 card one in 1790, which indeed is unique to a particular family. Other things being equal, it would seem to me that a 66 card deck in 1790 followed by a 42 card deck in 1825 would suggest the obvious as the most plausible hypothesis, that the deck was simply reduced from 66 to 42. By 1825 there were other oracle decks in commercial production, and they had 42 cards. I expect there was a method of divination that fit 42 cards.

Hooper conservation cards in 1775 ... but likely also others. Already rather near to that, what we see in the 66-cards deck. Lenthall was also very early. England conquered France in wars, and English game books conquered European playing card tables.

Casanova and his Russian girl from 1765. The girl was 14 and had the background of a farmer's daughter. Where did she learn that?

There's the story, that a Florentine man invented coffee-rest-reading. The number 35 appeared in coffee-rest-reading, also in the Bolognese document (Pratesi). 35 is the number of Minchiate trumps, if you leave unnumbered trumps aside. It wouldn't be a wonder, when coffee-rest-reading and card divination went together. Minchiate more or less was limited to Italy, coffee-rest reading had better chances to spread to the Europe outside of Italy.

The origin of the 66 card deck is another issue. Whether there were already standard oracle decks in production is purely hypothetical, and I can't see how comparative probability or plausability can be assigned. A relation to the 42 special cards of the Minchiate Francesi is possible and can be explored. The four card sequence at the beginning of the 66 card sequence corresponds nicely to cards 2-5 of the Florentine Minchiate (although not of the French).

However Etteilla, too, used motifs from the French Minchiate, as I think you have shown elsewhere, and there are the obvious similarities to the conventional tarot sequence. Given the geographical proximity of Saint Priest to Lyon and Gronoble, where Etteilla followers lived, and other coincidences. I would think a relation to Etteilla is a reasonable possibility. 66 is twice 33, the number of cards in the Petit Etteilla, a good source of divinatory meanings, especially if you count upright and reversed meanings as two separate cards (the 66 card deck has no reversed meanings). For pictures, there are the keywords for inspiration, as well as Etteilla's tarot and the usual Marseille and Besancon images. These have yet to be explored as possible sources.

I agree, that the 66-cards-deck came "after Etteilla", cause the title "ministre interieure" was given for the first time in 1788. De La Salette knew Etteilla in 1788, and in 1788 Etteilla came on the market with his deck (if I see this right).

But I think, that the 42-cards version (Moscow 1825) might have existed earlier. It looks a little bit like a mutated profession (or social ranks) deck. Or a deck of costumes.

Well, Merry Christmas, everyone. Perhaps there comes time for a Christmas Truce.

Me too ...

 

[Huck]

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10520841s/f1.planchecontact.r=oracle des dames

... offers larger pictures of the Petit Oracle des Dames

the colors are different as in the other version:

 

[MikeH]

Huck wrote (a month ago; I somehow neglected to respond),

Casanova and his Russian girl from 1765. The girl was 14 and had the background of a farmer's daughter. Where did she learn that?

Casanova wrote these memoirs in the 1790s, when he needed money (see English Wikipedia). They cannot be relied on. And anyway, he doesn't say she used special cards.

Huck wrote,

I agree, that the 66-cards-deck came "after Etteilla", cause the title "ministre interieure" was given for the first time in 1788. De La Salette knew Etteilla in 1788, and in 1788 Etteilla came on the market with his deck (if I see this right).

But I think, that the 42-cards version (Moscow 1825) might have existed earlier. It looks a little bit like a mutated profession (or social ranks) deck. Or a deck of costumes.

My argument for the post-Etteilla nature of the 42 card deck does not depend on the "minister interieure" argument. It depends on the fact that many of the designs come from the Etteilla deck, which didn't exist before 1789. The same is true of the Finet/Robert. That is not to say that some deck with non-Etteilla related designs on it didn't exist before then, perhaps influenced by Hooper's example.

 

[Huck]

My argument for the post-Etteilla nature of the 42 card deck does not depend on the "minister interieure" argument. It depends on the fact that many of the designs come from the Etteilla deck, which didn't exist before 1789.

Which cards of the Moscow 42-deck appear in the Etteilla in your consideration ?

Even if one or the other is similar, then it might mean, that both are part of a general tradition or that Etteilla took motifs from the French forerunner of the Moscow deck.