The Petit Jeu Lenormand Finally Reveals Its Mystery

Philippe Lenormand sheet has no woo-woo?

Well while waiting for Philippe's (hopefully) anticipated reply, I feel compelled to point out some things that I understand as of this moment:

Isn't the signator (Philippe L.) of this sheet deemed to be a fictitious person Tag?

And this Sheet, although not mentioning them, was issued w/ a deck of cards containing playing card insets in 1846.

Mml. LeNormand was known to have used multiple kinds of decks, palmistry, astrology and numerology in her readings, and not the cards ascribed to her after her death as a marketing ploy. So how could this sheet represent "the whole of the science of Mml. LeNormand"?

This link here to Mary K. Greer's blog, I am specifically referring to the years 1790 and 1846:
https://marygreer.wordpress.com/tag/lenorman

(But as for using reversals? I would have to see a compelling case, before I would ever consider doing that)

IHeartRescues said:

Well while waiting for Philippe's (hopefully) anticipated reply, I feel compelled to point out some things that I understand as of this moment:

Isn't the signator (Philippe L.) of this sheet deemed to be a fictitious person Tag?

And this Sheet, although not mentioning them, was issued w/ a deck of cards containing playing card insets in 1846.

Mml. LeNormand was known to have used multiple kinds of decks, palmistry, astrology and numerology in her readings, and not the cards ascribed to her after her death as a marketing ploy. So how could this sheet represent "the whole of the science of Mml. LeNormand"?

This link here to Mary K. Greer's blog, I am specifically referring to the years 1790 and 1846:
https://marygreer.wordpress.com/tag/lenorman

(But as for using reversals? I would have to see a compelling case, before I would ever consider doing that)

Click to expand...

Absolutely true about the fictitious Philippe LeNormand. That sheet, however, did accompany the deck that was ascribed to Mlle LeNormand, and is the basis for the Lenormand tradition attached to this particular deck that ensued. The deck as published and which has endured these many years was based upon that sheet that did, in fact, accompany all the new decks for at least 100 years.

And, of course, we are all free to interpret and embellish the cards in whatever ways we want; you, I and the author.

It took me some time to remember I had this sheet sold with the Glück.
I don't know if it accompanied all the new decks for more than 100 years but it's assuredly word for word identical to the captions in the Daveluy or the Geûens :


Ex Len by PhilBeDaN, sur Flickr

Dav Geû by PhilBeDaN, sur Flickr

("Philippe Lenormand" sheet ; original Daveluy 1840-1895 ; original Geûens-Seaux 1895-1901)

I very much appreciate Daveluy's tradition but I would not go so far as to say it's the only authentic one.
Even published later, Dondorf and Brepols are valuable decks. It's precisely upon the refined rhymed verses of the Brepols that the author of the book discussed here elaborates her interpretation.

Erna Droesbeke Von Enge's book is a very good introduction, superior to many of the books published since then, but this one, as pretentious as its unfortunate title sounds, goes further in exploring many interesting approaches

Thank you Philippe

Since I am not an advanced reader and this book is expensive I will not be able to peruse it for awhile. BUT I would be very interested in hearing fm anyone else who has this book and what you think about it!

Since I am new to Lenormand, I am trying to learn the "traditional" methods firstly and get more grounded in those, but any new light on these cards (or old light that is just now re-surfacing) could be interesting to view imho