THE LINEAGE OF THE PRINTED ETTEILLA II BOOKLETS
I have now looked at 4 versions of
L'Art de Tirer les Cartes (
The Art of Reading the Cards), by “Julia Orsini.” I checked the English translation in the c. 2001 Editions Dusserre booklet (56 pp.) against the French text (56 pp) on the facing pages. (The Editions Dussere booklet comes boxed with an Etteilla III deck, but it was obviously written for an Etteilla II, as we can tell by references in the text to two children on card 2, a woman on card 5, etc.—neither exist in the Etteilla III version.) I have checked both against the French text in the c. 1838 book I copied in Las Vegas (212 pp.). I have also checked all three against selected pages of the “Lismon” booklet that a reader of this thread was kind enough to send me copies of. (It am unsure just when this booklet was printed. The deck it comes with has a date stamp on the 2 of Swords with the year 1890; however without a tax stamp I don’t think a date stamp is an official dating. I will call it “c. 1890” until I know more.)
DUSSERE ENGLISH VS. DUSSERRE FRENCH, BOTH AGAINST C. 1838
I find that the Dusserre English translation agrees with the Dusserre French text at least 99% of the time. (I have so far closely read half of both texts.) All that is needed to make that 100% is a short sheet listing errata. That is of some importance, because the mistakes the translator does make are often big ones. For example, he or she translates the French phrase “du haut au bas” (literally, from the top to the bottom) once as “upright” and then again as “reversed.” Surely the sense of “du haut au bas” does not change that radically from card to card! To do so would make the phrase useless.
Otherwise, the only odd thing about the two Dusserre texts is the paragraphing. The English translation is divided into many more paragraphs than the French is. In the French, unrelated sentences are put together in one paragraph and then some related sentences are put in a new paragraph. That is less true of the English. It is as though the editor, finding that the French text had more words than the translation, kept them parallel by arbitrarily combining paragraphs on the French side.
Comparing the c. 1838 French text with the Dusserre French text has been totally fascinating. The Dusserre is based on two sections of the c. 1838, one on how to lay out the cards (I compared the texts in post ) and the other a series of 78 “explications.” Once one gets past the explications of cards 1 and 8, the differences are quite colorful. The Dusserre is clearly based on the c. 1838: 90% or so of its wording is exactly the same. The other 10% can get wild. In general, the Dusserre source text smoothed out the extremes in the c. 1838. No longer, in the majors, do we get predictions of ladies’ honor being ruined, of best friends fighting duels, and of precious “moments filled with the delights of love” (changed to “pleasant daydreams” in Dusserre). Later, in the minors, the Dusserre does have one duel, predicted to end in a “good lunch” (bon dejeuner); in the c. 1838, the Enquirer is predicted to “vanquish” his opponent. Certain explications are extensively rewritten from the c. 1838, notably those for cards 14-19, from the Devil to the Ruined Tower. “Julia Orsini” in the 1830s did not mince words in predicting particular fiendish activities, very specific disasters, etc. At the other extreme, to accompany the cards for the four cardinal virtues, the c. 1838 gives us extensive sermons about these virtues, omitted from the Dusserre.
COMPARING ALL THREE WITH THE “LISMON” BOOKLET
Then there is the question of how the c. 1890 “Lismon” booklet relates to the other two French texts. (I say “c. 1890” for want of anything more definite; and please understand that the information and images that I am posting from this rare booklet are for educational purposes only.) Looking at the sample pages, it is clear to me that it is an abridgement of the Dusserre’s source text. The c. 1890 leaves out many sentences of the Dusserre, occasionally even parts of sentences (e.g.s: for no. 28 Dusserre has “a sign of quarrel, of domestic dispute,” c. 1890 has “domestic dispute” only; where Dusserre qualifies a prediction by saying “when following no. “, 1890 leaves out the qualification). But in every case (except two very short cases ), when the wording of the Dusserre differs from that of the c. 1838, c. 1890 corresponds to the Dusserre. Only one thing is different, besides leaving many sentences and a few phrases out, and that is the paragraphing (except, as I have said, in two places, both in the instructions, one in a footnote and one immediately after)
As can be seen in the example below, the c. 1890 (top right below) divides its text into many more paragraphs than the Dusserre French text (bottom left), and even a few more than the Dusserre’s English text (bottom right). The paragraphing, but not the wording, of the c. 1890 corresponds exactly to that of the c. 1838 (top left). (For differences in the wording notice the first and third paragraphs of the 1838 vs. 1890; then look at the Dusserre below. I will discuss one of these differences in a moment.)
As you can see, the c. 1838 (top left) and the c. 1890 (top right) are the same in paragraphing; the c. 1890 merely leaves out passages. The editor's main objective was to have one page per card. In the Dusserre (lower pair), the editor’s main objective was to have the two texts start and end on the same line. (You might also notice that in the discussion of no. 67 at the bottom of the page of the c. 1838, the beginning is the same as the Dusserre but then changes. That sort of thing happens often and is not relevant to the c. 1890, since the passage doesn't occur there.)
From this data we can conclude that the source of the c. 1890 was a text of which most sentences were like their counterpart in c. 1838 but had the changes that we see in Dusserre.
Is it possible that the Dusserre text itself is the source of the c. 1890? That would not explain the exact correspondence we see between the c. 1890’s paragraphing and the c. 1838’s. The source was something with the c. 1838’s paragraphing but with the Desserre’s wording. It was a revised version of c. 1838.
THAT A FIFTH TEXT MUST EXIST, A REVISION OF C. 1838
This hypothesis of a source text that I have not yet examined is confirmed by the exceptions to the two rules I already gave (rule 1: when the wording of the Dusserre differs from that of the c. 1838, the c. 1890 wording corresponds to the Dusserre; rule 2: where the 1890 differs from the Dusserre, it is only in leaving out sentences and phrases, and in the paragraphing,) These exception occur in the sample card-reading given in the preliminary chapter (unnumbered in the c. 1890).
The meaning of card 77 is given as “bonheur,” with the word put next to a rectangle standing for the card. And there is a footnote saying “Cette carte signifie
parfait contentement, felicite, bonheur, etc., etc.” (“This card signifies perfect contentment, felicity, happiness, etc., etc.”). A scan is below, upper right.
In the Dusserre, the words “Bonheur, parfait contentment, felicite” are written next to the rectangle and no footnote, See lower left below.
In the c. 1838, what is next to the rectangle is “bonheur” with a footnote saying “Voyez les synonymes de cette carte qui signifie
parfaite contentement, felicite, bonheur, etc., etc.” (“See the synonyms of this card which signify perfect contentment, felicity, happiness, etc. etc.”). The relevant scan is at the upper left below.
The source text common to the c. 1890 and the Dusserre retained the c. 1838’s way of putting the additional meanings into a footnote. The c. 1890 left them that way, even keeping the words “cette carte ... signifie” from c 1838. The Dusserre removed the footnote, put the synonyms in the text, and discarded the “cette carte...signifie,.” This difference is mainly one of formatting, like that of the paragraph differences. However the 1890 has the words “cette carte ... signfie,” retained from the c. 1838, and the Dusserre doesn’t. So it is one exception I have to my rule that the c. 1890 uses only phrases and sentences that are also in the Dusserre. In this case, the c. 1890 has three words (cette, carte, signifie) that are not from Dusserre; they derive from the c. 1838.
This example is additional support for my hypothesis that the c. 1890 does not merely have the Dusserre text as its source. The c. 1890 needed something more like the c. 1838, in order not only to know where to put its paragraph breaks, but also to know to put the synonyms for “bonheur” in a footnote and to use the words “cette carte...signifie.” This source was indeed exactly like the Dusserre, but with the c. 1838’s paragraphing and with a footnote where the Dusserre does not have one.
The other exception is shortly after this footnote, on top of the next page. In giving the reading, the c. 1890 says “8 La Questionnante, n. 42 est une jeane fille blonde, 13 lui annonce mariage,...” and so on (8 the Enquirer, n. 42 is a young blonde girl, 13 announces marriage,...) The Dusserre reads, “La Questionnante, une jeane fille blonde (42), lui annonce mariage (13), ...” The c. 1838 is the same as the Dusserre. It is a case of the editor of the c. 1890 trying to put things more clearly, adding an 8 (the number of the Questionnante card, although he forgot the "n.") and putting the numbers in front of the descriptions instead of in back. Actually, the reason an 8 isn’t there is because the book hasn’t explained that part yet. Since both the c. 1838 and the Dusserre are the same here, it only shows that the c. 1890 editor was thinking as he edited. We already know that; abridgers do have to think a little. Probably there are other examples of this type that I have not noticed, additions and subtractions when he thinks that they are part of good but minimal editing.
What I conclude is that after the c. 1838 was published, a second edition came out that toned down its wording to better fit Parisians’ conceptions of themselves. The c. 1890 is an abridgement of that second edition, including the elimination of the reference to the “synonymes” in the footnote just discussed. The Dusserre is the complete text of two chapters of that second edition, word for word, except for changing the paragraphing and removing one footnote by putting at least part of its content into the main text.
Here is a time-line, such as it is, for those that like such things.
c. 1838. “Julia Orsini,” ps.,
Le Grand Etteilla. Art de Tirer les Cartes et de Dire La Bonne Aventure, 212 pp. plus 78 “Etteilla II” type wood engravings, publisher Blocquel, chez Larue, Lille and Paris.
c. 1850 (no date in book). Hypothetical second, revised edition of c. 1838, probably same publisher, 212 pp. plus “Etteilla II" engravings. May be the book referenced in Papus,
Tarot of the Bohemians chapter 7: "
Grand Etteilla, ou L’Art de Tirer les Cartes, 8 vols., by Julia Orsini, 1853."
c. 1890: Booklet entitled
Art de Tirer les Cartes (omitting “Le Grand Etteilla”), included with “Lismon” Etteilla II deck of that estimated year. Publisher Larue, Paris. Abridged version of c. 1850 book. It consists first, after title pages (with Julia Orsini as author) and 3 announcements of other publications, of about 16 unnumbered pages, unabridged except in one footnote and omitting the third method of reading the cards included in c. 1838. Corresponds to pp. 11-12, 41-50 of the c. 1838. Then come 78 numbered pages of “Explications des tarots ou Cartes Nomme Egyptienes Formant Le Livre du Thot,” one explication per page. Much abridged. Corresponds to pp. 52-152 of c. 1838.
Sometime between c. 1850 and c. 2001: Editions Dusserre booklet, same author, same title, included with its Etteilla III deck, “”Grand Jeu des Oracle des Dames.” French text and English translation on facing pages of 112 page booklet. Includes same sections as the c. 1890, but unabridged from c. 1850, and including the third method of reading the cards, omitted from c. 1890.
And a flow chart, for those who like that sort of thing (as for me, I’m pictorially challenged, not to mention unable to do much on a computer):
FINDING THE MISSING LINK
So what about the c. 1850 book I am hypothesizing? In fact, I think I saw just such a book, a second edition of the c. 1838, in the University of Nevada at Las Vegas library; I just didn’t have time to examine it. The library catalog lists its date of publication as c. 1850, and the number of pages as 212. I assumed that it was a reprint of the earlier edition that is also there; it has the same title, author, and number of pages. It probably isn’t. The date corresponds well to an entry in the bibliography of the second edition of Papus’s
Tarot of the Bohemians (
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/tob/tob57.htm, which gives a
Grand Etteilla, ou L’Art de Tirer les Cartes, 8 vols. (?), by Julia Orsini, 1853 (Cerulean’s reference.) This book was edited and revised by Waite. Waite drew on this edition, the previous one, or both, in his
Pictorial Key of the Tarot. , as I showed in post 11 in this thread. There are suggestions of both editions in what I have looked at so far. I don’t yet have a more specific answer favoring one edition over the other; he may have used both.
Another thing I don’t know is whether this second edition has the lists of “synonymes et differente significations” that are contained in the c. 1838, or the same lists if it does, because both the Dusserre and the 1890 have eliminated all reference to such lists.
I could try to verify my hypothesis, that the c. 1850 book uses the same revised wording as the c. 1890 and the Dusserre, by going to Las Vegas again. Yes, I am obsessive, but not that obsessive. I will phone the librarian, even email. I will ask if the c. 1850 edition that they have has a section of synonym-lists. I will ask about the wording on a particular page where I know the two lists I now have (Papus and c. 1838) are different. I will ask for a couple of pages from the “explications” where I have examples of different wording. I will ask about the writing on an engraving, to see if it is the same. I will ask for xerox copies. I will do it next week (waiting to make sure I have thought of everything I need to ask). If I don’t get what I need, I will leave the matter alone (for now).
In the explications, one page I will ask for is that for card 15, the “Magicien.” Here the c. 1838 text and the Dusserre are both about mental derangement, but otherwise almost totally different.
Another request I will make is for the page discussing card 3, “Les Plantes.” Here one of the two wording differences is especially intriguing: c. 1838 has the word “diffamations” (defamations): c. 1890 and Dusserre have “cancans.”
1838:
Cette carte represente la lune, la terre, la nuit; elle signifie maivais propos, diffamation, discours.”
c. 1890, Dusserre:
Cette carte represente la lune, l’eau, la terre, la nuit; elle signifie mauvais propos, cancans, discours.
Dusserre:
Cette carte represente la lune, l’eau, la terre, la nuit; elle signifie mauvais propos, cancans, discours.
The Dusserre translator at this point in his work apparently didn’t know what the word for “cancans” was in English, given that it didn’t mean a kind of dance. So he left the word out, translating the sentence as:
This card represents the moon, water, land, night, and means bad talk or gossip.
I would like to see what word the Las Vegas c. 1850 uses. If “cancans,” then probably the systematic revision of the c. 1838 happened then. If “diffamations,” then not.