The Influence of Etteilla &
His School on Mathers & Waite
By James W. Revak

Let us now compare cards from the Minor Arcana, beginning with numerical (pip) cards.  Upon visual inspection, a reasonable person quickly observes differences between ET and the TM, but generally they are not as extreme as those found between the Trumps.  For example, the Three of Cups from ET clearly resembles the corresponding card from the TM: both depict three cups arranged in a triangular pattern (see Figure 5).  Although Etteilla has modified the TM by, in part, deleting the floral element, inserting a yellow field below the cups, and introducing keywords, the essential element of the TM, three cups in a triangular pattern, is preserved albeit modified.

Three of Cups from ET  Three of Cups from TM

Figure 5: (left to right) Three of Cups from ET (adapted from Etteilla, c. 1788/c. 1975, published by Grimaud); and the TM (Conver, 1761, republished by Héron).  Click the images for larger ones.

In addition, both cards avoid overt astrological correspondences, which is typical of the Minor Arcana of both ET and the TM.  The exceptions are the numerical cards of the suit of coins from ET.  For example, Etteilla’s Three of Coins (see Figure 6), corresponds to Venus (hence the sigil on the coins and the depiction of the goddess on the yellow field); no overt indications of any astrological correspondences appear on the TM Three of Coins.  Again, for a brief discussion of Etteilla’s integration of Tarot and astrology, see Appendix A.  As a sidebar, apparently Decker, Depaulis, & Dummett (1996) were incorrect when they noted that “there is nothing peculiar to Hermeticism” (p. 94) among the numerical cards.

Three of Coins from ET  Three of Coins from TMM

Figure 6: (left to right) Three of Coins from ET (adapted from Etteilla, c. 1788/c. 1975, published by Grimaud); and the TM (Conver, 1761, republished by Héron).  Click the images for larger ones.

To compare further the Minor Arcana, let us now contrast court cards.  Upon visual inspection a reasonable person quickly observes differences between the court cards of ET and those of the TM, but generally they are not as extreme as those found between the Trumps.  For example, when comparing the Roi de Bâton (King of Clubs) of ET with his counterpart of the TM (see Figure 7) a reasonable person finds that, despite Etteilla’s addition of keywords, the cards are similar.  Both depict a crowned man seated on a throne holding a lengthy scepter in his right hand.

King of Wands from ET  King of Wands from the TM

Figure 7: (left to right) Roi de Bâton from ET (adapted from Etteilla, c. 1788/c. 1975, published by Grimaud); and Three of Coins from the TM (Conver, 1761, republished by Héron).  Click the images for larger ones.

On account of the significant and striking differences between ET and the TM, especially between the Trumps, some leading occultists angrily rejected the deck and heaped ridicule upon Etteilla for creating it.  One imagines that for some of them his revisions were, without much exaggeration, akin to finger painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Read what some of his critics wrote.

“The Tarot of Etteila [sic] is of no symbolic value; it is a bad mutilation of the real Tarot.”  (Papus , 1889/1910, p. 89).

“[ET decks] are not so well adapted for occult study owing to Etteilla’s attempted ‘corrections’ of the symbolism.”  (Mathers, 1888/1993, p. 6).

“When in the course of time he produced a reformed Tarot, even those who think of him tenderly admit that he spoiled its symbolism. . . .”  (Waite, 1910, p. 50).

“He . . . believed that he was qualified to revise a document of such importance [i.e. the Tarot], but ‘this man of imaginative rather than judicious spirit’(2) managed only to falsify a symbolism which had not been studied sufficiently deeply.

“(2)[Note by Wirth:] Lévi, Dogme de la haute magie, p. 68.” (Wirth, 1927/1985, p. 22).

Furthermore, by making extreme revisions to the Trumps, Etteilla took a significant risk; occultists often viewed them as the heart of the Tarot.  Thus, Mathers (1888/1993), Papus (1889/1910, 1909), Waite (1910, 1938), and others often referred to the them as the Major Arcana (i.e. Great Mysteries) to distinguish them from the remaining cards, which they often referred to as the Minor Arcana (i.e. Little Mysteries).  Wirth (1927/1985) went even further; he maintained that the Trumps alone comprised the esoteric Tarot.  Therefore, because of the importance attached to them, Etteilla’s revisions to the Trumps (also called Keys) especially offended some occultists.

Read what two of them wrote.

“After working for thirty years, [Etteilla] only succeeded in producing a bastard set [of Tarot cards], the Keys of which are transposed, so that the numbers no longer answer to the signs.”  (Lévi, 1860/1913, p. 316).

“The worst of Etteilla’s system is that he so completely destroys the meanings of the Keys in his attempted re-arrangement of them, as to make them practically useless for higher occult purposes.”  (Mathers, 1888/1993, p. 67).

However, Papus (1889/1910) hinted at another reason, which may have contributed to the rejection of ET, when he wrote: “This pack [i.e. ET] is used by all our fortune-tellers.  Its sole interest lies in the strangeness of its figures.  It can be obtained for 5 to 8 francs from all the great card-sellers in Paris” (p. 89).  If all fortune-tellers indeed used ET, occultists may have felt the need to distance themselves from them by rejecting ET.

NEXT    PREVIOUS   CONTENTS   REFERENCES   E-MAIL AUTHOR    HOME
Copyright © 2000 James W. Revak.  All rights reserved.  Version 1.1 (8/19/00).