Well, here's the passage of DDD, with which I've my problems, but also some worthwhile orientation.



There are two red spots ... one states, that the deck of 1807 has at Nr. 9 a strong contradiction to that, what I believe for good reason to be true. Version 1 has at Nr. 9 the common Prudentia and NOT the birth of mankind. And Depaulis had himself given the data to the deck 12 years earlier. So somebody had a typo, who, I don't know. That's my interpretation of the moment.
The other red spot meets the idea, that one should know, that Jupiter had been protector and Nr. 2 in a deck called "Petit Oracle des Dames" before 1810 ... and I've to ask myself: Where and when?
Here we have Jupiter as Nr. 2 and Juno at Nr. 3 in the deck ...

... which by DDD then is called "nouvel Etteilla" or "petit Nécromancien", and it was presented ALSO in the catalog of 1984.


It should have 36 cards (which is given with an "?" by Depaulis) and from these are 8 Etteilla trumps.
1. L'Amour
2. Jupiter
3. Juno
4. Justice
14. Prudence
15. Marriage, Union (should be card Lovers, but Depaulis interprets "Pope" ... likely he had already 1 "Love" given to the lovers, but 23 L'amour isn't a Tarot card inside the Petit Oracle)
25. Depaulis writes Etoile (means Star) and adds an "eclarissement" in brackets (but this is clearly the Sun card in the Petit Oracle).
36. Death
I've here clearly different opinions as Depaulis (1984) in the details (although I don't see the cards) and I would guess, that Steven and others with some competence would agree with me. Something went wrong there in this interpretation.
Back to the major problem:
The only possible explanation seems to be, that a new deck appeared between 1984 and 1996, that (perhaps) was shown in the exhibition 1989 (cards of the revolution) and which was addressed by Wicked Pack of Cards with footnotes to the catalog. The only victim is the reader, who "just" hasn't the catalog at hand and who wasn't at the exhibition. "Wicked Pack of Cards" is, as far the description of the Petit Oracle is concerned, "confusing" or confused and not really informative. I would expect, that the 8 cards should have been named in the text, but they left it aside, likely themselves insecure, hat they shall do with it.
Well, I don't know.
We have with version 2 (Mari's finding, earlier presented) a further deck, which the French library ALSO dates to 1807. This called itself also "Petit Oracle des Dames" (at least the website makes this), and this also contained a Jupiter as No 2 and a Juno as number 3. If DDD had in mind the existence of this deck, the somewhat troublesome footnote 5 becomes explainable.
Now we don't know, what this deck contains .. the description spares for instance the information, if this deck is complete. We seem to see the pictures of 8 cards, 4 of them are Etteilla trumps in my opinion.
2. Jupiter
3. Juno
14. Prudence
30. "Trahison, Perfidie" - treason, but the card motif is the Tarot Hermit with dog and lantern.
Trahison is between the trumps in the Petit Oracle (card 17; cards 1-22 present the trump
series).
[img]http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks05/d02462/d0246216.jpg[img]
The Petit Oracle changed the "Hanging Man" (= Traitor) to Prudence, but then moved the Traitor function to the old Man. And they formed a figure Sagesse , which they crossed with "Fidelity".
[img]http://a.trionfi.eu/WWPCM/decks05/d02462/d0246216.jpg[img]
Likely Depaulis didn't understand this.
I think, the objects at ...
http://www-bsg.univ-paris1.fr/la_reserve/expos/jeu/horsjeu.htm... by myself called "Version 4" are not part of a deck, they are just two piece of papers, possibly printed sheets or packing material
The paper at the lower left side has some inscriptions at the right side: you likely can only read them, when you click on the picture and enlarge it.
above: "Nouvel Etteilla - or the Petit Nécromancien"
below: "Le Petit Oracle des Dames"
By the composition of the paper one might easily understand, that these cards are from a "Le Petit Oracle des Dames". But this seems to be wrong, they are simply from the "Nouvel Etteilla".
.....
... :-) ... OOps, difficult birth.
That's all only "my conclusion", the real facts are just rather confusing presented. I attempted to make the best of it. Possibly some contradictions would solve with a deck, which is unknown to me.