mikeh wrote: 23 Sep 2025, 08:09
Why is it a stretch to suggest that Etteilla might have been afraid of divulging a Masonic source, or that his source was ultimately Masonic? It was a secret society, and a lower-level member might well not have known what would have gotten him into trouble, and been anxious lest his name be mentioned. De Gebelin and de Mellet did not get into trouble, to be sure, but de Gebelin was a very high-ranking Mason. There is much in common between those two and Etteilla regarding ordinary cards of the Piquet deck (despite Etteilla's put-down, which is something occultists typically did with their predecessors, witness Levi and Waite), but not enough that the 1781 book would have been his only source, or vice versa. Those two Masons seem proof enough of a Masonic interest in Etteilla-style cartomancy. The similarity between the handwriting in the BUB document about Freemasonry and the BUB cartomancy document is further support. I am not saying that Masons would have invented Etteilla's system, let me be clear - I have no idea - but they surely would have at least been interested in whatever systems or practices existed, in hopes of finding some connection to their own hermeticism if nothing else. I cannot imagine that de Gebelin and de Mellet would have been isolated cases. That they were interested in Etteilla's work does not negate that they also did work of their own, and in a similar vein.
There are a number of issues with the assumptions here. On my blog, on the article 'Isis of the Tarot,' I have a note that reads as follows:
"The idea of an esoteric interpretation of the Tarot deck hinges essentially on de Mellet’s essay, which differs significantly in style and substance from that of Court. Court’s essay does not at all resemble a coherent presentation such as might be found in contemporary Masonic documents on analogous subjects, while de Mellet’s text is somewhat closer to what French Freemasonry calls “Boards” [Fr.
planches]. Although conventional Masonic history holds that such talks were not given prior to the 19th century, some written records of “Boards” from Court’s lodge have been discovered recently, proving that they were in fact given in the 1780s in those very circles. Whether de Mellet’s essay is the product of such a presentation is another matter entirely. "
(Links:
https://www.nos-colonnes.com/en/blogs/o ... reemasonry
https://www.fm-mag.fr/article/tradition ... oeurs-2663 )
Jean-Marie Lhôte also notes this textual aspect in his edition of Court's work. Aside from that, there has been practically no discussion of the matter from this perspective.
As to Court being a high-ranking Mason and somehow above the rules and immune to punishment (whatever they may be), this fails to take into account the very real fact that he wrote nothing concerning his Masonic activities. The differences in interpretation of the Tarot cards between Court and de Mellet more or less confirms the idea that they were engaged in free research, and not a systematic doctrinal exposition of some secret truth. The inclusion of these essays in
Le Monde Primitif - an openly published work - also bolsters this argument. Tying both of the foregoing propositions together, in the same article, I note:
"This is all the more evident if we refer to the solemn engagement demanded of members of the very strict lodge of the Nine Sisters, namely, “to never reveal what would be entrusted to them.” (Louis Amiable,
Une loge maçonnique d’avant 1789 : la loge des Neuf Sœurs, p. 35.) Moreover, as R. W. Weisberger observes, “In deciding against taking notes, Gébelin and other Secretaries of the Nine Sisters evidently wished to preserve the secret character of the lodge and unfortunately have provided historians with no information about the inner organizational workings and the cultural operations of this Masonic learned society.” (‘Parisian Masonry, the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, & the French Enlightenment’,
Heredom, Volume 10, 2002, p. 171.) This argues against the idea that Court was deliberately and openly spreading esoteric knowledge previously kept secret."
De Mellet's take is more ambiguous, again, noted by Lhôte.
As to Etteilla, this is to overlook the profuse name-dropping, appeals to authority, and obfuscation that that author, someone who thrived on publicity of all kinds, indulged in. That said, I agree with your final statements, Etteilla did evoke some curiosity in Masonic circles, since he was invited to their symposium. I've written about this before. Yet it seems to me that we are dealing with a sort of mutually-fuelling mystification, whereby Masonic groups interested in what would later become known as "occultism" sought to gather information (and books) on all manner of things weird and wonderful - including nascent cartomancy. Etteilla then capitalised on this legitimisation, as it were, with the results we know.
This is all the clearer when we consider, for example, the cases of General Rainsford and Charles Geille de Bonrecueil, both high-ranking Freemasons who developed an interest in Tarot, among other things. Both were serious bibliophiles and collectors of arcane manuscripts, and neither mention any pre-Etteilla cartomantic sources, at least not to the best of my knowledge.
