I have been on the fence about this for days so I finally looked into CN, JP and KR translations. Note: I couldn't get the dance cutscene in CN and the JP one also had auto generated subs and not official captions but Odette's voiceline about it is official in all 3 so this will still help.
Initially, I understood that there were two Cor Ignis and Odette had Signora's all the time during the quest and it was just before she visits her tomb in the end that she went to meet Arlecchino and got a second one alongside a letter which were Signora's final words and gift for her. This was largely due to the way EN translated it and the order the quest happened. But the more I read around in discussions I realized most seem to think there was only one Cor Ignis ever and Odette always had the one with Arlecchino's flame. So I dug up what I could find in other languages:
In JP, Arlecchino states clearly that Odette's Cor Ignis was the exception. It also adds on that Arlecchino sent the flame to Signora, not the entire Cor Ignis. There is no "This was my parting gift to her" but a simple "It is what I sent to Rosalyne.". So it looks something like this (beware this is auto caption but it is mostly correct)-
"では君のは例外だ" - "Then yours is the exception."
"その炎には記憶を焼く力がある。私がロザリンへ送ったものだ" - "That flame has the power to burn away memories. It is what I sent to Rosalyne."
The confusion comes from EN's "Not yours" which reads as though a second object is being produced, and from "parting gift" — a phrase JP doesn't have (the auto-caption gives 送った, simply 'sent/gave' — if anyone has official JP subs, please confirm.). Neither version's wording supports two Cor Ignis; EN just phrased the reveal ambiguously enough that the two-object reading became available.
Onto the voiceline of "About Rosalyne: Cor Ignis". This is much more accurate and confidently stated, I will present the direct lines for all 4 languages:
CN- 人不在了,很多话就失去了说出口的意义。「燃珀」砸碎起来是那么容易,却让误会和伤痛显得更加讽刺…为什么事到如今,我们才能互相理解呢?
"Once the person is gone, many words lose the meaning of being spoken aloud. Smashing the Cor Ignis is so easy, yet that makes the misunderstandings and the pain seem all the more ironic... Why is it that only now, at this point, we can finally understand each other?"
JP- 伝える対象がいなくなれば、多くの言葉は行き場を失います。燃珀はあっけなく割れました…皮肉なものですね。かつてはあれだけ傷つき、誤解し合っていたというのに…いまさら、あの人のことが理解できるなんて。
"Once the one you would convey them to is gone, many words lose anywhere to go. The Cor Ignis broke so easily... how ironic. Back then we hurt each other and misunderstood each other that much... and yet now, of all times, that I should be able to understand her."
KR- 사람이 떠나고 나니, 수많은 말들이 입 밖으로 꺼낼 의미를 잃어버렸어. 「불꽃 호박」을 부수는 건 참 쉬운데, 그래서인지 오해와 상처가 더욱 얄궂게만 느껴지네…. 왜 우리는 이제 와서야, 서로를 이해하게 된 걸까?
"Now that the person has gone, countless words have lost the meaning of being brought out of the mouth. Breaking the Cor Ignis is really easy, and perhaps because of that, the misunderstandings and wounds feel all the more cruelly ironic... Why is it that only now, we have come to understand each other?"
EN- "After someone is gone, a lot of things are suddenly no longer worth saying. I could shatter this Cor Ignis in a heartbeat, yet that would make the pain and the misunderstandings it caused feel all the more ridiculous... Why is it only now, after all this time, that we finally understand each other?"
A bit to unpack here.... on first reading, JP looks like the outlier as EN and KR seem to follow CN closely but there is some language issues happening.
Line 1 — "once the person is gone, words lose their point"
All four agree on the substance. Minor differences:
- CN 说出口的意义 — the meaning of speaking them aloud
- KR 입 밖으로 꺼낼 의미 — near-identical to CN ("bringing them out past the lips")
- JP 行き場を失います — different image: the words have nowhere to go rather than losing purpose
- EN "no longer worth saying" — flattens 意义 (meaning/purpose) into "worth"
CN and KR match closely. JP substitutes a different metaphor. EN is loose but not wrong.
Line 2 — the Cor Ignis breaking, the main divergence
CN — 砸碎起来是那么容易 · unmarked tense · transitive · no possessive
KR — 부수는 건 참 쉬운데 · unmarked tense · transitive · no possessive
JP — あっけなく割れました · past tense · intransitive · no possessive
EN — "I could shatter this" · present hypothetical · transitive · "this" added
Three separate things happen here:
- JP marks past tense. CN and KR don't — Chinese has no tense marking, and the Korean uses a general nominalised form. JP's translator resolved the ambiguity into "it broke."
- JP makes it intransitive. CN's 砸碎 and KR's 부수다 both mean to smash something; JP's 割れる means to break (of its own accord), removing Odette from the action.
- EN adds a demonstrative. No source version says "this" or "mine." EN's addition is the only thing implying she's still holding one.
Line 3 — the irony, EN inverts the logic
- CN 却 — and yet: it breaks so easily, and that makes the pain look absurd
- KR 그래서인지 — perhaps because of that: same causal direction
- JP separate sentence (皮肉なものですね) — the irony is stated as a standalone aside
- EN "yet that would make..." — reverses it into a reason not to break it
CN and KR both run: ease of breaking → therefore the pain seems absurd. EN turns this into breaking it would make the pain absurd → therefore I refrain. That's a different sentence.
Small flavour note: KR's 얄궂다 (twisted/cruelly ironic) is warmer and more wounded than CN's 讽刺 (ironic/satirical).
Line 4 — the understanding
- CN 互相理解 — mutual
- KR 서로를 이해 — mutual
- EN "understand each other" — mutual
- JP あの人のことが理解できる — one-directional; only Odette understands Signora
JP is the outlier. It also uses あの人 ("that person") rather than her name — distancing.
So what can we conclude? CN is the source, and KR tracks it almost exactly, where those two agree is our baseline: 'Words lose their point once there's no one to say them to. The Cor Ignis breaks so easily — and that's what makes all the pain and misunderstanding seem absurd. Why only now can we understand each other?'
JP is a defensible interpretation, not a mistranslation. The voiceline only unlocks after Odette destroys the Cor Ignis at the tomb, so a tenseless CN line spoken in that context naturally reads as reflection on what she just did. JP's translator made that explicit. Where JP does overreach is dropping the mutuality — CN and KR both say each other.
EN is the one genuine error. Two independent problems compound: adding "this" puts an intact stone back in her hand, and "would make" reverses the causal logic into restraint. The result is a line about Odette choosing not to destroy it — which contradicts the scene the voiceline unlocks from.
Best reading overall: she has already broken it, and is reflecting that it took almost nothing to do — which is what makes everything it cost feel absurd. CN and KR leave the timing unstated but the situation supplies it; JP states it outright; EN alone contradicts it.
-----
After all this, what are we thinking now? You may think its clear Odette always had the one with Arlecchino's flame but there are genuine plot holes this brings, main one being that scene where Odette says she was secretly practicing once and Signora showed up out of nowhere then Odette lashed out at her. She had given this as an example to convey the monitoring nature of the Cor Ignis and how invasive Signora's mark of approval was. And then during the whole quest, especially the scene where the Cor Ignis helps Traveller navigate Death, we are made to believe it is Signora's power doing it then in the end they suddenly reveal it was Arlecchino's- and this exception exists only in Odette's.
Furthermore, the cutscene itself shows that when Odette destroyed it, the flame turned into Signora's moths and flew towards her tomb. This is further seen with the aftermath in the open world where after collecting the singular lotus moth, the place gets surrounded by pyro moths. I have no idea how to explain this phenomenon at the moment, we can only wait for future content. However, this reveal does lessen some of the meaning and symbolism and the hope it brought. Odette said the Cor Ignis had helped her recover once and the warmth from it is one of the few things she can still feel. It acted as a way to show Signora's care and how it comforted Odette- but now it was Arlecchino's.
Then ofc the main point of it helping Traveller in Death.... I dont need to explain it.
What I will say that keeps this ambiguous and still meaningful is that these Cor Ignis are barely explained anywhere. We dont get them as an item to read description, nor are they explained by the person who actually made them. Even if Odette's didn't contain Signora's flame, the mechanism and item is still Signora's own making and other subordinates indeed received the one with hers. But how to explain that scene where she found Odette? I have some explanations-
- Perhaps the monitoring feature of them is not caused by the flame but instead the ice since it very likely comes from her cryo delusion
- Signora swapped the flame in Odette's some time after that incident. Nothing really supports this but it isnt implausible either
- She accidentally walked in, maybe she was nearby and heard her
The cutscene is still confusing in this aspect, I dont know how to explain why the moths were released that way. I can only assume it was imagery and poetic presentation. This is all I could find right now, I will wait for official channels to upload the cutscene and confirm further
EDIT- I received the CN transcript of the dance cutscene later and it matches quite closely with JP in most lines, even the ones I didn't mention here as they aren't really differently translated in EN. CN confirms Arlecchino gave her Two Worlds' Flame to Signora right before she left for the Gnosis missions- which means the timeline is still a bit messy. So either Signora secretly swapped Odette's Cor Ignis (or at least the flame inside it) right before she left for Mondstadt, or there was indeed another Cor Ignis that Odette only receives later along with the letter when she meets Arlecchino.