Skip to content

Another possibility for the ‘unknown artist’ of the Lotus edition

April 30, 2018

Jos Coumans has sent us another suggestion for the identity of the unknown artist of the 1918 Lotus edition of the Rubaiyat – see previous two posts.  He writes:

Though I am not sure about the identity of W.G.S., what about William G. Stirling, who illustrated an edition, published in 1932 by Australasian Publishing Co., with a Malayan translation by A.W. Hamilton. There is no monogram or other indication with the illustrations similar to the Lotus Library Edition, it is only the title page that gives Stirling as illustrator. The drawings in the Hamilton edition are rather straightforward images of often heavily bearded and sinister looking men, and with some imagination you might see similarities in style. But it is only a suggestion of course.  The illustration is the cover of an edition by Printers Limited, Singapore, 1935.

The possibility of the Lotus artist being William Stirling has also been raised by others, notably Douglas Taylor and Bob Forrest, and Bob is currently looking further into the history of this artist.  So, watch this space.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. dantonoday permalink
    April 30, 2018 1:50 pm

    Hi Sandra and Bill, I read the latest blog on the Lotus artist with interest. So I went and checked out my Hamilton edition with the pics by Stirling. I then felt it was important to enter the fray with some comments. I think its important that we try to identify the unknown artists of the Rubaiyat with careful analysis, not just throwing out names based on some minor similarities. While I’m proposing Sett as the Lotus artist, I am fully open to being proven wrong as long as the proof is solid and valid. I noticed that you cited the “1914 Lotus edition”–I assume this was a typo because in your book you state 1918 just like others. Let me know if you have any questions or comments, take care, Dan

  2. April 30, 2018 2:35 pm

    Thanks for your comment, Danton, and for the date correction. Of course it should be 1918, and we’ll alter the original post to avoid confusing people. Investigations relating to Stirling are ongoing, and we expect to post more in due course. We hope you will continue to join in the discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: