By Wirth, or not by Wirth

...that is the question

As I wrote in another thread, recently I obtained a genuine pack of 1889 Wirth tarot, which includes a quite peculiar LE BATEUR card. Though I am a sheer stranger of drawing/painting technique, it seems to me this picture was not printed but drawn and coloured (in watercolours) by hand. Here is a scanned image of it:


The illustration was done on a sheet of paper, cut out (about 110 x 52 mm) and elaborately pasted on a card of the deck-- seemingly a "9 L'ERMITE" card, for "9" can be seen faintly under the figure "1". In addition, the card used as the base shows a green part really slightly at the lower left, and its height matches only that of L'ERMITE card. So, I presume the pack may have originally included two L'ERMITE cards and instead lacked LE BATELEUR. If so, the extant LE BATELEUR should have been created to make up for the missing original. Or otherwise, the former owner may have lost or damaged LE BATELEUR and somehow acquired the card to make it the substitute.

It is interesting that the 'LE BATELEUR' image is not an exact copy of the 1889 version. In fact, it has a few traits in common with that of the B/W plates in the periodical "La Lumière maçonnique" published in 1911, rather than the 1889 original -- See his costume and the ground. ( I believe the tarot by Wirth seen on these plates was actually done still earlier than 1911.) And as to the disc(s) on the table, the largest one looks more similar to that of 1926 version than 1889 version ( in which the one under the sword is more similar in design). I wish I could have access to a finer image of the B/W plates...

Anyway, I have been enjoying much supposition and reasoning. Now I would like to invite everyone's opinion

Hey kenji, nice find. It looks hand made to me too. The black lines don't match exactly any of the others. But it seems to have been influenced more by the 1889 than any of the others, to me anyway.

It has elements from both the 1889 and the 1926. For example three disks as in the 1889, but the largest disk looks a bit more like the 1926 and the chalice is silver as is the 1926.

I think your supposition that someone made it by hand to correct the problem you mentioned is reasonable, but since there seems to be some 1926 influence it could have been done at some later date. The only other explanation would be it was made from some unknown woodblock or other source that no one has yet discovered.

Abrac said:

Hey kenji, nice find. It looks hand made to me too. The black lines don't match exactly any of the others. But it seems to have been influenced more by the 1889 than any of the others, to me anyway.

Click to expand...

Hi Abrac Thanks for your comment.
Yes exactly. It is obvious that this card is based upon 1889 version: On his costume, yellow frills have white edges, and the pipings are yellow. Besides, the blue end of his baton is upward, -- all unlike 1926 version. And this fact makes the slight differences all the more interesting, I think.

It has elements from both the 1889 and the 1926. For example three disks as in the 1889, but the largest disk looks a bit more like the 1926 and the chalice is silver as is the 1926.

Click to expand...

Though it may be difficult to judge by the scanned images, in 1889 version also the chalice is meant to be silver (using grey), as well as the largest disc on the table. Meanwhile, the hilt of the sword and the hold of his wand are painted metallic gold.

I think your supposition that someone made it by hand to correct the problem you mentioned is reasonable, but since there seems to be some 1926 influence it could have been done at some later date. The only other explanation would be it was made from some unknown woodblock or other source that no one has yet discovered.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if it was just to "correct the problem". (Perhaps it was an attempt to make a variant, or something -- who knows?)

As I wrote in another thread, the tarot drawings by Wirth which appeared in 1911 periodicals look quite similar (some being almost identical) to 1926 version. So I think it can be safely said that the basic designs of 1926 version were virtually ready, at latest in 1911. LE BATELEUR in the 1911 periodical should be much like 1926 version, but unfortunately BnF doesn't show the issue on their website

kenji, I love what you share here, such rare items. For what ever it is wirth A stand out for me was the pommel change corresponding to the coins in your examples on a artistic level, rather then a conscious symbolic level.

The second thing that caught my eye was the scale changes of the middle card compared to the other two.

How strange. How rare were those cards, does anyone know? To go to so much trouble to make the Magician--rather than buying another deck...

Hi the crowned one & Debra,

I am glad you two found my post interesting

I imagine it was rather hard to draw the image directly on such a tiny sheet of paper...

If it was only to make a substitute for the missing/damaged card of such a rare deck (it is said that this deck was limited to 350 copies), why didn't the artist just copy the original faithfully? Or if it was because not content with the designs of the original, why didn't the artist do the same for the rest of 21 cards to create an ideal deck? With such artistic skills it should have been possible.

So many guesses, so much fun...

Yes. I also think it's strange to have an "extra" Hermit. How does that happen?

Thanks for the great scans kenji. :~)

I just love comparative piccies like that; and your conjecture that "the pack may have originally included two L'ERMITE cards" makes perfect sence to me.

I've had three decks with double-ups over the years! Twice where it meant the deck therefore had a card missing, as you imply here, but just recently I got a complete deck with a 2nd copy of Temperance.

So, Debra, mistakes when collating a deck can definitely happen; with mass pproduction decks as well as with handmade ones.

Here's a 1926 sample somewhat different

I hope this helps. Larger scans were sent to you by other means, but at least this helps you see a variation.

The images were printed two to a page from 1926. The coloring and where the eyes are looking toward--to the right, left, forward, or at distance somewhere beyond the horizon...these expressions differ, this seems, in different editions of the book.

I do not know if adds to the mystery or seems to explain variations? I had to 'expand' the zoom level of the images 200 to 400 percent to see detail better.

Cerulean

Kenji, is your 1926 scan the reproduction from L'Aigle?

The L'Aigle reproduction is far darker than the 1926 originals and has thicker linework than the 1926 and the gold on the 1926--which shows as green on scans--is a flat and smooth, like silkscreen

It may be the print runs on your 1926 plates differ...is the print impressions of the name Oswald darker than the one of my samples of the 1926 I sent to you? Even the small scan that I noted here is plainly a different print run than yours-the portfolio is 1926, the book is 1927. iIt was a set and two plates to a page.

Even the face looks very different from your first image, the 1926, and the L'Aigle reproduction.

It may help your study of the linework and colors.