The Essai sur les signes inconditionnels dans l'art was published between 1827 and 1839, by subscription and with the aid of a subvention from King William I, in six out of the projected seven numbers. The announcement dealing with the postponement of the appearance of the Essai's third section is dated April 17, 1832.[50] In it we are also informed that the twentyone illustrations, formerly listed as belonging to the Atlas accompanying the Essai, are now reduced to twelve. Humbert's intention was that, when the "Medusa" appeared - either as a supplement or as the finale to the third part of the book - the missing plates would be restored. [51]
In September 1839 Humbert was still looking forward to a second edition. As a consequence of this hope he published an eight-page emendation of his book. In this pamphlet he ostensibly corrects typographical and grammatical errors and calls for the redrawing of textual illustrations. But in fact what really emerges is a severe curtailment of the Essai's scope. The utopian and religious statements, many textual figures, the entire Atlas with the exception of Plate I, "The Principle," considerable text, and half of the footnotes are to be omitted. The chapters on architecture and sculpture are truncated.[52] Durer is reevaluated and slips in Humbert's estimation because, we are told, he succumbed to the materialism of a facile teehnique.[53]
Certain parts of the book are augmented. Humbert adds a large synoptical table that outlines the functions of the two archetypal edifices. We are also informed that in the projected new edition instead of the "Medusa" promised in 1832, the Essai will conclude with a series of observations drawn up into tables much like the one accompanying this revision. Humbert abandons the hope of in any concrete fashion realizing these artistic ideas himself. Rather, the tables will provide the subject for a competition with projects submitted by other artists in response to the "Summons to the Three Arts" that had opened the third book.[54] A major addition envisaged for the revised Essai is a series of six articles acting as appendixes. Each of the three fine arts will be the subject of two essays apiece. These articles will be composed of material found in the original footnotes with the addition of some new ideas. They are, for architecture: "Observations on the Portico of Hermopolis-Magna," relating to the political construction, and "Observations on the Church of Saint Pancrace in Leiden," for the religious edifice. The two supplementary articles for sculpture deal with "The Curiously Remarkable Figures of Easter Island," and "The Proportions of the Egyptian Figure." The two articles consecrated to painting are "On Stained Glass," with additional comments on fresco, and on a "System of Color Symbolism," interpreting the gems in Aaron's breastplate.[55]
The tone has also changed. The assertive pages of the original Essai have been replaced with hesitancy and an almost pleading quality. In justifying the remaining footnotes, the usually intractable Humbert is at the mercy of the reader.[56] The emendations end with a short bibliography for the convenience of those interested in grasping the ideas behind the political and religious constructions[57]
In November 1841 Humbert placed a copy of the hand-written text that was to serve for the second edition in the keeping of the Royal Institute of the Netherlands. At this time the Essai's scope was further reduced. The preface informs us:
This new or second edition is distinct from the first primarily through some curtailment both of the text and of the figures placed within it. We have noted with some satisfaction that the Principle, once apprehended, entails by dint of so much evidence the consequences deduced from it such that it suffices, so to speak, simply to indicate them. All further exposition is in some sense an insult perpetrated on the reader by depriving him of making himself - and, much better, at that - all the associations that throng to his mind. All paraphernalia - whether too scientific or didactic - must disappear .... With the whole of the Essai reduced to a few pages, let us dare hope that it will be worth the more! ! [58]
The manuscript, today at the Royal Library in The Hague, shows that this version would have been half the size of the rather handsome quarto format of the first edition. Humbert omits the discussion and illustrations of the Doric order of Paestum, the church of St. Pancrace in Leiden, and the Chinese temple. Now there is only one textual illustration apiece for the sections on architecture and sculpture, and there is no illustration for the section devoted to painting.
Thus by 1841 Humbert must have abandoned the possibility of seeing a real acceptance of his theory; to this the mutilated, never-published second edition bears witness. It will become evident that his theory, which looms darkly enough out of the first edition and then only through the piecing together of text with footnotes, would have been totally incomprehensible in the meager second version.
Why was the second edition never published? In July 1823 D. P. G. Humbert de Superville's brother, the antiquarian Jean-Émile Humbert, wrote angrily from Tunis to their mutual friend, the lawyer Luzac, that "David" was demanding 2,000 florins from him in order to publish the Essai.[59]
Thus we learn that the first edition ( which did not begin publication until 1827) was already plagued by financial troubles some six years earlier. Certainly the precarious political situation contributed to the actual diflficulty of obtaining money to defray subvention rates. But Jean- Émile, again in a letter to Luzac, indicates another problem militating against the favorable reception of the Essai:
No doubt but that among the educated public the work of my brother will give rise to a great opinion of the original talent of the author. [Nonetheless,] advise him to submit to the test of sound logic the ideas produced by the transports of a too ardent nature in order that all his observations might be found apt. I very much fear that this brilliant book, instead of diminishing and combating all the specious systems on the theory of the fine arts, will but augment their number. I would have much preferred that my brother, in establishing the practical part of his work On the Unconditional Signs in Art, had based himself more on mathematical truth. Be that as it may, the whole of this study deserves the greatest praise and, finally, may fortune smile on this talented man to recompense him for his labors.[60]
One could argue that relations between the two brothers were not always smooth, but Jean-Émile genuinely wished his brother well. Fortune, however, was not kind to "David." After having visited Leiden in 1830, Jean-Émile confides to Luzac:
There are people who will never be prophets in their own country. David and I belong to that number, but more I than he. I had the wit to perceive it and, at least, I gathered some flowers in Italy whereas he continuously walks on thorns beneath the sky that saw him born.[61]
At the moment when the first edition was to appear, with all sections completed, Jean-Émile again corresponds with Luzac:
The day before yesterday I received a letter from David [in which] he tells me that he has been sick but working as ever. What a shame that so much talent and so much taste for work only give rise to ingenious systems, to ideas where genius and bizarreness too often call good sense into account, and the observations [are] almost always in opposition to generallv adopted beliefs. David wants to create a revolution in the fine arts, which he spiritualizes too much, whereas their essence is completely material. The way he is going, artists will be reduced only to reasoning about the beautiful without any longer being capable of drawing a silhouette.[62]
This was the opinion of an intelligent antiquarian who was responsible for gathering approximately onehalf the collection of the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, an author in his own right, having published a work on Punic funeral cippi. This "Humbert of Carthage" was impulsive, sometimes malicious, but always reliable. His brother's honorary membership in the Florence Academy of Fine Arts, which has been interpreted as a recognition by the scholarly community of the worth of his Essai, has, in reality, quite other origins. On May 23, 1837, the governor of Leghorn and counsellor to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, wrote to Jean-Émile:
My very dear friend . . . has just written me that you, Colonel, would like to know the channel to use to obtain for your brother, Professor of Science in Holland, membership in the Academy of Fine Arts of Florence.... Just be sure to transmit to me by means of a short confidential note the exact information regarding the name of your brother and the qualifications he believes he has to be received Acad. of Florence.
He further notes that to become an honorary member is not so difficult, but to be admitted as professor requires many more formalities.[63] By October, Humbert had been accepted:
His merit is such that it assures him the desired admission among the members of the Academy of Fine Arts of Florence. The latter justly appreciate the distinguished acquisition that they have just made, and I could not accept the smallest reimbursement beyond that, but I owe you far more for the goodness you have shown in everything that relates to this business.[64]
The family's lawyer, Luzac, casts a further melancholy light on Humbert's situation during those years when he languished amid dwindling hopes that a second edition would ever appear. He writes to Jean-Émile:
In a few days, I suppose, he will demonstrate by a lovely letter his keen joy and gratitude for all the pains you have taken, for all the zeal you have mustered, to bring this ship to port. I imagine that this beautiful title will give him the greatest pleasure, and that he will be flattered to see his merits recognized and honorably recompensed by competent judges in the country of fine arts. For myself, whose ideas are somewhat dulled by the phlegm of our northern climes, I think that all the ribbons, titles, and honors possible are not worth a somewhat comfortable and independent status. I would rejoice much more if these beautiful documents and these so honorable titles could swell the income of your brother by a few hundred florins per year. This nomination will cost him more money in bindings, shipping charges, and other expenses, and, in truth, he has but little! [65]
Through this correspondence it becomes apparent that contemporary fame was not to be Humbert's lot. Moreover, the letters make clear that both financial difficulties and public hostility dogged his theory from the beginning. Humbert's motto in this lifelong endeavor may very well have been an aphorism that he carefully copied from Leonardo's Treatise on Painting:
Do not claim (as an excuse for not perfecting your works) your poverty that does not permit vou to study and to render yourself skillful in your art. The study of virtue serves as nourishment for the body as well as for the soul. How many philosophers has one seen who, being born in the midst of riches, abandoned them for fear that they would only turn them aside from study and from virtue.[66]
[next chapter: Exposition of the Essai sur les signes inconditionels dans l'art, The emergence of the theory]