South of
A question I asked myself upon seeing an envelope from France bearing two seemingly identical stamps. The two stamps were affixed to a piece of mail destined for an address in the Netherlands, to be transported by airmail from Paris on September 1, 1937.
The stamp was dedicated to René Descartes, a French mathematician and physicist, born on March 31, 1596, and died on February 11, 1650. The stamp therefore had nothing to do with his date of birth or date of death. But what then? Descartes was depicted by designer H. Cheffer, modeled after the painting attributed to Frank HalsThe only difference is that in the original painting, Descartes is depicted with his back to the left, while on the stamp he is to the right. Was this intentionally mirrored by the designer to make us look at his open book?
Upon closer examination of both stamps, something else stood out. The title of the book.
The stamp, issued on June 9, 1937, in an edition of 5 million copies, lists the title of Descartes' work as follows: Discourse on the Method 1637So the issuance of the stamp was linked to the appearance of the book, 300 years earlier. Descartes was staying in the Netherlands at that time. He had enrolled at Leiden University in 1930 and had been teaching philosophy in Utrecht since 1635. It was here that he also wrote his book: Discours de la Méthode. So the designer had made a mistake, and this error was quickly corrected by producing a second edition of stamps on which the title of the book was correctly stated.
The reprint was produced in an edition of 4 million stamps. Is it noticeable that the word DE instead of SUR is positioned somewhat strangely? The French Post probably was in a great hurry to get the reprint to the post offices. The designer likely did not think of Descartes's statement: 'Je pense, donc je suis' (I think, therefore I am). Was the incorrect print run recalled from the post offices? I do not know. Perhaps the French Post thought about the incorrect stamps: 'J'y suis, donc j'y reste' (I am here, therefore I stay at the post office).
The stamp was dedicated to René Descartes, a French mathematician and physicist, born on March 31, 1596, and died on February 11, 1650. The stamp therefore had nothing to do with his date of birth or date of death. But what then? Descartes was depicted by designer H. Cheffer, modeled after the painting attributed to Frank HalsThe only difference is that in the original painting, Descartes is depicted with his back to the left, while on the stamp he is to the right. Was this intentionally mirrored by the designer to make us look at his open book?
Upon closer examination of both stamps, something else stood out. The title of the book.
The stamp, issued on June 9, 1937, in an edition of 5 million copies, lists the title of Descartes' work as follows: Discourse on the Method 1637So the issuance of the stamp was linked to the appearance of the book, 300 years earlier. Descartes was staying in the Netherlands at that time. He had enrolled at Leiden University in 1930 and had been teaching philosophy in Utrecht since 1635. It was here that he also wrote his book: Discours de la Méthode. So the designer had made a mistake, and this error was quickly corrected by producing a second edition of stamps on which the title of the book was correctly stated.
The reprint was produced in an edition of 4 million stamps. Is it noticeable that the word DE instead of SUR is positioned somewhat strangely? The French Post probably was in a great hurry to get the reprint to the post offices. The designer likely did not think of Descartes's statement: 'Je pense, donc je suis' (I think, therefore I am). Was the incorrect print run recalled from the post offices? I do not know. Perhaps the French Post thought about the incorrect stamps: 'J'y suis, donc j'y reste' (I am here, therefore I stay at the post office). 
Hi Cees,
I just checked with my French Fila friend Philippe Machado: They are the Yvert 341 and 342, one with a print run of 5 million and the other with a print run of 4,5 million, so both are valid and used. He did remark, however, that he had to read Descartes' work in school and whether it should be 'de' or 'sur', he never understood a thing about it!
(He was in ->1930
(He was enrolled at Leiden University in “1930”), probably a typo.
(He was enrolled at Leiden University in “1930”), must be a typo. Just like on the stamp…
Previous reports went wrong for a moment.