Part 23 (1/2)
Many circ.u.mstances are opposed to the exactness of these measures. Even in the same person, one part is rarely in all respects similar to the corresponding part; we are taller in the morning than in the evening; and the proportions change at different periods of life. In different individuals, the differences are still more evident. Moreover, habits, professions, trades, all unite to oppose regularity in the proportions.
It has farther been observed that, in the conformation of woman, both as regards the whole and as regards the various parts, nature still more rarely approaches determinate proportions than in man.
It is remarked by Hogarth, whose views I now abridge, that in society we every day hear women p.r.o.nounce perfectly correct opinions as to the proportions of the neck, the bosom, the hands, and the arms of other women, whom they have an interest in observing with severity. It is evident that, for such an examination, they ought to be capable of seizing, with great precision, the relation of length and thickness, and of following the slight sinuosities, the swellings, the depressions, almost insensible and continually varying, at the surface of the parts observed. If so, it is certainly in the power of a man of science, with as observing an eye, to go still farther, and conceive many other necessary circ.u.mstances concerning proportion.
But he says: ”Though much of this matter may be easily understood by common observation, a.s.sisted by science, still I fear it will be difficult to raise a very clear idea of what const.i.tutes or composes the utmost beauty of proportion.... We shall soon find that it is chiefly to be effected by means of the nice sensation we naturally have of what certain quant.i.ties or dimensions of parts are fittest to produce the utmost strength for moving or supporting great weights, and of what are most fit for the utmost light agility, as also for every degree, between these two extremes.”
After some ill.u.s.trations of this, which naturally leave the method very vague, he adds: ”I am apprehensive that this part of my scheme, for explaining exact proportion, may not be thought so sufficiently determinate as could be wished.” So that Hogarth's method as to proportions, both general and particular, reduces itself to the employment of the eye and the nice sensation we have of quant.i.ties or dimensions.
But the Greek artists had not only done what Hogarth thus vaguely speaks of, but advanced much farther; and indeed all that has been done on this important subject belongs rather to the history of art than that of nature.
”It is not,” says Buffon, ”by the comparison of the body of one man with that of another man, or by measures actually taken in a great number of subjects, that we can acquire this knowledge [that of proportion]: it is by the efforts which have been made exactly to copy and imitate nature; it is to the art of design that we owe all that we know in this respect.
Feeling and taste have done all that mechanics could not do; the rule and the compa.s.s have been quitted in order to profit by the eye; all the forms, all the outlines, and all the parts of the human body, have been realized in marble; and we have known nature better by the representation than by nature itself. It is by great exercise of the art of design and by an exquisite sentiment, that great statuaries have succeeded in making us feel the just proportions of the works of nature. The Greeks have formed such admirable statues, that with one consent they are regarded as the most exact representation of the most perfect human body. These statues, which were only copies from man, are become originals, because these copies were not made from any individual, but from the whole human species well observed, so well indeed, that no man has been found whose figure is so well proportioned as these statues: it is then from these models that the measures of the human body have been taken.”
It is now necessary to lay before the reader the principles of the Greeks, as to the proportions of the human body. Much has been well done on this subject by Winckelmann, Bossi, and others; but, at the same time, from want of enlarged anatomical and physiological views, they have overlooked some fundamental considerations, and have failed to unravel the greatest difficulties which the subject presents. That the reader may be satisfied of the accuracy of my representations, I shall lay the statements of these writers before him in their own words, rendering them only as succinct as possible.[44]
Of the first epoch of art among the Etruscans and Greeks, Mengs says: ”They preferred the most necessary things to those which were less so; and therefore they directed their attention first to the muscles, and next to _proportion_, these const.i.tuting the two parts the most useful and necessary of the human form; and this is, throughout, the character of their primitive taste. All this we observe in history, and in the divine and human figures which they have represented.
”In these figures,” he farther observes, ”we find a proportion, impossible to be known and practised, without an art which furnishes sure _rules_.
These rules could not be founded otherwise than in proportion, which was invented and practised by the Greeks.”
In this, Flaxman agrees, when he says: ”It must not be supposed that those simple geometrical forms of body and limbs, in the divinities and heroes of antiquity, depended upon accidental choice, or blind and ignorant arbitration. They are, on the contrary, a consequence of the strict and extensive examination of nature, of rational inquiry into its most perfect organization and physical well-being, expressed in outward appearance.”
”That the Greeks,” says Bossi, ”wrote much on this subject [their doctrine respecting symmetry] we have ample evidence in Pliny, Vitruvius himself, Philostratus the younger, and others.
”Polycletus did not confine himself to giving a commentary upon this fundamental point, but, in ill.u.s.tration of his treatise, according to Galen, made an admirable statue that confirmed the precepts laid down in the work; and 'The Rule of Polycletus,' the name given to this statue, became so famous for its beauty, that it pa.s.sed into a proverb to express a perfect body, as we may find in Lucian.
”But of so many writings, which ought at least to equal the works that remain to us, and probably were superior, inasmuch as it is easier to lay down precepts than to put them in execution--of so many treatises, I say, not a fragment remains [except the few lines of Vitruvius], nor is there, now, any hope that a vestige will be found, unless something may remain for posterity among the papyri of Herculaneum.”
Now, to approach to the ancients in excellence is quite impossible, until some one shall explain the great principles on which they acted. a.s.suredly they are, in some of the most important respects, unknown at present.
Servile imitation will never answer the purpose; and to learn as the ancients did, and reach perfection, perhaps, in as many ages, is not very rational, when we can avail ourselves of their practice to discover their principles. I will, in this chapter, endeavor to point out some of these principles in the practice of art, as I have already done in the general theory of beauty.
”It is probable,” says Winckelmann, ”that the Grecian artists, in imitation of the Egyptians, had fixed, by well-determined rules, not only the largest, but even the very smallest proportions, and the measure of the length proper to every age and to every kind of contour; and probably all these rules were learned by young persons, from books that treated of symmetry.”
These rules, we know, were of three kinds--numerical, geometrical, and harmonic; and we shall see, in the sequel, that the loss of them has been much deplored. It is not a little curious, however, that the numerical and geometrical methods are, in some measure, actually practised even at the present day, and that the harmonic method (the loss of which has caused the greatest confusion) is easily deducible from anatomical and physiological principles, as I shall endeavor to show.
As to the NUMERICAL METHOD, it is evidently that of which Vitruvius has preserved some notions, and which is at present practised by artists.
”As it is the painter's business,” says Bossi, ”to imitate a great variety of human bodies, and as the difference of parts in beautiful bodies is generally slight, and becomes, as it were, imperceptible, in the most usual imitations less than life, Leonardo perceived it was necessary for the artist to use a general measure, for the purpose of preparing historical compositions quickly. He required that the figure to be employed should be carefully selected on the model of some natural body, the proportions of which were generally considered beautiful.--This measure, he required, should be employed solely for _length_, and not for width, which requires more evident variety.”
”It has been observed,” says Flaxman, ”that Vitruvius, from the writings of the most eminent Greek painters and sculptors, informs us that they made their figures eight heads high, or ten faces, and he instances different parts of the figure measured according to that rule, which the great Michael Angelo adopted, as we see by a print from a drawing of his.”
Winckelmann, however, shows that the foot served the Greeks as a measure for all their larger dimensions, and that their sculptors regulated their proportions by it, in giving six times its length, as the model of the human figure. Vitruvius says, ”_Pes vero alt.i.tudinis corporis s.e.xtae_.”
”The foot,” says Winckelmann, ”which among the ancients was used as the standard of measures of every magnitude (for a given measure of fluids was also called by this name), was very useful to sculptors in fixing the proportions of the body, and with reason; for the foot was a more determinate measure than that of the head or face, of which the moderns generally make use. The ancient artists regulated the size of their statues by the length of the foot, making them, according to Vitruvius, six times the length of the foot. Upon this principle, Pythagoras determined the height of Hercules, by the length of the feet with which he measured the Olympic stadium at Elis.
”This proportion of six to one between the foot and the body, is founded upon experience of nature, even in slender figures: it is found correct, not only in the Egyptian statues, but also in the Grecian; and it will be discovered in the greater part of the ancient figures where the feet are preserved.”
”We would not omit mentioning,” says Bossi, ”the erroneous opinion of those, who esteem the feet of females beautiful in proportion to their smallness. The beauty of the feet consists in the handsomeness and neatness of their shape, not in their being short, or extremely small: were it otherwise, the feet of the Chinese and j.a.panese women would be beautiful, and those of the Venus de Medici frightful.”
Such, then, is evidently the numerical method of the ancients.--Of the GEOMETRICAL METHOD, we have many ill.u.s.trations.