Part 23 (2/2)
A man standing upright, with his arms extended, is, as Leonardo da Vinci has shown, enclosed in a square, the extreme extent of his arms being equal to his height. This is evidently the most general measure of the latter kind.
Of the latter kind, also, is Camper's ellipsis for measuring the relative size of the shoulders in the male, and the pelvis in the female.
So also is the measure from the centre of one mammae to that of the other, as equal to the distance from each to the pit over the breast-bone.
We now approach the chief difficulty, which evidently formed a stumbling-block even to Leonardo da Vinci--that HARMONIC METHOD which, strange as it may appear, will be found to afford rules that are at once perfectly _precise_, and yet infinitely _variable_. The apparent impossibility indeed of such a rule seems to have embarra.s.sed every one.
And the statement which Bossi makes in regard to Leonardo da Vinci, in this respect, is exceedingly interesting.
”He thought,” says Bossi, ”but little of any general measure of the species; and that _the true proportion_ admitted by him, and acknowledged to be of difficult investigation, is solely _the proportion of an individual in regard to himself_, which, according to true imitation, should be _different in all the individuals of a species_, as is the case in nature. Thus, says he, '_all the parts of any animal should correspond with the whole_; that which is short and thick, should have every member short and thick; that which is long and thin, every member long and thin; and that which is between the two, members of a proportionate size.' From this and other precepts, it follows, that, when he speaks of proportion, he is to be understood as referring to the _harmony of the parts of an individual_, and not to the general rule of imitation in reference to dimensions.”--How clearly (notwithstanding the error as to _all_ being short and thick) does this point to the harmonic method of proportion forthwith to be explained?
”It would seem he felt within himself that he did not reach the perfection of those wonderful ancients of whom he professed himself the admirer and disciple.
”It became, therefore, Leonardo's particular care and study to approach as nearly as he could to the ancients in the true imitation of beautiful nature under the guidance of philosophy.
”But whether from want of great examples, or from not sufficiently penetrating, as he himself thought, into these artifices, or from comprehending them too late, he modestly laments that he did not possess the ancient art of proportions. He then protests that he has done the little he was able to do, and asks pardon of posterity that he has not done more. Such are the sentiments that Platino exhibits in the following epitaph:
”Leonardus Vincia (sic) Florentinus Statuarius Pictor que n.o.bilissimus de se parce loquitur.
”Non sum Lysippus; nec Apelles; nec Policletus, Nec Zeuxis; nec sum n.o.bilis aere Myron.
Sum Florentinus Leonardus Vincia proles; Mirator veterum discipulusque memor.
_Defuit una mihi symmetria prisca_: peregi Quod potui: veniam da mihi posteritas.”
”It is evident that these sentiments are not to be attributed to the imagination of the poet.”
Bossi, having no glimpse of the great principles for which Leonardo sought in vain, says: ”Since, then, this great man could not satisfy himself in the difficult task of dimensions, while on other points he seems to dread no censure, it should give us a strong idea of the difficulty of determining the laws of beautiful symmetry, and preserving it in works with _that harmony which is felt, but cannot be explained, and which varies in every figure, according to the age, circ.u.mstances, and particular character of each_.
”And when we recollect that, though Leonardo sought successfully in Vitruvius the proportions which Vitruvius himself seems to have drawn from the Greeks, he yet lamented that he did not possess the ancient symmetry, it is easily seen that he did not mean by this science, as already stated, a determinate general measure for man, but _that harmony of parts which is suited to each individual, according to the respective circ.u.mstances of s.e.x, age, character, and the like_.” Again, how clearly does this point to the harmonic method of proportion to be presently explained!
”But,” Bossi proceeds, ”how difficult it is to combine the beautiful and elegant, with easy and harmonic measures, may be judged from the vain attempts of many otherwise ingenious men, as I will here relate for the benefit of artists. The difficulty will be still more evident if we reflect how arduous a task it is to make the proportions that the Greeks denominated numerical, harmonic, and geometrical, agree together, and to apply them thus agreeing, to the formation of rules and measures of a visible object so various in its component parts as the human body.”--In despair, Bossi tries to show its absolute impossibility!
”In the second place, to penetrate completely the natural reason of the proportions of the human body, would require a knowledge of physics, which it is not in man's power to obtain. The universal equilibrium of the numerous const.i.tuent parts of the human machine, every one of which eminently attains the end for which it was destined, without interrupting the course that every other part takes to its respective end, in which true proportion seems to consist, is more easily stated than understood.
And even if an artist could arrive at such a knowledge of man as to be able, so to speak, to compose him, he would have done but little, because he would have made but one man. By the alteration of only one of the infinite parts that compose the human frame, the equilibrium and respective relation of the others are necessarily altered: in short, each separate individual would be the subject of a totally new study.
”Every human habit, of whatever nature it may be, has an influence over the human figure, and from the indefinable variety and incalculable mixture of such habits, there results an infinite variety of figures.
Thus, it is evident that true general proportions cannot be laid down without violating nature, which it is the object of art to imitate.”--If, by ”general proportions,” Bossi here means proportions applicable to all or to a great number, he completely loses sight of the object of the great man on whose opinions he comments; for he sought _a rule for the harmony of parts in each distinct individual_!
Again, Bossi abandons, as impossible, the finding of the harmonic rule, which was the great object of Leonardo.--”From what has been said, we may finally conclude that large proportions only can be established, and that placing too much confidence in measures, r.e.t.a.r.ds, rather than favors the arts.
”It was written of Raphael, and is seen, that he had as many proportions as he made figures. Michael Angelo did the same, and it was his saying, that he who had not the compa.s.ses in his eye, would never be able to supply the deficiency by artificial means. Vincentio Danti, who treasured the doctrine of Michael Angelo, a.s.serts in his work, that the proportions do not fall under any measure of quant.i.ty. We have seen the infinite exceptions of Leonardo, respecting the measurement of man, and his own few works confirm it. I speak no more of inferior persons among the moderns; but turning to the ancients, I find that the proportions of every good statue are different.”--And this will be found conformable to the harmonic rule.
”And speaking generally of works in relievo, what canons can determine the largeness or smallness of some parts, so as to obtain a greater effect according to the circ.u.mstances of light, distance, material, visual point, &c.? Certainly none.”--This was not to be expected from the rule sought for.
”I shall deem that I have gained some recompense for the toil of wading through so many tedious works, if it shall induce any faith in the advice I now give, namely, that 'every student of painting should himself measure many bodies of acknowledged beauty, compare them with the finest imitations in painting and sculpture, and from these measures make a canon for himself, dividing it in the manner best suited to his genius and memory. If this plan were more generally adopted, art and its productions would both be gainers.'”--It might do so, among as ingenious a people as the Greeks, in as many ages as the same method cost them to do it in!
Leonardo da Vinci wanted to abridge the time, instead of beginning again!
<script>