“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 nobilissimus
de se parce loquitur.
“Non sum Lysippus; nec Apelles; nec Policletus,
Nec Zeuxis; nec sum nobilis ære 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, circumstances, 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 circumstances of sex, 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 constituent 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.