“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, retards, 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 compasses in his eye, would never be able to supply the deficiency by artificial means. Vincentio Danti, who treasured the doctrine of Michael Angelo, asserts in his work, that the proportions do not fall under any measure of quantity. 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 circumstances 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!
Winckelmann as little understands this great man’s object, when, after saying, “As the ancients made ideal beauty their principal study, they determined its relations and proportions,” he adds “from which, however, they allowed themselves to deviate, when they had a good reason, and yielded themselves to the guidance of their genius.” Why, the whole purpose of the rule sought for was to regulate every possible deviation, as will now be seen.
The harmonic method of the Greeks—that measure which Leonardo calls the “true proportion”—“the proportion of an individual in regard to himself”—“which should be different in all the individuals of a species,” but in which “all the parts of any animal should correspond with the whole,” which constitutes “the harmony of the parts of an individual,” and which, as Bossi adds, “varies in every figure, according to the age, circumstances, and particular character of each”—in short, this method for the harmony of parts in each distinct individual—this method presenting rules, perfectly precise, and yet infinitely variable, has, in all its elements, been clearly laid before the reader (though not enunciated as a rule)—in the relative proportions of the locomotive, nutritive, and thinking systems, or, generally speaking, of the limbs, trunk, and head, and in the three species of beauty which are founded on them.
These, it is evident, present to the philosophic observer, the sole means of judging of beauty by harmonic rule, the great object of Leonardo da Vinci’s desires and regrets. They present the great features of the Greek method—if that method conformed to truth and nature, as it undoubtedly did. This will be rendered still clearer by a single example.
Thus, if any individual be characterized by the development of the nutritive system, this harmonic rule of nature demands not only that, as in the Saxon-English, the Dutch, and many Germans, the trunk shall be large, but consequently, that the other two portions, the head and the limbs, shall be relatively small; that the calvarium shall be small and round, and the intellectual powers restricted; that the head shall, nevertheless, be broad, because the vital cavities of the head are large, and because large jaws and muscles of mastication are necessary for the supply of such a system; that the neck shall be short, because the locomotive system is little developed; that it shall be thick, because the vessels which connect the head to the trunk are large and full, the former being only an appendage of the latter; that the lower limbs shall be both short and slender; that the calves of the legs shall be small and high;[45] that the feet shall be little turned out, &c., &c.
So also, if any individual be characterized by the development of the locomotive system, the harmonic rule demands, not only that the limbs shall be large, but, consequently, that the other two portions, the head and the trunk, shall be relatively small; that the calvarium shall be small and long, and the intellectual powers limited; that the head shall be long, because the jaws and their muscles are extended, &c., &c.