So likewise, if any individual be characterized by the development of the thinking system, the harmonic rule demands, not only that the head shall be large, but, consequently, that the other two portions, the trunk and limbs, shall be relatively small; that the head shall not only be large, but that its upper part, the calvarium, shall be largest, giving a pyramidal appearance to the head; that the trunk and limbs, however elegantly formed, shall be relatively feeble, the former often liable to disease, the latter to accident, as we have seen in the most illustrious examples, &c., &c.
It must be borne in mind, however, as already explained, that there may be innumerable combinations and modifications of these characteristics; certain greater ones, nevertheless, generally predominating.
Such, doubtless, was the harmonic method of the Greeks; whether, by them, it was thus clearly founded on anthropology, or not.
It is curious that several writers, and Winckelmann among the rest, should have adopted a triple division of the body—without, however, duly founding it in anthropology. Thus Winckelmann says “the entire body is divided into three parts, and the principal members are also divided into three. The parts of the body are the trunk, the thighs, and the legs!”—a distribution and division founded neither in nature nor in truth.
That the Greeks were more or less aware of the principles here stated, though their writings have not descended to us, is proved by their idealizations founded upon them.
“If different proportions,” says Winckelmann, “are sometimes met with in any figure, as for example, in the beautiful trunk of a naked female figure in the possession of Signior Cavaceppi at Rome, in which the body from the navel to the sexual parts is of an uncommon length, it is most probable that such figures have been copied from nature, that is, from persons so formed.”—Nothing certainly would be better founded in natural tendency than such idealization.
All the three Greek methods of proportion being now before the reader, I must briefly notice other circumstances.
In the head in particular, may be observed CHARACTER, or a permanent and invariable form, which defines its capabilities, and EXPRESSION, or temporary and variable forms, which indicate its actual functions.
The teachers of anatomy for artists have not, that I know of, clearly described the causes of these. I may therefore observe, that as character is permanent and invariable, it depends fundamentally on permanent and invariable parts—the bones; and as expression is temporary and variable, it depends on shifting and variable parts—the muscles.
It is well observed by Mengs that, in relation to character, “the peculiar distinction of the ancients is, that from one part of the face, we may know the character of the whole.” And, of expression, Winckelmann observes that “the portion which possesses beauty of expression or action, or beauty of both added to the figure of any person, is like the resemblance of one who views himself in a fountain; the reflection is not seen plainly unless the surface of the water be still, limpid, and clear; quiet and tranquillity are as suitable to beauty as to the sea. Expression and action being, in art as in nature, the evidence of the active or passive state of the mind, perfect beauty can never exist in the countenance unless the mind be calm and free from all agitation, at least from everything likely to change and disturb the lineaments of which beauty is composed.”