Fig. II.—Reproduction of a Sketch of Barye (Collections of the Anatomical Museum of the École des Beaux-Arts—Huguier Museum).
It is chiefly by employment of examples that we approach the subject. These strike the imagination of the student more forcibly, and the presentation of models of a certain choice, although rough in execution, is, in our opinion, preferable to considerations of an order possibly more exalted, but of a character less clearly practical. Let us, then, ask the question: Those artists whose eminence nobody would dare to question, did they study anatomy? If the answer be in the affirmative, we surely cannot permit ourselves to believe that we can dispense with a similar course. And, as proof of the studies of this class which the masters have made, we may cite Raphael, Michelangelo, and, above all, Leonardo da Vinci; and, of the moderns, Géricault. And we may more clearly define these proofs by an examination of the reproductions of their anatomical works, chosen from certain of their special writings.[1]
[1] Mathias Duval and A. Bical, ‘L’anatomie des Maîtres.’ Thirty plates reproduced from the originals of Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Géricault, etc., with letterpress and a history of plastic anatomy, Paris, 1890.
The manuscripts of Leonardo da Vinci of the Royal Library, Windsor, ‘Anatomy, Foliæ A.,’ published by Théodore Sabachnikoff, with a French translation, written and annotated by Giovanni Piumati, with an introduction by Mathias Duval. Édouard Rouveyre, publisher, Paris, 1898.
Mathias Duval and Édouard Cuyer, ‘History of Plastic Anatomy: The Masters, their Books, and Anatomical Figures’ (Library of Instruction of the School of Fine Arts), Paris, 1898.
Accordingly, there is no scope for serious discussion, and it only remains for us to enunciate the opinion that it is necessary that we should imitate those masters, and, with a sense of respectful discipline, follow their example.
Here, with regard to the anatomy of animals, we pursue the same method, and the example chosen shall be that of Barye. His talent is too far above all criticism to allow that this example should be refused. The admiration which the works of this great artist elicit is too wide-spread for us to remain uninfluenced by the lessons furnished by his studies. It is sufficient to see the sketches relating to these studies, and his admirable casts from nature which form part of the anatomical museum of the École des Beaux-Arts, to be convinced that the artistic temperament, of which Barye was one of the most brilliant examples, has nothing to lose by its association with researches the precision of which might seem likely to check its complete expansion.
