Thus the thigh of the Theseus, which projected from the pediment of the Parthenon, was shorter by an inch and a half than the other, in order, probably, that the limb should not appear to project too much over the cornice. In a figure standing on one leg the joints were pressed together, and the height was shortened; this condition was sometimes exaggerated by the Greeks. He believed it would be found that the leg on which the Apollo Belvedere rested was shorter, in a somewhat exaggerated degree, than the other, which was comparatively pendant. It was stated that Lysippus made his figures taller than other artists, and this fact was cited as a proof of the decadence of art in his time. It had occurred to him (Mr. Bell) that Lysippus adopted this system after executing many portrait statues of Alexander the Great, who was short in stature, and whose limbs he had to lengthen in the copy to give them proper effect. As to the difference in the length of the arm when in a bent position, he thought that the bending did not affect both divisions of the limb. Mr. WESTMACOTT, Visitor, hoped to see the pamphlet by Mr. Bonomi, from which the drawings before the meeting were taken, in the hands of many more artists. At the same time he felt that theorizing on the proportions of the human figure had a tendency to render sculpture too mechanical. The proportions of the figure as laid down by Vitruvius were perfectly right; and they were those of the bones, neither more nor less, whereas the beauty of the ancient statues arose from the proportions being varied in action, in which the bones were not seen. In a state of rest the legs would appear of less length, but in action the whole character of the figure was altered. The Apollo was, perhaps, not to be too much depended on, as it was considered to be a copy from a bronze, and one of the limbs had been mended: still the extended leg was represented according to the law of nature. Mr. Westmacott entered into some anatomical details to shew that variations in length might arise from the loosening of the cartilages, without affecting the canon laid down by Vitruvius, which he believed was the true canon of the bones; but it must be well known that the antique statues did not measure in strict accordance with that canon. The British Museum now contained statues of the periods of Phidias, of Praxiteles, and of Lysippus. The last-named sculptor was remarkable for making the heads of his figures small; thus giving the effect of greater height to the other parts. Although he thought that all figures modelled upon the canon must give satisfaction, because proportion was as essential in art as in music, yet he could not believe that a perfect statue could be produced by merely attending to proportion alone. Though Polycletus established a canon of proportion, and was considered a master in his art, another sculptor had been styled more harmonious than Polycletus: harmony must affect proportion. He had not the slightest doubt that Mr. Bonomi's frame-work was perfectly correct, but he could not admit that statues constructed entirely by copying a canon of proportion would be beautiful works of art. Correct they might be; but beauty depended on such minute varieties, and the varieties of nature were so great, that he was afraid the most beautiful works of art would not bear Mr. Bonomi's crux, since due scope must be allowed for the genius of the artist. At the British Museum there was now an opportunity of comparing and contrasting the sculptures of the Athenian, the Phigaleian, and the Halicarnassian collections. In all these there was a high degree of elegance, but an elongation of the proportions of the figures in the last named gave them a remarkable increase in beauty. Mr. EDWARDS, Visitor, said the different height of the figure in an erect posture, and in a state of ease, was to be accounted for anatomically, and that the shortening must be greater in a young person, whose bones had softer and more elastic terminations than those of an adult. He inquired whether the canon quoted by Vitruvius would apply to all nations. Sir Charles Bell, in describing works of art at Rome, had stated that he could distinguish at once such of the antique portrait statues as represented Romans, from their squareness of build; so also figures which followed the canon brought before the meeting would be Greeks. All had a perception of truth, and on seeing a figure at rest could allow the proportions to be in accordance with the canon; and from the perception of truth naturally arose the feeling of satisfaction. Mr. BONOMI said that his diagrams gave no measure of the leg which did not bear the weight of the body. Mr. JENNINGS, Fellow, said that as no doubt different nations had adopted different styles of figures, the attempt now to imitate the Greeks in a slavish manner would not produce the desired result. He believed the Greeks were a more beautifully formed race than the English, and it seemed that in the Roman figure there was also a deterioration. At the present time the sculptor, he believed, found great difficulty in obtaining a perfectly good figure as a model. Workmen in different occupations might be found finely developed in the particular muscles which they most exercised, but it appeared that the Greeks enjoyed the great advantage of being able to study from one figure only, and that, probably, approaching perfection. It had been observed by Leonardo da Vinci that he studied defects in order to avoid them; and it struck him (Mr. Jennings) that they should themselves, as artists, adopt the same course, by improving upon every grace and avoiding as far as possible every defect in all the works they saw. It was of course desirable to have a canon of proportion, but the main object should be to study effect: to study the English figure and to reproduce it properly in English works. Both in architecture and in sculpture the object should not be to copy merely by rule and line, but to seek to arrive as far as possible at perfection, by careful study and observation. Mr. M. DIGBY WYATT said it was a singular circumstance that the canon under discussion, probably originated by a sculptor-Polycletus, had been handed down through the instrumentality of an architect-Vitruvius, and a painter-Leonardo da Vinci. It was evident from the text of the latter that he looked upon the human structure as an edifice; and it would be desirable that architects should look upon the symmetrical principle upon which the human frame is constructed as suggesting the mode of distribution after which they might design their edifices. These canons of proportion which could have been fixed only after a long and patient observation of coincidences, proved that there was a regular geometrical and arithmetical relation between all the different parts of the most beautiful work of creation. In all well developed figures, of whatever race, the general scales and proportions before the meeting appeared to obtain pretty universally as the normal condition of the human frame, being only varied in the case of a deterioration of race, from unwholesome occupations, or other causes; but, as Mr. Jennings observed, for details of character and expression the sculptor might follow the English type with advantage. One point which was most interesting to them as architects, was to observe the different effect of figures at different heights and distances from the eye, and to take care that sculpture, as an accessory to architecture, should be treated and modified according to its position. As a case in point, he would refer to the casts of the figures from the west front of Wells Cathedral, which had been taken under his directions for the Crystal Palace Company. Although slightly elongated the originals looked well in their places, but he found that the casts could not be put up in the Mediæval Court at the Crystal Palace without considerable modification. Two or three of them in fact were several heads too high, and the sitting figures were so proportioned that they appeared to have scarcely any thighs at all. The architect and the sculptor had, however, worked so well in combination, that these defects, obvious enough when the statues were brought to the level of the eye, were not visible from the point at which the statues were best seen in the front of the Cathedral. It was a great matter for the artist, whether sculptor or architect, to ensure a good optical effect for his works when placed in the position they were intended to occupy; hence this working together of the architect and of the sculptor must be attended with the best results for both parties, and it was a very great mistake on the part of the sculptor when he shewed his independence of the architect, and, as in some instances, thought fit to follow his own conceits by placing a fine statue upon a plain square block. Mr. TWINING, C.V., pointed out the necessity the sculptor laboured under to exercise thought and contrivance in order to produce variety in the attitudes and expression of his own particular works, so that they might be constantly agreeable, and never monotonous, or imitations of the productions of other artists. Mr. JOHN BELL agreed in the remark made by Mr. Wyatt as to the importance of the union of architecture and sculpture. In connection with Greek and Roman architecture, a less amount of departure from rule in the proportions would be required in placing a seated figure at a great height, than in the Gothic style. Even in that case, however, the architectonic question should not be overlooked. All figures should be so modelled as to look well in the places for which they were intended. The canons of form laid down by Vitruvius, as well as that by Gibson, were of great value, and had been most clearly expressed by Mr. Bonomi. Of course it did not follow that they should be exactly observed in every case. It was not desirable that all sculptors should make their figures exactly alike, nor was it likely they would. No doubt the great thing to be produced in a statue was to represent the largest or strongest man in the smallest compass, but it would be wrong to represent a monster of strength, or a monster of rapidity. Unquestionably, the standard of form varied in different races, and in all the examples he had seen of Negroes and Africans, the forearm was longer than it was in white men. The Greek canon must have been based upon a very fine race, but the best proportioned of the human family in any part of the world, would not much vary from that standard, and his own experience led him to believe that the English form did not differ much from the Greek type. Mr. C. H. SMITH, H.M., called attention to the remark of Sir Joshua Reynolds, that there could not be a greater mistake than to suppose that rules were the fetters of genius; but that they were fetters only to men of no genius. Mr. KERR, Fellow, said that nothing had been adduced to dispute the title of the Greeks to the palm of excellence and artistic development. Vitruvius had brought before them the perfection of divine work, proving, whether right or wrong as to his details, - that there were some laws or principles governing the proportions of the human frame. Whether these, as he said, were arithmetical, or, as Mr. Gibson said, geometrical, did not matter. The human figure at rest pleased by its perfect symmetry; in motion, by its variety; but this variety was only satisfactory from its perfect balance, without which there could be no beauty. Now, this principle was sometimes forgotten by architects. He did not uphold perfect symmetry, but modern designs were too often contortions, which were always unpleasing. He had never been able to see any reason why a geometrical proportion should exist in nature's works, and the asserting it was like attempting to square the circle. He, for one, should say that Gibson's canon was wrong, and that of Vitruvius right; but when it was impossible to reconcile the two, then Gibson's theory might prove right, because of its correspondence with the other. Mr. BONOMI Concurred in this remark, referring to the diagram, showing one half of the human figure drawn on Gibson's theory, and the other half on that of Vitruvius. Mr. M. D. WYATT thought they might be misled if they distinguished between arithmetical and geometrical proportion, because all geometrical lines were capable of arithmetical definition, with infinitely fractional discrepancies; and a figure which conformed to any geometrical law, must conform also to some arithmetical ratio. Geometrical laws singularly agreed with, and could be generally expressed by an arithmetical system of notation. The difference it was well to insist upon was rather between arithmetical and geometrical progression than proportion. Mr. KERR replied that all geometrical proportions were in fact absolutely irreducible to arithmetical proportions. If the former agreed with the latter, he would ask the use of any geometrical proportion at all? Mr. PARRIS, Visitor, observed as a fact, not very generally known, that all the principal limbs and parts of the human figure consisted of 32 bones, -a multiple of two or four, but never of three. This applied to the head, arm, leg and spine, with the ribs, &c.: the scapula and clavicle, with the hand and wrist being considered as belonging to the arm, that limb consisted of exactly 32 bones, and so with the rest. The same, or a similar standard of analogy, should exist in the construction of a building. He did not himself imagine that every Greek was a perfect model of form, and models might be found in Cheshire and Lancashire to compare with the finest Greek examples. Everything depended upon giving to the figure the expression of the proper sort of strength, whether that of a warrior, a boatman, a gladiator, a prizefighter, or a coachman: and the little variations necessary in each case would not be found to deviate much from the perfect standard. In architecture, he thought, a building should tell its tale as a stone picture at once, and unless it did so it must be wrong in principle, whatever its proportions might be. Mr. CHARLES BARRY, Fellow, remarked that architects had sometimes been reproached with their indifference to scientific and abstract subjects. The present paper had, however, met with a very willing audience, and had elicited many valuable remarks. Drawing from the figure, which was not common in the architect's office, might be practised by the student with very great advantage. There was some sort of analogy between the train of thought which would actuate a sculptor in designing a statue, and an architect in designing a building, and there were well recognised canons in each case which could not be disregarded without danger. It must, however, be borne in mind, that precisely the same canons would hardly apply to a building, and to the human figure. Thanks having been carried to Mr. BONOMI, the meeting adjourned. ON THE GEOMETRIC TREATMENT OF SCULPTURE. By JOHN BELL, Esq. Read at the Royal Institute of British Architects, Dec. 13th, 1858. Those who at the last meeting in this room heard the very interesting paper contributed by Mr. Bonomi, "On the Proportions of the Human Figure," as laid down by Vitruvius, Leonardo da Vinci, and others, will deem me fortunate in having been preceded by a theme which so aptly introduces that of this evening. I feel this the more, inasmuch as the theory of the proportions of the human figure, quite a sculptor's subject, was then received and discussed in a spirit which showed how much interest was taken in it by the architect, and how ready he is to welcome it as connected with his own department. It is natural that this should encourage me in presenting the following remarks to you on a subject of a somewhat kindred nature. The following little paper "On the Geometric Treatment of Sculpture" has arisen from the suggestion of one of your honorary secretaries, Mr. Digby Wyatt. Its title will be accepted, I think, as grouping together conveniently some considerations of much importance in the association of my art with yours, and on which I venture to offer a few remarks. These may afford, at least a sculptor's view of the subject, which has here the best chance of being checked and guided by that of the architect. If anywhere I perchance use a tone of assertion, pray do me the justice to consider that it is only for shortness, and not from confidence. What, then, may the title "Geometric Treatment of Sculpture" be held to imply? Using the word geometry in its accepted sense, I would submit, that selection of forms and masses founded on lines of geometric contour, as straight, square, circular, elliptical, pyramidal, or wave-like, &c. which especially suit sculpture for the purposes of harmonious decoration. Now, although no doubt a work of sculpture, as a unit, and isolated, is the better for being of a symmetric outline, and well balanced and adjusted in itself as an ornamental form, yet still more is this the case when it is regarded in reference to those situations in which sculpture is usually placed, which also, I conceive, may nearly all, more or less, be considered architectural. In a garden, for instance. Those gardens which are suitable for such decorations as vases, statues, or fountains, are more or less on a symmetric plan, and may all in degree be considered as extensions of the house itself to which they are attached, -as its outer works, as it were, and as affording apartments with walls indeed, but with no roof but the sky. Under this aspect, none of such decorations of art as are introduced in these situations are altogether beyond and without the bounds of architecture, but their effect will be influenced in a large degree by the same laws under which they appear within the immediate courts, halls, and apartments of the edifice itself. When, therefore, a work of sculpture on its pedestal is placed in a garden, the two together, as a mass, will have the best effect if they justly subserve some theory of decorative arrangement which requires in that spot an architectural feature of that quality. I say this in order to acknowledge that, even when not directly associated with architecture, it may be very well for sculpture to hold itself bound by the same ties of geometric harmony as if in nearer relation. Of course, when more closely connected with the sister art, as in statues to fill niches, relievi to occupy panels, figures to become the finials of columns, or extended and diversified compositions to adorn and enhance the tympanum of a façade or the summit of a triumphal arch, the geometric treatment of the sculpture becomes more intimately an architectonic question. So vital a one indeed does this appear in these cases, as regards the eventual effect of both the building that is to be adorned and the sculpture that should adorn it, that there seems but a remote chance of a happy result, unless a geometric laying out of contours and masses, and light and shade, has formed the ground-work of the design. In such cases the most delicate and |