LECTURES ON HORSES. 
425 
what small : lie might imagine it to be an affair of little moment, 
whether the head were large or small, the neck long or short, 
or think that short arms and thighs and very long cannons were 
as good as the reverse conformations. But a man whose mind 
had been previously furnished with some notions of proper pro- 
portions could never run into these palpable errors. Theory would 
have taught him differently, and practice would speedily convince 
him of the truth or untruth of what he had learnt. So far, rules 
of proportion may prove serviceable : so far, and no farther, do 
I recommend them to attention. 
As every part of the animal machine, to be in just proportion, 
must not only correspond in its dimensions with the adjoining parts, 
but be likewise commensurate with the magnitude of the entire 
structure, it must be evident that we shall not be able to determine 
this just proportion with any thing approaching geometrical preci- 
sion, unless we possess some definite measure or scale wherefrom to 
proceed. The French school, we have seen, took the head of the 
horse as a standard whereby all the other parts were to be mea- 
sured, and whereto they were to bear certain proportions : others, 
however, objected to this standard, and assumed the height of the 
animal as the proper primitive measure. In either case a great 
difficulty presents itself, and Sainbel experienced this. “ Nature 
has so diversified the forms of individuals,” says the Professor, 
“ that no common measure can be made to apply equally to every 
species.” — “If each species has its own style of beauty; if even 
each individual has its own peculiar beauty; if it is not pos- 
sible to find two horses that perfectly resemble each other, we 
cannot pretend to assign any one form preferably to another as 
the rule of beauty for the horse. Were persons the best qualified 
to endeavour to collect together the different beauties dispersed 
among the different individuals, they might, indeed, compose a 
model of each species sufficiently perfect to direct the painter or 
the statuary, but which would deceive any one who would venture 
to choose a horse by it for his own use.” At length, however, 
Sainbel met this difficulty by paying no attention to what in form 
is called “ handsome,” but solely to “ that mechanical construction 
of the animal from which result the possibility and extent of those 
motions by the means of which he is enabled to transport himself 
from one place to another with greater or less speed.” — “ Eclipse 
was never esteemed handsome ; yet he was swift, and the me- 
chanism of his frame was perfect.” Sainbel had a right to come 
to these conclusions from the performances of Eclipse ; and yet the 
proportions of this celebrated horse varied from those of the stand- 
ard of the French school, setting up, as it were, another standard in 
the English college. 
