CANONS OF PROPORTION. 67 
of earlier artists." Parrhasios was the first to introduce symmetry into 
painting.” Diogenes Laertios says that the sculptor Pythagoras was 
the first to aim at rhythm as well as symmetry.’ In all such pas- 
sages it 1s clear that canons of proportion are meant. 
The doctrine of human proportions is very ancient, originating 
in Egyptian art.* It appears early in Greek architecture in the 
proportions of columns and other members of a temple,’ and it 
was soon transferred to sculpture. As Greek sculpture evolved on 
traditional lines,° we should assume that it paid attention to the 
doctrine of proportions in the human figure, based on numerical 
ratios, and that such a doctrine would vary from age to age in the 
various schools of sculpture. Such an assumption is borne out by 
both literary and archzological evidence. ‘Toward the end of Hellen- 
ism many writers refer to just such a measured basis of proportion in 
Greek art.’ Archzologists have shown by the careful study of multi- 
tudes of statues that such proportions exist in Greek sculpture. ‘Thus 
A. Kalkmann* has proved that there are sets of ratios in the treatment 
of the face used by successive schools of sculpture, which were canonical, 
whether formulated or not. G. Fritsch? has done for the whole body 
10p. cit. XXXIV, 65, he says: Nova intactaque ratione quadratas veterum staturas permutando. 
20». cit., XXXV, 67. OV TIT T: 47. 
4The Egyptians divided the front view of the body into 19 parts (or 21 parts and a quarter, 
including the height of the head-dress): Diod., I, 98. See Lepsius, Monum. funéraires de 
l Egypte (figure, reproduced in Dar.-Sagl., I, 2, p. 892, fig. 1125); cf. his Descript. de l’ Egypte, 
IV, LXII; Wilkinson, History of Egypt, p. 113, Pl. 1V; these references are given by Foat, op. 
Fie pee, n,. Lb. 
5Vitruv., I, 2. However, in thus following the statement of the Roman architect, it must be 
said that the attempt to recover and establish such a canon in Greek architecture is still unproved. 
The subject is complicated and has led to very different views. Thus, while many scholars 
have defended the theory of the canon (e. g., Pennethorne, Geom. and Optics of Anc. Arch., 1878; 
Penrose, in Whibley, Comp. to Gk. Stud.', 1905, pp. 220-1; Ferguson, Hist. Arch., ed. 1887, I, p. 
251; P. Gardner, Princ. Gk. Art., p. 21; Statham, Short Crit. Hist. Arch., 1912, p.130), others are 
opposed, and believe that design in Greek architecture was a matter of feeling, and that the orders 
were first reduced to formule in Roman days (e. g., A. K. Porter, Med. Arch., 1909, I, 9; Goodyear, 
Greek Refinements, Studies in Temperamental Arch., 1912, esp. p. 83, quoting Joseph Hoffer from 
Wiener Bauzeitung, 1838). See on the subject a recent article by my pupil, Dr. A. W. Barker, 
in A. J. A., XXII, 1918, pp. 1 f., in which the above and other references are given. 
6Gardner, Sculpt., pp. 22-3, says: ‘Paradoxical as it may seem at first sight, the very freedom 
of Greek sculpture is to a great extent due to its close adherence to tradition.” He shows how 
the free play of imagination depends on external conditions and tradition. 
7E. g., Vitruv., I, 2; especially these words: Ut in hominis corpore e cubito, pede, palmo, digito, 
ceterisque particyulis (partibus) symmetria est eurythmiae qualitas; also III, 1: Pes vero altitudinis 
corporis sextae <partis>; cubitum quartae; pectus item quartae, etc. Also Philostr., Imag., 
Proem.; the third-century A. D. (?) treatise called de Physiognomia; St. Augustine, de Civ. Det, 
XV, 26. 1; the poet Martianus Capella, of the middle of the fifth century A. D., who says, 
VII, 739: septem corporis partes hominem perficiunt; etc. 
8Die Proportionen des Gesichts in der griechischen Kunst (=53stes Berliner Wincklemanns pro- 
gramm, 1893). 
%Gestalt des Menschen, in Verh. d. Berl. Anthrop. Gesell., 1895. This work is based on the older 
investigations of C. Schmidt, Proportionsschluessel, 1849, and of C. Carus, Die Proportionslehre 
der menschlichen Gestalt, 1874. See also P. Richer, Canon des proportions du corps humain, 
1893; E. Duhousset, Proportions artistiques et anthropométrie scientifique, Gaz. B-A., III, Per. 
3,1 90, pp. 59 f.; E. Guillaume, art. Canon, Dict. de l’ Acad. des B-A.; E. Gebhard, in Dar.- 
Sagl., I, 2, pp. 891-892; cf. Collignon, I, pp. 490 f. 
