Dorking.
I must beg leave to differ most decidedly with MR. G. T. HOARE on this
point. If it is in accordance with the principles of perspective that,
supposing the eye and the picture in their true positions in relation to
each other and to the objects represented, every line drawn from the eye to
any point of a real object will pass through its corresponding point in the
picture, then the supposed wall will form the base of a pyramid, of which
the eye will be the apex, and the representation of the wall in the picture
a section parallel to the base, and consequently mathematically similar to
the base itself. It is perfectly true, as MR. HOARE says, "that every line
above or below the line of the horizon, though _really_ parallel to it,
_apparently_ approaches it, as it is produced to the right or left." But he
forgets that this fact applies to the picture as well as to the object. In
fact, the picture is an object, and the parallel lines in it representing
the wall must have the same apparent tendency to one another as those in
the wall itself.
[Greek: Halieus]
Dublin.
I am glad MR. G. T. HOARE has called attention to the defective state of
the art of perspective. His remarks, however, are too narrow. The fact is,
that _any_ two parallel straight lines appear to converge at one or both
ends, _and one or both lines assume a curvilinear shape_. For a notable
example, the vertical section of the Duke of York's column in Waterloo
Place, from all points of view, appears to bulge at the point of sight, and
to taper upwards by a curvilinear convergence of the sides.