PROPORTION NOT THE CAUSE OF BEAUTY IN THE HUMAN SPECIES.
There are some parts of the human body that are observed to hold certain
proportions to each other; but before it can be proved that the
efficient cause of beauty lies in these, it must be shown that, wherever
these are found exact, the person to whom they belong is beautiful: I
mean in the effect produced on the view, either of any member distinctly
considered, or of the whole body together. It must be likewise shown,
that these parts stand in such a relation to each other, that the
comparison between them may be easily made, and that the affection of
the mind may naturally result from it. For my part, I have at several
times very carefully examined many of those proportions, and found them
hold very nearly, or altogether alike in many subjects, which were not
only very different from one another, but where one has been very
beautiful, and the other very remote from beauty. With regard to the
parts which are found so proportioned, they are often so remote from
each other, in situation, nature, and office, that I cannot see how they
admit of any comparison, nor consequently how any effect owing to
proportion can result from them. The neck, say they, in beautiful
bodies, should measure with the calf of the leg; it should likewise be
twice the circumference of the wrist. And an infinity of observations of
this kind are to be found in the writings and conversations of many. But
what relation has the calf of the leg to the neck; or either of these
parts to the wrist? These proportions are certainly to be found in
handsome bodies. They are as certainly in ugly ones; as any who will
take the pains to try may find. Nay, I do not know but they may be least
perfect in some of the most beautiful. You may assign any proportions
you please to every part of the human body; and I undertake that a
painter shall religiously observe them all, and notwithstanding produce,
if he pleases, a very ugly figure. The same painter shall considerably
deviate from these proportions, and produce a very beautiful one. And,
indeed, it may be observed in the masterpieces of the ancient and modern
statuary, that several of them differ very widely from the proportions
of others, in parts very conspicuous and of great consideration; and
that they differ no less from the proportions we find in living men, of
forms extremely striking and agreeable. And after all, how are the
partisans of proportional beauty agreed amongst themselves about the
proportions of the human body? Some hold it to be seven heads; some make
it eight; whilst others extend it even to ten: a vast difference in such
a small number of divisions! Others take other methods of estimating the
proportions, and all with equal success. But are these proportions
exactly the same in all handsome men? or are they at all the proportions
found in beautiful women? Nobody will say that they are; yet both sexes
are undoubtedly capable of beauty, and the female of the greatest; which
advantage I believe will hardly be attributed to the superior exactness
of proportion in the fair sex. Let us rest a moment on this point; and
consider how much difference there is between the measures that prevail
in many similar parts of the body, in the two sexes of this single
species only. If you assign any determinate proportions to the limbs of
a man, and if you limit human beauty to these proportions, when you find
a woman who differs in the make and measures of almost every part, you
must conclude her not to be beautiful, in spite of the suggestions of
your imagination; or, in obedience to your imagination, you must
renounce your rules; you must lay by the scale and compass, and look out
for some other cause of beauty. For if beauty be attached to certain
measures which operate from a _principle in nature_, why should similar
parts with different measures of proportion be found to have beauty, and
this too in the very same species? But to open our view a little, it is
worth observing, that almost all animals have parts of very much the
same nature, and destined nearly to the same purposes; a head, neck,
body, feet, eyes, ears, nose, and mouth; yet Providence, to provide in
the best manner for their several wants, and to display the riches of
his wisdom and goodness in his creation, has worked out of these few and
similar organs, and members, a diversity hardly short of infinite in
their disposition, measures and relation. But, as we have before
observed, amidst this infinite diversity, one particular is common to
many species: several of the individuals which compose them are capable
of affecting us with a sense of loveliness: and whilst they agree in
producing this effect, they differ extremely in the relative measures of
those parts which have produced it. These considerations were sufficient
to induce me to reject the notion of any particular proportions that
operated by nature to produce a pleasing effect; but those who will
agree with me with regard to a particular proportion, are strongly
prepossessed in favor of one more indefinite. They imagine, that
although beauty in general is annexed to no certain measures common to
the several kinds of pleasing plants and animals; yet that there is a
certain proportion in each species absolutely essential to the beauty of
that particular kind. If we consider the animal world in general, we
find beauty confined to no certain measures; but as some peculiar
measure and relation of parts is what distinguishes each peculiar class
of animals, it must of necessity be, that the beautiful in each kind
will be found in the measures and proportions of that kind; for
otherwise it would deviate from its proper species, and become in some
sort monstrous: however, no species is so strictly confined to any
certain proportions, that there is not a considerable variation amongst
the individuals; and as it has been shown of the human, so it may be
shown of the brute kinds, that beauty is found indifferently in all the
proportions which each kind can admit, without quitting its common form;
and it is this idea of a common form that makes the proportion of parts
at all regarded, and not the operation of any natural cause: indeed a
little consideration will make it appear, that it is not measure, but
manner, that creates all the beauty which belongs to shape. What light
do we borrow from these boasted proportions, when we study ornamental
design? It seems amazing to me, that artists, if they were as well
convinced as they pretend to be, that proportion is a principal cause of
beauty, have not by them at all times accurate measurements of all sorts
of beautiful animals to help them to proper proportions, when they would
contrive anything elegant; especially as they frequently assert that it
is from an observation of the beautiful in nature they direct their
practice. I know that it has been said long since, and echoed backward
and forward from one writer to another a thousand times, that the
proportions of building have been taken from those of the human body. To
make this forced analogy complete, they represent a man with his arms
raised and extended at full length, and then describe a sort of square,
as it is formed by passing lines along the extremities of this strange
figure. But it appears very clearly to me that the human figure never
supplied the architect with any of his ideas. For, in the first place,
men are very rarely seen in this strained posture; it is not natural to
them; neither is it at all becoming. Secondly, the view of the human
figure so disposed, does not naturally suggest the idea of a square, but
rather of a cross; as that large space be tween the arms and the ground
must be filled with something before it can make anybody think of a
square. Thirdly, several buildings are by no means of the form of that
particular square, which are notwithstanding planned by the best
architects, and produce an effect altogether as good, and perhaps a
better. And certainly nothing could he more unaccountably whimsical,
than for an architect to model his performance by the human figure,
since no two things can have less resemblance or analogy, than a man,
and a house or temple: do we need to observe that their purposes are
entirely different? What I am apt to suspect is this: that these
analogies were devised to give a credit to the works of art, by showing
a conformity between them and the noblest works in nature; not that the
latter served at all to supply hints for the perfection of the former.
And I am the more fully convinced, that the patrons of proportion have
transferred their artificial ideas to nature, and not borrowed from
thence the proportions they use in works of art; because in any
discussion of this subject they always quit as soon as possible the open
field of natural beauties, the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and
fortify themselves within the artificial lines and angles of
architecture. For there is in mankind an unfortunate propensity to make
themselves, their views, and their works, the measure of excellence in
everything whatsoever. Therefore having observed that their dwellings
were most commodious and firm when they were thrown into regular
figures, with parts answerable to each other; they transferred these
ideas to their gardens; they turned their trees into pillars, pyramids,
and obelisks; they formed their hedges into so many green walls, and
fashioned their walks into squares, triangles, and other mathematical
figures, with exactness and symmetry; and they thought, if they were not
imitating, they were at least improving nature, and teaching her to know
her business. But nature has at last escaped from their discipline and
their fetters; and our gardens, if nothing else, declare, we begin to
feel that mathematical ideas are not the true measures of beauty. And
surely they are full as little so in the animal as the vegetable world.
For is it not extraordinary, that in these fine descriptive pieces,
these innumerable odes and elegies which are in the mouths of all the
world, and many of which have been the entertainment of ages, that in
these pieces which describe love with such a passionate energy, and
represent its object in such an infinite variety of lights, not one word
is said of proportion, if it be, what some insist it is, the principal
component of beauty; whilst, at the same time, several other qualities
are very frequently and warmly mentioned? But if proportion has not this
power, it may appear odd how men came originally to be so prepossessed
in its favor. It arose, I imagine, from the fondness I have just
mentioned, which men bear so remarkably to their own works and notions;
it arose from false reasonings on the effects of the customary figure of
animals; it arose from the Platonic theory of fitness and aptitude. For
which reason, in the next section, I shall consider the effects of
custom in the figure of animals; and afterwards the idea of fitness:
since if proportion does not operate by a natural power attending some
measures, it must be either by custom, or the idea of utility; there is
no other way.