On tJie Classical Authorities for Ancient Art. 247 or any other one system can have obtained. The discrepancies of different artists in the treatment of what was called, technically called, Symmetria (as in the title of Euphranor's work) were, by the concurrent testimony of all ancient writers, far too salient and important to warrant the supposition of any uniform scale of proportions, as advocated by Mr Hay. Even in Egypt, where one might surely have expected that such uniformity would have been observed with far greater rigour than in Greece, the dis- coveries of Dr Lepsius (Vorlaufige Nachricht. Berlin. 1849) have elicited three totally different <av6ves, one of which is identical with the system of proportions of the human figure detailed in Diodorus. While we thus venture to differ from Mr Hay on the historical data he has mixed up with his enquiries, we feel bound to pay him a large and glad tribute of praise for having devised a system of proportions which rises superior to the idiosyncracies of different artists, which brings back to one common type the sensations of Eye and Ear, and so makes a giant stride towards that codification, if I may so speak, of the laws of the Universe which it is the business of the science to effect. I have no hesi- tation in saying, that, for scientific precision of method and im- portance of results, Albert Durer, Da Vinci and Hogarth, not to mention less noteworthy writers, must all yield the palm to Mr Hay. I am quite aware that in the digression I have here allowed myself, on systems of proportions prevalent among ancient artists and on the probable contents of such treatises as that of Eu- phranor, De Symmetria, I have laid myself open to the charge of treating an intricate question in a very perfunctory way. At present the exigencies of the subject more immediately in hand allow me only to urge in reply, that, as regards the point at issue I mean the "solidarity" between theories such as Mr Hay's and the practice of Pheidias , the onus probandi rests with my adversaries ; for the rest, I can assure any one who ventures to face that responsibility, that he shall hear from me something to his disadvantage. I have stated that the value of a professional treatise by such an artist as Euphranor could scarcely be over-estimated. The like will hold of Apelles, Melanthius, and Asclepiodorus ; the two first, pupils of Pamphilus. What would we not give to be able as Pliny was, to turn to the works which these famous artists
