CHAPTER IV

PROPORTIONS

Inasmuch as we have taken for granted, in connection with the present volume, that before entering on the study of the anatomy of quadrupeds the reader was prepared for it by a sufficient knowledge of human anatomy, it is quite natural that we should extend the same supposition to the study of proportions.

For this reason, the definition of proportions, considered from a general point of view, their signification, their function and their utility, are questions which it would be superfluous to enter upon here. We will content ourselves by calling to mind that the common measure chosen by preference is the length of the head, and that, ordinarily, it is with it that we compare the dimensions of other parts.

Among the animals whose structure we have examined, there is one of which the proportions deserve to be marked in preference to every other: this is the horse.

Wherefore this preference? In the first place, it is because of the overwhelming position which this animal occupies in the artistic representation of quadrupeds; that it is more frequently associated with man; that, notwithstanding its division into different races, its general proportions may be referred to a special type.

It is also because the indications relative to these proportions will suffice to show the way which the artist must follow in order to find for himself, at the time when the necessity for it arises, the proportions which characterize the other animals.

Our intention is not, in connection with the subject which now occupies us, to enter into a deep discussion on the various opinions which have been set forth. We desire, above all, to give some indications which, from the practical point of view, can be utilized in the representation of the horse, and at the beginning to demonstrate the advantages of these indications. Now, there is a fact which we have had occasion to note; it is the following: almost invariably, when a person who is little accustomed to represent the horse, or not previously informed of certain proportions of lengths, begins to draw from nature, the error generally committed is that of making the head too small and the body too long. Is it a preconceived idea which is the cause that one regards them in this manner? Perhaps. At all events, certain artists who have made the representation of horses their special study have even had this habit. It is therefore necessary to be informed of the proportions; this is the object of the study which we are now undertaking.

Bourgelat,[37] in the eighteenth century, fixed for the first time and in complete fashion the proportions of the horse; it is he, consequently, who created the æsthetics of the horse. It is but justice to recall the fact. His system has a point of analogy with that which is employed to determine the human proportions. Indeed, Bourgelat chose the length of the head as a standard of measurement, and the subdivisions of the head for measures of less extent. 'Since beauty,' said he,[38] 'resides in the congruity and proportion of the parts, it is absolutely necessary to observe the dimensions, individual and relative, and in order to acquire a knowledge of the proportions, to assume a kind of measure which can be indiscriminately common for all horses. The part which can serve as a standard of proportion for all the others is the head. Take a measurement between two parallel lines--one tangent to the nape of the neck or the summit of the forelock, the other tangent to the extremity of the anterior lip--a line perpendicular to these two tangents will give you its geometrical length. Divide this length into three portions, and give to these three parts a special name, which may be applied indefinitely to all heads--as, for example, that of _prime_. Any head whatsoever will, accordingly, in its geometrical length, always have three _primes_; but all the parts which you will have to consider, whether in their length, in their height, or in their width, cannot constantly have either one prime, or a prime and a half, or three primes; subdivide, then, each _prime_ into three equal parts, which you will name _seconds_, and as this subdivision will not suffice to give you a just measure of all the parts, subdivide anew each _second_ into twenty-four _points_, so that a head divided into three _primes_ will have, by the second division, nine _seconds_, and two hundred and sixteen _points_ by the last.'

[37] Claude Bourgelat, founder of the veterinary schools in France. He was born at Lyons in 1712, and died at Paris in 1779.

[38] Bourgelat, 'Éléments de l'art vétérinaire. Traité de la conformation extérieure du cheval,' Paris, edition of 1785, p. 133.

But where this system appears to us to have lost somewhat of its unity is when the author transforms it, in pointing out the following mode of procedure: 'But the head itself may err by default of proportion. This part is not, indeed, considered as either too short or too long, too thin or too thick, but by comparison with the body of the animal. Now, the body, being required to have--whether in length, reckoning from the point of the arm to the prominence of the buttock, or in height, reckoning from the summit of the withers to the ground--two heads and a half; whenever the head, by its geometrical length, shall give, in length or in height, to the body measured more than two and a half times its own length, it will be too short; and if it gives less, it will be too long.

'In the case in which one of these faults exists there would be no further question of establishing by its geometrical length the proportions of the other parts. Give up this common measure, and measure the height or the length of the body; divide the length or the height into five equal portions; take, then, two of these divisions, divide them into _primes_, _seconds_, and _points_, corresponding to the divisions and subdivisions which you would have made of the head, and you will have a common measure, such as the head would have given you if it had been proportionate.'[39]

[39] Bourgelat, _loc. cit._, p. 135.

We understand, up to a certain point, that Bourgelat may have been able to give this advice which, generally speaking, is sufficiently practical, since, in certain cases, he was able to pronounce that such a head was too small or too large. But it is always mischievous, with regard to the effect produced on the reader, to propose to him, in the application of a rule, to suppress the foundation on which this rule is established. Besides, even if all the measurements compared with the two-fifths of the length of the body are proportionate with regard to one another, the animal, in spite of this, since the head must be taken into consideration, will, in a strict sense, be none the less disproportioned.

The proportions given by Bourgelat are as follows[40] (Fig. 106):

[40] _Ibid._, p. 136, and onward.

1. =Three geometrical lengths of the head= give:

_The full height_ of the horse, reckoned from the forelock to the ground on which he rests, provided that the head be well placed.[41]

[41] By 'the head being well placed,' Bourgelat means 'vertically posed,' the outline of the forehead then coinciding with a vertical line, which at the other end touches the anterior portion of the nose.

2. =Two heads and a half= (B)[42] equals:

[42] The letters in parentheses relate to the corresponding measures marked by the same letters on the third diagram of Fig. 106.

_The height of the body_ from the summit of the withers to the ground.

_The length of the same body_, those of the forehand and of the hind-quarter taken as a whole from the point of the arm to the point of the buttock inclusive.

3. =An entire head= (A) gives:

_The length of the forepart_ from the summit of the withers to the termination of the neck.

_The height of the shoulders_ from the summit of the elbow to the top of the withers.

_The thickness of the body_ from the middle of the belly to the middle of the back.

_The width_ from one side to the other.

4. =A head measured from the top of the forelock to the commissure of the lips= (C). This measurement slightly curtailed, unless the mouth is very deeply cleft, equals:

_The length of the crupper_, taken from the superior point of the anterior angle of the ilium to the tuberosity of the ischium, forming the point of the buttock.

_The width of the crupper or of the haunches_, taken from the inferior points of the angles of the ilia.

_The height of the crupper_, viewed laterally, taken from the summit of the posterior angles of the ilia to the point of the patella, the leg being in a state of rest.

_The lateral measure of the posterior limb_, from the point of the patella, to the lateral and salient part of the ham, to the right of the articulation of the tibia with the trochlea.

_The perpendicular height of the articulation above named_ above the ground.

_The distance from the point of the arm_ to the angle formed by the junction of the head and neck.

_The distance from the summit of the withers_ to the junction of the neck with the thorax.

5. =Twice this last measure= (C)[43] gives almost:

[43] The proportions given in the two paragraphs 6 and 7 are, under another form, the same as those pointed out in paragraph 2, with this difference, that in this latter they are more clearly expressed.

_The distance of the summit of the withers_ to the tip of the patella.

_The distance of the point of the elbow_ to the summit of the crupper or the posterior angles of the ilia.

6. =Three times this measure, plus a half-width of the pastern, the equivalent of two heads and a half=, will give:

_The height of the body_, taken from the top of the withers to the ground.

_Its length_, taken from the point of the arm to the point of the buttock inclusive.

7. =This same measure, plus the entire width of the pastern=, gives:

_The total length of the body_, taken accurately.

8. =Two-thirds the length of the head= (D) will equal:

_The width of the chest_, from the tip of one arm to that of the other, from outside to outside.

_The horizontal measurement of the crupper_ taken between two verticals, of which one forms a tangent to the buttock, and the other passes through the summit of the crupper and touches the tip of the patella.

_The third of the length of the hind-quarter and of the body_ taken together, as far as the vertical from the withers, touching the elbow.

_The anterior length of the hind-limb_, taken from the tuberosity of the tibia to the fold of the ham.

9. =One-half of the length of the head= (E) is the same as:

_The horizontal distance from the tip of the arm_ to the vertical line from the summit of the withers and touching the elbow.

_The width of the neck_, viewed laterally, taken from its insertion in the trough of the jaw to the roots of the first hairs of the mane, on a line which forms with the superior contour two equal angles.

10. =One-third of the entire length of the head= (F) gives:

_The height of its superior part_ from the summit of the forelock to a line which passes through the most salient points of the orbits.

_The width of the head_ below the lower eyelids.

_The lateral width of the forearm_, taken from its anterior origin to the point of the elbow.

11. =Two-thirds of this length=[44] (G) gives:

[44] That is to say, two-ninths of the whole length of the head.

_The distance of the point of the elbow_ above the plane of the lower surface of the sternum.

_The depression of the back_ in relation to the summit of the withers.

_The lateral width of the posterior limbs near the hams._

_The space or distance of the forearms from one ars_[45] to the opposite.

[45] We call the region where the superior and internal part of the forearm is joined to the trunk the 'ars.' The space between the ars of one side and the ars of the opposite side is called the 'inter-ars.'

12. =One-half of the third of the entire length of the head=[46] (H) equals:

[46] That is to say, one-sixth of the total length of the head.

_The thickness of the forearm_, viewed from the front, and taken horizontally from the ars to its external surface.

_The width of the crown of the fore-feet_ whether from one side to the other, or from before backwards.

_The width of the crown of the hind-feet_, from one side to the other only.

_The width of the posterior fetlocks_, taken from the front to the origin of the spur.

_The width of the knee_ seen from the front. Note: this measure is a little too large.

_The thickness of the ham._ Note: this measure is a little under the mark.

13. =One-fourth of the third of the length of the head=[47] (I) gives:

[47] That is, one-twelfth of the length of the head.

_The thickness of the canon of the fore-limb_: that of the hind-quarter is a little thicker.

14. =One-third of this same measure=[48] (K) equals:

[48] That is, a ninth of the length of the head.

_The thickness of the fore-limb close to the knee_ in its narrowest part.

_The thickness of the posterior pasterns_, viewed laterally.

15. =The height from the elbow to the fold of the knee= (L) is the same as:

_The height from this same fold to the earth._

_The height from the patella to the fold of the ham._

_The height from the fold of the ham to the crown._

16. =The sixth part of this measure= (M) gives:

_The width of the canon of the fore-limb_, viewed laterally, in the middle of its length.

_The fetlock_, viewed from the front.

17. =The third of this same measure= (N) is very nearly equal to:

_The width of the ham_, from the fold to the point.

18. =A fourth of this measure= (O) gives:

_The width of the knee_, measured laterally.

_The length of the knee._

19. =The interval between the eyes from one great angle to the other= (P) equals:

_The width of the hind-leg_, viewed laterally, from the cleft of the buttocks to the inferior part of the tuberosity of the tibia.

20. =One-half of this interval between the eyes= (1/2 P) gives:

_The width of the posterior canon-bone_, viewed laterally.

_The width of the fetlock of the fore-limb_, from its anterior summit to the root of the spur.

Finally, the difference of the height of the crupper with respect to the summit of the withers.

It is certain that the multiplicity of these proportions, and above all the exaggeration of details into which Bourgelat fell in indicating certain of the measures which constitute the bases of some of them, may repel the reader.

For this cause we desire to add to the preceding, and also because the question which we are treating would be incomplete without it, the results obtained and published by other more modern authors, and in particular by Colonel Duhousset.[49]

[49] E. Duhousset, 'Le Cheval,' Paris, 1881.

This author, one of whose constant occupations is the measurement of the different regions of the horse, has the incontestable merit of having drawn attention to this question, and of having strained all his energies in the propagation of the knowledge which until then was little diffused. Among the proportions which he recommends, there are some which are the result of his own observations; whilst others, which he has verified and adopted, are the result of a judicious selection of those given by Bourgelat, which we have just reproduced in the preceding pages.

We join thereto also certain indications furnished by MM. A. Goubeaux and G. Barrier,[50] distinguishing these latter by the initials (G. and B.) of their authors (Fig. 107).

[50] Armand Goubeaux and Gustave Barrier, 'De l'extérieure du Cheval,' Paris, 1882.

=The length of the head almost exactly equals=:

1. Depth from the back to the belly, N, O,[51] the thickness of the body.[52]

[51] Look for the points indicated by these letters on Fig. 107, which is related to the proportions which are here discussed.

[52] The proportion previously indicated by Bourgelat (see p. 265, paragraph 3).

2. From the summit of the withers to the point of the arm, H, E.

3. From the superior fold of the stifle to the point of the ham, J´, J.

4. From the point of the ham to the ground, J, K.

5. From the dorsal angle of the scapula to the point of the haunch, D, D.

6. From the passage of the girth to the fetlock, M, I, or higher in large horses and racers; to the middle of the fetlock or lower for small ones and those of medium size.

7. From the superior fold of the stifle to the summit of the crupper in those specimens whose coxo-femoral angle is very open. This distance is always much less in others (G. and B.).[53]

[53] A proportion relative to the same region, and which at the outset might appear similar, is pointed out by Bourgelat (see p. 266, paragraph 4). But there exists a difference, for Bourgelat compared the length of the head, measured from the forelock to the commissure of the lips, and not that of the entire head, to the distance which separates the summit of the rump and the tip of the patella.

=Two and a half times the length of the head= gives:

1. The height of the withers, H, above the ground.[54]

[54] This proportion is that given by Bourgelat (see p. 265, paragraph 2).

2. The height of the summit of the crupper above the ground.[55]

[55] Consequently the withers and the crupper, being the same height, are situated on the same horizontal plane. Bourgelat, on the contrary, points out a difference of level in connection with these regions. According to him the summit of the crupper is situated below the horizontal plane passing the withers, and this distance equals half of the space which separates the great angle of one eye from that of the other (see p. 269, paragraph 20).

3. Very often the length of the body, from the point of the arm to that of the buttock, although for a long time the type of Bourgelat had been set aside as a conventional model, short and massive.[56]

[56] See p. 265, paragraph 2.

And M. Duhousset adds to this:

'The drawing that we offer, which has two heads and a half in height and length, is that of a horse which we frequently meet with' (see Fig. 107; see also p. 279, where we again consider this question of the length of the body of the horse).

'The crupper, from the point of the haunch to that of the buttock, D, F, is always less than that of the head. This difference varies from 5 to 10 centimetres. The width of the crupper, from one haunch to the other, often very slightly exceeds its length.' MM. Goubeaux and Barrier add that frequently it equals it.[57]

[57] If we refer to the proportions indicated by Bourgelat, we shall find that the proportions relative to the crupper are also indicated there (see p. 266, paragraph 4).

'The crupper, such as we have just defined it, D, H, may also be found to a fair degree of exactness, as regards length, four times on the same horse.'

1. From the point of the buttock to the inferior part of the stifle, F, P.

2. The width of the neck, a little in front of the withers to a little above the point of the arm, S, X.[58]

[58] MM. Goubeaux and Barrier replace this by the following: 'The width of neck at its inferior attachment from its insertion into the chest to the origin of the withers, S, X.' Bourgelat discovered the same proportion (see p. 266, last line of paragraph 4).

3. From this latter point to below the lower jaw, X, Q, when the head is naturally placed parallel to the shoulders, E, H.[59]

[59] MM. Goubeaux and Barrier replace this by the following: 'From the insertion of the neck into the chest to the lower border of the lower jaw, X, Q, when the head is parallel to the shoulder.'

4. From the nape to the nostrils, _n, n´_.[60]

[60] MM. Goubeaux and Barrier add: 'Or to the commissure of the lips.' It is thus, besides, that Bourgelat measured the head for comparison with the crupper (see p. 266, paragraph 4).

The measure of =half of the head= also acts as a good guide for the construction of the horse, when we know that it frequently applies to many of the parts--to wit:

1. From the forehead above the eyes, perpendicular to the line which is tangent to the lower jaw, P, Q.

2. Outline of the neck at the level of the base of the head, Q, L.[61]

[61] Proportion indicated by Bourgelat (see p. 267, paragraph 9).

3. From the crown of the fore-foot to below the knee, T, T´.

4. In the legs, from the base of the fetlock to that of the ham, U, V.

5. Finally, it is nearly of the length of the humerus from the point E to the radius.[62]

[62] MM. Goubeaux and Barrier replace these by the following:

1. 'From the most prominent part of the lower jaw to the profile of the forehead above the eye, P, Q (thickness of the head).

2. 'From the throat to the superior border of the neck behind the nape, Q, L (attachment of the head).

3. 'From the inferior part of the knee to the crown, T, T´.

4. 'From the base of the ham to the fetlock, U, V.

5. 'Finally, from the point of the arm to the articulation of the elbow (approximate length of the arm).'

PROPORTIONS OF THE HEAD OF THE HORSE[63]

[63] Extract from the work of MM. Goubeaux and Barrier on the exterior of the horse. As before, the initials G. and B. of these authors are added.

Although it is very difficult, says M. Duhousset, when we speak of measurements taken on the living animal, to formulate other than approximations, we believe we have determined with sufficient accuracy the following results, which are the outcome of our numerous observations. The head which we present is that of a horse which we have frequently come across as a mean term between the highly bred and the draught horse. Under this heading, it will not be devoid of interest to accompany with dimensions the two drawings to which are consigned the measurements in question.

=Head viewed in Profile= (Fig. 108).--Length, A, B, from the nape to the margin of the lips, 0·60 metre.

Thickness, C, D, from the angle of the lower jaw to the anterior surface (a half-head), 0·30 metre. This line passes through the middle of the eye, taken perpendicularly, to the profile of the anterior surface. Many common horses present it, especially the heavier draught horses; in finely-bred subjects it is a little shorter (G. and B.).

Depth, I, H, of the neck in its narrowest part (a half-head), 0·30 metre. It is frequently greater; this is noticeable in all instances where the superior parts of the neck are deficient in fineness. It is this which we see in draught horses, and in those which become too fleshy (G. and B.).

Distance, O, R, of the internal commissure of the eye from the superior border of the commissure of the nostril (G. and B.) (a half-head), 0·30 metre. It is more considerable on the common head, and on that which is too long.

Distance, A, O, from the nape to the internal angle of the eye, 0·22 metre. This distance is equivalent to the thickness of the head, P, Q, taken perpendicularly from the profile of the anterior surface, and passing at the level of the maxillary fissure and spine.

It is, again, equal to Q, O, from the internal angle of the eye to the maxillary fissure; and to P, G, from the middle of the face to the commissure of the lips (G. and B.).

The distance, P, E, from the middle of the face to the maxillary spine is about the sixth of the total length of the head--0·10 metre.

The line B, E, reckoned from the extremity of the lips to the maxillary spine, is equal:

To E, F, from the maxillary spine to the external auditory meatus, to be seen only on the skull;

To H, G, from the insertion of the neck in the trough to the commissure of the lips (G. and B.);

To Q, R, from the maxillary fissure to the superior commissure of the nostril (G. and B.);

To Q, B, from the fissure of the maxilla to the border of the lips (G. and B.);

To O, D, from the internal angle of the eye to the angle of the lower jaw, provided that the line C, D be in proportion (G. and B.).

[64] It is thus that in our teaching, but by means of lines of different colours, we present the proportions reproduced in Fig. 108. Experience has demonstrated to us that this replacement of letters by conventional lines renders the proportions more easily appreciable, and that these lines, striking the eye more forcibly, then impress themselves better on the memory. Fig. 111 bears the same relation to Fig. 110.

Finally, very frequently to O, H, from the internal angle of the eye to the insertion of the throat into the maxillary trough (G. and B.).

An equality still more frequent is that which exists between the distances:

O, B, from the internal angle of the eye to the margin of the lips;

A, H, from the nape to the insertion of the throat into the maxillary trough;

And H, B, from this latter point to the margins of the lips.

=The Head, Front View= (Fig. 110).--If, to continue our examination, adds M. Duhousset, we regard the head from the front, we find its greatest width at A, B, the extreme points of the orbital arches.

This width is 22 centimetres.

It is again equal to:

A, C, from one arch to the nape;

A, D, from one arch to the middle of the face.

D, E, from the middle of the face to the margin of the lips.

From the auditory canal, G, to the maxillary spine, F, is the same distance as from this point to the margins of the lips, E, or, better, to the end of the teeth.

[65] See the note relative to Fig. 109.

The line G, C, from the auditory meatus to the nape, is equal to the sixth of the head, 10 centimetres; the line A, G, from the orbital arch to the auditory meatus, is a little longer, and measures 12 centimetres.

The distance F, I, comprised between the maxillary spines, is 18 centimetres.

It is equal to:

O, O, the distance between the internal angles of the eyes (G. and B.);

F, R, the distance from the maxillary spine to the superior commissure of the corresponding nostril (G. and. B.);

F, P, from the maxillary spine to the _salt-cellar_.[66]

[66] We designate under the name _salt-cellar_ a depression situated external to the frontal region and above the eye.

From the nape to the internal angle of the eye, C, O, is the same distance as from this latter point to the commissure of the lips, O, T; and from the maxillary spine to the upper lip F, S (G. and B.).

The distance apart, T, T, of the two commissures of the lips gives, very nearly, the distance from the superior border of the orbital arch to the base of the ear or the auditory meatus. In the state of rest, the outer limit of the separation of the nostrils does not exceed the width of the knee;[67] we frequently find the same distance intercepted above the nape by the tranquil ears. In the figure (Fig. 110) we have intentionally represented them directed in a different plane, in order to show that when the pinna is turned backward, it none the less preserves the contour of bracket form, more or less pronounced according to the breeding of the subject, and characterizing in repose the interior curves of the ear.

[67] We remind our readers that the name 'knee' is given by veterinarians to the region occupied by the carpus.

The extreme limit of the lips, M, N, but very slightly exceeds that of the nostrils; on many heads of harmonious proportions this distance is found to be the half of A, B.

In order not to interrupt the course of the preceding exposition, we decided to withhold till afterwards some reflections which have been suggested to us by certain of the proportions which are there indicated. The proportions in question are important--we may even say that they are fundamental, for they have for object the relation which exists between the length of the head, the height of the body, and the length of the latter.

We have already seen that, according to Bourgelat, the length of the head is contained two and a half times in the length of the body, from the point of the arm to the point of the buttock; and, also, two and a half times in the height measured from the apex of the withers to the ground (see p. 265). We saw afterwards that M. Duhousset, having adopted these proportions, pointed out, further, that the same dimension was again found equally to exist from the summit of the crupper to the ground--a height which Bourgelat considered as being of less extent. There results, then, from the latter proportions, which we have just recalled, this interesting fact: that they simplify very much, from the point of view of design, the placing in position of the horse, on the condition always that this latter be always viewed directly on one of its lateral aspects.

Indeed, in this case, if we except the neck and the head, the body, inasmuch as its height and its length are equal, may be inscribed in a square, of which one of the sides corresponds to the withers and to the summit of the crupper, two of the other sides to the point of the arm and to that of the buttock the fourth being represented by the ground. This is simple, but this simplicity even has its inconveniences.

It follows that this proportion, thus expressed, seems to exclude from every artistic representation certain categories of horses, which upon the whole might be regarded as beautiful, and the existence of which in any case it would be a pity not to indicate.

Let us examine at the outset that which is relative to the length of the body, equal to two and a half times the length of the head. This proportion is sometimes met with, and therefore may be considered exact; but it is necessary to add that its existence is not discoverable in the majority of cases. That for some authors it constitutes a perfect model we will not gainsay, but it is our impression that, when it exists, the head appears a little large, or, more exactly, the body a little short.

Without attaining exactly to three times the length of the head, as some authors (Saint-Bel, Vallon) have announced, the body of the horse, nevertheless, measured as is stated above, frequently contains it more than two and a half times. We give in support of this some outline reproductions, executed after photographs (Figs. 112, 113, 114).

There still remains the question regarding the equality of the height and of the length of the body of the horse.

This equality, after the proportions previously indicated, would seem bound to appear in all the cases observed. Now, if we measure the examples reproduced in Figs. 112, 113, and 114, we shall see that sometimes the two dimensions are unequal, the height being greater than the length, or inversely.

It is the same, if we examine a certain number of specimens; we are able to determine that the proportion chosen in preference by authors is not exactly that which is oftenest met with. It will, very probably, be objected that it is so for the most beautiful types, and that the indifferent ones are generally the more numerous. The essential thing would be to know, above all, if the type of two heads and a half of length and of height is really the only beautiful one. However that may be, of the fifty African horses measured by M. Duhousset, only fourteen possessed the equality indicated; twenty-six were less long than high, and ten more long than high.[68]

[68] E. Duhousset, 'The Horse,' Paris, 1881.