The Theory and Practice of Perspective | Page 7

above-named Practice of Perspective by a Jesuit of Paris, which is very clear and excellent as far as it goes, and was the book used by Sir Joshua Reynolds.[2] But nearly all these authors treat chiefly of parallel perspective, which they do with clearness and simplicity, and also mathematically, as shown in the short treatise in Latin by Christian Wolff, but they scarcely touch upon the more difficult problems of angular and oblique perspective. Of modern books, those to which I am most indebted are the Trait�� Pratique de Perspective of M. A. Cassagne (Paris, 1873), which is thoroughly artistic, and full of pictorial examples admirably done; and to M. Henriet's Cours Rational de Dessin. There are many other foreign books of excellence, notably M. Thibault's Perspective, and some German and Swiss books, and yet, notwithstanding this imposing array of authors, I venture to say that many new features and original problems are presented in this book, whilst the old ones are not neglected. As, for instance, How to draw figures at an angle without vanishing points (see p. 141, Fig. 162, &c.), a new method of angular perspective which dispenses with the cumbersome setting out usually adopted, and enables us to draw figures at any angle without vanishing lines, &c., and is almost, if not quite, as simple as parallel perspective (see p. 133, Fig. 150, &c.). How to measure distances by the square and diagonal, and to draw interiors thereby (p. 128, Fig. 144). How to explain the theory of perspective by ocular demonstration, using a vertical sheet of glass with strings, placed on a drawing-board, which I have found of the greatest use (see p. 29, Fig. 29). Then again, I show how all our perspective can be done inside the picture; that we can measure any distance into the picture from a foot to a mile or twenty miles (see p. 86, Fig. 94); how we can draw the Great Pyramid, which stands on thirteen acres of ground, by putting it 1,600 feet off (Fig. 224), &c., &c. And while preserving the mathematical science, so that all our operations can be proved to be correct, my chief aim has been to make it easy of application to our work and consequently useful to the artist.
[Footnote 2: There is another book called The Jesuit's Perspective which I have not yet seen, but which I hear is a fine work.]
The Egyptians do not appear to have made any use of linear perspective. Perhaps it was considered out of character with their particular kind of decoration, which is to be looked upon as picture writing rather than pictorial art; a table, for instance, would be represented like a ground-plan and the objects upon it in elevation or standing up. A row of chariots with their horses and drivers side by side were placed one over the other, and although the Egyptians had no doubt a reason for this kind of representation, for they were grand artists, it seems to us very primitive; and indeed quite young beginners who have never drawn from real objects have a tendency to do very much the same thing as this ancient people did, or even to emulate the mathematician and represent things not as they appear but as they are, and will make the top of a table an almost upright square and the objects upon it as if they would fall off.
No doubt the Greeks had correct notions of perspective, for the paintings on vases, and at Pompeii and Herculaneum, which were either by Greek artists or copied from Greek pictures, show some knowledge, though not complete knowledge, of this science. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any great artist making his perspective very wrong, for if he can draw the human figure as the Greeks did, surely he can draw an angle.
The Japanese, who are great observers of nature, seem to have got at their perspective by copying what they saw, and, although they are not quite correct in a few things, they convey the idea of distance and make their horizontal planes look level, which are two important things in perspective. Some of their landscapes are beautiful; their trees, flowers, and foliage exquisitely drawn and arranged with the greatest taste; whilst there is a character and go about their figures and birds, &c., that can hardly be surpassed. All their pictures are lively and intelligent and appear to be executed with ease, which shows their authors to be complete masters of their craft.
The same may be said of the Chinese, although their perspective is more decorative than true, and whilst their taste is exquisite their whole art is much more conventional and traditional, and does not remind us of nature like that of the Japanese.
We may see defects in