THE
ARTISTIC ANATOMY OF ANIMALS

PREFACE

A few lines will suffice to explain why we have compiled the present volume, to what wants it responds, and what its sphere of usefulness may possibly embrace.

In our teaching of plastic anatomy, especially at the École des Beaux-Arts—where, for the past nine years, we have had the very great honour of supplementing the teaching of our distinguished master, Mathias Duval, after having been prosector for his course of lectures since 1881—it is our practice to give, as a complement to the study of human anatomy, a certain number of lessons on the anatomy of those animals which artists might be called on to represent.

Now, we were given to understand that the subject treated in our lectures interested our hearers, so much so that we were not surprised to learn that a certain number repeatedly expressed a desire to see these lectures united in book form.

To us this idea was not new; for many years the work in question had been in course of preparation, and we had collected materials for it, with the object of filling up a void of which the existence was to be regretted. But our many engagements prevented us from executing our project as early as we would have wished. It is this work which we publish to-day.

[vi]

Putting aside for a moment the wish expressed by our hearers, we feel ourselves in duty bound to inquire whether the utility of this publication is self-evident. Let it be clearly understood that we wish to express here our opinion on this subject, while putting aside every personal sentiment of an author.

No one now disputes the value of anatomical studies made in view of carrying out the artistic representation of man. Nevertheless—for we must provide against all contingencies—the conviction on this subject may be more or less absolute; and yet it must possess this character in an intense degree in order that these studies may be profitable, and permit the attainment of the goal which is proposed in undertaking them. It is in this way that we ever strive to train the students whose studies we direct; not only to admit the value of these studies, but to be materially and deeply convinced of the fact without any restriction. Such is the sentiment which we endeavour to create and vigorously encourage. And we may be permitted to add that we have often been successful in this direction.

Therefore it is that, at the beginning of our lectures, and in anticipation of possible objections, we are accustomed to take up the question of the utility of plastic anatomy. And in so doing, it is in order to combat at the outset the idea—as mischievous as it is false—which is sometimes imprudently enunciated, that the possession of scientific knowledge is likely to tarnish the purity and freshness of the impressions received by the artist, and to place shackles on the emotional sincerity of their representation.

[viii]

It is chiefly by employment of examples that we approach the subject. These strike the imagination of the student more forcibly, and the presentation of models of a certain choice, although rough in execution, is, in our opinion, preferable to considerations of an order possibly more exalted, but of a character less clearly practical. Let us, then, ask the question: Those artists whose eminence nobody would dare to question, did they study anatomy? If the answer be in the affirmative, we surely cannot permit ourselves to believe that we can dispense with a similar course. And, as proof of the studies of this class which the masters have made, we may cite Raphael, Michelangelo, and, above all, Leonardo da Vinci; and, of the moderns, Géricault. And we may more clearly define these proofs by an examination of the reproductions of their anatomical works, chosen from certain of their special writings.[1]

Accordingly, there is no scope for serious discussion, and it only remains for us to enunciate the opinion that it is necessary that we should imitate those masters, and, with a sense of respectful discipline, follow their example.

Here, with regard to the anatomy of animals, we pursue the same method, and the example chosen shall be that of Barye. His talent is too far above all criticism to allow that this example should be refused. The admiration which the works of this great artist elicit is too wide-spread for us to remain uninfluenced by the lessons furnished by his studies. It is sufficient to see the sketches relating to these studies, and his admirable casts from nature which form part of the anatomical museum of the École des Beaux-Arts, to be convinced that the artistic temperament, of which Barye was one of the most brilliant examples, has nothing to lose by its association with researches the precision of which might seem likely to check its complete expansion.

[x]

In those sketches we find proofs of observation so scrupulous that we cannot restrain our admiration for the man whose ardent imagination was voluntarily subjected to the toil of study so profound.

If the example of Barye, with whom we associate the names of other great modern painters of animals, can determine the conviction which we seek to produce, we shall be sincerely glad. To contribute to the propagation of useful ideas, and to see them accepted, gives a feeling of satisfaction far too legitimate for us to hesitate to say what we should feel if our hope be realized in this instance.

ÉDOUARD CUYER.

[xii]

Detailed
Table of
Contents.

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

THE ARTISTIC ANATOMY OF ANIMALS

INTRODUCTION

GENERALITIES OF COMPARATIVE ANATOMY

Of the animals by which we are surrounded, there are some which, occupying a place in our lives by reason of their natural endowments, are frequently represented in the works of artists—either as accompanying man in his work or in his amusements, or as intended to occupy the whole interest of the composition.

The necessity of knowing, from an artistic point of view, the structure of the human body makes clear the importance we attach, from the same point of view, to the study of the anatomy of animals—that is, the study of comparative anatomy. The name employed to designate this branch of anatomy shows that the object of this science is the study of the relative position and form which each region presents in all organized beings, taking for comparison the corresponding regions in man. The head in animals compared with the human head; the trunk and limbs compared to the trunk and limbs of the human being—this is the analysis we undertake, and the plan of the subject we are about to commence.

Our intention being, as we have just said, the comparison of the structure of animals with that of man, should we describe the anatomy of the human being in the pages which follow? We do not think so. Plastic human anatomy having been previously studied in special works,[2] we take it for granted that these have been studied before undertaking the subject of comparative anatomy. We will therefore not occupy time with the elementary facts relative to the skeleton and the superficial layer of muscles. We will not dilate on the division of the bones into long, short, large, single, paired, etc. All these preliminary elements we shall suppose to have been already studied.

This being granted, it is, nevertheless, necessary to take a rapid bird’s-eye view of organized beings, and to recall the terms used in their classification.

Animals are primarily classed in great divisions, based on the general characters which differentiate them most. These divisions, or branches, allow of their being so grouped that in each of them we find united the individuals whose general structure is uniform; and under the name of vertebrates are included man and the animals with which our studies will be occupied. The vertebrates, as the name indicates, are recognised by the presence of an interior skeleton formed by a central axis, the vertebral column, round which the other parts of the skeleton are arranged.

The vertebrate branch is divided into classes: fishes, amphibians or batrachians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

The mammals—from the Latin mamma, a breast—are characterized by the presence of breasts designed for the alimentation of their young. Their bodies are covered with hair, hence the name pilifères proposed by Blainville; and, notwithstanding that in some individuals the hairs are few, the character is sufficient to distinguish them from all other vertebrates.

We find united in this class animals which, at first, seem out of place, such as the whale and the bat; and, from their external appearance alone, the former would appear to belong to the fishes, and the latter to birds. Yet, on studying their structure, we find that, not only do these animals merit a place in the class which they occupy, because they possess the distinctive characters of mammals; but, still further, their internal structure is analogous to that of man and of the other individuals of this class.

Notwithstanding this similarity of structure, the whale is not without some points of difference from its neighbours the horse and the dog; therefore, in order to place each of these animals in a position suitable to it, mammals are divided into secondary groups called orders. The first of these orders includes, under the name primates, man and apes. The latter contain animals which approach birds in certain characters of their organism, forming a link between the latter and mammals.

We find, in studying the regions of the body in some of the vertebrates, that, while they present differences from the corresponding regions of the human body, they also offer most striking analogies. We can, for example, recognise the upper limb of man in the anterior one of quadrupeds, in the wing of the bat, in the paddle of the seal, etc. It is, so to speak, those variations of a great plan which give such a charm to the study of comparative anatomy.

The division of classes into orders, which we have just mentioned, being still too general, it was found necessary to establish subdivisions—more and more specialized—to which the names families, genera, species, and varieties were given.