where they profess to be royal roads to art, and to map the mighty maze of a creative mind. And even as regards the application of such a system of proportions to those works of sculpture which are posterior to the Pheidian age, only partial can have been the prevalence which it 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 discoveries of Dr Lepsius (_Vorläufige Nachricht_, Berlin, 1849) have elicited three totally different κανόνες, 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 inquiries, 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 hesitation in saying, that, for scientific precision of method and importance 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 Euphranor, _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 ‘solidarité’ between theories such as Mr Hay’s and the practice of Pheidias—the _onus probandi_ rests with my adversaries.”