The head of the new-born baby is relatively large. This is reflected in the finding that in the infant the ratio of vertical head height to total height is 1:4, whereas in the adult it is 1:7.5. This difference was not appreciated by many well-known early European painters, and it is common to find representations of the Virgin and Child in which the baby has the chubby outline typical of his age but the proportions typical of an adult.¹

I thought it would be interesting to test this statement. Most paintings of the Virgin and Child show the Virgin seated and the Child in various postures, making it impossible to measure their total height. However, we do know that the ratio of head length (vertex to chin) to forearm length (elbow to wrist) is 2:1 in the newborn, 7:4 at the age of two, and 1:1 in adults. Also, the ratio of upper head length (vertex to eyes) to face length (eyes to chin) is 4:3 in the newborn and 4:5 in adults.¹

Using paintings reproduced on postcards and in the Time-Life series of art books,² I made the appropriate body measurements of the Virgin and Child from 41 works painted between 1225 and 1619 CE.

Allowing for about 10% variation in the normal ratios I obtained the following results:

The head : forearm ratio for the Virgin was normal in 29 of 40 measurements; less than normal in 9; and greater than normal in 2. This ratio for the Child was normal in 12 of 41 measurements; less than normal in 25; and greater than normal in 4.

The upper head : face ratio for the Virgin was normal in 18 of 43 measurements; less than normal in 15; and greater than normal in 10. This ratio for the Child was normal in 11 of 43 measurements; less than normal in 30; and greater than normal in 2.

However inaccurate my measurements may be, measuring from a picture with the figures at various angles, the results do show a consistent pattern over the centuries. The artist tends to underestimate both the head : forearm ratio and upper head : face ratio in the Child. The ratios for the Virgin were also outside the normal range in many of the examples measured.

Artists down the ages have always distorted the anatomical shape of their figures if they felt a better image would result. Artists who lived during the period surveyed would have had the example of the stylised and distorted forms of Byzantine art constantly before them, in the churches and monasteries in which they painted their works. When all is said and done, how important is anatomical accuracy in the production of an otherwise wonderful work of art?

John E Gault
Physician
203 View Street, Bendigo, VIC 3550

1. Sinclair D. Human growth after birth. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973: 102-105.
2. Time-Life Library of Art series. Time-Life International (Nederland) b.v.

©MJA 2000
Make a comment