The Press. — London, England, 1853-05-07 00:00:00

18 German Reboots to imitate the defects of the earlier painters, their had drawing. false per spective, and formal compositions. Theme can easily be imitated as well as the gold leaf and jewellery of those primitive performances ; hut, alas ! we cannot assume the good faith and simplicity of those painters, their conscien tious efforte of excellence, their anxious struggles at improvement. We canna ig nore the progress of centuries. A man can not assume the grace and innocence (if the child by crawling on all fours, and should be attempt to do so he would remind us rather of the decrepitude and imbecility of age. While we feel much admiration for the genius of the early founders of modern art, it is rather to their successors that we WOlll4 direct the attention of the young artist. We are delighted to find our own opinion delivered in the volume before us in wordf: we should vainly attempt to paraphrase. whom. - says Sir Joshua, should the pupil rely, or who shall show him the path that leads to cx cellene,e? The answer is obvious: those great musters who have trmelled the SHI' road with sttecess are the most likely to conduct others. rue works of those who have stood the test of ages have a claim to that respect and venera tion to which no modern can pretend. The duration and stability of their fame is sufficient to evince that it has not. been sus pended upon the slender thread of fashion and caprice, but bound to the human heart by every tie of sympathetic approlaition."—Discoorpte But. much as we respect the authority of Sir Joshua, we feel bound to state when , we ven ture to differ from him. There is no counsel that he urges with greater pertinacity than the imitation of the works of Michel Angelo. We do not yield to Sir Joshua in our apprecia tion of the works of that great. num. but we d o think a more unsafe model c4m141 hardly le followed. llis genius is too vast. his conceit lions are too sublime to lw approached. Ilis works may be studied with IVVCIIIIIP, bid imi tation should i n considered In ppeless. Invaria bly grand in his designs, he not unfrevently approaches the extravagant. and, diadaimugthe beautiful, he is content to awe and astonish. That be was not II NOV 11114C1 we think might have been proved to himself, before he closed his long and glorious career. by the failure of all his imitators. To them and to their works might be applied with more 'propriety that. quotation from Shakspere which Sir Joshua rekroduces to qualify the style of the Venetian painters—" A tale told by an idiot. full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing."-41k Pipp room Ntichel Angelo. he „b seeees , studied and revived the works of the Greeks (and the eeh•- hrated torso may be traced in various positions amidst the academic. mulities of The 1 titst Judgment . ), and on this additional account he reeommends that master to the study of his pupils. Would he have given this advice had we ptiS?“'Nfietl, IVlll'll he delivered it. the i117"1 4 111 - Paniblespoils nt . Atilt"' We think 1101 and. if Michel Angelo studied the antique, it. must be remembered that the masterpieces which tyc possess were unknown to hint. 81111 that to them the student. had better be referred. as an example that I'7lllllld Lr tilllpaSSl4l. 711111 a gulche that cannot err. We think the judgment of Sir Joshua still farther at fault in the preference he gives to the colouring of the Bolognese school over that of Venice.- 4th Pi:icolirse. I We are tar from estimating the eariteci and their scholars the low rate to which the fashion 11l the present day has sunk them. but we can only account for the partiality of Sir Joshua under the supposition that few of the masterpieces which we now possess had at that time tra velled from ltaly : perhaps even yet we cannot. I,4,ast of more than two or three specimens of first rate exeellent.e. • va a. • ifi • liltvkioil of the young painter ultite the 4.010110 m; Titian :1(1 41 1I of liattiielle ith the • kiwi Angels, we •lesiatit• of • • ri • we do not even think the at- -," ir -0" hitt if ever All 11111)1%1Xilllitiltill , ' 0 -\ *O* • • W war& this degree 01 Ill'Eft•t• - • A. r , ii j k • *lmo ODIN' that it. will lie f o und. W e V6A4,1. Titian s •• Martyrdsint ()ISt. fottlketinseW Tkultle.,s irrvdttetnnt et humn a THE PRESS genius : we can only assert that, to the best of our knowledge, it has hitherto defied the severity of criticism. lint, on the whole, it is not on any direct imitation of the old masters that we would ad vise the pupil to build his hopes of success. That they should he carefully studied it is needless t►► urge, but it k of nature only that the painter should he an imitator. We depre cate the effort to be original : originality is never acquired by being sought ; and the artist is perhaps never less original than when studiously endeavouring to avoid all imita tion, and to produce some work entirely his omi. Our readers we hope will pardon the length to which our sul►ject has carried us—a length which, though it may have taxed their patience. is wholly inadequate to give the subject even a superficial consideration, and which has not permitted Its to notice one of the interesting works placed at the head of these observations, and which we desired to introduce to the ac quaintance of the public. We trust our readers 1611 be more just: they will tied the subject handled with the skill and eloquence of a rn►ll► of taste ; and the well-selected and well executed subjects, from the pencil of Mr. Scharf, which illustrate the views of M. Ouizot, give a great additional value to the volume. 77u Land Tax of India. (wording to the Moohnuoundan Lair. Translated from the Abanyeeree ; with Koplanatory Notes and an Introdrwtmw Essay. By Neil B. E. Baillie. svo. London, WM: Smith and Elder. 'IIW land tax is one of the most difficult sub jects Connected with our empire in the East. The greatest writers on Indian matters differ at the very outset as to the actual property in the soil and the right of the Government to make land the principal source of re venue, although no doubt it always has been so in principle and practice under the rule of both Hindus and Muhammadans. The most conflicting statements have been made as to this proprietary right: some maintaining that it is vested in the Sovereign, whilst others uphold the respective claims of the zemindars, the village landowners, and the tenants and actual cultivators. This diversity of opinion is not, indeed, confined to India alone, since the most celebrated Oriental scholars have anived at diametrically opposite conclusions with regard to IMulianimadan countries in genend, and the Musulman lawyers themselves hold different doctrines. Atiquetil I)uperrou is a zealous advocate for the cultivator (1) ; the learned De Macy, with reference to the terri torial right. in Egypt, maintains the property of the inhabitants (.21: and the father of living Orientalists, the illustrious and venerable Baron Ilammer-Purgstall, leaves the question still enveloped in doubt and uncertainty (3). More creepily 111.. Worms has written a series of able articles in the -Journal Asiiitique," rou eluding in favour of the proprietary right of the Sovereign (41. The learned doctor has illus trated the subject by numerous quotations from Arabian authors. and his work leaves little to be desired so far as regards the Muhammadan countries in Africa. In that quarter of the globe, however. the doctrine of the Imam Nlalik is almost exclusively adhered to. and that lawyer, together with the Imam Ash-Shati'l, both maintain the territorial right of the Sovereign. lint the school of the Imam AMC Himetith chiefly prevails in India, and he affirms that in conquered countries the people paying the legal impost preserved their pro prietary rights, though with conshlerable re servation in favour of the Sovereign. The learned labours of Dr. Worms are thus inap- (I) ii-ri , bikon thirntalr, rnr M. Atapietil Duperroit. 4to. (.!) , 111 In 1111111 M et Ira ril . oluthaim sin (Irak gle• itoi Kg pte. par S. tle Savy. ((I) /-111$411i$4•19.11 SlitatsVvriesimg mat St Hata Ver. \\ Ailing • ‘. , ti .1. v.m. Islll. • Welwr I Atetidvr Vcrmaltitiaw: tinter dem lli litiite : can .1 ‘- , 11 I Inuttner. Burliis, kI) Itevlorrelto , . sm. 1 , 1111 , 1 - ikt" t. rritotial. MII,IIIIIIIIIN par NI. Ie 11.wteitr ;June t.•me (:.) The Preseill TA• iu 11 1 . 1 in• By aohii liriizg••• 41. at. IN•to. (i.) the I.SW il , lll ( . 011 , 1.1111fit)11 nud ITV:WiIt 1 , M , 1111111 111 India. By Licuttlault-Cakait'l liallowity. Lutaltai, ACE SATURDAY, plicable to our Eastern possessions, except, indeed, us illustrating the question by emu pasison. More immediately connected with India, we find the works of General Briggs (5) and Galloway (6), who are far from agree ing with one another ; but the best ressusi of the rights of the Sovereign, and, indeed, of the whole topic of the Indian land tax, will be found in the first volume of Pro fessor Horace Wilson's continuation of Mill. Our limits necessarily preclude us from e n. tering into controversy, and, indeed, from touching upon tt subject of such ft complicated nature. It is sufficient to point out the va rious sources front which information can be gained, and we must leave our readers to con sult the works we have enumerated, and to form their own conclusions. Mr. Willie, who has already acquired a reputation for profoundkuow - ledge of the Arabic language, and of the Muham madan law, by former publications (K), has in the volume before us made a most valuable addi tion to the stock of materials accessible to the English reader. The work of Mr. Baillie may be said to exhaust the subject as regards the land tax of India, according to the Muhamma dan law. Nearly one-half of the volume is oc cupied by a very learned introductory essay, and the remainder comprises translated ex tracts from the Fatieva 'Alamgiri. These Fe tieva, or decisions, were collected by order of the Emperor Aumngzeb, in A.ll 1630, and are to this day of the very highest authority in India. General Galloway says, with respect to this work, that, being " the last on the law of " India promulgated by royal authority, it " ought, therefore, to be considered as part of " the written law and constitution of that ens " pire." (K) The author, in the introductory essay, enters fully into the Muhammadan sys tem of taxing the land in India, and describes the complicated land tenures under the Mongol Emperors. He concludes his essay by saying : " Enough, it is hoped, has now been said to explain and exemplify the general principles of the Mooln 1111 l undan law of Khirnj, and to show how it may be employed to account for wane of the existing tenures of hind in India. If the reader is dissatisfied with the view that has been taken of the suNeet in the preceding pages, he has the materials in what figlows, of constructing a better theory for him. self." This is strictly true, and we take the oppor tunity of stating of our certain knowledge omit the reader may rely implicitly on the accuracy of Mr. Baillie's translations ; no small merit when such translations relate to a most intri. sate subject, and are made from the most diffi cult of all languages. It is necessary to point out to our readers that Mr. Millie, like Mr. Grant in the eele• brated fifth report of the House of Commons. and General Galloway in his " Observations," seems to assume that, being the immediate successors of the Musulmin conquerors, we are bound to consider the Muhammadan law of taxation as the law of India. This assump tion, us it appears to us, is altogether un• founded. since many countries have come into our possession which were not subject to the Muhammadan law ; and moreover, looking at the matter in any point of view, it would seem ujustifiable, if not absolutely impolitic, to ad here strictly to the letter of a law which was in numerous instances allowed to fall into disuse or be administered with laxity by many of the Muhammadan rulers of India. The land tax was no doubt always realised either by the sovereign or his grantees, but not always ac voiding to the strict provisions of the Muham madan law, and the amount Of contribution was very fluctuating. It must be recollected, also, that a land tax was collected in the Hindu states, and according to the Hindu law. from time immemorial ; it was equally variable, and doubts have prevailed as regards the pro prietary right in the soil. We are not the re cipients of the land tax merely as the repre sentatives of the Mutothnint conquerors, but as the ruling power; and the Muhatnmadan law cannot, therefore. be considered as exclu sively applicable. Nevertheless, it was and is, with some moditiesttions , the prevailing law in this respect in India, and a large majority of the land tenures are dependent on its pro ) The Moo) minion I.aw of Inheritance, recouping to Ah4r) Iltinvern n o d hi% Follimer%. ih Neil B. Bane. Calcumn, The Theilminmodiut I Ave of Side. according W Uhl) Code. By Neil B. Wile. lotelon, 15:14% Observittions, ht. Second With" r. 2;:r. m• % itisi..ro•'