Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

On the other fide of the urn, Hercules, conducted by the Genius of Love, paffes through the gate of Hades, and stretches out his potent arm to Alcefté, who is fitting, in Elysium, under a fhade of trees. In her lap fits Hygeia, reftoring her to her former health. With vifible fenfations of joy and aftonishment Alcefté lays hold on the arm of her deliverer. Pluto, who had before experienced the fuperlative might of Hercules, thoughtfully furveys the fcene; and, although he wonders at the bold undertaking, yet his eafy and tranquil mien clearly indicates that he has no inclination to refift.-See a work entitled "Alceftis pro Marito moriens Hiftoria, a Begero illuftrata." Brandenburg, 1703 in which is collected from Euripides, Apollodorus, and other ancient writers, every thing that relates to this

fable.

As then, according to the poets, Hercules really brought back Alcefté to Admetus from the infernal regions; the principal characteristic of this story is entirely the fame with that which is reprefented on the farcophagus. For that ftories fo concordant and well connected, and at the fame time fo admirably adapted to the object and purpofe of the vale, fhould come together by mere accident, appears to me extremely improbable, nay, barely poffible.

The workmanship on the farcophagus is, if I mistake not, confidered by all connoiffeurs to be evidently Roman: while the vafe is by many deemed a Grecian production. But this opinion, I think, reits on a very weak foundation. Mariette has carefully examined the workmanship of the vase; and has found that, the bottom excepted, it is executed after the fame manner as the cameos were finished by the artifts of those times. Whoever has with any attention examined the vase itself, and fhall confult Natter's claffical work," Sur la Methode Antique de graver en pierres fines," will foon be

convinced of this.

That in the first century this art was brought to perfection at Rome, is well known. The works of Diofcorides-the fine head of Cicero in the collection of Cardinal Chigi-the most beautiful head of Caligula in the poffeffion of Count Walmoden, which Winkleman affirms to be one of the most perfect works of the kind, are fufficient proofs of my pofition. Now in the fame manner and style are the figures on the Portland vafe executed.Mariette mentions feveral other fuch productions: and possessed, himself, a head of

Auguftus, which was exactly of the fame ftyle, and done on the fame kind of glasspafte, and even in the fame colours; namely, the figures white, on a dark ground of the colour of the amethyst.

Whether the artist living at Rome were a Greek or a Roman, is, I think, a matter of indifference: for, fuppofing he were a Greek, we could, on that account alone, as little call his productions Grecian, as we fhould call thofe of a Natter, Pichler, Marchant, German or English productions.'"

That the female figure at the bottom is a fragment of another, perhaps ftill more ancient work, has been by fome afferted; but, in my opinion, without any good reafon. I have carefully examined both the original itfelf, (when Sir William Hamilton paffed with it through Germany); but fince more minutely the excellent copy of Mr. Wedgwood: and the refult of my examen, with respect to the bottom figure, is this: The artift could not well make the vale and its bottom of one piece; at leaft not without very great difficulty. But if the urn had, below, a confiderable aperture, he could more readily give to the mafs throughout an equal degree of thicknefs; and the force of the fire could be applied with infinitely more precifion to each part, both within and without, as the defign required. Befides, how could he, but by this method, be certain that the figure intended for the bottom would not be fpoiled by the fire; as the vafe in its foft or flexible condition must have had fome refting point?-Thefe, and perhaps other confiderations, may have determined the artit to make the bottom figure at fir feparately, and afterwards to join it to the vafe.

The great and ftriking difference between the workmanship of the vafe, and that of its bottom, may be easily accounted for, without being under the neceffity of fuppofing the bottom figure to be the fragment of a different and more ancient piece of art. The artift finished the figures on the urn, with the touret, in the highest degree of perfection; but left the figure on the bottom rude and unfinifhed, as the mafs came out of the mould. Such unfinished ancient paftes are not at all uncommon. Mariette mentions feveral; and to him I beg leave to refer, as he is well worth confulting concerving every part of this vafe.

I would, moreover, remark, that the form of the Portland vafe is not Grecian. It appears to have rather the form of 1 Roman

Roman lacrymal urns, only on a larger

fcale.

If to what I have already faid, it be added, that not only a part of the urn remains unfinished, but likewife a whole fide of the farcophagus, and that, as I have already obierved, the main charafters of this story on the vafe harmonife fo ftrikingly with thofe of the farcophagus; I flatter myself that it must appear probable, even to the greatest sceptic, firit, that the vale was purposely made for this monument, and at the fame time with it; fecondly, that it is a Roman production of art; and, laftly, that both artifts were, by the fame caufe or caufes, prevented from finishing these works.

If the work be really Roman, it cannot, from the style of the workmanship, well be older than the time of Auguftus, nor later than the time of Trajan. At least it can, in my opinion, be eafily proved, that neither the vafe nor farcophagus belonged to Alexander Severus; but that they are older than he.

On the whole, I now leave it to connoiffeurs to give me better information on the fubject; and to pronounce, with their reafons, a verdict on my conjectures. I fhall be fatisfied with a- -Se non è vero, è ben trovato.

For the Monthly Magazine. THE average of the greatest heat of

41

the year 1798; the obfervations
being taken daily, at or near two o'clock,
with the thermometer fituated as formerly.
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Auguft
September - 62

October

[ocr errors]

[blocks in formation]

44
44를
55
58

67 Remarkably warm.
662

68

56 45 37.

The hottest day was August 13, when the thermometer ftood at 76. The wind at the S. W.

On Dec. 27, it was at 20. The wind east. At 11 the fame evening it funk

to 12.

Norwich, Jan. 11, 1799.

For the Monthly Magazine.

ON THE ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF
TAXATION IN ENGLAND.

'N the feudal times the monarch's own

of confumption; and the few expences of the itate were defrayed from the customs on merchandize, and the feudal cafualties of the exchequer. Only three occafions authorized a tax: the ranfom of the king if taken prifoner; the knighting of his eldeft fon; the marriage of his eldest daughter. But war became more expenlive, and fubfidies began to be levied on that account. Ancient nations carried on war from a treafure previously amaffed, and thought the evils of war fufficient without fresh taxes, This forefight, far from occurring to the fucceeding ages of ignorance, has only been practifed by one monarch of this century, the late king of Pruffia, who alone faw that peace and profperity could afford higher taxes than war and diftrefs. The fubfidies granted to our Edwards, were, however, of a different nature from modern taxes. They were high but temporary.

A philofophical hiftory of taxation would form an important and interesting work; but a few imperfect hints mult here fuffice: Not to dwell on the Peter's penny paid to Rome, and the Dane-gelt to reprefs the invasions of the Danes, both the rude progeny of our Saxon times; nor on the fcutage levied on knights fees by the Normans; if we pafs to the thirteenth and fucceeding centuries, we shall find England already fertile in taxes. The fifteenths and twentieths teem to commence

cart

under Henry III. In 1225 a fifteenth of all moveables of the clergy and laity was granted to that king; the moveables were understood to be corn, ploughs, sheep, cows, fwine, breeds of hortes, horfes, and fuch as are appointed for wainage in manors. War-horfes, armour, treasure, or ready money and apparel, were excepted. The valuation was made by the chief men in each township; and the tax levied by the lord, or by the fheriff. In the thirty-feventh year of that king, a twentieth amounted to 31,4381. 17s. 1od. equal at prefent to about 472,320l. whence the valuation of all the moveables might amount to near ten millions of modern money*. It must at the fame time be confidered that almost all the wealth of that time lay in moveables; money being scarce, and the rent of manors paid in kind. Except the baronial caftles, the houfes were fmall and unex

Thefe and the following inftances are derived from "The Royal Treajury of England, or an Hiftorical Account of all Taxes," &c. London, 1725, &vq

pensive :

penfive and land was not above ten years purchase.

The valuations were apparently moderate; but the mode of taxing the principal, as it may be called, feems strange. Modern taxes affect the revenue, not the principal. Yet, if by ploughs we underftand the oxen ufed, the articles are of annual production; and there feems reafon to think that a fifteenth of spirituals and temporals implies revenue only.

The ambition of Edward I. and III. and Henry V. carried taxes to an extreme extent. Even fo early as 1297, a tax was propofed on the clergy of one half of their goods, on the laity the fixth part, on boroughs one third; but its excefs occafioned its rejection. Yet taxation was carried fo far that he who was worth twenty fhillings was obliged to pay four pence to the king; which, valuing income as then, at one tenth on the capital, was a tax of one fixth. The duties were equally exorbitant. In 1298 the parliament, among other grievances, remonftrated against the forty fhillings a fack upon wool: and itate that the wool of England amounts to almoft the value of half the land, and the duty on it to a fifth part of the value of all land. In the reign of Edward III. this duty is eftimated at 60,000l. equal in efficacy to ten times that fum in modern currency. It feems hence to follow, that the revenue from land, or its annual value, was computed at 300,000l. or three millions of modern currency; and that the wool was worth about half that fum. The accuracy of this remonftrance may be doubted, for the data muft have been vague; but it would be an enterprize worthy of a patriotic parliament, to eftimate the value of landed, commercial, and other property, and compare it with the national debt, as is done in the affairs of the East India company*.

It is unneceffary to proceed with an account of tenths and fifteenths, half tenths and half fifteenths, further than to observe, that, under the Tudors, two fifteenths never conftituted what was peculiarly termed a fubfidy, being 2s. 8d. in the pound on moveables; while lands and effects were taxed 4s. in the pound, or two tenths. In the reign of

moiety of all the goods and lands of the church yielded 475,000l. or nearly half a million. It is computed that the revenue of the lands of the monafteries and other religious foundations feized by that prince, would now amount to fix millions annually. Yet this prize prevented not the conftant impolition of fresh taxes: and when we confider the infatiable avarice, and sanguinary tyranny of the Tudors, we are rather inclined to pity than to blame, the houfe of Stuart, whofe misfortunes were chiefly owing to their being the heirs of an overftrained prerogative, and to the general error of governments, the want of conceffion and accommodation to the fpirit of the times.

The old chroniclers, from William the conqueror down to the last ages, repeatedly declaim that the country was ruined by fuch and fuch taxations. This idea may well excite a fmile, for the taxes, though exceffive, were merely temporary, and only continued for one, two, or three years, whereas modern 'axes are eternal, and truly ruinous. To a certain degree, taxation promotes industry and prosperity, and acts both as a ftimulus to national wealth, and as a fecurity to property; the ftate being, as it were, pledged to the individual, who pays his quota towards its fupport. In Turkey the taxes are trifling; but a bafhaw pillages his pro vince at pleasure, and is then fqueezed by the court.

Let it not, however, he inferred that taxation cannot be pushed too far: it is, as the Oriental proverb fays, the laft ftraw that overloads the camel a finmall addition, if ill-timed, may overturn the whole. It is not what the people can pay, but what they chufe to pay, that merits confideration. A deficit in the taxes muft occafion, as we have feen by recent experience, the fail at once of national credit, and of the ftate. Depopulation is ftill a greater evil, and is a neceifary confequence of exceffive taxation; for none will pay more for any government, or climate, than what they are worth.

For the Monthly Magazine.

MR. EDITOR,

Henry VIII. a fubfidy was about 120,000l.mals has certainly been an event of HE eftablishment of literary jour a tenth of the clergy 25,0841. in 1531 a

* By a recent calculation of the minifter, on propofing the tax on legacies, the landed rental of England and Scotland may amount to 25 millions; the value, at 28 years purchafe, to 700 millions; the perfonal property may be бco millions; total 1,300 millions.

the greateft confequence in the republic of letters. It has been the means of diffufing knowledge far and wide, and of kindling a love of learning, where the feeds of genius would otherwife, in all likelihood, have perished in wretched tor pidity. It has alfo been of infinite fer

vice to the interefts of science, and to the ufeful arts of life, by examining into, and making generally known, the difcoveries and improvements of ingenious men. The art of literary compofition has, moreover, been vaftly improved; the principles of language have been better afcertained; and the qualities of a juft and elegant ftyle have been exactly determined hereby.

Thefe, together with numerous other advantages, might be enumerated, and dilated upon, in reviewing the pretensions of periodical criticism.

Yet, notwithstanding all thefe important benefits accruing from literary journals, justice compels the examiner to notice fome flagrant abufes which have difgraced the monthly reports of lite

rature.

The grand charge which may be brought against all our literary journals, without a fingle exception, is their being tinctured with a party fpirit. The religious or political opinions of a literary reviewer ought not, by any means, to have an influence upon his mind while he is engaged in examining the merits of a book which comes under his critical eye. If they fhould, the man is the moit unfit perfon in the world to bear the office which he has affumed, because he wants that coolnefs and indifference of mind which feems to be a grand requifite in the judicial or cenforial character. Some reviewers, inftead of being impartial reporters, and contenting themselves with fumming up the merits of a work, become controverfialifts, and enter the lifts against the author with all the ardour and petulance of profeffed difputants. This is undoubtedly acting very unjustly, both to wards the writer and the public. The one has the misfortune of having his arguments mifreprefented, and his whole treatife condemned in an extenfive publication, the decrees of which are received almost as infallible by thousands of readers. Another difadvantage under which he labours in this inftance is the being oppofed to a combatant who is heltered under an impervious veil, while he is held up to ridicule. If he replies in a feparate tract to the decifions of the reviewer, his vindication will probably have but a very confined fale, at least compared with that of the work with which he has to contend.

The public alfo are very unfairly dealt with by this mode of conduct; for the right of judgment is hereby taken out of their hands. I regard the court of criticifim in a fimilar light to a court of ju

dicature, where the bench has no authority whatever to dictate a verdict, but only to fum up the evidence with clearnefs, and to lay down the law with impartiality and precifion, leaving the judgment with the reader.

I believe the first regular review ever publifhed in this country was the Literary Magazine, which commenced in 1735 and it was conducted exactly upon this broad and liberal plan. The works which it noticed were accurately analysed, and occafional extracts were made from them; but the reviewers feldom paffed either encomiums or cenfures upon the productions which they examined. The public, however, by this method, were better enabled to form a juft notion of the book reviewed, than they usually can by the modern method of criticifm. It may, indeed, be faid, that this mode is a dry and unentertaining one, when compared with the other. Here I apprehend fomething ought to be remarked concerning the entertainment afforded by reviews. If a reader wants to be pleafed with the ingenious manner of cutting up an author, and expofing him to ridicule, he fhould firft put himself in the fituation of the poor wretch who is made the object of his amufement. Perhaps there is not a more diftreffing circumftance in life than this, though the generality of mankind affect to treat it as a matter of infignificance, and many as being one of juftice. A man of talent and industry has probably spent years in inveftigating and elucidating fome favourite fubject, and either ftimulated by ambition, or driven by want, lays before the public the refult of his enquiries. If his reviewer should chance to be in a capricious humour, or have fome diflike to the author, he has a fine opportunity to gratify his bafe paffion by mifreprefenting his production. This is eafy enough, if the author is a man of no name; and there fhould be, as generally is the cafe, weak parts in the work. Little flips in point of argument, redundancies of expreffion, or inaccuracies of language, when carefully culled out, and properly exhibited, will not fail to produce a rifible effect, and completely do the poor writer's bulinefs. This is a game which is often played.

The most complete way, however, of cutting up an author according to the established rules of criticism, is to begin with a flourishing preface on the importance of that branch of literature in which he has engaged, and then to pro

nounce

nounce a general and unqualified fentence of condemnation upon him for his prefumption in venturing into it. This enables the reviewer to pafs himself off for a very wife man, and the poor victim of his fcalping-knife for an egregious fool. Now it is very poffible that all this while the unfortunate fufferer may be the only one of the two who knows any thing at all of the fubje&t. But this method of general criticism is fufficient for the purpofes of the reviewers and their pubJifhers.

I am forry to obferve, that there are too many readers who feel the greatest pleasure in this kind of reviewing; and the critics, fenfible of this, endeavour to accommodate their criticisms to this vitiated tafte, by throwing into their remarks as much of the fal atticus as poffible. Some, indeed, are more profufe in fprinkling the critical brine than others; but this generally happens to be the cafe with thote who have hardened themselves in the profeffion, and whofe feelings are grown quite callous to the fenfibility of an author fuffering under their operations. There are, it must be confeffed, a few critics who. have not quite loft fight of what may properly be called the morality of criticism; but even they find that their critiques are not fo favourably received by the public as they deferve to be, from the want of that which they cannot bring

themselves to make ufe of with the freedom of their lefs tender-hearted brethien.

The great fource of all this evil appears to be in the fecrecy which covers the critical tribunals. Were thefe literary cenfors to affix their names to their refpective articles, or at left in the title pages of their publications, they would be more cautious how they give loofe to intemperate wit, and would be under the neceffity of taking more pains with, and manifefting more candour to, an author's productions, than they now feel themfelves difpofed to do.

I fhall beg leave to close thefe obfervations with a few remarks on the fame fub-. ject made by that great man, Pope Clement XIV. (Ganganelli) in a letter to a reviewer at Florence:

"I always read your writings with plea fure, my dear Abbé; but I with you would aways give the reafons of your cenfures. Intead of faying, for example, that the flyle of juch a work is incorrect; that there are trifies which disfigure the beauty of the book; you fhould plainly prove the charge. Rules have always need of examples. How would you have an author correct himself, and the pub

[blocks in formation]

"There is hardly any book of which it may not be faid, that it contains fome carelefs or affected expreffions. When you speak in general, it gives room to believe that you have only glanced your eye over the work which you are giving an account, and that you are in hafte to get rid of the trouble.

"Another omiffion is, your not fhewing the best parts of the work. The good tafte of the reviewer requires that he should be attentive to this. If a work is not worth the

trouble of reading, it is better not to an

nounce it at all, than to rail at the writer. It is illiberal to abufe a work merely to make the public merry at the expence of the W.

author."

I am, Sir, your's,

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.

SIR,

SEEING in your Magazine for No

vember laft, a fhort account of the vefpa nidulans, wh re it was faid to be only found in America, I beg leave to alk, through the medium of your Magazine, whether there is not a walp of nearly the fame kind in England; as about four or five years ago I found a neft in a hayloft, fixed to a beam, which, as well as I can now recollect, agreed in many particulars with that defcribed in your Magazine.

It was fhaped like a turnip, though not fo at, about three inches in diameter, the outfide confitted of a fubftance like thin paper ftriped with white and a bluish grey, that was wrapped regularly round twelve or fourteen times, and in the center was the comb, which did not contain any thing; but when I found the nett I faw a wafp or two about it.

This defcription of it is merely from memory, as it was pulled to pieces and deftroyed foon a.ter it was found.

P. P.

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »