Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 1.djvu/309

Rh A G R A G K 287 At each corner of this terrace stands a minaret 133 feet in height, and of the most exquisite proportions more beautiful, perhaps, than any other in India. In the centre of the marble platform stands the mausoleum, a square of 186 feet, with the corners cut off to the extent of 33 feet 9 inches. The centre of this is occupied by the principal dome, 58 feet in diameter and 80 feet in height, under which is an inclosure formed by a screen of trellis-work of white marble, a chcf-d osuvre of elegance in Indian art. Within this stand the two tombs. These, however, as is usual in Indian sepulchres, are not the true tombs ; the bodies rest in a vault level with the surface of the ground, beneath plainer tombstones placed exactly underneath those in the hall above. In each angle of the building is a smaller dome of two storeys in height, 26 feet 8 inches in diameter, and connected by various passages and halls. The light to the central apartment is admitted only through double screens of white marble trellis- work of the most exquisite design, one on the outer and one on the inner face of the walls. In our climate this would produce nearly complete darkness ; but in India, and in a building wholly composed of white marble, this was required to temper the glare, which otherwise would have been intolerable. As it is, no words can express the chastened beauty of that central chnmber, seen in the soft gloom of the subdued light which reaches it through the distant and half-closed openings that surround it. &quot;When used as a pleasure palace, it must have been the coolest and the loveliest of garden retreats ; and now that it is sacred to the dead, it is the most graceful and most impressive of the sepulchres of the world. This building is an early example of that system of inlaying with precious stones which became the great characteristic of the style of the Mughuls after the death of Akbar. All the span- drils of the Taj, all the. angles and more important architectural details, are heightened by being inlaid with precious stones, such as agates, bloodstones, jaspers, and the like. These are combined in wreaths, scrolls, and frets, as exquisite in design as they are beautiful in colour ; and, relieved by the pure white marble in which they are inlaid, they form the most beautiful and precious style of ornament ever adopted in architecture. It is lavishly bestowed on the tombs themselves and the screens that surround them, but more sparingly introduced on the mosque that forms one wing of the Taj, and on the fountains and surrounding buildings. The judgment, in deed, with which this style of ornament is apportioned to the various parts is almost as remarkable as the ornament itself, and conveys a high idea of the taste and skill of the Indian architects of this age.&quot; Tavernicr, in his Travels (vol. iii., p. 94), mentions that 20,000 workmen were incessantly employed on this work during a period of twenty-two years. The tomb of the Emperor Akbar is contained in a splendid mausoleum at Sikandra, a suburb of Agra city. AGRAM, or ZAGRAB, the capital of the Austrian pro vince of Croatia, is finely situated on a hill near the banks of the Save, in 45 49 N. lat. and 10 1 E. long., 160 miles south of Vienna. It is the seat of the governor of Slavonia and Croatia, of a bishop, of the courts of justice, and of the meetings of the provincial diet. Agram is divided into three parts, called the upper and lower towns, and the town of the bishop. It has a lyceum, library, museum, gymnasium, an ancient cathedral, and a large library. Some silk and porcelain are manufactured, and a brisk trade is carried on in grain, potash, tobacco, and honey. Population in 1869, 19,857. AGRARIAN LAWS (Leges Agrarioc), when used in the most extended signification of the term, are laws for the distribution and regulation of property in land. The his tory of these enactments is not only important as explana tory of the constitution of the ancient republics, but is rendered highly interesting by the conflicting opinions which have been entertained respecting their object and operation. It seems to have been a notion generally entertained in the ancient world that every citizen of a country should be a landholder; and that the territory of a state, so far as it was not left uninclosed or reserved for public purposes, should be divided in equal portions among the citizens. Such a distribution of public land seems to have been acted upon as a recognised principle from the earliest period to which existing historical records extend. Hence we find the Almighty giving express instructions to Moses as to the manner in which the land of Canaan was to be portioned out among the Hebrews (Num. xxxiii. 54), and naming the persons to whom the division was to be entrusted (Num. xxxiv. 16-18). A division of the land was accordingly made, and the portion assigned to each man became his inalienable property, and descended in perpetuity to his heirs and successors. By the law of Jubilee, all lands were restored free of encumbrances on the recurrence of the &quot;year of release;&quot; so that, though a man s estate might, in the interval, have been repeatedly gold or alienated, yet on the return of the fiftieth year it reverted to the heirs of the original possessor (Levit. xxv. 10). In the republics of ancient Greece, and also in the Grecian colonies, a similar principle of division of land prevailed (Thuc. v. 4, Herod, iv. 159). Lycurgus is represented by Plutarch (Lyciir.} as redividing the whole territory of Laconia into 39,000 parcels, of which 9000 were assigned in equal lots to as many Spartan families, and 30,000, also in equal lots, to their free subjects; and although this statement is not borne out by any of the early Greek historians, and is even incon sistent with the assertion of Aristotle (Polit. ii. 4), yet it ia valuable as recognising the principle of the division of the public lands. (See Thirl wall s Hist, of Greece, chap, viii., and Grote s Hist, of Greece, part ii. chap, vi., with the authorities there quoted.) It was long a prevalent and undisputed opinion that the territories of the Hebrews, and of the republics of ancient Greece, were divided into equal portions, and that the object of such a distribution was to maintain a state of equality among all the members of the community. This, however, does not appear to be consistent with the dis tinctions of rank which we find admitted in Scripture (Josh, ix. 15; xxii. 14; 1 Sam. ix. 21, &c., &c.); and from a remark of Thucydides (i. 6), taken in connection with the statement of Aristotle (Polit. ii. 9), it may be legitimately inferred that property did not continue to be equally dis tributed at Lacedaemon. Distinctions of rank are clearly recognised in the legislation of Solon. Aristotle, in the Second Book of his Politics (chap, vi., &c.), explains the constitutions of several of the ancient republics, and endea vours to show how the population is to be accommodated to this equal division of land; but it would be foreign to our object to review his arguments. It may be sufficient to remark that such an attempt to arrest the progress of enterprise is altogether inconsistent with the spirit of liberty which gave life and energy to the ancient republics; and that, though it might have been carried into effect under the despotism of Persia or the predominant rule of the kings of Macedonia, it was entirely at variance with the freedom of opinion which prevailed in Greece, and the stubborn resistance to control which animated the Romans after the expulsion of the kings. But granting that such a policy had been practicable, it would have been highly inexpedient. The ignorant Hindu might remain satisfied with the caste which nature had transmitted to him through successive generations, because his progenitors had been prevented from emerging from their obscurity; but the citizens of Greece and Italy, being themselves constituent members of the body politic, and not ignorant of the power thereby conferred on them, could not have been kept in check by the same principle of fear. Such an attempt, moreover, to prevent the acquisition of property would have obstructed the advancement of the arts of civilised life, would have extinguished those feelings of patriotism which led the Greeks so often to hazard their lives in defence of their country, and, by engendering discontent and exciting internal commotions, would have made them an easy prey to their enemies. The expression Agrarian Laws, however, is more com monly applied to the enactments among the Romans for the management of the public domains (ager publicus) ; and to an account of these the remainder of our space must be devoted. It is a singular fact that, while almost every other