Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/749

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
705
ARTUSI—ARUNDEL

most direct means at the command of the teacher to explain, to expound, to demonstrate where mere words are not sufficiently definite or explicit. Drawing in this sense is taking a more important place in education, especially in primary education, though there is no need for it to stop there, and one feels it may be destined to take a more important position both as a training for the eye and hand and an aid to the teacher. Then, again, we may regard art more from its social aspect as an essential accompaniment of human life, not only for its illustrative and depicting powers, but also and no less for its pleasure-giving properties, its power of awakening and stimulating the observation and sympathy with the moods of nature, its power of touching the emotions, and above all of appealing to our sense of beauty. We shall regard the study of art from this point of view as the greatest civilizer, the most permeating of social and human forces. Such ideas as these, shared no doubt by all who take pleasure and interest in art, or feel it to be an important element in their lives, are crossed and often obscured by a multitude of mundane considerations, and it is probably out of the struggle for ascendancy between these that our systems of art teaching are evolved. There is the demand of the right to live on the part of the artist and the teacher of art. There is the demand on the part of the manufacturer and salesman for such art as will help him to dispose of his goods. In the present commercial rivalry between nations this latter demand is brought into prominent relief, and art is apt to be made a minister, or perhaps a slave to the market. These are but accidental relationships with art. All who care for art value it as a means of expression, and for the pleasure and beauty it infuses into all it touches, or as essential and inseparable from life itself. Seeing then the importance of art from any point of view, individual, social, commercial, intellectual, emotional, economic, it should be important to us in our systems of art-teaching not to lose sight of the end in arranging the means—not to allow our teaching to be dominated by either dilettantism or commercialism, neither to be feeble for want of technical skill, nor to sacrifice everything to technique. The true object of art-teaching is very much like that of all education—to inform the mind, while you give skill to the hand—not to impose certain rigid rules, or fixed recipes and methods of work, but while giving instruction in definite methods and the use of materials, to allow for the individual development of the student and enable him to acquire the power to express himself through different media without forgetting the grammar and alphabet of design. Practice may vary, but principles remain, and there is a certain logic in art, as well as in reasoning. All art is conditioned in the mode of its expression by its material, and even the most individual kind of art has a convention of its own by the very necessities and means of its existence. Methods of expression, conventions alter as each artist, each age seeks some new interpretation of nature and the imagination—the well-springs of artistic life, and from these reviving streams continually flow new harmonies, new inventions and recombinations, taking form and colour according to the temperaments which give them birth.  (W. Cr.) 

ARTUSI, GIOVANNI MARIA, Italian composer and musical theorist, was born in Bologna, and died on the 18th of August 1613. He was canonico regulare at the church of San Salvatore in his native city. He is chiefly famous in the history of music for his attacks upon Monteverde (q.v.) embodied in his L’Artusi overo d. imp. (1600). For an exhaustive explanation and a translation of excerpts from these the studies of Dr G. Vogel and O. Riemann should be consulted. These will be found in the Vierteljahrsschrift für Musikwissenschaft, Leipzig, vol. 3, pp. 326, 380 and 426.

ARU ISLANDS (Dutch Aroe), a group in the residency of Amboyna, Dutch East Indies; between 5° 18′ and 7° 5′ S., and 134° and 135° E.; the member nearest to the south-west coast of New Guinea lying about 70 m. from it. The larger islands (Wokan, Kobrur, Maikor and Trangan), and certain of the lesser ones, are regarded by the Malays as one land mass which they call tana besar (“great land”). This is justified inasmuch as its parts are only isolated by narrow creeks of curious form, having the character of rivers. The smaller islands number some eighty; the total land area is 3244 sq. m.; and the population about 22,000. The islands are low, but it is only on the coast that the ground is swampy. The principal formation is coralline limestone; the eastern coast is defended by coral reefs, and the neighbouring sea (extending as far as New Guinea, and thus demonstrating a physical connexion with that land) is shallow, and abounds in coral in full growth. A large part of the surface is covered with virgin forest, consisting of screw-pines, palm trees, tree ferns, canariums, &c. The fauna is altogether Papuan. The natives are also Papuans, but of mixed blood. They are divided into two confederations, the Uli-luna and the Uli-sawa, which are hostile to each other. The houses are remarkable as being built on piles sunk in the solid rock and having two rooms, the one surrounding the other. The people are in manners complete savages. The natives are governed by rajas (orang kajas), the Dutch government being represented by a posthouder. In the interior is said to exist a tribe—the Korongoeis—with white skins and fair hair, but it has never been seen by travellers. A few villages are nominally Christian, and the Malays have introduced Mahommedanism, but most of the natives have no religion. Dobbo, on a small western island, is the chief place; its resident population is reinforced annually, at the time of the west monsoon, by traders from that quarter, who deal in the tripang, pearl shell, tortoise-shell, and other produce of the islands.

ARUNDEL, EARLDOM OF. This historic dignity, the premier earldom of England, is popularly but erroneously supposed to be annexed to the possession of Arundel Castle. Norman earls were earls of counties, though sometimes styled from their chief residence or from the county town, and Mr J. H. Round has shown that the earldom of “Arundel” was really that of Sussex. Its origin was the grant by Henry I. to his second wife, in dower, of the forfeited “honour” of Arundel, of which the castle was the head, and which comprised a large portion of Sussex. After his death she married William “de Albini” (i.e. d’Aubigny), who from about the year 1141 is variously styled earl of Sussex, of Chichester, or of Arundel, or even Earl William “de Albini.” His first known appearance as earl is at Christmas 1141, and it has been ascertained that, after acquiring the castle by marriage, he had not thereby become an earl. Henry II., on his accession, “gave” him the castle and honour of Arundel, in fee, together with “the third penny of the pleas of Sussex, of which he is earl.” His male line of heirs became extinct on the death of Hugh “de Albini,” earl of Arundel, in 1243, who had four sisters and co-heirs. In the partition of his estates, the castle and honour of Arundel were assigned to his second sister’s son, John Fitzalan of a Breton house, from which sprang also the royal house of Stuart. It is proved, however, by record evidence, that neither John nor his son and successor were ever earls; but from about the end of 1289, when his grandson Richard came of age, he is styled earl of Arundel. Richard’s son Edmund was forfeited and beheaded in 1326, and Arundel was out of possession of the family till 1331, when his son was restored, and regained the castle and also the earldom by separate grants. Both were again lost in 1397 on his son being beheaded and attainted. But the latter’s son was restored to both the earldom and the estates by Henry IV. in 1400. He died without issue in 1415.

The castle and estates now passed to the late earl’s cousin and heir-male under a family entail, but the representation in blood of the late earl passed to his sisters and co-heirs, of whom the eldest had married Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk. The descent of the earldom remained in doubt, till the heir-male’s son and heir successfully claimed it in 1433, in virtue of his tenure of the castle, alleging that it was “a dignity or name united and annexed to the castle and lordship of Arundel for time whereof memory of man was not to the contrary.” His claim was opposed on behalf of the Mowbrays, and the allegation on which it was based is discussed and refuted at great length in the Lords’ Reports on the Dignity of a Peer (i. 404-429). In the descendants of his brother the earldom remained vested