Even Egypt could not ensure long life to works of art in the precious metals. Into the melting-pot of its conquerors, its tomb robbers, or its needy citizens went sooner or later incalculable treasures of gold and silver, electrum and bronze. Yet hosts of minor ones survive-statuettes, small articles of use, and jewelry often of the finest quality.

Jewelry, we say, but the term is misleading, for we cannot escape from its suggestion of that modern jewelry which, with its subordination of the metal work to a profusion of sparkling diamonds and of coloured gems mistakenly cut in facets in the hope that they will sparkle too, seems almost as trivial and meretricious as Christmas tree gauds in comparison with the beautifully designed and chiselled, richly yet soberly coloured, sumptous yet dignified ornaments that Egyptian men and women wore. For these, goldsmith's work is a truer term than jewelry, all the more because the Egyptians had none of our gems but only what we call semi-precious stones and, moreover, did some of their most beautiful work in gold alone. Scarcely any museum can be without some small specimens, but in Cairo is the largest store of great ones and, next to Cairo, in New York.

Here the chief group of them includes the ornaments worn in life by the Princess Sat-hathor-iunut, whose tomb lies near the pyramid of her father, Sesostris II, at Lahun in the Fayoum. Dating back to about the year 1900 B. C., more than five centuries before the days of Tut-ankh-amen, they come from the best period for such work, the period called the Middle Kingdom. "So many of them seem to be chiefly beads," said, rather slightingly, someone who had not yet seen but had only read about them. Yes-but, as we commonly use them, the pearls we so highly value are beads. And even the glass beads that the Egyptians of the later periods made are little works of art, delicately striped and figured, while these Middle Kingdom beads are variously and beautifully shaped of precious materials-lapis lazuli, giving a fine dark blue, turquoise, pale blue-green feldspar, coral red cornelian, purple amethyst, and very yellow gold. The clear, quiet, yet rich and strong colour thus achieved, I may add, was enhanced by the lack of colour in the garments it was worn with, and its sumptuousness by their scantiness. Men and

women alike, these Egyptians of high rank dressed chiefly in thin white linen, and a little of it often sufficed them.

The most splendid of the princess's possessions is a great girdle with elongated gold ornaments in the shape of cowrie shells separated by rows of rhombic beads of three colours; the most delicate are bracelets formed of many strands of little beads disposed in gold bordered panels; the most precious and lovely is a pectoral of gold and polychrome enamel, an openwork design with the oval containing the name of Sesostris II supported by two great falcons. It was made as are the cloisonné enamels that we all know, but with bits of precious stones instead of fused pastes, and on the back is elaborately and delicately engraved. But in any of these adornments of Pharaoh's daughter, in others from other periods which are scarcely less wonderful, and in many minor things wrought in the precious metals, we may study in variety the very perfection of human handiwork.

These, then, are two important lessons which the public at large, which even an eye not yet trained to seek and appreciate purely æsthetic values, may learn from our Egyptian collections: it may learn how all embracing should be the service of art to a community, and it may learn the difference between admirable and untutored or mechanical workmanship. Both of these lessons we need to learn, we must learn, if in America good taste is to grow and great art is to develop; for the chief among the arts of design cannot rightly flourish unless the eyes of the people are sensitive enough to ask for beauty in small things as well as great, in things of use as well as in things of luxury and display. A feeling for good workmanship as such, I may add, especially needs cultivation in these days when we must not only revive taste and skill in the handicrafts but must try to master another problem-the production of beautiful, or at least of agreeable, machine made things. In many directions a hopeless problem? Perhaps! But in many directions it has not yet been attacked.

M. G. VAN RENSSELAER.

AFFAIRS OF THE WORLD

BY WILLIS FLETCHER JOHNSON

CHINESE brigandage is doubtless an abominable thing, for all the deviltries of which the Chinese Government must of course be held accountable. It ought to prevent such doings, and if it does not it must pay the ransoms of the captives and round indemnities if any of them are killed or injured. And it must very humbly apologize to the aggrieved nations. Upon all this the United States is supremely entitled to insist, because of its own record in such matters. You see, we have brigands of our own. Seventy-two years ago American brigands in New Orleans insulted the Queen of Spain, destroyed the Spanish consulate, and looted the shops of Spanish merchants. Our Government was no more able to punish them than the Chinese Government is to punish its brigands today, but it very humbly apologized and paid an indemnity. About a generation ago American brigands in Louisiana and in Colorado murdered a number of Italians; and as before our Government confessed its inability to punish them, but it apologized and paid indemnities. Most of all to the point was an incident of thirty-eight years ago, when American brigands, led by pastors of churches, kidnapped and tortured to death a number of Chinese, acting much worse than the Chinese bandits of today; and as our Government was not strong enough to punish the miscreants, it had to content the aggrieved nation with profound apologies and indemnities. Surely, we may expect China to act as handsomely as we did! Could we ask more?

The opening of the International Academy of Law at The Hague should be an incident of happy augury, though it may suggest some heart searchings as to whether we have not put the cart before the horse in first seeking to establish international courts and afterward studying international law. How little agreement there is among the nations on some of the sim

plest and most fundamental matters of law has been strikingly illustrated by the controversy between Great Britain and Russia, which has turned upon the question of the width of coastal waters over which the country which they border has authority. Great Britain insists upon only three miles, while Russia claims twelve, and other nations prescribe six, and nine. There never has been general agreement. Suppose that a case involving that question were brought before the court which the League of Nations has established, and that British, Swedish and Spanish judges were on the bench. What kind of decision could be expected, with the judges committed respectively to three, six and nine miles as the width of territorial waters? Truly, an Academy of Law seems an essential prerequisite to a successful Court.

A practical vindication of the defeat of the "Clean Book Bill" by the New York Legislature followed quickly upon that incident. A court with a trial jury in New York City found a certain stage play improper, and those responsible for its production guilty of a penal offense. This was done under the ordinary general laws of the State, by the ordinary officers of the law, without any special legislation or the meddlesome and oppressive activities of a self-appointed smelling society. There is no question that similarly satisfactory results could be obtained in the same way in the case of any other play, or any book or picture that was really an offense to decency and morals. The trouble is that people neglect to invoke the law until its violations become flagrant, and then they get hysterical and yell for special legislation and a censorship and other abominations. And in such circumstances professional prudes and notoriety seekers perceive the opportunities of their lives.

Seldom has the Prime Minister of any government resigned his office amid more general and more sincere regret than Mr. Bonar Law. But substantial consolation is afforded in the assurance that the incident will mean no radical change of the beneficent policy which he had pursued, but rather its continuance in hands as expert and as sincere as his. The accession of Mr. Stanley Baldwin is particularly reassuring of the mainte

nance of satisfactory relations between Great Britain and the United States, since he is known to be most kindly disposed toward this country, with which only a few months ago he personally, at Washington, negotiated a settlement of the British war debt.

Charles de Freycinet had so far outlived his age as to have entered oblivion, almost, before his death. Accustomed as we have lately been to recording men of extreme old age, it was a trifle startling to be reminded that here was a man who lived in the reign of Charles X, and was active in public affairs in the time of Louis Philippe, who rose to eminence during the Second Empire, and for a full generation was one of the foremost figures of the Third Republic. In scholarship he had few rivals, in integrity and loyalty he was surpassed by none, and in the sum of his public services he ranked far above the average of French Ministers and Prime Ministers. Only an incurable nervous diffidence and weakness prevented him from attaining a place close to those of Thiers and Gambetta. Perhaps the greatest Opportunist of the Republic, his Opportunism invariably aimed, and generally with success, at promoting the welfare of the nation.

A most interesting and not unimportant question is raised by the proposal, made by eminent church authorities, to "free the plan of a World Court from politics by making it an issue in the churches of the country." A similar proposal has been made by Mr. William J. Bryan with considerable success, to make the enforcement of prohibition an issue in the churches. Entirely without reference to the intrinsic merits or demerits of the World Court and of the Volstead Act or the Eighteenth Amendment, it is indisputable that they are primarily and essentially political matters. If then they are taken up by the churches as religious issues, what happens? They cannot thus be made one whit less political. It inevitably follows that in such action the churches go into politics, or politics into the churches-it does not matter which way we regard it. And that, we must insist, is a most undesirable thing. Complete separation of Church and State, or,