CURRENT LITERATURE.

Hokitika Guardian, 8 September 1923, Page 4

CURRENT LITERATURE.

TUTANKHAMEN. The discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamen in Western Thebes lasi December was the richest “find” ever made by Egyptologists, and it has already inspired a number of books descriptive of the relics and of Egypt at the period of ibis monarch’s reign, namely about UIKI B.C. One of these is by Sir K. Wallis Budge, keeper oi Egyptian and A--yr>;tn antiquities in the Brilish Museum, and an intimate

friend of the late Lord (_'irmirvon. fndcetl it "as actually at the Inner’s request that “Tutankhamen. Ainenism. Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism” was written. Sir E. Wallis Budge corrects a number ol popular misconceptions, one of which relates to tlie precise significance of the- dis-c-may. The artistic and intrinsic value of iho contents ol the tolnb is very great. The value ol the gold and previous objects far surpasses that of any hoard previously recovered from ancient limes. The relics throw much light on the arts anil crafts that were practiced in the City of Aakhut-aten .‘5300 years ago. lint historically their importance is less. Some have assorted that the information derived from tie find makes it necessary for the history of the ISLIi dynasty to ho recast and rewritten. But Sir E. Wallis Budge declares that there is no foundation for the statement. The authorised accounts of the tomb and its contents include no new historical facts. As matters stand, we know no mere about the reign, of Tutankhamen than we did before.

Again some have argued that because Tutankhamen’s resting-place was equipped with much unaparallolcd luxury and splendour lie must have been, a great King. Sir B. Wallis liudge assures us that this was not tho ease. With Anienhotep TIT the sovereign power of Egypt reached its zenith. Under Amenhotop IV (or Ak»

honaton) and his son-in-law, of whom Tutankhamen was one, there came n decline. Anienhotep IV lias been described as a reformer, an individualist, an idealist, and a pacifist-. But “lie was a reformer who initiated no permanent reform, an individualist who diverted the revenues of the gods of Ids country to his own uses, an idealist who followed the cult of the material, a pacifist who lost Egypt’s Asiatic Empire.” Tutankhamen’s one title to fame is that he restored the old belief. When he ascended the throne he professed Atenism. Soon afterwards he renounced this faith, reverted to Amenism, and became ;; worshipper of the old gods of the country. Attempts have been made to identify him with the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and his wife with tho lady who found Moses in the ark of bulrushes. But there was more than one Exodus, and Tutankhamen was not King when any of them occurred. Sir E. Wallis Budge includes in his book the original hieroglyphic texts ot the most important hymns to Amen and Aten, to which lie appends English translations. Incidentally he makes short work of the theory that the “Teaching” of the cult of Aten inculcates a religion and morality superior to any doctrine found in the' Old Testament, or even, as some enthusiasts contend, surpassing in sublime precepts and spiritual concept ions the teachings of C’hristiaiiitv as set

forth in the Gospels. The hymns in which it is embodied “show a just appreciation of the benefits that man and beast derive from the creative and fructifying influence of the heat and light of the sun.” But Sir E. Wallis Budge cannot find in them “a single expression that contains any spiritual teaching, or any exhortation to purity of life, or any word of consciousness of sin, or any evidence of belief in a resurrection and a life beyond the grave.” (Martin, Hokpinson, and CoV

The articles by Professor Grafton Elliott Smith, which have been reprinted under the title of •'Tutankhamen and the Discovery of his Tomb,’ first appeared in a London journal, and hence, although its authority is unquestioned, the book is rather more popular in character than the one which has just been noticed. Professor Elliott Smith’s estimate of Tutankhamen is even less flattering than that- of Sir E. Wallis Budge. He dismisses him as an insignificant person, a nonentity who reigned no more than six or seven years in one of the leanest phases of Egyptian history. Professor

Smitlg however, is inclined to attach more historical importance to the find than does the other. Passing from the consideration of this monarch and the pomp and circumstance with which he was interred. Professor Smith proceeds to interpret the deeper meaning of tlie.se Egyptian beliefs which found expression in the luxuriously extravagant equipment of the royal tombs. Mummification was, of course, simply a device to confer immortality. The Egyptians imagined that when the body of the king was embalmed the continuation of bis existence had been assured. Hence they furnished him with food and raiment, unguents and jewels, alEthe tilings, in fact, which he bad been wont to enjoy in bis lifetime. For thirty centuries they strove to improve the art of embalming. The practice of mummification gave the original impulse to the development of all Egyptian arts and crafts. “The craft of the carpenter was first invented for the manufacture of coffins to protect the corpse: the stonemasons’ lirst ex peritnonts had for their aim the preparation of rock cut chambers still further to ensure its- safety; the first buildings worthy of the name of architecture were intended to promote the welfare of the dead, to provide places to which relatives could bring food necessary for the dead man’s sustenance, and a room to house his por-trait-statue— another art that was the outcome of the prncLiee of mummification—which took his place at the temple of offerings, and preserved his likeness for all time.” Professor Smith, bv the way, scouts the suggestion that there is anything sacrilegious in opening these tombs and removing the contents. In point of fact, thanks to the intervention of the archaeologists, they are saved from the depredations of the thieves who infest the neighbourhood, desecrate the mummies, and have, in the course of thirty centuries’ application to the calling, reduced tomb-robbery to an exact science. f Routledge ; Agnus and Robertson).

“Egyptian Art” is a translation by Mr Warren R. Dawson of the monumental “Leeons siir l’Art Egyptian,” by M. Jean ('apart, the Belgian savant, and differs in plan from other hooks on the subject. These, excellent though they he, are really little more than catalogues of known works of an arranged in chronological order of disconnected studies of special points. M. ( apart. however, is unicerued rather with origins, motives, and processes of evolution. He shows how the physical characteristics of Egypt have influenced its mythological concepts. and Imw those in turn have determined the characteristics oi' its art. lie examines ihe lundamenlal forms of architecture, and explains how the dist'iueiive Egyptian types came to he developed, lie t limit x light on many mailers which perplex ihe uninitiated layman. The Egyptian, for example, alifiosi always draws a figure in profile, hut invariably depicts the eye fullface in the head. Why) It was not from ignorance of anatomy. M. Capnrt tells us the reason. Again, in many Egyptian paintings there are curious mistakes, a figure with two right hands or two right I’ecl a scribe writing with a left hand attached to a right arm. The cause ol these errors is that the Egyptian drew from a shadow. “A silhouett” is of itself neither right nor 1011, and its determination is exclusively derived from tlie interior details and lines which are afterwards added.” If the artist is working carelessly or in s mechanical fashion, lit; is liable to make such slips. Again, every art has its con vent ions, li tvo tin out know what they are or what effort the artist i- at tempting to produce, we cannot properly appreciate his work. M. ('apart explained ihe conventions and aims of Egyptian arl. The Egyptians, be says, “never drew according to out laws of perspective, hut once their rules are unravelled and understood, their representations are as dear as our nun. if indeed, Hint do mil permit. ol even greater precision in tliai they drew the,aspects farthest front the eve with as much detail as those nearest. Nor must we forget that the object of their drawings was quite different from ours. The Egyptian’s desire was not to show mil lire as it

appears tn our eyes tinder mosl different aspects; lie sought, above all things lo deniot nature in all ils complexity, with much details us lie deemed needful, by breaking il up into ils component elements. He accomplished, in fact, more in the way of pictography than of aid ill ils true sense.” Altogether a most interesting hook, which will help the render lo a better comprehension of the subject.

REVERSIBLE RUGS* All wool rugs of English manufacture are offered at the following bargain pr’ees by ITulston’s Lid., 437 Colombo Street, Sydenham. Christchurch:—!)ft, 21s; 12ft,' 28s ; 15ft, 33s ; sofa size 3l't Bins by 4ft 2 ins 70s. ITulstons guarantee to refund you your money if you’re not satisfied with purchase. Send your order to-day.—-Advt.