The Evolution of Art. . 317 



that morbid asceticism, born of a false theology, which assumes man's 

 total depravity and sees naught but evil in his bodily passions. You 

 nowhere find in his writings apologies for or glorifications of the sen- 

 sual, as such, in an evil or degrading sense, or minute delineations of 

 vice and crime, or pessimistic views of life or its conditions. The 

 praise of pure-minded Emerson, and of such able art-critics as John 

 Addington Symonds, shows that I am not alone in my judgment 



MB. WILLIAM POTTS : 



I wish to add a word of thanks to the lecturer for his vigorous de- 

 nunciation of the liarn^yard school of literature. I can not say with 

 the president that I have not read a page of Zola ; I have read many 

 pages ; but I do not regard him nearly as disgusting as Tolstoi. I dis- 

 agree with Mr. Warner in his implication that we may be injured 

 morally by too much love of the beautiful. The moral is itself the 

 beautiful in character, and naturally allies itself with all other 

 forms of beauty. As regards photography, in a certain sense it is art, 

 as are also the so-called mechanic arts. In the highest sense, how- 

 ever, art is Nature as seen through the medium of the artist. The 

 personal note is the main thing in art of the highest character. I do 

 not think, with Mr. Taylor, that art necessarily reached its highest 

 development in the past. Following the natural law of evolution, art 

 has become specialized, and while we may not have great all-around 

 artists, we have great specialists in art. In dramatic music, for in- 

 stance, I think most competent critics will agree that in Richard 

 Wagner this art has reached its highest exemplification in our own 

 day. And in landscape painting no previous era has equaled our 



DR. ROBEET G. ECCLES : 



I am surprised that no word has been said in defense of Tolstoi 

 from the strictures that have been made upon him. I think he is the 

 only really consistent Christian writer of our time. I do not believe 

 he is guilty of intentional grossness. While I do not myself accept 

 Tolstoi's conclusions, I believe him to be honest and consistent. I be- 

 lieve he is following, sincerely and logically, the teachings of Jesus 

 Christ and of St. Paul 



ME. J. HOWAED COWPERTHWAIT : 



I wish to enter my protest against eulogizing the Puritan, and ex- 

 tolling his spirit and influence as of superior morality to that of our 

 own time. I think the Puritans wrought great mischief by their 

 teaching that all pleasure is wicked. Their appearance of superior 



