34 THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON THE 
The abstract which I have had to use for the above is 
evidently far from being satisfactory, and the subject and. 
argument of the latter part of it at least seems weak. Asa 
matter of fact, Count Gubernatis introduced some ideas into 
his long address which were, it seemed to me, worthy of 
being noted, but which are not included in the procés- 
verbaux. One of these was a practical illustration as to the 
way in which, in the heathen past, a single goddess became, 
in consequence of being viewed in two different aspects and 
worshipped at two different places, two distinct goddesses. 
This he illustrated by the veneration given in Catholic 
countries to the Virgin Mary, who, though regarded _ by all 
educated persons as a single personage, became, in the 
eyes of the lower classes, a different personality for each 
aspect under which she was venerated. Nevertheless, the 
learned professor spoke of the Catholic Church with every 
respect. 
After thanks to the Count de Gubernatis, the President, 
Professor Réville, spoke of the work of the Congress and its 
success, congratulating the members upon the excellent 
spirit which they had caused to reign over all their 
deliberations. They were going to separate, he said, with 
that feeling of human fraternity which unites conscientious 
men above diversities of opinion or of confession. The 
Congress for the History of Religions had thus created a 
precedent which would determine the character of all future 
Congresses. M. Jules Oppert then congratulated the 
President of the Congress in his turn, attributing to him the 
merit of this success. 
Of the papers read in the sections only very summary 
reports have been published, so that, not having been able 
to hear them all, I am not in a position to give a very full 
account of them. This, however, is in all probability not a 
thing to be regretted, as, to say the truth, I do not feel by 
any means competent to report lectures upon so complex a 
subject. The feeling of bewilderment which I had after 
irseoatale to a paper at one of the general meetings upon, I 
believe, “certain aspects of Brahmanism, I can hardly describe. 
It was so interlarded with Indian words, expressions, and 
technical terms as to be quite incomprehensible to me, and 
in all probability many others who heard it were in similar 
case to myself. 
