103 
Re\. J. Sinclair. As tar as this paper is an exposition of Scandinavian 
mythology, I can say nothing except that I thank the author for the explana- 
tion he has given us. Every man who reads picks up something of every 
subject, but I am afraid that this is a subject of which many besides myself 
have but a very fragmentary knowledge. But there are many questions 
suggested by this exposition which are collateral to the exposition itself, and 
which we may be capable of forming an opinion upon : such as those which 
have just been indicated to us so ably in the speech of the Chairman. Now, 
I cannot help thinking that the author of the paper is more nearly right 
about the development of Christian art than is the Chairman. I think 
Mr. Ruskin, who is a high living authority on every question of art, has, in 
his Seven Lamps of Architecture, expressed his opinion of the incompatibility 
of high art, or of some developments of high art, with a high degree of 
religiousness or spirituality. I think that all experience justifies and confirms 
this opinion. It is true that some of the great painters, both Italian and 
English, and ot one or two other nations, have been eminently Christian 
men ; but I think you will not find any people who, as a whole, were equally 
distinguished tor spirituality and for taste, — refined and artistic taste. I am 
not aware of any such example. On the other hand, we find that some of the 
nations most distinguished in this respect have been also no less distinguished 
tor their sensuousness. A little consideration of human nature in its actual 
condition, as we know it, is quite enough to account for this fact. There is a 
kind ot antagonism between sensuousness and spirituality, — at least, as 
realized and manifested by man in his actual condition. The very essence of 
religion is, that the emotional and affectionate nature goes out towards the 
Divine Spirit. I believe that in the heavenly spirit, when men’s moral and 
spiritual natures have been fully developed, and all extraneous elements have 
been rejected, then art — the beautiful in form and colour, and other aspects of 
which we can now form no conception — will not only be compatible with this 
perfection, but associated with it as a result. But, in man’s present imperfect 
state, I think there must be a certain degree of antagonism and counteracting 
influence between spirituality or high religiousness, and the high development 
of the artistic elements in human nature. There is just one other question 
on which the paper gives an opinion in which I cannot so thoroughly agree 
with the author. Mr. Cfosse speaks of the humanity of those people as shown 
in their treatment of their dependents, slaves, and the lower orders of society. 
He adduces the fact that they were distinguished by their kindness to the 
lower animals dogs and cats especially — as a presumptive proof that 
they were not so harsh in their treatment of their slaves as the laws and 
customs of their community would seem to infer. Now I am afraid the 
premisses scarcely warrant the conclusion. I have often observed that 
children who are very fond of petting their cats and dogs are very much 
addicted to quarrelling with one another ; and I have often asked them 
how it was that, being so kind to cats and dogs, they were so different with 
their brothers and sisters. That is a very significant fact, which one has 
observed for one’s self ; and it may be accounted for in this way. Tame 
