XXXIV EOYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA. 



and the other unable to speak French, the King remarked what a singular country it must be that 

 apparently required its ambassador to be either deaf or dumb ! Most of us would have to be dumb in 

 a French-speaking assembly. The result, then, of our two literary sections meeting together would 

 be — what with French politeness and English incapacity — that almost the whole business would be 

 transacted in English. Not only would the French language be crowded out of the proceedings, but 

 departments of literature that French-Canadians have made their own might be neglected. Besides, 

 the French section has vindicated its right to exist. The members belong to one Province, and are 

 therefore able to meet in Ottawa or Montreal far more regularly than the members of the English 

 section, who are scattered over half-a-dozen provinces, all the way from Nova Scotia to the Saskatche- 

 wan. They conti'ibute, too, a sufficient number of papers to take up all the time that can be allowed 

 at the annual meetings, and there is an audience sufficiently large for discussion and criticism. 



It is different with the section to which I have the honour or the misfortune to belong. From its 

 birth it has been in a condition of anaîmia. A good many valuable papers have been contributed, but 

 they belong to one department or another of science rather than to pure literature. Indeed, the first 

 president of the section could not avoid expressing in his inaugural address his regret at the assign- 

 ment to us of what to some, he naively remarked, might "appear to be its pre-eminent characteristic." 

 "The vague comprehensiveness of the title of English literature," he went on to say, "will, I believe, 

 only hamper and weaken this section ; and I earnestly trust that — except in so far as the adequate 

 treatment of any of the subjects of so comprehensive a field of study and research may be assumed to 

 furnish contributions to English literature — that department will no longer be assigned to us ; but that, 

 in lieu of it, the entire work properly included under the titles of history and archaeology, with what- 

 ever else may be recognized as legitimately embraced in the term ' allied subjects,' shall constitute the 

 work of the section." No language could express more forcibly the melancholy conviction of our first 

 president that there was really no function to be discharged by " the English Literature Section" of 

 the Eoyal Society. Lord Lansdowne did not propose anything so sweeping as the removal of English 

 from the English Literature Section. That, he must have felt, would be making us something like 

 the proverbial dish of bacon and beans without the bacon. But, evidently from the same feeling of 

 embarrassment that instigated the expression of the president's hope, he suggested that we might take 

 the place, to some extent, of the English historical manuscript commissions, whose task is to investi- 

 gate and report upon the great mass of valuable materials which are scattered about the country. I 

 am afraid that that would simply mean that we should do badly the work which the Dominion 

 archivist, Mr. Brymner, is doing well. 



It is time, then, it seems to me, that the societj- should face the question, whether there should 

 be an English Literature Section or not. Philology, archa;ology, geography, Indian antiquities, philo- 

 sophy, constitutional history, are all interesting and important subjects, but they are not literature. 

 Can there be an English Literature Section, and what functions should it dischai-ge ? To get a satis- 

 factory answer to this question, let us consider what were the functions the French Academy set 

 before itself. It is the oldest and the most celebrated literary society in the world, and its history 

 may be a guide to us. 



From the date of its formation by Cardinal Eichelieu in 1635. the academy set before itself two 

 great aims : to preserve the purity of the French language, and to draw up unalterable standards of 

 literary excellence to which all writers must conform. It may be questioned whether its influence 

 has been wholly good along either of those lines, or whether the good that it has done might not have 

 been attained even had the academy never existed. French authorities declare that, so far as language is 

 concerned, it has been a barrier to enrichment, and that it has repressed rather than encouraged genius 

 and national life. M. Paul Albert satirically recounts its early labours in drawing up the dictionary 

 and in criticizing Corneille. " Eichelieu," he says, like all true tyrants, had literary pretensions," and 

 meant that it should be his slave. He intimated, for instance, that the academicians should censure 

 the "Cid." They hesitated, but his Eminence gave the word through his factotum, Bois-Eobert, 



