485 
of Edinburgh , Session 1877 - 78 . 
circle of his contemporary readers, and his Latin writings, not being 
in classical style, and being full of pregnant thoughts, wise and 
witty sayings, and the happiest metaphors, are easily translated into 
any language, and are a treasure for all the world. In conclusion, 
it is as an inspired seer, one of the greatest of men of letters, and 
the prose-poet of modern science, that I reverence Lord Bacon, and 
have ventured to make him the first topic of the evening. 
Our own Royal Society doubtless borrowed its title and partly its 
idea from the Royal Society of London. I am proud to think that 
this Society is an emanation from the University of Edinburgh, 
from which it sprang, on the suggestion of Principal Robertson, in 
the latter part of 1782. Thus, in the same year when the University 
will celebrate its tercentenary, this Society will be able, perhaps 
conjointly, to celebrate its hundredth birthday. But in one essential 
particular we differ from the Royal Society of London, whose 
function was thus defined in 1663 : — “ To improve the knowledge of 
natural things, and all useful arts, manufactures, mechanic practices, 
engines, and inventions, by experiments (not meddling with divinity, 
metaphysics, morals, politics, grammar, rhetoric, or logic).” These 
exclusions form no part in our constitution. On the contrary, from 
the first, the promotion of literature as well as science was the object 
of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I may say, then, that the name 
of Bacon, as one of the greatest stars of literature, has a double 
claim upon our regard. But it has been observed that the literary 
element in our proceedings has been gradually dwindling away. 
Principal Forbes, fifteen years ago, spoke of the difficulties under 
which we laboured owing to a change in the manners of society, and 
to our having become less “clubable,” or less intellectually sociable, 
than our ancestors used to be a hundred years ago. And he exhorted 
the then fellows to bestir themselves in the production of papers. 
I have inquired the number of papers, not connected with physical 
science, which have been contributed during the last fifteen years, and 
it appears to be considerably less than forty, or little more than two per 
annum. And of these, seven were contributed by Professor Blackie 
on classical or philosophical subjects, four by Lord Neaves chiefly on 
philology, three by Dr John Muir on Indian antiquities, three by 
Mr Wyld on metaphysical topics, two by Sir James Simpson 
on archaeological questions, two by Mr Skene on Celtic topography 
