THE PARIS INTERNATIONAL LITERARY CONGRESS, 1878, AND THE INTERNATIONAL LITERARY ASSOCIATION.

BY C. H. E. CARMICHAEL, M.A.

(Read June 25th, 1879.)

THE fact of the assembling in London this year of the Second International Literary Congress seems to render it desirable that I should take the present opportunity for giving our Society some account of the first Congress, which I attended in Paris last year, as one of the delegates nominated by the Council.

The idea of convoking such a meeting originated, we are informed, with the "Société des Gens de Lettres de France," which has its head-quarters in Paris, and which has for its President one of the most widely known of living French authors, M. Edmond About. The work and the object of the French "Société des Gens de Lettres" alike differ in several essential respects from our own. While the Royal Society of Literature is, in the terms of its Charter, a scientific, collegiate body, dealing with Literature from its philosophical and theoretical rather than its active side, the "Société des Gens de Lettres" seems to me, if I understand its constitution rightly, to be, in the main, a Society for the protection of the rights of authors. Such an object

is in itself, of course, a good one, and it may be more or less necessary in particular countries that societies should be constituted to carry it out. But it is work of an entirely different kind from that which we were founded to do; and it is work which, as I read our Charter, we could certainly not undertake without an alteration in our constitution such as I see no reason to urge upon this Society. I say this much on the subject of the character of our Society and the "Société des Gens de Lettres," in order that my conception of their respective fields of work may be made clear at the outset, and in order that it may be seen at once that I shall throughout regard them, and any societies founded through the agency of either, as entirely distinct bodies, each with a good work of its own to do. In so far as I need state my personal opinion, it is to the effect that, whether as regards the parent French Society, of which I have first of all spoken, or the International Literary Association, of which I shall presently speak, independent action will be best for all parties.

I wish well to all good work that is done for Literature from any one of its many sides, but I can see no advantage in attempting to fuse separate lines of thought and of action, which I believe likely to produce better results by being kept apart.

Having thus defined the point of view from which I shall consider the work of the Paris Literary Congress, it may be well that I should introduce you to some of its leading members, before proceeding to give an account of the part they played in the discussions, and of the subjects they brought before our notice. "Facilè princeps," I need scarcely say,

stood the name and the fame of Victor Hugo, whose oratory seemed to have all the fire of a renewed youth, as he apostrophised the nations of the world, and called up the memories of their literary glory in the great public meeting at the Châtelet. Of Edmond About, his versatile genius, and his keen satire, it is hardly necessary to remind any one here to-night. But, on the whole, it was rather the practical side of his character, of which we had evidence during our sessions in the hall of the Grand Orient" of France. One of the most attractive figures in the gathering was undoubtedly the venerable Ivan Tourgenieff, the Nestor of contemporary Russian literature. His patriarchal appearance and his unvarying gentleness of manner could not but make him one of the most charming of colleagues. But his very gentleness, not being supplemented by the firmness necessary to the chairman of a mixed and often discordant meeting, rendered his tenure of the presidential chair but too often the sign for a Literary Babel. From halfa-dozen points, at least, would rise the cry, "Je demande la parole!" with perhaps opposing cries of "Clôture !" according as our brethren of the Congress either wanted to air their particular views, or to stop the mouths of would-be orators by getting the chairman to pronounce the discussion closed. To cope with such stormy scenes was clearly beyond the power of our Russian Vice-President; he had written powerfully of the "virgin soil" of his native land, and had sown Thought broadcast over that soil ; but the conduct of public meetings was evidently a virgin soil which Tourgenieff could not prepare for

the harvest. When he had tinkled his presidential bell, and made ineffectual appeals to our sense of order, which rarely went beyond an expostulatory "Mais, Messieurs !" despair seemed to settle down on him, until M. About, or some other strong-minded Vice-President, came to the rescue, and there was once more peace in Israel. I am afraid you will think from what I have been saying that we were a very unruly team to be harnessed to the chariot of Literature. I must admit that some of us did want to be kept firmly in hand, more especially in the General Meetings. But this was partly due, I think, to a want of organisation, which pervaded the entire arrangements of the Congress, as well as to the inordinate length of time, as it would seem to English minds, over which the sittings were spread. The result was, I think it would not be inaccurate to say, that nothing ever took place exactly as it was laid down on the programme, and that nobody ever knew exactly what was the question properly before the meeting. Such a " décousu " in the debates as I have felt obliged to confess, is entitled, under the circumstances, to a more lenient judgment than we might otherwise feel bound to pass upon it. And since in those debates" pars minima fui," I must ask you to extend this leniency of judgment to myself and my colleague at the First Literary Congress, and to believe that the delegates of our Society, at least, were not art and part in vexing the gentle soul of Ivan Tourgenieff. But it is sincerely to be hoped that the experience gained in the first meeting will not be lost upon the second, and that I may have in that respect a different story to tell of the London

Literary Congress.' If I may suppose myself of sufficient importance to have been a source of vexation to any one at the Paris Literary Congress, I think it must have been to the general body of members, who could not at all understand, or who at least appeared unable to understand, my reasons for abstaining from any voting whatever in the public sessions. In the sectional meetings which I attended, this line of inaction, if I may so term it, was, I believe, rightly appreciated. The fact was simply this, that having clearly defined my position before starting as a delegate "ad referendum,"-to watch proceedings and report upon them to this Society,-I did not feel that I could consistently give votes on a number of very complicated literary and juridical questions, most of which are still under discussion, and upon none of which would it have been desirable even to seem to bind this Society, unless I had been charged with a distinct opinion which, under particular circumstances, the Society might have desired to express. The section to which I attached myself, as being the one most directly connected with the subject of Copyright, contained within it, I think, the largest proportion of members of the French Bar. They at least, I believe, quite understood my line, as to which, if I had been inclined to waver at all, any doubts would have been set at rest, so far as my own mind was concerned, the moment my section took up

1 I had written this expression of my hopes before the London Congress had commenced its sittings. I leave it in my text to show the feelings with which I approached the Second Literary Congress, on the practical question of orderliness in debate. I regret to be obliged to say that in this respect the Congress, like certain exiled monarchs of old, had forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.