Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/488

 484 Bailey the history of English learned societies of letters with a con- sideration of the quantity and quality of their contribution to criticism and literary history and states the conclusion that "the greater part of the scholarly accomplishments in the field of literature during the last century was due to the activi- ties of the learned societies," since, after a long and varied process of cut and try, "co-operation in these societies has given definition to method and conscience in scholarly pur- suits" (p. xiii). In conformity with the modern trend toward compilation and specialization, the author spreads before us such a mass of information, so well arranged and so logically presented, that we cannot escape his conclusion, nor can we doubt the Columbia imprimatur, assuring us that the volume is a worthy contribution to knowledge. During the progress of the work the plan was changed from the presentation of a bibliography with a brief introduction to the use of the introduction alone as sufficient to satisfy the special requirement. We regret that the plan could not be further changed to include some discussion of the relationship of the various men to the life of their times. However, supplied as the volume is with a bibliography of all publications mentioned in the text and with an excellent index of proper names, societies, and literary works, it should prove of substantial value as a reference work in connection with histories of literature. The very brief Introduction is a summary of conclusions. Chapter I is a definition of the field, in general that of philo- logical criticism and research. This does not include, however, "what is generally known as the 'academy,' the purpose of which is to establish canons of literary taste, and to facilitate and correct the growth of the vernacular" (p. 2), nor groups of literary men which might be termed authors' clubs, like the Areopagus founded 1579 or Tennyson's Apostles, but deals only with the learned society of letters. The object of such societies, in whole or in part, is "to preserve literary monuments, to use them for the illumination of the national background, to cultivate historical knowledge, to concentrate it by discussion, to diffuse it through publication" (p. 4). In spite of this clear definition and restriction, however, Dr. Steeves might have brought out more clearly the fact that we are not to hear exclusively of this one type of organization. The major part of his work, Chapters V through VII, keeps, of course, to this distinction. For the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, he chronicles attempts toward the establishment of an "academy" as well, for in the early societies purposes were confused, were not always clearly set forth, were perhaps not even understood by all of the members. The fact should have been emphasized, moreover, that we can determine nothing