Italian drama, notices the opinion of Calsabigi, that the decline of dramatic poetry in Italy was caused by "the want of permanent companies of players and of a capital." In Italy and Germany, says Schlegel, "where there are only capitals of separate states but no general metropolis, great difficulties are opposed to the improvement of the theatre."[1] These observations of an Italian and a German critic suggest the most vital distinction in the literary development of England and France—the different degrees of literary centralism reached by the two countries.
In the literature of France, since the firm establishment of centralised monarchy in the seventeenth century, we everywhere feel the presence of that centralising spirit which in the Académie Française found a local habitation and a name. Mr. Matthew Arnold, in his essay on the literary influence of academies,[2] has shown how much may be said for literary centralism. The improvement of the French language, as the statutes of the Academy bear witness, was the great aim of the institution; and opponents of such institutions must admit the usefulness of this aim and the success of the Academy in this direction. In a democratic age, moreover, when, as De Tocqueville observed, accuracy of literary style is liable to be lost in the temporary predominance of inferior work, a central tribunal may maintain an ideal of style which in the rush of trade-literature is likely to be trampled underfoot. Still, Mr. Arnold's conception of provincialism cannot be accepted either as in harmony with English literary development in the past, or as a prophetic forecast of its future. A critic, himself thoroughly imbued with the spirit of French criticism,
- ↑ Dramatic Art and Literature, lect. xvi.
- ↑ Essays in Criticism, pp. 42, sqq. (ed. 1884)
