THE POST OF PERPETUAL SECRETARY. LE 
presented for some weeks the aspect of two hostile 
camps. There was at last a strongly disputed electo- 
ral battle ; the result was the nomination of Condorcet. 
I should regret if we had to judge of the sentiments 
of Bailly, after this defeat, by those of his adherents. 
Their anger found vent in terms of unpardonable as- 
perity. They said that D’Alembert had “basely be- 
trayed friendship, honour, and the first principles of 
probity.” 
They here alluded to a promise of protection, support, 
-codperation, dating ten years back. But was his prom- 
ise absolute? Engaging himself personally to Bailly for 
a situation that might not become vacant for ten or fif- 
teen years, had D’Alembert, contrary to his duty as an 
academician, declared beforehand, that any other candi- 
date, whatever might be his talents, would be to him as 
not existing? 
This is what ought to have been ascertained, before 
giving themselves up to such violent and odious imputa- 
tions. 
Was it not quite natural that the geometer D’Alem- 
bert, having to pronounce his opinion between two hon- 
ourable learned men, gave the preference to the candi- 
date who seemed to him most imbued with the higher 
mathematics? The éloges of Condorcet were, besides, 
by their style, much more in harmony with those that 
the Academy had approved during three quarters of a 
century. Before the declaration of the vacancy on the 
“27th of February, 1773, D’Alembert said to Voltaire, 
relative to the recueil by Condorcet, “Some one asked 
me the other day what I thought of that work. I an- 
swered by writing on the frontispiece, ‘Justice, propri- 
ety, learning, clearness, precision, taste, elegance, and 
