7 
SF 
112 BAILLY. 
nobleness.’” And Voltaire wrote, on the 1st of March, 
“T have read, while dying, the little book by M. de Con- 
dorcet; it is as good in its departments as the éloges by 
Fontenelle. There is a more noble and more modest 
philosophy in it, though bold.” 
And excitement in words and action could not be legit- 
imately reproached in a man who had felt himself sup- 
ported by a conviction of such distinct and powerful 
influence. 
Among the éloges by Bailly, there is one, that of the 
Abbé de Lacaille, which not having been written for a 
literary academy, shows no longer any trace of inflation 
or declamation, and might, it seems to me, compete with 
some of the best éloges by Condorcet. Yet, it is curi- 
ous, that this excellent biography contributed, perhaps 
as much as D’Alembert’s opposition, to make Bailly’s 
claims fail. Vainly did the celebrated astronomer flatter 
himself in his exordium, “that M. de Fouchy, who, as 
Secretary of the Academy, had already paid his tribute 
to Lacaille, would not be displeased at his having fol- 
lowed him in the same career ..... that he would not 
be blamed for repeating the praises due to an illustrious 
man.” 
Bailly, in fact, was not blamed aloud; but when the 
hour for retreat had sounded in M. de Fouchy’s ear, with- 
out any fuss, without showing himself offended in his self- 
love, remaining apparently modest, this learned man, in 
asking for an assistant, selected one who had not under- 
taken to repeat his éloges; who had not found his biog- 
raphies insufficient. This preference ought not to be, 
and was not, uninfluential in the result of the compe- 
tition. 
Bailly, if Perpetual Secretary of the Academy, would 
