of a member of the early Academy of Sciences. The biographies which will
soon follow this, will show that the studies I have undertaken
respecting Carnot, Condorcet, and Bailly, have not prevented me from
attending seriously to our illustrious contemporaries.

To render them a loyal and truthful homage, is the first duty of the
secretaries of the Academy, and I will religiously fulfil it; without
binding myself, however, to observe a strict chronological order, or to
follow the civil registers step by step.

Eulogies, said an ancient authority, should be deferred until we have
lost the true measure of the dead. Then we could make giants of them
without any one opposing us. On the contrary, I am of opinion that
biographers, especially those of academicians, ought to make all
possible haste, so that every one may be represented according to his
true measure, and that well-informed people may have the opportunity of
rectifying the mistakes which, notwithstanding every care, almost
inevitably slip into this sort of composition. I regret that our former
secretaries did not adopt this rule. By deferring from year to year to
analyze the scientific and political life of Bailly with their scruples,
and with their usual talents, they allowed time for inconsiderateness,
prejudice, and passions of every kind, to impregnate our minds with a
multitude of serious errors, which have added considerably to the
difficulty of my task. When I was led to form very different opinions
from those that are found spread through some of the most celebrated
works, on the events of the great revolution of 1789, in which our
fellow-academician took an active part, I could not be so conceited as
to expect to be believed on my own word. To propound my opinions then
was insufficient; I had also to combat those of the historians with whom
I differed. This necessity has given to the biography that I am going to