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 legitimately reproached
in a man who had felt himself supported 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 curious,
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 followed 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, without 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 undertaken to
repeat his éloges; who had not found his biographies insufficient. This
preference ought not to be, and was not, uninfluential in the result of
the competition.

Bailly, if Perpetual Secretary of the Academy, would have been obliged
to reside constantly at Paris. But Bailly, as member of the Astronomical
Section, might retire to the country, and thus escape those thieves of