In 1768, Bailly obtained the award of the prize of eloquence proposed by the Academy of Rouen.  The subject was the eloge of Peter Corneille.  In reading this work of our fellow-academician, we may be somewhat surprised at the immense distance that the modest, the timid, the sensitive Bailly puts between the great Corneille, his special favourite, and Racine.

When the French Academy, in 1768, proposed an eloge of Moliere for competition, our candidate was vanquished only by Chamfort.  And yet, if people had not since that time treated of the author of “Tartufe” to satiety, perhaps I would venture to maintain, notwithstanding some inferiority of style, that Bailly’s discourse offered a neater, truer, and more philosophic appreciation of the principal pieces of that immortal poet.

DEBATES RELATIVE TO THE POST OF PERPETUAL SECRETARY OF THE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.

We have seen D’Alembert, ever since the year 1763, encouraging Bailly to exercise himself in a style of literary composition then much liked, the style of eloge, and holding out to him in prospect the situation of Perpetual Secretary of the Academy of Sciences.  Six years after, the illustrious geometer gave the same advice, and perhaps held out the same hopes, to the young Marquis de Condorcet.  This candidate, docile to the voice of his protector, rapidly composed and published the eloges of the early founders of the Academy, of Huyghens, of Mariotte, of Roemer, &c.

At the beginning of 1773, the Perpetual Secretary, Grandjean de Fouchy, requested that Condorcet should be nominated his successor, provided he survived him.  D’Alembert strongly supported this candidateship.  Buffon supported Bailly with equal energy; the Academy presented for some weeks the aspect of two hostile camps.  There was at last a strongly disputed electoral 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 asperity.  They said that D’Alembert had “basely betrayed friendship, honour, and the first principles of probity.”

They here alluded to a promise of protection, support, cooeperation, dating ten years back.  But was his promise absolute?  Engaging himself personally to Bailly for a situation that might not become vacant for ten or fifteen years, had D’Alembert, contrary to his duty as an academician, declared beforehand, that any other candidate, 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 imputations.