'^e. FRENCH ^ rh '^ ACADEMY ^m D.MACLAREN ROBERTSON •v 4 /•<, n!'r^%;vv"i:^f- ,' i i ^i^ '/ V'! '*!1>Sv' iM BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE ' ■ SAGE ENDOWMENT-FUND THE GIFT OF Hetirs W. Sage 1891 F\.-^^^^ '^'^ AvV>r^n Cornell University Library AS162.P23 R64 History of the French academy 1635(4)-1 olin 3 1924 029 692 310 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029692310 AUMAND DUPLESSIS CARDINAL DUKE OF RICHELIEU Founder of the French Academy [Frovtispiece A fflSTORY OF The French Academy 1635 [4]— 1910 WITH AN OUTLINE SKETCH OF THE IN- STITUTE OF FRA.NCE, SHOWING ITS RELA- TION TO ITS CONSTITUENT ACADEMIES BY D. MAGLAREN ROBERTSON ILLUSTRATED G. W. DILLINGHAM COMPANY PUBLISHERS NEW YORK COPTBIGHT, 1910 BT D. MACLAREN ROBERTSON Entered at Stationers' Hall London, England AU rights reserved A HISTORY OF THE FBENCH ACADEMY PREFACE The following history is the outcome of an investigation primarily midertaken, in connection with an examination of the record of the Florentine Academy of the Crusca, the French Academy, and the Spanish Language Acad- emy — ^to mention them in order of antiquity — as diction- ary makers, to satisfy personal curiosity as to the influence of a recognized national authority on national orthogra- phy, with conclusions which, so far as that matter is concerned, need not now be discussed. As the investi- gation proceeded, the author became so much interested especially in the French academical annals and related works which he had occasion to consult that it seemed to him as if a connected narrative presenting in its main features the story of the corporate life of an institution so renowned as the French Academy might also prove interesting to many others. Theoretically the sources of the author's information are open to all, but the facts here brought together be- tween two covers are collected from the works of so many different writers as to justify the assumption that some of them are not readily accessible either to the casual reader or to the student. A few of these sources, all authoritative works in French, are: (1) Pellisson and D'Olivet's "History of the French Academy" (edition of 1743, 2 vols.), together embracing the period from the Academy's embryonic condition and iv PREFACE its establishment as a public body in 1634 to 1700. Pellis- son's history is a record of the Academy's existence from its formative stage to 1652. It is in the form of a recital or letter addressed to a relative of its author, a gentleman of Languedoc, named De Faure Fondamente, but desig- nated only by the initials "D. F. F." at the head of Pellisson's work. He obtained his data from such relia- ble sources as the registers of the Academy, from memoirs communicated to him, and from conversations with per- sons who were eye or ear witnesses of what they related. D'Olivet's history takes up the tale where Pellisson's leaves off, and continues it from sources equally authen- tic, as the registers of the Academy and personal memoirs. The combined histories were published under the name of both authors, and went through three editions in D'Oli- vet's lifetime, the third, revised and enlarged, bearing the date of 1743. (2) In 1858 Pellisson and D'Olivet's History was re- printed, with an introduction, notes, and pertinent ad- denda by C. L. Livet so voluminous as to swell it from two duodecimo voliunes to two handsome octavos; and not only does it bring the history of the Academy to near the middle of the eighteenth century by the aid of private correspondence between the Abb4 d'Olivet and President Bouhier (Parliament of Burgundy), but, through extracts particularly from the letters of Chapelain and Jean Guez de Balzac, it throws much new light on the narrative of both Pellisson and D'Olivet. (3) A short "History of the French Academy" by the Abb6 Duclos, the Academy's permanent secretary from 1755 to 1772. Though professedly a continuation of the work of Pellisson and D'Olivet, this history is of meagre PREFACE V proportions and detail, its most interesting contribution to our knowledge of the Academy being an account of the circumstances attending the election of the Count of Clermont. (4) A "History of Members of the French Academy" (1787), comprising six volumes of doges of Academicians deceased between 1700 and 1771, by D'Alembert, Du- clos's successor as permanent secretary, thus covering nearly the same period as Livet and Duclos; but these 6loges, besides having certain objections inseparable from that class of biography, treat but disconnectedly, where they do not ignore, those commonplace yet piquant inci- dents which as pleasingly diversify for the reader the biography of a famous literary institution as of a famous literary man. (5) A "History of the French Academy, from its Foundation to 1830," with the membership to 1857, the date of its pubhcation, by Paul Mesnard. In the article by Ferdinand Brunetiere on the French Academy in La Grande Encyclopedie it is pronounced "excellent." Mesnard was not an Academician, and frankly states in his preface that he did not possess inside information on his subject; but on that account perhaps, his work, which presents a comprehensive view of the institution in the compass of a single volume, divided into protecto- rates and treated chronologically, written with a freedom — sometimes a little too apologetic for the Academy, as if it were under obligation to dazzle the literary world — which shows us, besides the good side, some of the fail- ings of the famous Society of Fort.v as they might strike any impartial observer. It is proper to say, however, that Mesnard passes very lightly over the beginnings of vi PREFACE the Academy and, generally speaking, the interesting ground covered by Pellisson and D'Olivet. (6) Sainte Beuve's "Causeries du Lundi" (2nd ed., 11 vols., 1852-56), passim, and "Nouveaux Lundis" (13 vols., 1864-70), with reference to the article "Des pro- chaines Elections de I'Acad^mie" in Vol. I. and to the historical sketch in Vol. XII. entitled "L'Acad6mie Frangaise." (7) Tyrt6e Tastet's "History of the Forty Fauteuils since the Foundation to Our Days, 1635-1855" (new ed., 4 vols., 1855), in which only one hundred and fifty-seven of its more than two thousand pages are devoted to the Academy's general history, the rest, as the name implies, comprising biographical sketches of the Academicians in the order of their succession in each fauteuil from 1 to 40, and in that respect, as a history of the Academy, fragmentary. (8) Arsene Houssaye's "History of the Forty-first Fauteuil" (1855), which may be regarded as negative history of the French Academy, in that it enumerates and discusses those who, in the opinion of its author, should have occupied seats among the Forty. It helps to round out, in connection with the hst of membership of the Academy, the wonderful pageant of French Uterary celebrities of nearly three centuries. (9) The prefaces to the seven editions of the Dictionary of the Academy, published together at the beginning of the edition of 1877. These are particularly interesting from a philological point of view, giving as they do not only an outline of the history of the Dictionary, but, some reservation being made, of the scope of the ortho- graphic evolution of the French language, each preface PREFACE vii being, naturally, an example of the orthography observed in the new Dictionary and giving a summary of inno- vations. (10) Such works of reference as Larousse {Universel and Nouveau), La Grande Encyclop^die, the Annuaire of the Institute for the last hundred years, to which may be added gleanings from the contemporary press, besides collateral minor sources so numerous that any attempt to record them would appear ostentatious. Some of these are mentioned, as occasion requires, in the course of the work, in the text or in foot-notes. The latest history of the Academy in French is "Les Cinq Cents Immortels: Histoire de I'Acad^mie Fran- yaise, 1634-1906," by Emile Gassier. It includes, be- sides general history, four appendices, and more than fifty "Pieces Justificatives," biographical records of ex- actly five hundred Academicians, in the order of election, beginning with Conrart and ending with Etienne Lamy, elected 17th June, 1905 — hence the title. M. Jules Lemaitre says of it, in a short preface, that it " completes very happily that of Paul Mesnard." It was published after its author's death. Among famous Enghsh writers who have been con- sulted for their views of literary academies in general, or the French Academy in particular, may be mentioned Swift, Johnson, Scott, Hallam, Macaulay, Arnold — quotations from their opinions, for and against, being reproduced in connection with others by French authori- ties; but the object throughout has been to state well- authenticated facts in such a manner that any reader may draw his own conclusions and, having been intro- duced to the institution and its membership, be in a viii PREFACE position to improve on his own motion the acquaintance thus begun. This work, besides, not only forms an in- troduction to the French Literary history of nearly three centuries, but, without political discussion, which has been carefully eschewed, to French political history for the same period. Having thus explained the origin and the object of the work, perhaps the best way to commend it to the benevo- lence of readers and critics would be to let it speak for itself. This much, however, may be said: They will understand that original French extracts have the or- thography of their time or of their source, and that in the case of proper names of moot spelling and accentuation the form adopted is always well authorized. Moreover, the intention of the author being that any reader who takes an intelligent interest in literary history should find the book agreeable reading whether he understands French or not, French extracts, unless paraphrased in English in the text or in foot-notes, are also given in translation, an exception to this principle being the names of works in the short biographies, which it has been deemed best in nearly all instances to give in their French form. Also, in the matter of dates, where there is so often conflict of authority, no pains have been spared to insure accuracy. Finally, the Synopsis of Subjects at the end, with page references, will, it is hoped, be foimd on the whole as satisfactory as an alphabetical index. It has at least the advantage of keeping together closely related subjects. October, 1910. CONTENTS CHAP. PAGE I. GENERAL HISTORY: § 1. The Academt of the Old Ri^gime (1635[4]-1793) , WITH ITS Origin and Inception 1 § 2. Creation OP A National Institute: The French Academy in Complete Abeyance (1793-1803) ; IN Partial Abeyance (1803-1816) . . 112 § 3. The French Academy Re-established (1816) 127 § 4. Conspectus and Conclusions ... 142 postscriptum 199 II. THE DICTIONARY: § 1. The Dictionary Propbk .... 202 § 2. Supplementary: The Dedication of the First Edition op the Dictionary .... 233 III. MEMBERSHIP: J 1. The Fauteuil List and its Basis . . . 241 § 2. Permanent Secretaries 266 § 3. Alphabetical and Biographical List . . . 278 } 4. Chronological List of Membership by Protbc- torates and Administrative Periods . . 368 Sykopsis op Subjects ... .... 373 ILLUSTRATIONS Armand Duplessis, Cakdinal Duke of RicHELiEtr Frontispiece PAOB Medal commemorating the Installation op the French Academy in the Lotivbe; Jeton de PRfeENCB . 64 Frontispiece: Academy's Dictionary of 1694 . 79 Costume op an Academician . 116 Institute op France . . . 127 Title-page Design: Academy's Dictionaby op 1694 . . 202 Valentin Conrabt . . . 268 The French Academy CHAPTER I GENERAL HISTORY. §1. THE ACADEMY OF THE OLD REGIME (1635 [41-1793), WITH ITS ORIGIN AND INCEPTION. By name the French Academy is famihar to nearly every reader in any civilized country. Of all existing literary institutions there is none whose doings excite more general attention or call forth so much criticism. It is not merely a French national institution; it has, to the extent to which the French language is the medium of cosmopohtan intercourse, some claims to have apphed to it the term international. The filhng of a vacant professorial chair at a great university causes only a local or, at most, national ripple of interest, but the demise or the election of a French Academician, even a decision by the Academy as to the slope of an accent or some sHght change in French orthography, is heralded by the telegraph to the utmost ends of the republic of letters. Different French historians have not only given to the world volumes exclusively devoted to a record of the Academy's foundation and institutional life, but mere episodes in its history have been the motive for 2 THE FRENCH ACADEMY separate volumes, while the fugitive articles, by Acade- micians or others, having the Academy for their theme are legion. As often happens, however, with any complex subject which has long been or is continually before the public, the name is better known than the real character of the institution. Apart altogether from misinformation, so much has been written about the French Academy that much is taken for granted by casual chroniclers in what is now written : every notice or essay devoted to it cannot well be accompanied by a summary of its history. Hence it is that there are many persons, even well informed, who have only hazy notions concerning the Academy's constitution or its functions, or how it happens to be the premier division of the several organizations forming the Institute of France. In the French Academy we have a notable example of that characteristic in some men which induces them to connect themselves, if they can, with established fame. The honour of having led to the Academy's foimdation was disputed even in the century of its crea- tion, owing to conflicting pretensions or traditions; but the generally accepted origin is that outlined in the "History" of Pellisson, whose narrative has not only the value of being a record of contemporary events, but, it should not be forgotten, that of having been read before the assembled Academy, with the manifest purpose of undergoing its criticism — of having errors pointed out and gaps filled up of which members themselves, as part of the story, were cognizant. PeUisson, after read- ing his appreciative history, in December, 1652, was promised by the Academy the first vacant place in its GENERAL HISTORY 3 body, and in the meantime allowed to attend its sessions as a supernumerary with the same rights as an Acade- mician, the fact not to form a precedent, formal declara- tion being made that a similar privilege should never again be accorded to any one. In November, 1653, he replaced Serisay, or, as some say, Laugier de Porcheres. We are told in PeUisson's history that about the year 1629, when Louis XIII. was king and Cardinal Richeheu his first minister, a small circle of congenial spirits, to the number of nine — Messieurs Godeau, Gombauld, Chapelain, Philippe Habert, Germain Habert (Abb6 de C^risy), Conrart, Serisay, Malleville, and Giry — living in different parts of Paris, agreed to meet once a week at the home of one of their number; but the common rendezvous was usually at Conrart's, which was centrally situated, and so most convenient for all. At these meetings, which were social and informal, sometimes followed by a collation or a promenade in company, all the news of the day, everjrthing of interest, became the subject of discussion — indeed, they might have adopted as their motto: Quidquid agunt homines; but, as all of the friends were men of letters, or interested in literary production, books and their authors naturally received a large share of their attention. Not only so, but when any of their own number was writing or had written anything, it was the practice to read it before the company for the purpose of benefiting by the criticism of the others. DehghtfuUy informal and unpretentious as were these intellectual feasts, however, it would ap- pear, from a letter written by Chapelain to Godeau in the country, on or about December 8, 1632, that the friends were accustomed to speak very early of them- 4 THE FRENCH ACADEMY selves as "the Academy." Says Chapelain: "You will be sure to come then, and restore to us by your presence the contentment which God has withheld from us so long; you will even restore to us the Academy, of which you are the prince and the chief, each having put off until your return the assembly of our councils and the holding of our conventions {de nos 6tats)." Nothing more is needed to show in what high, not to say affectionate esteem Godeau, of whom Chapelain speaks in a letter to a common friend as a "noble spirit, candid and frank, working always for justice and good, without calculation, " was held in the little company. He later became Bishop of Grasse and Vence, but had not at this time entered the priesthood. His residence was at Dreux, his native place, whence he made occasional excursions to Paris, and when there stayed with Conrart, to whom he was distantly related. He wrote a good deal of prose and verse, chiefly of a serious kind, and it even appears that it was to hear the reading of some of his poetical effusions that the friends were brought together for the first time.* The story is likely enough. Godeau, a young man from the country, and diffident of his own judgment, would be glad to profit by the experience and enlightenment of polished Parisian wits. The first meeting having proved agreeable to all, what more natural than that their con- tinuance should be proposed and adopted? It was resolved by the friends that their assemblies. * II 6toit un peu parent de M. Conrart; il logeoit chez lui, quand it venoit h. Paris, et ce fut pour entendre la lecture des poesies qu'il ap- portoit de Dreux que M. Conrart assembla pour la premiere fois ces gens de lettres, dont les conferences bientfit apr&s donn^ent naissance i, rAcad^mie. — D'Ouvbt. GENERAL HISTORY 5 which were indeed contrary to an inquisitorial law of the time, as being held without official permission, should be kept secret; but, by an indiscretion of one of the nine, three other gentlemen — Faret, Desmarets, and Bois- robert — were apprised of the pleasant weekly reunion, and they too, from policy no doubt, were admitted to it. Of these three, Boisrobert — ^the Abb6 Boisrobert, by name Frangois le Metel — was a friend, or familiar, of Cardinal RicheHeu, and found occasion to mention to him the meetings, and what took place at them. This was in February of 1634. RicheHeu immediately sug- gested that the friends become an association under state authority, and requested Boisrobert to make such a proposal to them, which he did on the first opportunity. It was received with extreme dissatisfaction by all; two of them especially, who were attached to famihes unfriendly to the cardinal, advised that the proposition be respectfully declined. But such a course was deemed impolitic. An all-powerful minister could not safely be offended, and Boisrobert was authorized to accept in the name of the company the intended honour. The cardinal, so we are told, was much gratified at this de- cision, and directed Boisrobert to make known to them his desire that they should assemble as usual, and, having associated with themselves as many others as they thought expedient, discuss their plans for the future and the laws by which their Society should be gov- erned. As it was resolved that the new institution should have a membership of forty, its number was almost imme- diately increased to about thirty by selections from among the friends of members of the embryo association 6 THE FRENCH ACADEMY or those of new nominees. The policy of preference for residents of Paris, who could and would assist at con- ferences of the Academy, was established in making these nominations, and although the rule, eminently proper in the premises, has sometimes been relaxed, notably for the admission of high provincial dignitaries of the Church, it has generally been maintained. By the end of the year 1634 the membership numbered thirty-six, but it was only in 1639, says Pellisson, with the election of Priezac, that the roll of the original Acad- emy was completed. Strictly speaking, however, the full complement of forty was made up in 1636 by the election of Louis Giry, who, although one of the Con- rart coterie, was not among the first lot of Academicians enrolled, for the reason that he had latterly withdrawn from the meetings and so perhaps been lost sight of by his former friends when the official organization was begun. The thirty-ninth in this enumeration was Auger de MauMon de Granier, who entered the Academy in September, 1635. But in May, 1636, he was excluded at the request of Richelieu for having, it is said, misap- propriated certain funds intrusted to him by a religious sisterhood. Granier did not undergo formal expulsion under the rules dealing with such cases. His name appears simply to have been expunged from the rolls by general consent, and it is only by omitting it altogether that Priezac can be looked upon as a member of the Academy of foundation. Pellisson tells us that the firet Academicians were all men of much more than ordinary Uterary merit, and, all merit being comparative, he was probably right, although time and more brilliant successors, without as well as GENERAL HISTORY 7 within the Academy, have consigned their names to obscurity or oblivion. Most of them were of noble or of good family connection, and the unobtrusive fifteenth article of the Academy's Statutes established their equality in the Academy. Jean Guez de Balzac, one of the fathers of French prose, had retired from Paris to live in the country, but at Boisrobert's request appears to have applied for admission into the Academy, without knowing exactly the kind of institution of which he de- sired to become a member, or even its correct name, as indicated by his letters. One of these in particular, addressed to Chapelain, is interesting in view of the tenacity with which the Academy later maintained the principle of equality among its members and the indignar tion with which it resisted a proposal to have two orders of Academicians. While expressing satisfaction at the election of Siguier and Servien, Balzac says he does not like others who had been nominated, or, at least, that they should have a deliberative voice in the conferences. He thought they should content themselves by setting chairs and opening and shutting the doors. "In any case," he adds, "I beg that there may be two orders of Academicians, and remember at the first sitting to separate the patricians from the people." Chapelain in his reply expresses a general acquiescence in Balzac's sentiments respecting some of the new members, without, however, naming any. From the beginning of March, 1634, formal assemblies were held by the Academy, and the proceedings at them were duly recorded in minutes, one of the first questions discussed and settled being the name which the institu- tion should assume. There were then no other academies 8 THE FRENCH ACADEMY in France, and that of Acad^mie Frangaise (spelled at the time Frangoise), or French Academy, was chosen, as being at once modest and expressive. National in its comprehensiveness, without the change of a syllable it has been equally appropriate under monarchy, empire, and republic, and will so remain as long as the Academy and, let us hope, the French nation shall endure. It has, indeed, the objection that, other national academies hav- ing been created since the time when it was the solitary example of such national institutions in France, it is no longer strictly accurate; but so thoroughly has the predominance of the Academy of the Language been estabhshed that in a discussion of any other of the French academies it would be improper, sometimes even mis- leading, in a specific reference, to say "the French Acad- emy," unless the context made it perfectly clear that the Academy of the Language was not in question. Again, we not seldom see in our newspapers an announce- ment to the effect that so and so has been made an officer or, even more inexcusably, a member of the French Academy when appointed offiderd'academie (universitaire) , or an officer of the French teaching body, an honorary distinction which is sometimes conferred on foreign residents. It seems that for a time considerable uncertainty prevailed among the people about the Academy's proper designation. It was spoken of as the Eminent Academy (from the cardinal's title), as the Academy of Beaux Esprits, and as the Academy of Eloquence, names prob- ably at first applied to it figuratively or in a spirit of raillery; for the Academy was at the very beginning, as it has continued to be, a source of much gayety and GENERAL HISTORY 9 entertainment to the Parisians, thanks, in no small degree, to the Uvely exercise of their imaginative fac- ulties* There was, however, no real fomidation for these names, as the institution never called itself by any other than that of French Academy. Its members called themselves Academistes until the 12th of February, 1635, when, at the meeting then held, they chose in preference the name Academiden to designate one of their number, as a member of a learned society, for the sake of dis- tinction, and perhaps a little from motives of vanity .f It is one of the very few Hnguistic innovations originating within the Academy. Saint Evremont uses the older word in his clever satire of the "Comedie des Academistes pour la Reformation de la Langue Frangoise," which began to circulate in manuscript in 1638, but it was gradually displaced by the new. It is still occasionally used, even in the learned sense, but it appears to be regarded by the Academy, which has dropped it from * While Pellisson makes of the Conrart coterie an informal social and literary club, Messrs. Funck-Brentano and Paul d'Estr^e, in the third (1st August, 1909, p. 637) of a series of three very curious articles on "Figaro et ses Devanciers" in the Revue des Deux Mondes, imply that it was a society for the collection and dissemination of news. Thus, in discussing the early news "cabinets,"' or "bureaus," which were the forerunners of modem news-collecting agencies and newspapers, they say: "The French Academy itself was born of a society of newsmen (nouvellistes) whom Richelieu covered with his red mantle, and this is so true that, at its origin, it was named the 'Newsletter Academy' (academie gazitique)." t In the first edition of its Dictionary the Academy defines these two words as follows: Academicien, qui est de quelque Acad^mie de gens de lettres: les Acad&miciens de V Academie frangoise, les Acade- mieiem de la Crusca. Academiste, qui apprend ^ monter ^ cheval et autres exercices dans una Acadimie. 10 THE FRENCH ACADEMY the vocabulary of its Dictionary, as obsolete in every sense. Until the end of the year 1634 the Academy occupied itself in preliminary discussions, when at length its pro- posed constitution, in Statutes and Regulations, was presented to Cardinal Richelieu for his approval, which it received without delay. The only change required by him was in the fifth article, according to which Acade- micians bound themselves to "revere the virtue and memory of Monseigneur the Protector." His eminence preferred that they should not assiune this obligation, and the article was therefore suppressed. The rules as adopted, fifty in number, read as follows: Firstly. No person shall be received into the Academy who shaU not be agreeable to Monseigneur the Protector, and of good morals, good reputation, good intelligence, and fitted for academi- cal functions. 2. The Academy shall have a seal, by which shall be sealed in blue wax all acts despatched by its order; in which the face of Monseigneur the Cardinal Duke of RicheUeu shall be engraved, with the words roundabout: Aemand, c.uidinai, duc de Riche- lieu, PHOTECTBUB DE l'Academie FEANgoiSB, etohlie Van mil six cent xxxv, and a counter-seal, on which shall be represented a crown of laurel, with this legend: A l'immoetalitb; of which seals the impression may never be changed for any reason what- Boever. 3. There shall be three officers: A Director, a ChanceUor, and a Secretary, of whom the two first shall be elected every two months, and the other shall not be changed. 4. In making this election, there shall be placed in a box as many white balls as there shall be Academicians in Paris; two of which shall be marked, one with one black spot and the other with two: of these the first shall designate the Director and the second the Chancellor. 5. In the absence of the Director the Chancellor shall preside at all the meetings, ordinary and extraordinary, and in the ab- sence of the ChanceUor, the Secretary. GENERAL HISTORY ii 6. The Chancellor shall have in keeping the seals of the Academy, to seal all the acts despatched. 7. The Secretary shall be elected by the votes of the Academi- cians, assembled to the number of twenty at least. He shall note the resolutions of all the meetings and keep a register of them, sign all the acts which may be granted by the Academy, and keep all the deeds and instruments concerning its institution, its fxmction, and its interests, of which he shall not communicate anjrthing to any person without the permission of the Society.* 8. At the beginning of the year there shall be made two lists of all the Academicians, which shall be signed by aU the OflBcers, and carried to the registry offices of the H6tel du Roi and the Requites du Palais, to be referred to when necessary. 9. If any Academician shall desire to have a testimonial from the Society, as evidence of membership, the Secretary shall furnish him with a certificate signed by him and sealed with the seal of the Academy. 10. The Society may neither receive nor depose an Academi- cian, unless assembled to the number of twenty at least, who shall indicate their opinions by balls, of which each Academician shall have one white and one black; in case of a reception the number of white balls must exceed by four that of black; but, for deposition, the number of black balls must, on the contrary, exceed by four that of white. 11. In all other matters, voting shall be oral and in turn, without interruption or jealousy, without noticing with heat or disrespect the judgment of any one, without saying more than necessary, and without repeating what shall have been said. 12. When the votes shall be equal, the matter shall be post- poned for deliberation in another meeting. 13. If one of the Academicians shall commit any action un- worthy of a man of honour, he shall be suspended or deposed, according to the importance of his fault. 14. When any one shall be received into the Society, he shall be exhorted, hf whoever shall preside, to observe all the statutes of the Academy, and shall sign the act of his reception on the Secretary's register. * Compagnie in the original: translated "Society," here and elsewhere, because in English this term more commonly designates a learned body. 12 THE FRENCH ACADEMY 15. Whoever shall preside shall keep good order in the meet- ings as strictly and as civilly as possible, and in a manner fitting among equals. 16. He shall put all the questions which shall be brought forward in the meetings and announce the result, after having taken the opinions of all those present, in the order in which seated, beginning with whoever may be on his right, himseJf voting last. 17. The ordinary meetings shaU be held every Monday in the places which shall be judged most convenient by the Di- rectors, imtil it shall please the king to provide one, and shall begin at two o'clock after noon precisely. 18. Nothing shall be decided in the meetings, imless composed of twelve Academicians at least, and one of the three Officers. 19. No member who may be in Paris shall be dispensed from attendance at the meetings, and especially at those treating of the reception or deposition of an Academician, or the appro- bation of a work, without legitimate excuse, which shall be made in the Society by one of the members present, at the request of whoever may not have been able to attend. 20. Persons not members of the Academy shall not be ad- mitted to its meetings, ordinary or extraordinary, for any reason or on any pretext whatsoever. 21. There shall not be offered for dehberation any matter concerning religion; nevertheless, inasmuch as, in the works which shall be examined, it is impossible but that some propo- sition regarding that subject should be met with, as the noblest exercise of eloquence and the most useful discourse of the intelli- gence, there shall be nothing delivered on maxims of that nature ; the Academy submitting always to the laws of the Church,- in that which concerns things holy, the opinions and approbations which it shall give [? add, shall be] as to the terms and the form of the works solely. 22. Matters political and moral shall be treated in the Academy only in conformity with the authority of the Prince, the state of the government, and the laws of the realm. 23. Care shall be taken that there may not be employed in the works which shall be published under the name of the Academy or of an individual in the quality of Academician, any loose or licentious term, open to equivocal or evil interpretation. 24. The principal function of the Academy shall be to labour GENERAL HISTORY 13 with all the care and diligence possible to give exact rules to our language and to render it capable of treating the arts and sciences. 25. The best authors of the French language shall be dis- tributed among the Academicians for the purpose of noting the terms and phrases which may serve for general rules and of mak- ing a report of them to the Society, which shall judge of their utility and make use of them as necessary. 26. There shall be composed a Dictionary, a Grammar, a treatise on Rhetoric {une RMtoriqvs), and a treatise on Poesy (wne Poetique), after the observations of the Academy. 27. Every day of ordinary meeting, one of the Academicians, in his turn, shall make an oration in prose, of which the deUvery, by heart or by lecture, at his option, shall last a quarter of an hoiu- or half an hour at the most, on any subject he may choose, not to begin until three o'clock. The rest of the time shall be em- ployed in examining works which may be presented, or in labour- ing on the general compositions mentioned in the preceding article. 28. As soon as each of these orations shall have been de- livered in the Academy, whoever presides shall name two Com- missioners to examine it, who shall make their report upon it one month thereafter at the latest to the Society, which shall judge of their observations; and, in the month following, the author corrects those places which it shall have indicated, and, having communicated the corrections which it [? which he] shall have made to its Commissioners, if they shall find them in ac- cordance with the intentions of the Society, he shall place a copy of his oration in the hands of the Secretary, who shall issue to him the approbation thereof. 29. The same order shall be observed in the examination of the other works which shall be submitted to the judgment of the Academy, according to whose length whoever shall preside may name a greater number of Commissioners; and if any one of those he shall appoint alleges sufficient reason why he should be excused, another shall be named in his place. 30. The copy of the work which shall have been proposed for examination in the Academy, after having been read, shall be placed in the hands of the Secretary, for safe keeping; the author shall also dehver a copy to each of the Commissioners; and, when the composition shall have been approved, he shall deliver an- other, corrected, to the Secretary, who shall restore to him the 14 THE FRENCH ACADEMY first when handing him the act of approbation, which copy shall be signed by the Author, the Director, and the Secretary, for the justification of the Academy, if the work should be published in any other form than as approved. 31. The Commissioners shall make their report, within the time prescribed to them, of the work which they shall have ex- amined, imless, for important reasons, they should demand an extension, which shall be accorded or refused, according to the merit of the excuse, at the judgment of the meeting. 32. The Commissioners shall not communicate to any one the compositions with which they shall have been intrusted, nor the observations, and shall not retain a copy of them on pain of deposition. 33. Those who shall have been appointed to examine a com- position must, if they leave Paris, dehver it into the hands of the Secretary, with the remarks which they shall have made thereon; and if they should not have made any, the Academy shall name other Commissioners in their stead. 34. The remarks on the faults of a work shall be made with modesty and civiUty, and their correction suffered in the same spirit. 35. When a work shall have been approved by the Acad- emy, the Secretary shall write the resolution thereof in his register, which shall be signed] by the Director and the Chan- cellor. 36. The approbations which shall be delivered to the authors of works which shall have been examined in the Society shall be written on parchment, signed by the Officers, and sealed with the seal of the Academy. 37. All the approbations shall be given without eulogy, and conformably to the formulary which shall be inserted at the end of the present Statutes.* 38. To deUberate on the publication of a work by the Acad- emy, the meeting shall consist of twenty Academicians at least, Officers included; and, if there should not be a majority of four, * It is not given by Livet, but from the fact that an unvarying formula was used — simple and without eulogium, says PeUisson — it cannot have much stirred the emotions of the author who secured it. Formal, also, as was the certificate, he was forbidden to print it with the work approved. GENERAL HISTORY 15 the question shall not be considered settled, but shall be again discussed in another meeting. 39. The approbations of personal works may be proposed in a meeting of twelve Academicians and one of the Officers, and a majority of one shall suffice to accord them. 40. No one may print the approbation which he shall have received from the Academy; but he may insert at the &st or the last page of the printed work, by order of the French Academy. And, if he shall not have had the work examined in the Academy, or shall not have had its approbation, he may not indicate therein his quality of Academician. 41. Those who shall print compositions approved by the Academy may not change anything in them, after the appro- bation shall have been deUvered, without the consent of the Society. 42. If the dedication or the preface of a book be reviewed in the Society without the rest, approbation shall only be given for that which shall have been examined, and the author may not place in the printed work his quahty of Academician, although he may have the approbation of the Academy for a part of it. 43. The general rules which shall be made by the Academy, concerning the language, shall be followed by all members of the Society who shall write either in prose or in verse. 44. They shall also follow the rules which shall be made for orthography. 45. The Academy shaU only judge the works of those of whom it is composed ; and if it should be obliged for any reason to ex- amine those of others, it will only give its opinion, without mak- ing any censure and also without giving approbation. 46. Should anything be written against the Academy, no one of the Academicians shall undertake to reply thereto or to publish anything in its defence, without being expressly so charged by the Society, assembled to the number of twenty at least. 47. It is expressly forbidden to all those who shall be re- ceived into the Academy to reveal anything concerning the cor- rection, the refusal of approbation, or any other fact of that nature which may be important to the Society in general or to its individual members, under penalty of being expelled in dis- grace without the hope of reinstatement. 48. The Academy shall choose a printer, to print the works which shall be pubhshed under its name and those of its members i6 THE FRENCH ACADEMY which it shall have approved; but as to those which members may desire to publish, without approbation and without the quality of Academician, it shall be open to them to employ any printer they please. 49. The printer shall be elected by the votes of the Acadenu- cians and shall make oath of fidelity to the Society before the Director or whoever shall preside. 50. He may not associate any person with him so far as it shall concern the works of the Academy, or those which it shall have approved, of which he shall print nothing but from the copy which shall be delivered to him under the sign manual of the Director or the Secretary, and it shall be forbidden him to change anything therein without the permission of the Society, imder penalty of personally answering for the consequences, of reprinting it at his own expense, and of being declared fallen from the favour which shall have been accorded to him by the Academy. Leaving out of consideration the assemblies of literati held in the palace of Charlemagne toward the end of the eighth century and the Floral Games of Toulouse, insti- tuted in 1323 but not patented as an academy until 1694, together with sundry other obscure provincial hterary associations partaking of the academical character, it is not improper to speak of Baif's Academy, founded in 1570 during the reign of Charles IX. for the cultivation of music and poetry, and of the Academy of the Palace — Baif's Academy revived under Henry III. after a period of dormancy — so called because it held its meetings in the king's closet, as the only French predecessors of the French Academy; but the placing of the compilation of a dictionary of the language, at the behest of Richelieu, in the forefront of the Academy's programme of labours marks the Florentine Crusca as its real prototype. The authorship of the rules, which were manifestly made expressly for the French Academy, has been GENERAL HISTORY 17 ascribed to Chapelain and to Paul Hay du Chastelet, the truth probably being that they shared it not only with each other but with other members of the nascent Acad- emy. They were signed by Richeheu and sealed with his arms, and countersigned by Charpentier, his secretary. With certain modifications in practice they still nominally constitute the Academy's Regulations. In their perusal our attention is arrested by the first article. Although the words " Monseigneur the Protector" may be, and in the light of events perhaps should be, interpreted ab- stractly, yet literally they seem to imply that the Acad- emy did not look forward to a life beyond the term of that of Cardinal Richelieu, its founder; and, as will be seen later, it barely escaped extinction at his death. This interpretation is, however, apparently contradicted by the words "may never be changed for any reason whatsoever" in the second, and by what we are told of the original fifth article. With the original fifth the number of articles was probably but fifty, and to retain the round half-hundred there is some evidence in the construction of the present 49th and 50th that they were formed by dividing the concluding 50th as sub- mitted to Richeheu. This, of course, is not conclusive, as the same remark apphes to the 15th and 16th and the 43d and 44th articles. The French Academicians are from their number some- times spoken of specifically as the Forty, and jocosely from the motto of the counter-seal sometimes as the Immortals, the individual Academician in the same relation being an Immortal. Alas for the noblest of as- pirations, avowed without false shame by such "makers" of antiquity as Ovid, Horace, Virgil, and nearer our i8 THE FRENCH ACADEMY own time by such as Milton and Burns, justified, it is trae, by the event, but surely not dishonourable in the humblest. But the living Frenchman dreads ridicule more than the prospect of oblivion when dead, and the fire of satirical humour has banished the counter-seal, with its too ambitious motto, for corporate literary productions at least, from Academical publications. A rule soon modified was that regulating elections of new members, following the entry into the Academy of Laugier de Porcheres, who was allied with certain of the opponents of the minister, as one of the first forty. When Richelieu became informed of the nomination, he showed so much vexation that the Academy expressed a will- ingness to cancel it. The cardinal did not, however, avail himself of the offer, no doubt thinking that an ex- clusion solely on political grounds would make a bad impression on the public mind respecting the new insti- tution, which had yet to obtain its letters patent, as weU as among the Academicians themselves. But, to avoid in the future any similar misunderstanding, the Academy resolved that thenceforward a vote should be taken at two different meetings, by ticket, instead of orally as it had fallen into the habit of doing, to con- summate the election of a candidate, who should after nomination be presented to the protector, the choice made at the first meeting to depend for its confirmation at the second on the protector's approval. Formally, the supplementary rules were as follows: "1. In future, voting at elections shall be by ticket, and not orally, as heretofore. 2. Henceforth no Academician shall be re- ceived who has not been presented to the cardinal, and hae not received his approval." The second provision, GENERAL HISTORY 19 it will be observed, is really a corollary of the first article of the Academy's Statutes. In course of time the twentieth article was so far relaxed that the pubHc were admitted to the formal receptions of new Academicians, and on other special occasions, as at the distribution of academical prizes. The rule as to the election every two months, and later when the term was extended to three months, of a director and a chancellor was not always strictly ob- served, these officers sometimes acting for two or more terms without the formality of re-election. Serisay and Desmarets, the first holders of the offices, retained them uninterruptedly about four years, or until the Academy was completely established, with the induction of Pri^zac. A considerable number of the rules relate to works of members which were to be examined by the Academy, with a view to approbation. But the exacting condi- tions imposed upon the author and the unavoidable delays attending such examinations prevented, as may well be believed, this approbation from being much sought by Academicians.* It is true that they sometimes brought their works to the meetings, and read them in full Acad- emy, giving rise to a rurming fire of criticism that, as D'Olivet says, was both instructive and amusing. But, although so subtle in its refinements as to excite the im- patient ire of Richelieu, who would have liked to see the Academy more usefully employed, it was evidently not in the method prescribed by the rules. * II y a plusieurs beaiix rSglements sur ce sujet, mais les difficultes et les longueurs qu'on trouvoit k obtenir cette sorte d'approbation, ont fait que les Acad^miciens ne les ont point rechercli^es. — Pbllis- SON. 20 THE FRENCH ACADEMY An Academician is no longer under any restriction, except that of good taste, as to the announcement of his membership in the Academy, on a title-page or elsewhere, and he is, of course, at perfect liberty to have his works printed where and by whom he chooses. Perhaps there are some who still think that Academicians are bound to submit their works for review by the Academy, but no such obligation ever rested on them. In D'Olivet's time a behef to the contrary must have been current even in France, for he takes care to set his readers right on that head. "It is not," he says, "a law for them to consult the Society on their works: they are as much masters of their pens as if they were not Academicians; and, as the Society is responsible neither for their doctrine nor even for their style, they do not consult it except for their own satisfaction." Having agreed upon the rules by which its proceed- ings were to be governed, the next step for the Academy was to obtain its public charter. To Conrart, secretary of the king, as well as of the Academy, was intrusted the duty of drawing up the letters patent of the institution's foundation. Pellisson justly praises the stately dignity and elegance of stye of this instrument in the original, which, although couched in official language, yet has, as he says, a touch of the polish both of the Academy and the Court. It runs as follows: LOUIS, by the grace of God, King of France and Navarre, to all present and to come. Greeting. As soon as God had called Us to the conduct of this State, it was our aim not only to remedy the disorders which the civil wars, by which it has so long been afflicted, had introduced, but also to enrich it with all the adornments befitting the most 11- GENERAL HISTORY 21 lustrious and most ancient of all the Monarchies to-day in the world. And, although we have laboured without ceasing in the execution of this purpose, it has hitherto been impossible to Us to see its entire accompUshment. The risings so often excited in most of our provinces, and the assistance which We have been obliged to give to several of our Allies, have diverted Us from all other thought except that of war, and have prevented Us from enjoying the repose which We secured to others.* But as aU our intentions have been just, they have also had a happy issue. Those of our neighbours who were oppressed by their enemies now Hve in safety under our protection; pubUc tranquillity has made our subjects forget past miseries; and confusion has yielded to the good order which We have been the means of reviving among them, in restoring commerce, in causing the strict ob- servance of military discipline in our armies, in regulating our finances, and in restraining luxury. Every one knows the part which oiu- very dear and weU-beloved cousin, the Cardinal Duke of RicheUeu, has had in all these things, and We think it would do wrong to the sufficiency and fidelity which he has shown in all our affairs, since We chose him for our chief minister, if, in that which now remains for Us to do, for the glory and embeUish- ment of France, We did not follow his advice, and commit to his care the disposition and direction of the things thereto necessary. For this reason, having made known to him our intention, he has represented to Us that one of the most glorious signs of the happiness of a State is that Science and Art should flourish in it, and Letters be held in honour, as well as Arms, since they are one of the chief instruments of virtue; that, after having per- formed such memorable achievements, We had only to add the agreeable to the necessary, and ornament to utility, and that he judged We could not better begin than with the most noble of all the arts, which is Eloquence; that the French language, which until now has but too much felt the negligence of those who might have rendered it the most perfect of modern tongues, is more capable than ever of so becoming, in ^dew of the number of per- sons who have a particular knowledge of the advantages it pos- sesses, and of those who may further increase them; that to * Conrart had evidently been a student of the most stately of all books. Compare, not to speak of the general style of the letters, the language here with the response made by Solomon to Hiram's em- in I Kings, v., vs. 3, 4. 22 THE FRENCH ACADEMY establish exact rules for it he had appointed an Assembly, whose proposals had satisfied him: so that for their execution, and to render the French language not only elegant, but capable of treat- ing all the arts, and aU the sciences, nothing more would be necessary than to continue these conferences, which could be done with much benefit, if it pleased Us to authorize and permit the making of Regulations and Statutes for the order to be observed therein, and to gratify those of whom it shall be composed with certain honourable testimony of our benevolence: Wherefore, having regard to the utility which our subjects may receive from the said conferences, and inclining to the prayer of our said cousin, We have of our special grace, fuU power, and royal authority, permitted, approved, and authorized, do permit, approve, and authorize by these presents, signed by our hand, the said assemblies and conferences; We do wiU that they con- tinue henceforth in our good city of Paris, under the name of French Academy; that our said cousin may declare and name its head and protector; that its number be limited to forty per- sons; that he may authorize its Officers, its Statutes, and its Regulations, without the need of other Letters from Us than the present, by the which We confirm, now and henceforth, aU that he shall do in this regard. We do wiU, also, that the said Academy may have a seal, with such sign and inscription as shall be agree- able to our said cousin, to seal all the acts which shall issue there- from. And inasmuch as the labour of those of whom it shall be composed must be greatly useful to the Public, and that they must give up to it a part of their leisure, our said cousin having represented to Us that several among them could very seldom be present at the assemblies of the said Academy, if We did not exempt them from some of the onerous charges with which they might be burdened Uke our other subjects, and if We did not grant them the means of release from the need of pleading on the spot the suits which they might have in provinces distant from our good city of Paris, where the said assembhes are to be held : We have, at the prayer of our said cousin, exempted and do exempt, by these said presents, from all tutelle and curatelle, and from all watch and ward, the said members of the French Academy, to the said number of forty, now and hereafter, and have accorded and do accord to them the right of Committimus* of aU their * So called from the word beginning the patent granting the pri\-i- lege. GENERAL HISTORY 23 suits, personal, possessory, and hypothecary, as well prosecuting as defending, before our well-beloved and trusty Councillors the Masters Ordinary of Requests of our Hotel, or those holding the Requests of our Palais at Paris, at their choice and option, in the same manner as the domestic and commensal Officers of our household. Therefore We give order to our weU-beloved and trusty Councillors holding our Court of Parliament at Paris, Masters Ordinary of Requests of our Hotel, and to all others our Justiciars and Officers whom it shall concern, that they ^all cause to be read and registered these presents, and to enjoy all the things herein contained, and whatever shall be done and appointed by our said cousin the Cardinal Duke of Richelieu in consequence and in virtue hereof, all those who have already been named by him, or shall hereafter be named, to the number of forty, and those who shall succeed them in the future, to hold the said French Academy: causing to cease all hindrances and obstacles which may be opposed to them. And inasmuch as there may be ques- tion of these presents in divers places. We do will that to a copy certified by one of our well-beloved and trusty Councillors and Secretaries, credit be accorded as to the original. We command, in the first place, our Usher or Sergeant to take for the execution hereof all the necessary proceedings, without asking other per- mission. For such is our pleasure, notwithstanding excep- tions or appellations, for which we are unwilling it should be de- ferred, derogating to that end all Edicts, Declarations, Decrees, Regulations, and other Letters contrary to the present. And in order that this may be made a thing firm and stabUshed forever. We have caused to be affixed hereto our seal, without prejudice in other things to our right, and to that of others in all things. Given at Paris in the month of January, in the year of grace 1635, and of our reign the 25th. [Signed LOUIS, and indorsed on the fold De Lo- MBNIE. The letters passed the Great Seal on the 29th of Jan- uary; and M. Siguier, Keeper of the Seals and Chancellor of France, on their presentation for this purpose, re- quested that one of the four vacant places remaining in the Academy might be allotted to him, which was not 24 THE FRENCH ACADEMY only done with cheerful alacrity, but his name was placed first in the list of Academicians and a deputation sent to thank him for the honour he did the institution by becoming a member of it, in open derogation of the fif- teenth article of the Statutes. Although, thus, the Academy had been meeting regu- larly for nearly a year, and keeping a record of its trans- actions from the preceding March, the official date of its entry into existence is January 29, 1635, when the letters patent were sealed. Something more was, however, necessary to the legal standing of the Academy as a public body. This was the verification, or registration, by the ParUament of Paris of the letters, which was obstinately refused for two years and a half. Early in December, 1635, after nearly a year's delay in fruitless efforts by or on behalf of the Academy to obtain this official act, Richelieu wrote to First President Le Jay, begging him to use his influence with the Par- liament toward securing confirmation of the privileges accorded to the Academicians, as follows: Sir: I do not take up my pen to represent to you the merit of the persons of whom the French Academy newly estabhshed at Paris is composed, because, the majority having the honour of being known by you, in my opinion you are not ignorant of it; but rather to conjure you to have the kindness, for that reason, and the affection which I bear them generally and in- dividually, to contribute the authority which you have in your Parliament for the verification of the privileges which it has pleased His Majesty to accord them at my suppUcation, being useful and necessary to the public, and having a design alto- gether different from that which you may have been led to beheve hitherto. I have no doubt you will offer on this occasion for their satisfaction every facility in your power, and which they have reason to expect from my recommendations to you, assur- GENERAL HISTORY 25 ing you that, besides the obligation which these gentlemen will feel for the favour which you will confer upon them in this regard, I shall share in their gratitude by showing you mine wherever I shall have the means of serving you, and assuring you thereby that I am, Sir, Your very affectionate* servant, Cardinal Richelieu. December 6, 1635. This letter shows plainly how much importance its writer attached to the formality of registration, which, reversing the state of things prevaiHng in constitutional governments, invested the Parliament with a Hmited veto power over certain acts of the executive authority. No doubt commands, and wishes which are equivalent to commands, may be expressed with great suavity. But the minister's language is neither direct nor indirect command. On the contrary, it is rather that of a suitor, of entreaty, and is by no means such as we usually asso- ciate with the name and the memory of the despotic min- ister of imperious temper who had not long before forced the body over which Le Jay now presided to remain on its knees before the king in a penitential audience during which one of its decrees was cancelled and another in- scribed on its registers condemning the temerity of the first.t The cardinal's letter faihng of the desired effect, re- course was next had to the royal authority in lettres de cachet. Three of these famous instruments were issued: one, by request of the Procurator General, for himself and the Advocates General, another for the Parliament, * The French word being affectionne, it is perhaps more correctly rendered by the archaic affectioned, or well-disposed. t See Larousse (Dictionnaire Universe!), s.v. pablement. 26 THE FRENCH ACADEMY and the third for First President Le Jay. Such letters were usually as notable for their brevity as for their peremptory tone. One of the three here mentioned, quoted by Pellisson, may be taken as representative of them all, as all were conceived in similar terms, and is given below. It was addressed to "Our Well-beloved and Trusty Councillors, holding Our Court of Parha- ment of Paris." By the King. Our Well-beloved and Trusty: We have heretofore, by Letters Patent in the form of an Edict of the month of January last, willed and ordained the establishment of a French Academy in our good city of Paris, which, being composed only of persons of great merit and knowledge, cannot be other than highly ad- vantageous to the public, and to the reputation and increase of the French name. Wherefore, We do wiU and command that you proceed to the registration of the aforesaid Letters, accord- ing to their form and tenour, and secure to that Society the en- joyment of the privileges which we have been pleased to bestow upon it, without interposing any delay, restriction, or difficulty. Therefore, fail not herein: For such is our pleasure. Given at Saint Germain-en-Laye, the 30th day of December, 1635. [Signed LOUIS, and, farther down, De Lomentb. The Pariiament's opposition to and distrust of the Academy have been variously explained. It probably welcomed an opportunity to thwart the wishes of the first minister, who had humbled it to the very dust and stripped it of some of its ancient powers, or, at least, of powers to which it laid claim. But the real reason ap- pears to have been that given by PeUisson — ^the dread of a possible rival in the sphere of authority still left to it. Voltaire's opinion, in his "History of the Parlia- ment of Paris," attributes its hostility to a fear that the Academy would acquire jurisdiction over the pubhca- tion and sale of books. The supposition is not untenable. GENERAL HISTORY 27 It is possible, indeed, that the Parliament may have had in mind the Venetian commission of three — the Rifor- matori dello Studio di Padova — who presided over the University of Padua, including education in the Re- public, and that they saw in the Academy a body that might exercise similar or even more extensive functions. Nor was the vagueness of the language of the letters patent, so far as they related to the Academy's pursuits, calculated to dispel apprehension. Their scope is there left undefined, so that the Parhament, having only too good reason to fear encroachments on its privileges, may be absolved from the charge of mere factiousness. As if to justify the Parliament's fears, in June, 1636, when the royal commands remained unheeded, the car- dinal threatened, in disregard of its prescriptive rights, to have the letters patent presented for verification to the Grand Council, a body which itself occasionally in- vaded the Parhament's province. Some steps were even taken to that end, but the Councillor to whom the matter was intrusted for the purpose of having it brought be- fore the Council meantime sickened, and died after a lingering illness, which thus prevented its being carried through. Finally, however, on the 9th of July, 1637, the verification of the letters was ordered by the Parha- ment itself, and their registration was effected on the following day. Some of the Parliament's members, indeed, affected to bold the new institution in disdain and as unworthy of serious consideration in their body, among these being Councillor Scarron, father of the poet. When it came to his turn to vote on the letters, he gave it as his opinion that such a trivial matter reminded him of the Roman 28 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Emperor who, having deprived the Senate of the liberty to concern itself with public affairs, consulted it as to the best sauce for a turbot which had been presented to him. Richelieu did not forget the bitter jest, which is supposed to have had some influence in the subsequent banishment of Scarron, although ostensibly for other reasons, from Paris. The want of parliamentary confirmation did not pre- vent the Academy from assembling regularly, at the house of one or other of its members, but no longer continu- ously at Conrart's. Those who at different times har- boured the Academy during Richeheu's protectorate were, besides Conrart, Gomberville, Chapelain, Habert de Montmor, Boisrobert, and Desmarets, an amusing anec- dote being told about the meetings at Chapelain's. Never popular, in the wide sense of the word, from its creation to the present day, it should be mentioned that the hostility of the Parliament to the Academy had communicated itself to the general public, in whom, of course, the enmity was merely that of envy or ignorance. The story is that a certain Parisian merchant, who had made all arrangements for the purchase of a house in the Rue des Cinq Diamants, where Chapelain resided, ob- serving in it at regular intervals of time a great concourse of carriages, asked the reason. When informed that they were those of Academicians, he abruptly broke off negotiations, assigning no other reason than that he would not live in the same street with une cademie de manopoleurs — this, be it remembered, long before the Academy had a monopoly of anything, the remark ap- parently having reference to its unbounded jurisdiction over words, which would evidently have been a serious GENERAL HISTORY 29 matter for the worthy bourgeois, if any penalty at- tached to inaccuracy. At the Academy's early meetings the time was chiefly passed in listening to and commenting on the statutory weekly discourse, sonnets, ditties, and hke trifles. But in 1637 its first real work was taken up — was, in fact, thrust upon it, much as was its official dignity. Cor- neiUe's "Cid" had been recently pubhshed, and was received with almost unanimous applause. Everybody was given to quoting from the "Cid," and the saying, "As fine as the 'Cid','' became proverbial. It meant hterary perfection — that nothing could be finer. Car- dinal Richelieu, himself something of a dramatist, and, it is said, filled with jealousy at the poem's success, re- solved that the Academy should subject it to a critical examination. This he succeeded in effecting, and, as the "affair of the 'Cid'" is still sometimes spoken of as if it were one of the great blots in the Academy's annals, a detailed account of the whole proceeding may not be found unacceptable. Georges de Scud^ry, who was not yet of the Academy, partly, it would seem, out of complaisance to the car- dinal, had written an adverse critique of Corneille's poem, entitled "Observations contre le Cid," and appealed to the Academy in open and private letters to judge be- tween him and the poet, thus affording a pretext to Richelieu for demanding what he called an authorita- tive opinion on the merits of the work. The wishes of the cardinal having been made known to the Academy through Boisrobert, it evinced the deepest repugnance to the undertaking. Extremely sensitive to public opinion, as, in fact, it has generally shown itself to be, 30 THE FRENCH ACADEMY as well as perhaps resentful at the apparent attempt to make of it an instrument of oppression, it made a spir- ited resistance. It is said to have represented to its protector that it was contrary to its regulations and the letters of its erection to judge any work except by the consent and request of its author*; that, if the public could not endure with patience even the appearance of an assumption of authority over the language, it would be still less Ukely to tolerate an' officious meddling with a literary production to which it had given its enthu- siastic approval; that, besides, it would interfere with the execution of the Academy's main purpose, toward whose attainment the first step was the composition of a dictionary, to engage in any other enterprise. Riche- lieu would accept no denial. He had set his heart on an examination, and almost commanded the Academy to proceed with it. "Let these gentlemen know that I desire it," he is reported to have said to one of his de- pendants, "and that I shall love them as they shall love me." Thus admonished, the Academy could hardly do otherwise than submit — or disband. Its first ob- jection was removed. Corneille, who had everything to * Pellisson, who is the authority for this statement, was here evidently mistaken in part. The Academy may have objected the want of CorneUIe's consent, but it could not consistently have urged the objection in this form, because it did not then exist. The forty- fifth article of the Academy's Statutes does not explicitly call for the consent of the author to examination, and the letters of its founda- tion do so only by the rider of the Parliament at the time of verifi- cation, which had not yet taken place. Read in connection with the examination of the "Cid," one can almost believe the Academy endowed with a prophetic instinct in the wording of the forty-fifth article: "and if it should be obliged for any reason to examine those of others,'' etc. GENERAL HISTORY 31 lose and little to gain by any judgment of the Academy, was satisfied to abide by the favourable verdict of the public, and showed no disposition to jeopardize his suc- cess by accepting Scud^ry's challenge. But he was no more of a free agent than the Academy, and his consent was at last wrung from him. In a letter to Boisrobert, dated June 13, 1637, written from Rouen, he says: "The gentlemen of the Academy can do as they please. Since you write me that Monseigneur will be pleased to see their judgment and that it will entertain his emi- nence, I have no objection." On the 16th of the same month, as attested by the registers of the Academy, which Pellisson says were at this time well and faith- fully kept, the "Cid" came up for discussion after the reading of a letter from Comeille, presumably the one above mentioned, as there was ample time for it to have reached Paris and been' introduced in the Acad- emy.* The examination of the "Cid," thus reluctantly en- tered upon, occupied about five months. Three com- missioners — Chapelain, Bourzeys, and Desmarets — were * After stating that he does not know to what pressure Comeille had been subjected, PeJlisson adds: "Mais je sais bien par les re- gistres de I'Acad^mie, qui sont fort fiddles et fort exacts en ce temps-l&., qu'on ne commenga d'y parler du Cid, que le 16 juin 1637; que ce fut aprSs qu'on y eut lu une lettre de M. CorneiUe; que cette premiere dont je vous ai parl6, et ot il disoit: Messieurs de I'Aca- dimie peuvent faire ce qu'il leur plaira, etc., est dat^e de Rouen du 13 du m6me mois; qu'ainsi elle pouvoit etre arrivfie k Paris, et montr^e k I'Acad^mie le 16." Comeille had been an Academician for several years when PeUisson's history was read before the Acad- emy, but we are not informed whether he was present when the reading took place. The records of the Academy prior to 1673 are no longer in existence. 32 THE FRENCH ACADEMY appointed to examine the work as a whole. They ap- pear to have done so separately, for we are informed that their remarks were made into one report by Chapelain. The Academy itself, aided by the particular observa- tions of another group of Academicians — Habert de C^risy, Gombauld, Baro, and L'Estoile— gave its atten- tion to the verses in detail, Desmarets being charged with the orderly arrangement of the notes on this aspect of the poem. When the notes in outHne were ready, a copy of them was sent to Richelieu at Charorme, whence they were returned, with a few unimportant comments, some of them in the cardinal's own hand. In the cardinal's judgment the substance of the critique was good, but, to use his own expression, it needed to have "thrown into it a few handfuls of flowers." To be put into literary shape with the presumably necessary adorimient of damna- tion with faint praise, the notes were then delivered to the Abb6 de C^risy, whose personal sentiments concern- ing the "Cid" are expressed in a single terse sentence. When asked by some one what he thought of the poem, the prompt response of the abbe was, "Je voudrois I'a- voir fait" — "I should hke to have produced it." Some leaves of his revision having been shown to the cardinal, their tone was probably found too sympathetic, for the notes were now handed over to Sirmond, who, with Chapelain, had been first summoned to an interview with the cardinal on the subject. Sirmond's work, how- ever, was received with even less favour than that of the Abb6 de C^risy. Finally they were intrusted to Chape- lain, under whose hand the critique was so fashioned as to receive the approval of the cardinal as well as of the Academy. But the finished work, we are assured, was GENERAL HISTORY 33 the same in all essential particulars as when first sub- mitted to his eminence. At length completed and printed, the treatise, under the name of "Sentiments de I'Acad^mie sur le Cid," was given to the public early in December, the last step being made as unwillingly as the first. There appears to have been no animus against Corneille on the part of the Acad- emy. On this point a few extracts from Chapelain's private letters, pubUshed by Livet in his "Pieces Jus- tificatives," are conclusive. To GoDEAU, November 12, 1637. In fifteen days Camusat [the Academy's printer] will send you the trial of the "Cid, " which at last we have been compelled to give to the pubUc. To Saint Chartres, November 27, 1637.* By the end of the coming week the printing of the "Senti- ments de I'Acadlmie" against the "Cid," or, rather, on the "Cid" wiU be finished, and I believe you will be long enough at home to receive the copy which Camusat will send you. To THE Same, December 24, 1637. You will doubtless have received the work of the Academy on the "Cid," and from it have seen that there is nothing impossible to t ; for that publication was one of the most difficult things to make us execute of any which he ever attempted. But est factum, quodcunque cupit. To GoDEAU, December 25, 1637. I shall not send you . . . the treatise of the Academy on the "Cid," although, for the large part which I had in it, to my very great regret, I ought to make you a ceremonious presenta- tion of it. *This letter nearly fixes the date of publication of the "Senti- ments," or, according to the spelling of the time, "Sentimens," as the first week in December. t Richelieu. 34 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Something of Chapelain's private opinion of the "Cid" is suggested in a letter to Balzac of 11th September, 1639, nearly two years after the examination: "I do not know what has made me appear out of humour with Scud^ry, unless it is because of his importunity about my portrait. . . . For the rest, he has nobility of soul, and often most forceful expressions. In that 'Amour Tyrannique' he has surpassed himself; but, for all that, he has not surpassed the 'Cid,' however defective we have found it." Corneille, writing to Boisrobert on 3rd December, says: " I am preparing to have nothing but thanks to respond to the Academy." On the 23rd of the same month, in another letter, in which he thanks Boisrobert for ena- bling him "k toucher les liberalitez de Monseigneur, " al- luding to his pension, after having seen the "Sentiments" and found that they were not all praise, he complains bitterly of the Academy 's actions in proceeding to sit in judgment on him without first ascertaining his pleasure. Scud^ry considered himself justified by the Academy, and sent to it a letter of thanks, which was politely ac- knowledged by the Secretary. He was informed, in effect, that it had not been the Academy's intention to sustain one view or another, but to act as an impartial judge. The public, which was certainly not prejudiced against Corneille, received the "Sentiments" favourably, so that the Academy rather gained than lost prestige by its somewhat hazardous essay. Hallam's opinion of the "Sentiments" is given in his "Literary History of Europe," as follows: "These are expressed with much respect for CorneUle, and profess to be drawn up with his assent, as well as at the instance GENERAL HISTORY 35 of Scud6ry. It has been not uncommon to treat this criticism as a servile homage to power. But a perusal of it will not lead us to confirm so severe a reproach. The Sentimens de I'Acad^mie are drawn up with great ^ood sense and dignity. . . . The particular judgments which they pass on each scene of the play, as well as those of the style, seem for the most part very just, and such as later critics have generally adopted; so that we can really see little ground for the allegation of undue compliance with the Cardinal's prejudices, except in the frigid tone of their praise, and in their omission to proclaim that a great dramatic genius had arisen in France. " Mr. Hallam fortifies his conclusions as to the justice of the Academy's criticisms in a foot-note, as follows: "They conclude by saying that in spite of the faults of this play, *la naivete et la v^h^mence de ses passions, la force et la delicatesse de plusieurs de ses pensees, et cet agrlment inexplicable qui se mSle dans tous ses defauts lui ont acquis un rang considerable entre les poemes Frangais de ce genre qui ont le plus donn^ la satisfaction. Si I'auteur ne doit pas toute sa reputation a son m^rite, il ne la doit pas toute k son bonheur, et la nature lui a iti assez lib^rale pour excuser la fortune si elle a 4te prodigue, "The Academy, justly, in my opinion, blame Comeille * "the naivete and the vehemence of its passions, the force and the delicacy of some of its thoughts, and that inexplicable charm which pervades all its defects have gained for it a considerable rank among the French poems of this sort which have most given satisfac- tion. If the author does not owe all his reputation to his merit, he does not owe it all to his good luck, and nature has been sufficiently liberal to him to excuse fortune if she has been prodigal." 36 THE FRENCH ACADEMY for making Chimene consent to marry Rodrigue the same day that he had killed her father. *Cela surpasse toute sorte de cr^ance, et ne pent vraisemblablement tomber dans I'ame non seulement d'une sage fille, mais d'une qui seroit le plus d^pouilMe d'honneur et d'humanit^, &c. p. 49." The author of the Discours Preliminaire to the fifth edition of the Dictionary, who will not be accused of partiality to the early Academy, says, in reference to its authority : " The critique of the ' Cid, ' so superior to all the critiques which appeared at the same time, proves that this authority was not altogether usurped." Livet offers a solution of the question of what out- wardly appears to have been Richeheu's jealousy of the popularity of the "Cid" and its author. It involved the possible sacrifice of a rising poet, which would not, perhaps, have weighed much in the prosecution of the designs of a minister of state of that age. Livet ascribes to an astute policy Richeheu's course in the affair of the "Cid," the intention being to prove thereby to the Parliament, to whose first president the cardinal had not many months before written that the Academy had an object altogether different from what was attributed to it, its purely Uterary jurisdiction. In support of this opinion Livet points to the verification of its letters patent, so long delayed, on the 10th of July, 1637, less than a month after the discussion of the "Cid" began, as its direct consequence. A rather remarkable proviso in the decree of verification gives some colour to this * "That exceeds all sort of belief, and cannot reasonably enter the mind not only of a modest girl, but of one the most devoid of honour and humanity." GENERAL HISTORY 37 theory. It reads as follows: "Provided, that those of the said Academy shall take cognizance only of the adornment, the embellishment, and the augmentation of the French language, and of books which shall by them be produced, and by other persons who shall desire or wish it." Whatever the cardinal's motives, there are at least some considerations which might lead us to believe that he was not actuated by personal animosity toward Comeille, who, as one of "the Five Authors," was at the time in receipt of a pension granted by the cardinal. The cardinal caused the "Cid" to be represented three times at the Louvre and twice at bis own palace, and permitted his niece, the Duchess of Aiguillon, to accept its dedication. He had, also, been the means of having letters of nobility conferred on the elder Coraeillc. To this may be added the fact that Comeille in 1640 dedi- cated "Horace" to his reputed oppressor. After Riche- lieu's death Comeille wrote of him: Qu'on parte raal ou bicn du fameux cardinal, Ma proiio ni mes vers n'en diront jamais rien: II m'a fait trop do bien pour en dire du mal, II m'a fait trop de raal pour on dire du bion.* There is no very deep resentment exhibited in these lines, and, in view of the fact that the genua initiMle is not noted for a judicial impartiality in its estimate of the treatment received at the hands of either friends or ene- *Kfng, in hta "Clajusioal and Foreign Quotationg," gives the following rhyming translation of this quatrain; Of thi« cardinal great lot men speak as they will, In verso or in prose I'll not mention bis name; Too much good did he to me, to spealc of him ill, Too much ill, to uphold his good fame. 38 THE FRENCH ACADEMY mies, perhaps to his eminence may be given the benefit of the doubt as to the actual distribution of wrong and favour in this instance. Evidently, whatever the car- dinal's intentions may have been, Corneille's career was not adversely affected by them. He suffered rather from the constructive injustice which left him neglected or struggling, while others less worthy were more Hberally rewarded and favoured. The story of Corneille's pension is worth relating. It shows that Cardinal RicheUeu did not shrink in a private way from the ordeal to which he caused Comeille to be subjected in pubhc. About to publish a comedy called "La Grande Pastorale," one of three pieces of which he is reputed to have furnished the plots, and in which, according to Pellisson, there were five hundred fines in his manner, he asked Chapelain, which was tantamount to asking the Academy, as he knew Cha- pelain would consult it, to review the piece carefully. When returned with Chapelain's observations, the cardi- nal in reading them was so much incensed that, before finishing their perusal, he tore the manuscript into frag- ments. After thinking the matter over during the night following, in bed, he ordered the fragments to be gathered up and joined together again. Then, calmly reading from beginning to end, he recognized the propriety and justice of the Academy's criticisms, which were so un- favourable that he resolved not to have the piece printed. As stated, "La Grande Pastorale" was one of three pieces whose scheme was suggested by the cardinal him- self. He had them composed by five different per- sons, thence called at the time "The Pieces of the Five Authors, " an act being given to each. The five authors GENERAL HISTORY 39 were Comeille, Boisrobert, CoUetet, De L'Estoile, and Rotrou, to whom, besides the "ordinary pension," the minister made considerable private benefaction. Cor- neille had akeady produced five or six comedies, but he was the least known of this literary group, and his poetical abilities do not appear to have been highly esteemed by any of them except Rotrou. Voltaire said of the other three that they had not enough merit of their own to discern that of Comeille. It is only necessary to add, in dismissing the affair of the "Cid," that both Comeille and Scud^ry later became Academicians — Comeille in 1647 and Scudery in 1650 — and were completely reconciled. Corneille's candidacy, indeed, was rejected twice, ostensibly on the ground that he was a resident of Rouen, and could not attend the Academy's conferences; and on one of these occasions the Academy caused it to be recorded in its registers that of two candidates having the necessary qualifications the preference should be given to a resident of Paris. Comeille, on presenting himself a third time, stated that he had made arrangements to live a part of the year in Paris, and was elected in succession to May- nard, Ballesdens, another candidate for the vacancy, writing to the Academy through one of its members that he withdrew in favour of the great poet. After the completion of its labours on the "Senti- ments" the Academy relapsed into the same idle state as before the examination of the "Cid" was begun. Letters* from Chapelain in Paris to fellow Academicians, resident or temporarily absent in the country, give us * Livet, "Pieces Justificatives." 40 THE FRENCH ACADEMY a glimpse of its morale, in its early years, which is truly deplorable. To CoNRART, August 21, 1634. The Academy is reduced to a small footing, and if the influence should continue there is the prospect that it will be reduced to nothing. It did not accomplish anything at the last three meet- ings, and if the next should be like them the Society ought to change its name to that of Academy of Faineants. To BoisHOBEET, September 4, 1634. M. Desmarets's chamber has, within the last six weeks, been made three times as large as usual, and if all were to assemble it would look as if it held nobody. In fact, there is scarcely any- body, and the last time but one the Society was composed of a single person. To Balzac, Mat 31, 1637. As to the Academy, it languishes as usual ; few persons appear on the appointed days, and it no longer engages in literary exer- cises. To THE Same, September 5, 1638. The Academy sta per tirar le calze, so languishing and idle is it. To Godeau, December 24, 1638. The Academy languishes and wastes the time as usual. Chapelain himself was an exemplary Academician, and deserves more than a passing notice. He was so important a member of the first official Academy that there may justly be applied to him, in reference to the Richelieu creation, as by himself to Godeau in reference to the Conrart coterie, the emphatic appellation the Academy. He stimulated by his own example, per- forming much of what may be termed academical drud- gery, and by friendly expostulation his less zealous fellow Academicians. He was the Academy's adminis- trative mainstay in all difficult or delicate negotiations GENERAL HISTORY 41 with Richelieu, while Boisrobert was generally inter- mediary. Such of his correspondence as has been pub- hshed shows him to have had an able head and an ex- cellent heart, and to have been ready on occasion with friendly offices. He had the critical faculty which is seldom wanting in any man of sound sense and cultivated mind. As a prose-writer his style is manly, clear, and unaffected — these terms being especially applicable to his private correspondence. Among his chief faults, in the eyes of envious or malicious critics, appear to have been his worldly success and his authorship of a dull poem which raised his fame as a poet far beyond what he himself considered his deserts. He had no personal illusions on this score. Writing to Balzac, he says: "Beheve me, I am of small account, and what I do is still less than myself. The world, perforce and against my intention, wishes to look upon me as a great poet, and, even if I were not quite the contrary, it is not from that point of view that I would be regarded. I have, it seems to me, wherewithal to pay in something better, and which I possess more justly. And yet, I do not know if it is presumption in me to imagine that in that I merit any praise. I am persuaded, for my part, that there is nothiiag so substantial in life as the sincere es- teem which we make for ourselves, from the knowledge which we have of it." The modesty of the man is fur- ther illustrated by another letter to the same corre- spondent, written in March, 1634, in which he states that he is a member of the Academy by favour, and that it imposes on him the obligation to be zealous in its interests. Balzac's reply, in allusion to this remark, is as follows: "You tell me you have been received by 42 THE FRENCH ACADEMY favour into the Academy of Beaux Esprits. I should like to ask you who has received the heaux-es'prits who have received you. Whence come the principle of the authority and the source of the mission? Who are these great personages who have done favour to M. Chapelain? From what countries newly discovered come these extra- ordinary men who, to do favour to M. Chapelain, must be worth a little more than Cardinal du Perron and President de Thou?" A great fault attributed to Chapelain, which has prob- ably been exaggerated by his enemies, whose statements, again, have been accepted and retailed without investi- gation by the careless, has, however, to be mentioned. Always frugal, in his later years he is said to have grown excessively penurious, a remarkable example of this failing in him being given currency by Segrais. It was the custom of the French Academy, until the death of Voltaire, to whom Christian burial was refused by the ecclesiastical authorities, to hold a religious service in honour of each of its deceased members, the expense falling upon the director and chancellor temporarily holding office, or, according to this anecdote, upon the director. Segrais relates that Chapelain avoided as much as possible being chosen director of the Academy, for fear any of the Academicians should die diu-ing his term of office, and entail upon him an expense of twenty livres for the usual service. "However," he says, "we had the address to make him director during the illness of Chancellor Siguier, our protector, of which he died." As the expiry of his term neared, knowing that the Acad- emy sometimes continued its director, without re-election. GENERAL HISTORY 43 Chapelain gave notice of his desire to be relieved and to have his successor appointed; but, the deliberation having been put off for several days until a greater num- ber of Academicians should be present, and the protector dying in the interval, Chapelain was inconsolable. "I am ruined," he is reported as saying. "My means will not suffice for it. I should have consoled myself if it were a simple Academician, but it is the Academy's protector. The expense will reduce me to beggary." Segrais adds that Chapelain so strongly represented his inability to support the great expense that he obtained a contribution from each of the Academicians, some giving more and some less, and "by that means he con- tributed only what he liked, and perhaps had something over. " Let us examine this story, and see whether it does not contain evidence of the malice, falsely called wit, which amounts to calimmy. Segrais not only describes the Academy as having preconcerted the appointment of Chapelain to the office of director, but he invests it with something of prescience in respect to Siguier's end. If we refer to the mode of election of the Academy's officers, we find it stated in the fourth article of its Stat- utes, of which the meaning is tolerably clear. It reads: " In making this election, there shall be placed in a box as many white balls as there shall be Academicians in Paris; two of which shall be marked, one with one black spot and the other with two: of these the first shall designate the Director and the second the Chancellor." But, that there may be no mistake, let us collate with the rule Pellisson's lucid explanation of it: "The Di- rector and Chancellor are elected by lot in this way. 44 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Taking as many white balls as there are Academicians in Paris, among them being two of which one is marked with two black spots and the other with one only, all these balls are placed in a box. Each of the Academi- cians present takes one; one is also taken for all the others who are in Paris, whether present at the meeting or not. Whoever finds the ball marked with the black spot is Director; whoever finds the ball marked with the two black spots is Chancellor. " That is to say, election to these two offices depended upon pure accident, and was not in the option of the Academy, except by dis- honestly allotting it to an Academician who happened to be absent on the day of election. Chapelain's friendship was not disinterested says Se- grais. It was a base friendship — une amitie Idche — and he gives as a convincing proof of it the remarkable reason that, after he had inscribed one, not the least, of his odes to Chapelain, Chapelain perfidiously voted for the admission of Segrais's rival into the Academy. It would perhaps be impossible to find in literature any- thing so ludicrously childish as this little bit of auto- biography. It would do wrong to its exquisite ingenuous- ness not to give it in its author's own words: "J'avois cultive I'amitie de M. Chapelain avec assez de foi; je lui avois m§me adress6 une ode qui n'est pas la moindre piece de mes poesies; cependant, lorsque je demandai h etre regu a I'Academie, il se trouva plutot port6 h favoriser M. Le Clerc, que j'avois pour comp^titeur, qu'^ me dormer sa voix: cela n'empecha pas que je ne fusse regu." We are not informed whether Segrais's com- petitor had inscribed two odes to Chapelain, but the quotation would not be accepted as a test of the quality GENERAL HISTORY 45 of Chapelain's friendship, even were there no examples in which its disinterestedness was indisputable * D'Olivet, in his biographical notice of Chapelain, thus writes: "A man, then, to whom Cardinal Richeheu, Cardi- nal Mazarin, and M. Colbert did not refuse their con- fidence—a man who had relations with all the savants of his time, and who was not the rival of any, but the friend and the confidant of all, the director of their studies, the depository of their interests — a man whom ambition did not tempt, whom the favours of the great did not dazzle, whom riches drew not from his early state, whom satire even did not embitter— does not such a man, I say, deserve to be cherished and praised, as in fact he has been by Balzac, by Sarasin, by Manage, by * To illustrate: In a foot-note D'Olivet quotes from a letter of 8th March, 1674, written in Latin by the learned Heinsius to Grajvius, as follows: "At the moment the departure from among the living of John Chapelain, whose memory in this breast shah always be most revered, grieves me exceedingly. I have indeed lost an incomparable friend. But this is not the place to grace such a man with the most merited praise." Graevius, in his reply, also in Latin, speaks of Chapelain's death as a loss to France, of which he was the signal ornament {insigne decus), and to literature, for whose profit he was ever on the watch, while he lauds Chapelain as a most candid critic {candidissimus oestimator) of men of parts, conspicuous himself among the foremost, whom he encouraged by praise and reward, closing as follows: "I am truly bereaved of an excellent friend, whose memory and loss no lapse of time will blot out for me. So you see that in this most sad case our sorrow is mutual." These were private letters, not intended for the public eye, so that there is no reason to question their sincerity, although, to anticipate argument to the contrary, it is well to mention that Heinsius was in 1662 a beneficiary of King Louis's bounty to savants, Chapelain and Perrault being Colbert's chief advisers in its bestowal. It is true that their sentiment is much at variance with the contempt with which some later chroni- clers speak of Chapelain's critical and personal qualities. 46 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Vaugelas, by the gentlemen of Port Royal, and by such a great number of illustrious writers that, were I to name them here, it would be thought I was making a catalogue of all of them, both within and without the kingdom, during nearly forty years." This is the literal truth. Perhaps there was not in Europe in the seventeenth century a man in the same station more widely known personally, or by correspondence, or by reputation, and more highly esteemed among men of learning than plain M. Jean Chapelain, King's Councillor (Conseiller du Roi en ses Conseils). After relating Chapelain's refusal of the lucrative post of preceptor to the Dauphin, which had been offered to him by the Duke of Montauzier with the king's approval, for the reason that age and infirmities made him too sober to be agreeable to so young a prince, D'Olivet con- tinues: "Are other marks of perfect disinterestedness necessary? And of what weight after that are the in- vectives of those ill-intentioned and ill-informed writers who accuse him of sordid avarice?"* He adds: "It will cause surprise, perhaps, to see me so zealous for the memory of Chapelain. I shall frankly state the motive. It is that, having read several volumes of his manuscript letters, where his soul is uncovered to its depths, I pay him, regardless of prejudices, the tribute of esteem I believe to be due to him." There is assuredly nothing sordid in Chapelain's senti- ments, which are those of a broad and Uberal minded gentleman, and in respect to money losses particularly, * Livet says, in a foot-note: "The testimony as to the avarice of Chapelain is unanimous. However, it is permissible to doubt it in reading his manuscript correspondence." GENERAL HISTORY 47 of which his letters refer to several instances, they are even those of a philosopher. But, what is perhaps more to the point, Chapelain as an Academician was worth any two of the greatest poets of his century, not excluding from the combination Boileau, by whom he was so mercilessly satirized, and who, more than any one else, was the means of dissipating his ill-founded poetical reputation. However, the whirligig of time brings in his revenges to the memory of the dead even more surely than it does to the living, and one would now rather read one volume of Chapelain's letters than three volumes of Boileau's satires; or, if the compliment be deemed equivocal, it is reversible: one would now rather read three volumes of Chapelain's letters than one volume of Boileau's satires. It was in the H6tel de Rambouillet, so long the ren- dezvous of Parisian wit and fashion in the seventeenth century, that the foundation of Boileau's enmity for Chapelain was laid. It seems that, Boileau having submitted some examples of his satires to the judgment of its circle, the amiable hostess and Mademoiselle Julie, her eldest daughter, gently advised against the cultiva- tion of this particular branch of hterature, even then looked upon with some disfavour. Chapelain, Manage, and Cotin, who were present, seconded the counsel of the ladies, but in terms somewhat galling to the sensi- bilities of the rising poet. Hence the rage with which he fell upon "La Pucelle" and Chapelain's reputation as a poet, a rage which overflowed upon the other two members of the trio. It is perhaps a sign of improved manners, as well as of a higher civilization, that the obloquy and contempt which were once visited upon 48 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY the satirist's victim are in our time shared, and that more than half, at least where the satire is wanton and personal, by the satirist himself. Returning to the Academy as a body, its conduct gave great dissatisfaction to Richelieu. Indeed, his displeas- ure was so great at its disinclination to engage in any serious occupation, and especially in the preparation of the Dictionary, that it went so far as to take the form of a threat that he "would abandon" it. Representa- tions were thereupon made to him of the need for com- pensation to whoever should assume the duty of the Dictionary's superintendence. He was informed that Vaugelas, the noted grammarian and philologist, was prepared to become the Academy's Dictionary editor, and in his interest there might be revived an old pension of two thousand livres in the Vaugelas family whose payments had been discontinued for ten years. Under the skilful management of Chapelain and Boisrobert the negotiation was brought to an issue whose substance is expressed in one of Chapelain's letters, dated 16th February, 1639, to M. de Chives, Angouleme, by whom he had been complimented for making an arrangement so advantageous for Vaugelas. "It is a pension," he says, "on conditions most onerous and for a thing long and laborious of execution. ... I have had for foun- dation of my enterprise the strong desire of his eminence that the Academy should be useful and the Dictionary be accomplished." So much, indeed, was the cardinal possessed with this desire that about a year later he issued an express command from Ruel requiring members of the Academy living in Paris to choose within three days whether they would attend the meetings regularly, ex- GENERAL HISTORY 49 cept when prevented by illness, or make way for others who were eager to enter it. As, however, the Dictionary is noticed separately under its proper heading, it need not be mentioned in this chapter except incidentally. Such were the more noteworthy incidents in connection with the foundation of the Academy and Richelieu's protectorate. One more, apparently trivial, which was to have great consequences, followed the election, in 1640, of Ohvier Patru, who replaced D'Arbaud de Por- cheres. At his reception he delivered a short compli- mentary address of thanks for his admission into such a distinguished company, which was the initiation of the present formal address of welcome to the new Acade- mician at his inauguration, and of his "reception oration" and the response to it — ^the first and last by Academicians selected by the Academy. Pelhsson's estimate of the early French Academicians, when he speaks of them as being "all men of letters and of a merit much above the common," is modest in com- parison with what is now regarded as the extravagant flattery of Patru, when he said to them in this address: "Do not expect to find in the future men like you. It is quite enough for our age to have once seen forty per- sons of a capacity, of a worth so eminent : such a great effort has not been made without exhausting nature." Patru's address thus proved to be one of the most im- portant occurrences in the Academy's history, but of which the real significance was not even to begin to be felt until, more than thirty years afterward, the sessions for the reception of new Academicians were thrown open to the public. Although something of the kind must sooner or later have taken place, it was this particular 50 THE FRENCH ACADEMY speech that established the precedent. It was formally resolved that thenceforth all future new Academicians should deliver a reception oration, which, simple at first, ultimately developed into studied and ornate efforts. The reception orations of La Bruyere, Buffon, and D'Alembert are cited as among especially remarkable and finished examples of this style of composition. One of the most agreeable, because of its simplicity, is that of Renan.* The practice inaugurated by Patru, perhaps more than anything else, insensibly made of the French Academy in the latter half of the eighteenth century as much a political as a literary organization. On the 4th of December, 1642, Cardinal Richeheu died, leaving the Academy without a head. The king, it may be stated, who died in the following year, never took any personal interest in it. According to the gossip of the time, some were in favour of offering the protector- ship to the young Due d'Enghien, the Great Cond6. But his youth alone — at this time he was only twenty- one years of age — may have been deemed a sufficient bar to the carrying into effect of this proposition. Others talked of Mazarin, the late cardinal's successor in the ministry, as his successor in the patronage of the Acad- emy. But this proposition, also, had to be abandoned, because of the manifest impropriety of having an Italian, whose heart, as he himself claimed, may have been French, but whose French speech was the jest of the * Following is its conclusion: "My confreres of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres, who know me for twenty-two years, will bear you this witness, that I am a good Academician, very ex- act in the accomplishment of my duties. Count on my assiduity and my application; as for me, I count on charming hours to be passed among you." (Discours et Conferences, Paris, 1887.) GENERAL HISTORY 51 Court and the city, at the head of an institution for the cultivation of the purity of the French language. It is doubtful if any of these suggestions was seriously en- tertained in the. Academy itself. They are perhaps properly attributable to those who, in every age, deem it their business to manage other people's affairs; for within a week after Richelieu's death the protectorship was offered to Chancellor Seguier, and his acceptance of it appears to have saved the Academy from the fate of so many similar institutions on the death of their founders. Such, at least, we may reasonably infer from a remark made in reference to that occasion by Abbe Tallemant the Younger in the chancellor's funeral oration: "You know, gentlemen, that the Academy would have perished if he had not sustained it." Hitherto the Academy had had no permanent abiding- place, its uncertain position in this respect certainly not adding to its inducements to labour. Its conferences were held, "not under the shelter of Academic bowers," nor associated with the dignity of Academic halls, but now at the house of one member, then at that of an- other, probably as its entertainment became burdensome. But on February 16, 1643, shortly after Seguier became protector, he made the announcement to the Academy that he wished it in future to hold its meetings at his residence. The Abbe Tallemant's words, just quoted, may have had some reference to this privilege, for with- out such an arrangement there seems to be little doubt that the Academy would gradually have melted away. Thenceforth, it was no longer homeless. La Mesnardiere at his reception, in 1655, eulogized Richelieu in the following terms: "During the Roussillon 52 THE FRENCH ACADEMY journey I had with his eminence long and glorious audi- ences toward the end of his hfe, of which the serenity was troubled for him by so many storms. He placed in my hands memoirs made by himself, for the plan which he ordered me to draw up, of that magnificent and rare college which he meditated for the liberal sci- ences, and in which it was his design to employ all that was most brilliant in literature in Europe. This hero, gentlemen, your celebrated founder, had then the good- ness to tell me the thought which he had of rendering you arbiters of the capacity, the merit, and the reward of all those illustrious professors whom he was to call, and of making you directors of that rich and stately Prytaneum of belles-lettres, in which, by a sentiment worthy of the immortality of which he was so enamoured, he wished to place the French Academy the most honour- ably in the world, and give an honest and quiet repose to all the persons of that kind who should have merited it by their works." But, as men who have had great opportunities are to be judged rather by their perform- ance than by their promise, and by what they might have done but left imdone rather than by what they are said to have intended to do, we will be more disposed to sympathize with Pelhsson, who gives expression to a not unnatural surprise that the founder of the first national Academy should have failed to provide for it a home of its own in which to hold its meetings. Every- thing considered, it is difficult to account for the remark attributed to Richelieu, that he had established the Academy "on foundations strong enough to endure as long as the Monarchy. " Although not quite consonant with the glowing picture GENERAL HISTORY 53 of La Mesnardidre's collegiate castle in Spain, the cardi- nal's interest in the institution of his creation may have somewhat flagged: firstly, because of its frivolity, for which its want of a home partly excused it; and, sec- ondly, because, notwithstanding the Academy's respect for its protector's wishes, he found that it could not be made his unresisting tool. It was only with difficulty that the Academy could be spurred to an examination of the "Cid," while another instance of its opposition to its protector's wishes was in the appointment of a successor to Camusat, its first printer, who died in 1639. Richelieu was disposed to favour the candidacy of Cra- moisy, his own and the king's printer, for the vacant office. The Academy supported the candidacy of Ca- musat's widow, who intended to continue her late hus- band's business, and addressed a letter to the cardinal in support of it. But we also find her claims and those of her fatherless children eloquently presented and de- fended in several letters from Chapelain to Boisrobert. In one of them he says: "To speak to you with my usual frankness, M. Cramoisy has committed an inhuman act in causing his eminence to be importuned with a view to obtaining that place to the prejudice of the Widow Camusat and her poor children; and, having such a de- sign, unworthy of a man of honour, which not one of his profession would have had, he has taken good care not to address himself to you for that purpose, judging rightly that you would have been for justice, and that you would at the same time have said to his eminence things which would have unquestionably led the pro- tector of the afflicted, and particularly of widows and orphans, to pronounce in its favour, and to command 54 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY the Academy on this occasion to be kind and generous in imitation of him." Ultimately, the cardinal yielded, and allowed the Academy to have .its way. Chancellor Seguier's protectorate was a very tranquil period in the Academy's history, yet it was signahzed by several notable occurrences, among them being a protest against the election of a candidate whose name had received the protector's formal approval; the presen- tation to the king of a memorial praying for the erection of a rival Academy; a visit to the Academy by ex-Queen Christina of Sweden, who posed before Europe as a patron and lover of learning; a resolution to admit the pubUc to receptions of new Academicians; the foundation by Balzac of the Prize -of Eloquence, which was the in- auguration of the Academy's laureate system; and, finally, of the first pernicious example of feminine inter- ference in elections. In Siguier's 'time, then, occurred one of the rare ex- amples of the kind in the history of the Academy, of a protest being made against a nomination at the second balloting after it had received the protector's approval. In March, 1659, Gilles Boileau offered himself as a candi- date for the vacancy caused by the death of CoUetet, and at the preliminary balloting received the requisite num- ber of votes. The nomination having been approved by the protector, it only remained to confirm it at a second meeting, usually the first following such approval. Pellisson was not present at the first meeting, when the nomination was made, but at the second he rose and made a passionate speech against Boileau, charging that he was a reprobate, a man of bad character with whom association was undesirable, and insisting on a reversal GENERAL HISTORY 55 of the previous vote. Proofs of the allegations made against Boileau were thereupon demanded from his accuser, and, to give time for their production, further consideration of "the election was deferred for a week, when PeUisson was equally vehement in opposition, but equally without proofs of his charges. The Academy therefore proceeded to a vote, with, as a result, the return of an equal number of white and black balls. In the circumstances, an appeal was made to the pro- tector. M. Siguier sustained Boileau, attending a third meeting in person to assist by his presence in the settle- ment of the dispute. Speaking in the candidate's favour, he urged that, as there were no proofs of the accusations made against him — there being, in fact, no specific charge — the support of so many Academicians of eminence and known merit sufficiently attested his honour and probity. Boileau was declared elected, much to the chagrin of his opponent, who ceased to attend the Acad- emy's meetings until after his imprisonment — which began about two years later and lasted four years and a half — for refusing to betray Fouquet, of whom he had been the confidential assistant. Perhaps the reader has heard of the prisoner in the Bastille, who, deprived of writing materials and, at this time of the reformed faith although he later became a Roman Catholic, of all books save the Fathers of the Church, to while away the tedious hours tamed a spider whose web and hiding-place were in the only opening which admitted light and air into his cell, teaching it to come forth at the sound of a pipe in the hands of a Basque attendant, to seize the flies caught for it, at first placed at the edge of the opening on or near the web, 56 THE FRENCH ACADEMY and then, by gradually placing the flies nearer and nearer to his person, to seek them anywhere on the floor of the room, and finally to ascend his knees in search of its prey. This was Pellisson, the French Academy's first historian. D'Olivet does not refer to the episode of Boileau's election in his history because, as he says in a private letter, he thought the quarrel of bad example and not altogether to the honour of PeUisson, whose enmity to Boileau was based rather on private and personal than on high moral grounds — these being, in fact, summed up in rivalry for the favour of Mademoiselle Scud^ry. It is somewhat difficult, after a perusal of the Acad- emy's history during the first quarter of a century or so of its existence, to conceive of its position exciting envy. Nevertheless, in 1664 there was printed at Paris a me- morial which had been presented to the king seven or eight years before, in which the creation of another state academy was proposed. Its author was the Abbe d'Au- bignac, who had been Patru's rival as successor to D'Ar- baud de Porcheres. It seems that he suffered defeat — for which, Chapelain wrote at the time to one of his friends, "moult dolent fut et plaintif" — mainly on account of something he had written against "Ro- xane, " a poem which had not only found favour in the eyes of Richelieu and the Duchess of Aiguillon, but in whose production its reputed author, Desmarets, was perhaps but the cardinal's secretary, or, at most, col- laborator. D'Aubignac thought there was plenty of room in France for more than one national academy. "A company of forty persons," he says in his memorial, GENERAL HISTORY 57 "has not drained it of orators, poets, philosophers, mathematicians; Paris has a thousand, and your king- dom could make armies." The prayer of the memorial was not granted, but its presentation is easily explained. Subsequent to the estabhshment of the French Academy, divers private persons — among these, besides D'Aubignac, being Pascal — organized and held at their residences literary reunions called academies, some of them with written rules, in imitation of it; and D'Aubignac, having met a repulse from the state institution, no doubt desired to set up a rival of equal authority. The visit of Christina of Sweden was made to the Academy about the end of March, 1658. It is interest- ing because of a striking coincidence with which it was accompanied, and also as marking authentically the pro- gress which had been made in the composition of the Dictionary. Two years before, on her way to Italy, Christina had passed through Paris, but had then only time to receive a deputation, headed by Patru, who addressed her in the name of the Academy. On this occasion she wished to surprise it in the midst of its exer- cises, and did not make known her intention of visiting it until the morning of the day of the Academy's ordinary meeting. M. Siguier, on being apprised, hastily caused some embellishments, as the placing of busts, pictures, and the like, to be made in the assembly room of his residence, to give it as much of an academical appearance as pos- sible, unfortunately forgetting to display the portrait of Christina herself, which she had, before her abdication, presented to the Academy. It was of this portrait that Patru said to her in 1656 in his address: "Your image, in your absence, will be the dearest object of our eyes; 58 THE FRENCH ACADEMY we will render to it our homages, our respects; we will make to it our sacrifices." To do honour to the occasion, by having as full an Academy as possible, messengers were sent to most of the Academicians, but some of them did not receive the notification in time to enable them to be present. Chris- tina having arrived, with only one or two attendants, the question of the attitude to be observed in her pres- ence by the Academicians, who numbered about fifteen or sixteen, was raised by the ex-queen herself. It seems that she expected them to remain standing during the visit, which was to last about an hour. Chancellor Seguier having consulted with one or two Academicians on this knotty point of etiquette, it was decided in ac- cordance with certain precedents in which men of letters retained their seats in the presence of royalty: to wit, of Charles IX. at the assemblies held at Saint Victor in the time of Ronsard, of Henry III. at those in the Bois de Vincennes, and of Christina herself when visiting the Academy of the Umoristi at Rome. Christina, there- fore, having taken her seat, the French Academicians, who had received her standing, resumed theirs, and remained seated during the session, which was opened with a complimentary address of welcome to the dis- tinguished visitor. After readings by three or four Academicians of pieces of their own production, includ- ing a translation into French of Catullus's "Amemus, mea Lesbia," by Pellisson, Chancellor Siguier proposed that of a fascicle, or cahier, of the Dictionary. The princess assenting, one was selected which, as it hap- pened, contained the word jeu. M^zeray, now the editor in charge of the Dictionary, after reading the GENERAL HISTORY 59 common definitions, proceeded with the idiomatic phrases, as follows: Jeux de princes, qui ne plaisent qu'd ceux qui les font; pour dire une malignite, une violence faite par quelqu'un qui est en puissance* According to the testimony of Patru in a letter to M. d'Ablancourt, Chris- tina laughed pleasantly on hearing the words. Accord- ing to another account, considered more reliable, as in Conrart's Memoirs, she laughed more out of despite than pleasure, her uneasiness being betrayed by a heightened colour and nervousness of manner which indicated that she felt their personal apphcation. They recalled to her mind, and to that of every one present, the tragic death, only a few months before, of Monaldeschi at Fontainebleau, in which she was so great a part: an exe- cution — a murder, rather — without parallel in history, in that it was ordered by a foreigner in one of the most advanced countries, governed by one of the proudest monarchs, of Christendom. At the suggestion of Perrault, and with the authority of Colbert, the resolution to open its doors to the public at formal receptions of new Academicians was made by the Academy in 1671, and was first carried into effect in 1673 on the occasion of the reception of F16chier, with Racine and the Abb6 Gallois, on the 12th of January. Perrault, indeed, appears to have thought that he was the means of bringing the Academy into the light. He says in his Memoirs: "It can be said that the Academy changed its condition from that moment; from being little known, it became so celebrated that it formed the subject of ordinary conversations." * "Jokes op princes, which please only those who make them; BO to say, a mischief, a violence done by some one who is in power." 6o THE FRENCH ACADEMY The object of the practical-minded minister, in authoriz- ing or recommending this departure from the rules, is hardly left to conjecture. He evidently desired to place the Academy more in the public eye, and to imbue it with a more lively sense of its obligations: the public would begin to expect something tangible from it, and it would be ashamed not to answer something of the public expectation. It seems that the innovation was the cause of the addition of at least one to the list of writers who have been wanting to its glory. Instead of address- ing a score or more of gentlemen, with most or many of whom the new member was on terms of intimacy, he had now to face a numerous audience of curious and some- times censorious strangers, an ordeal which paralyzes the faculties of some men of undoubted courage in almost any other circumstances. Now, from the time of Patru, the reception oration has continued to be of supreme obligation, unless by special exemption of the Academy, among the few who have been dispensed from its observ- ance, according to Mesnard, being Colbert (1667),* De Voyer d'Argenson (1718), and Maret, Duke of Bassano (1803). D'Olivet, lamenting the failure to extend this privilege to the Duke of La Rochefoucauld, states that there was no other reason than the dread of the public ceremony of reception for his not offering himself as a candidate. "For," he says, "the obligation of speaking publicly on the day of his reception was the sole obstacle that kept him away from the Academy." * According, also, to D'Olivet, who is probably Mesnard's authority for the statement. However, Larousse says, in the article on Colbert in the Dietionnaire Universel: "According to the Gazette de France of 30th April, 1667, he harangued 'the learned Society,' on the day of his reception, with 'elegance' and 'success.' " GENERAL HISTORY 6i Men only were admitted, on these occasions, until 1702, when the privilege of attendance at receptions was also permitted to women— a discrimination all the more remarkable when we consider that at the founda- tion of the Academy the proposition that they should be eligible to membership in it was received with some favour, and later took such form as the specific discussion of the qualifications for it of Mademoiselle de Scudery and Madame Deshoulieres, an argument for the admis- sion of women, aside altogether from their literary titles, being that the thing is not without precedent, as witness the statement of Agrippa d'Aubign^ that those who took part in the debates of the Academy of the Palace were "the most learned men and certain ladies who had studied." In 1671, also, the Prize of Eloquence was awarded for the first time, being won by Mademoiselle de Scudery. This prize was founded by bequest of Balzac in 1654, but circumstances had so far prevented the Academy from offering it for competition. During the intervening period it had increased in value fifty per cent., or from two hundred francs to three hundred. The prize was a gold medal, with the eflagy of Saint Louis on one side, and on the other the Academy's device. According to the terms of Balzac's foundation, its theme was always to be religious, and the rule was made that the winning composition should end with a prayer to Jesus Christ, and be approved by two doctors of the Faculty of Paris. These conditions were observed for nearly a century, with the result that the competition called forth essays which might often have been delivered from the pulpit. But in 1758 Duclos, then the Academy's secretary, reviving a proposition which had long before 62 THE FRENCH ACADEMY been made by the Abb^ de Saint Pierre, induced the substitution of eulogiunas of celebrated men of the nation for the serious subject imposed by the founder of the prize. From 1768, when the theme was the "Eloge de Mohere" — an actor, and so under the ban of the Church — it was also resolved to dispense with the approbation of the two doctors. Only three years later, however, the Academy was ordered to revert to the original rule in this regard by a deciee of the King's Council, obtained by the Archbishop of Paris, in which La Harpe's Eloge of Fenelon, to which had been awarded the Prize of Elo- quence, was condemned to suppression as containing sentiments calculated to detract from the respect due to religion. From the same date as the Prize of Eloquence, a Prize of Poesy, donated by one or more of the Academicians, or by the Academy as a body, was awarded more or less regularly every two or three years, until in 1699 Cler- mont-Tonnerre, Bishop of Noyon, established it as a biennial prize, by a gift of three thousand livres for that purpose. Its subject, in perpetuity, was to be the eulogimn of Louis XIV., and the rule had been made, at the time when it was first granted, that it should end with a prayer to God for the king; but under the iconoclastic efforts of Duclos the theme was varied after 1751. The prize was also a gold medal, with, on one side, the head of the idol celebrated in the poem, and on the other the Academy's device. Another anecdote, of which Perrault is the author, is of historical importance in the life of the Academy, as discovering the germ of what was in the beginning of the following century recognized by itself to have become GENERAL HISTORY 63 an evil needing correction — i.e. the personal solicitation by the candidate of the suffrages of some of the Acade- micians, which developed into the practically obligatory visit to each to canvass his vote. Dm-ing S6guier's protectorate, or in the latter part of it, there appears to have been some laxity in the manner of making nomina- tions for vacancies. Perrault, who had evidently not read the Academy's Regulations, even takes to himself the credit of initiating election by ballot, or, rather, by ticket. He says that when he entered the Academy in 1671 the election of Academicians was made in this wise. One month or so after the death of an Academi- cian, a member, in a talk with several of the others, would say: "We have lost so and so. I think we could not do better than choose so and so to fill his place. You know his merit, etc." Shortly after his reception, Perrault, who, as already intimated, is rather patronizing in his references to the Academy, remarked that he thought heaven had so far been very kind to it in the choice of its members, considering the way in which they were nominated, but that it would be tempting Provi- dence to continue in the same method. He advised election by formal vote by ticket, that each Academician might have the opportunity to name those whom he pleased, and, the Academy concurring, the suggestion was followed — ^this being merely the enforcement of Rule 10. It is, however, but fair to say that D'Alembert attributes to Perrault's good offices the friendly dis- position of Colbert toward the Academy. In view of the influence of the eighteenth century salons in the choice and election of academical candidates, there may be noticed here, as a small cloud which was 64 THE FRENCH ACADEMY to acquire almost blighting effects, perhaps the earliest and not least detestable instance of feminine interference in elections. The story is told by Perrault, one of the principals in it, who, when Gilles Boileau died, spoke to several Academicians with a view to securing the nomina- tion to his place. Those spoken to promised him their votes, provided he got the consent of Chancellor Seguier, the Academy's protector, who was at Saint Germain-en- Laye. When Perrault waited on the protector for this purpose, he was told that the vacant place had been promised to Madame Guiche, the chancellor's daughter, for the Abbe de Montigny, but that he could coimt on the next vacancy. As a matter of fact, when the next vacancy did occur, Perrault was sacrificed to a candidate favoured by Colbert. Chancellor Siguier, after sheltering the French Acad- emy for thirty years, died on the 28th of January, 1672. The king thereupon accepted the protectorship of the institution, and assigned to it an apartment in the Louvre, commodious and convenient for the holding of its ses- sions, and there it assembled until the suppression in 1793. A medal was struck to commemorate this event, bearing on one side the head of the king, with the words : LUDovicus xiiii REX CHRisTiANissiMus. On the other was a device designed by Perrault, which is thus de- scribed in the "Histoire du Roi": "Apollo holds his lyre supported on the tripod whence issue his oracles. In the background appears the principal front of the Louvre. The legend, APOLLO PALATINUS, signifies, 'Apollo in the Palace of Augustus,' and has allusion to the Temple of Apollo within the limits of the palace of that emperor. The exergue: academia gallica intra 1 mbdab commemorating the installation op the p^rench Academy in the Louvhe 2 — Jeton db Pk:^sence (From LiveVs Pellisson and D^ Olivet) [Page G4 GENERAL HISTORY 65 REGiAM EXCEPTA. M.DC.LXxii;* 'The French Academy in the Louvre. 1672.'" Thus, open sessions at recep- tions, open prize competitions, personal protectorship by the king — all contributed almost simultaneously to attract pubhc attention to the Academy. Hitherto Academicians had not received direct re- muneration of any kind, although their position as such may sometimes have been to them the means of the attainment of official preferment or other advancement. For instance, Godeau's connection with the Academy gained for him Richelieu's notice and favour, and, un- expectedly and without solicitation on his part, so it is said, in June, 1636, within a week after ordination as a priest, the bishopric of Grasse t (to which was later added that of Vence). But shortly after the installation in the Louvre, by Colbert's directions there were coined silver tokens of attendance (jetons de presence), to be dis- tributed among them to the number of forty at each sitting of the Academy, and only those who arrived promptly at three o'clock, now the usual hour of meeting. There were, as may be inferred, always absentees, and if, in the proportionate distribution of the jetons among those present there were any over, they were added to * The date on this medal, as reproduced in D'Olivet's History (1743), is MD c Lxxiii, through an engraver's error, we are informed by Livet. t D'Olivet describes Godeau's appointment to this charge as giving occasion to Richeheu for a sprightly pun in expressing very substantial thanks, the see of Grasse being then vacant. Thus: "II fit en 1636 une paraphrase du Cantique 'Benedicite omnia opera Domini Domino,' bien versifi6e, et d'un style noble et riche. EUe plut si fort au Cardinal de Richeheu, qu'apres I'avoir lue et relue en presence de I'auteur, il lui dit, 'Vous me donnez le Benedicite, et moi je vous donne Grasse.' " 66 THE FRENCH ACADEMY those of the following meeting, the assiduous member thus sometimes being entitled to two or more. Perrault tells us in his memoirs that they were intended to secure a more prompt and regular attendance on the part of Academicians; for Colbert, like Cardinal Richeheu and M. Seguier, desired to see the Dictionary accomplished, and could not understand the delay in its completion. His own membership in the Academy was purely nominal, but one day he unexpectedly attended a session, to discover for himself what went on. The word ami, or, as it was then written, amy, was being discussed when he entered; and, as the question was raised whether or not it implied mutual friendship, it had to be decided before a satisfactory definition of the word could be formulated. He left the Academy con\anced that the making of a dictionary, involving as it does the analy- zation of the esoteric or notional signification of words, was not so simple a matter as to the uninitiated ap- peared. The jeton bore on one side the king's head, with the words, LVDOvicvs magnvs rex, and on the other, in the centre, the Academy's device and motto, and around the margin the words, peotectevr db l'academie fkan- coiSE, with the date of coinage. Its weight was thirty sols, which represented the modest annual revenue of eight hundred francs for the assiduous and punctual Academician, with in addition his proportion of the jetons forfeited by absentees, Colbert being deterred from recommending, as at first intended, the sum of a half-louis d'or by the fear that greedy courtiers would covet and solicit the places for their dependants or serv- ants. But, such was the extraordinary poverty of the GENERAL HISTORY 67 royal treasury, even this paltry amount was not regularly paid. From the time of Dacier, in 1713, the secretary' received two jetons of right until, with the secretaryship of Mirabaud, who refused to accept them, the office carried with it from 1749, by agreement between the Academy and the ministry, in heu of arrears of jetons to the amount of thirty-three thousand livres, a pension of twelve hundred livres per annum. At this time, also, apartments were assigned to the secretary in the Louvre. In 1787, as related in Marmontel's Memoirs, the value of the jeton was increased to three Uvres, or exactly double, by ControUer-General Calonne, and the secre- tary's pension was increased to one thousand 6cus. Mesnard, in estimating the moral effect of the jetons on the Academy, amuses himself a little at Chapelain's expense. He says: "The Academy, then, escaped the danger of riches; the benefit which it received in no way altered its constitution, and was not, I beUeve, disastrous except to the unfortunate Chapelain, whose assiduity, excited by this new attraction, became imprudent. The poor old man died, the following year, of an inflam- mation of the lungs, brought on by the fear of losing his jeton if he arrived too late at the sitting." Louis XIV., besides, is credited with giving directions to Colbert, who, sometimes prompted by Perrault, is shrewdly surmised to have been the real author of many of his majesty's small favours to the Academy, to have a fund set apart to meet its petty expenses — "for wages of copyists, for heating, and for lighting." Colbert, also, was the means of obtaining from the hbrary of the king six hundred volumes to form the nucleus of an academical library. This library should have been 68 THE FRENCH ACADEMY enriched with a copy of each of the works produced by Academicians, in accordance with a resolution to that effect; but, sad to relate, there must have been remiss- ness in its observance, for it seems, by way of reminder, to have been several times renewed. An academical library is, however, now of less consequence, as the privileges of the Library of the Institute are shared in common by the five academies of which it is composed. Comfortably and even magnificently lodged, and en- joying the patronage and favour of the monarch, the Academy felt that it had a future before it. We find in it, in consequence, evidences of renewed energy. Its meetings were increased to three per week, and about this time the much-revised Dictionary in its first com- position was finished. In 1672 a portion of the manu- script had been placed in the hands of the Academy's printer, and printing had gone as far as the letter M when, by the advice of M^zeray, the work was withdrawn for a further final revision from the very beginning. " Thus, " D' Olivet says, "the revision of this great work, longer and more laborious than a first fashioning, commenced only in 1672, and printing was finished in 1694." As, however, the Dictionary was now assuming the form in which it would be given to the public, the Acad- emy deemed it advisable to protect itself from possible unfaithfulness of copyists who might be tempted to communicate to the world extracts from its manuscript prematurely. It therefore applied for and obtained an exclusive privilege — that is, a monopoly — dated from Fontainebleau, June 28, 1674, signed by the king and countersigned by Colbert, which not only prohibited the publication of any French dictionary in the kingdom GENERAL HISTORY 69 within twenty years after the appearance of that of the Academy, but pending its appearance* As the revision was to take twenty years, the privilege therefore in- volved a monopoly of forty during which the Academy was to be protected from competition. It is, however, reasonable to infer that the privilege was asked for and granted on the assumption that the Dictionary, then in course of printing, would be given to the world within a year or two at the most. The preceding paragraph enables the reader to under- stand the episode now to be noticed — one of the most thorny in the Academy's history. This was the ex- clusion — more bluntly, the expulsion — of Antoiue Fu- reti^re. Abbe de Chalivoy. His was the first case of the kind under the rules, that of Granier never haviag been pronounced on by the Academy after a secret vote. Indeed, with something savouring of malignancy, Fure- ti^re after his own expulsion made the mere fact of Granier's admission, as well as the manner of his exclu- sion, a reflection on the Academy's fame. "Although," he says, "these gentlemen [the Academicians] pretend that in the history of the Academy there is mention of a certain Grenier [sic] having been excluded, it is known that he was expelled on a personal order of Cardinal Richelieu for a very dirty affair (un casfort sale), because he had abused the charge of a considerable sum of money * Mesme faisons defenses k toiis Imprimeurs et Libraires dans tous les lieiix de notre obeissance, d'imprimer cy-apr6s aucim Diction- naire nouveau de la Langue Fran5oise, soit sous le titre de Diction- naire, soit sous un autre titre tel qu'il puisse estre, avant la publication de celuy de I'Acadfimie FranQoise, ny pendant toute I'estendue des vingt ann^es du present Privilege. — PriviUge du Roy, Diet, de I'Acad. Jr. 1694. 70 THE FRENCH ACADEMY which had been intrusted to him by some religieuses." He adds, with a confidence evidently not begotten of personal knowledge, because the Academy's papers for the period had been seized with those of Pellisson at the time of his imprisonment in 1661, the year before Fure- tiere entered the Academy, and were not again seen: "Nor is there found in the registers and memoirs of the Academy that it took any proceedings or rendered any sentence of deposition. " The intention of this observa- tion is more obvious than its exact meaning. But Pellisson's account of Granier's expulsion, after an ex- amination of the Academy's registers, is as follows: "He was elected by ballots (billets), which were all in his favour except three. The event has shown that the three who wished to exclude him were not wrong; for I find in the registers that on the 14th of May following, on the proposition of the director, made on the part of the cardinal, he was deposed for an e^^l action (une mauvaise action), by common consent, and without the hope of being reinstated. There would perhaps be some inhumanity in dwelling further on this matter, as he is still living, and, they say, most piously, although the book entitled 'State of France in 1652' places him among deceased Academicians. It will suffice to say, to avoid recurring to it, that he was an ecclesiastic, a native, as I have been told, of Bresse, a man of good appearance, good intelligence, and agreeable conversation, who had even some learning and belles-lettres." Since that of Fureti^re there has only been one other expulsion properly so called, namely, of the Abb^ de Saint Pierre— during the Regency of the Duke of Orleans and the nominal protectorate of Louis XV., still a minor. GENERAL HISTORY 71 At the time of the second Restoration, however, some names were dropped from the roll by official authority; but these were exclusions pure and simple in the usual English sense of the word, for political reasons, and carried with them no other stigma. Odd, therefore, as is the coincidence of all three expulsions being those of titular clerics, it is rendered still more striking by the only resignation of a fauteuil in the Academy's history being that of Bishop Dupanloup in 1871 in protest against the election of the free-thinking Littr6, whose choice as successor to Biot he was successful in preventing in 1863, then publicly attacking him and others of similar views, among whom were Taine and Renan, in a brochure entitled "Warning to Fathers of Families." In allusion to Littr6's rejection, Sainte Beuve maintained that "there should be nothing clerical in the Academy," his opinion, expressed at a discussion on another occasion of a book consigning Luther to fire infernal, which it was desired to have the Academy "crown," being that it was enough for members, and therefore for candidates, to be of the rehgion of Horace.* In obtaining an exclusive privilege for its Dictionary so early as 1674 the French Academy wished to guard against infidelity on the part of its hired assistants, no suspicion of any of its own body being even entertained. In August of the year 1684, however, as related by D'Ohvet, whose information is derived from the Acad- emy's registers, Fureti^re "surprised a privilege of the Great Seal for the printing of a Universal Dictionary, in which, after the title shown to the approbatorf he ♦Nouveaux Lirndis, XII., 436, art. L'Acad^mie Fransaise. t Charpentier, an Academician. 72 THE FRENCH ACADEMY caused to be entered only the terms of the arts and sct- ences; but in which, after that inserted in the privilege, he caused to be entered, all French words, old as well as modern, and consequently all that was to compose the work of the Academy, which he was suspected of having pillaged. " The Academy dissembled its suspicions for the rest of the year; but early in January, 1685, at an ordinary meeting, Furetiere being present, when it had come to its knowledge that specimens of his Dictionary were being printed, a special meeting was appointed to con- sider the question. Furetiere did not attend it. Un- willing to take any action without giving him a hearing, the Academy directed its secretary, Regnier-Desmarais, to call in person upon him, and request his attendance at the next ordinary meeting. He again failed to appear. As the Academy was discussing the advisability of a further summons, M. de Novion, then director, announced that Furetiere had absented himself on his advice, his reason for giving it being that he thought the matter could be satisfactorily arranged by the voluntary sur- render to him of the accused Academician's privilege and his manuscript. Several days after the meeting, Fureti^re's privilege and his manuscript of the letter A were, in fact, placed in the hands of De Novion, who, with a view to an amica- ble settlement of the dispute, proposed a conference at his own house between Furetiere and commissioners of the Academy. To this the Academy assented, and left the choice of commissioners to the director himself, who named Bishop Chaumont, Perrault, Charpentier, and Thomas Comeille, to whom was added Regnier-Des- GENERAL HISTORY 73 marais on the part of the Academy, to be present as secretary and custodian of its papers. At the confer- ence, after the Academy's privilege had been produced and its terms stated, FuretiSre was requested to read his privilege, whereupon Charpentier, the state official by whom the approbation which secured its issue had been indorsed, objected that the title submitted to and approved by him did not correspond with that in the privilege, the point being made that it was clearly an infringement of the rights acquired by the Academy under its own privilege. The difference in the names declared by Fureti^re for his approbation and his privilege having been established, a comparison was then made of his manuscript with that of the Academy, when, says D' Olivet, it was found that the method, the definitions, the phrases of the Academy, had been employed either without change or with changes so visibly manipulated that their origin was all the more apparent. Fureti^re was so disconcerted that the Academy's commissioners, loath to humiliate him fur- ther by pressing for explanations then and there, begged M. de Novion to postpone the investigation for three days, when they would return and resume it. Between the two conferences the Academy authorized Racine, La Fontaine, and Boileau, friends of Fureti^re from childhood, to call upon him in its name, in order to persuade him to an accommodation. Infuriated by the humiliation he had undergone, he was inaccessible to counsel, and they effected nothing. At the second conference at De Novion's he was as little amenable to reason, the Academy's director ending by saying that "neither as judge, nor as Academician, nor as his friend" 74 THE FRENCH ACADEMY could he help condemning him. The Academy had no alternative: it was formally resolved, on 22nd January, 1685, that Fureti^re be deprived of his seat, after having been one of its members for twenty-three years. At- tending the session on this occasion were Chaumont, Bishop of Acqs, Chancellor; Regnier-Desmarais, Secre- tary; Charpentier, Abbe Tallemant the Elder, Leclerc, Abb6 Testu, Abb6 Tallemant the Yoimger, Abb6 Boyer, Quinault, Perrault, Racine, Abb6 Gallois, Benserade, Abb4 Huet, President Rose, Ahh6 de Lavau, Abb6 de Dangeau, Barbier d'Aucourt, La Fontaine, and Thomas CorneiUe. It will not readily be believed that a tribunal so composed would on frivolous grounds have condemned to irretrievable disgrace an Academician of so many years' standing. When the vote of expulsion was reported to the king he exhibited some surprise at the extreme measure resorted to by the Academy, and inquired if all due formalities had been observed. Subsequently, on being informed of the successive stages of the dispute in a lengthy statement in which reference was made to the suppression of Fureti^re's privilege, he remarked, ignor- ing the question of expulsion, and in allusion only to the cancellation of the privilege, that the matter must be allowed to take its course in the courts. Technically, therefore, the expulsion of Furetiere was not consum- mated, as it did not receive the formal approval of the Academy's protector and was not confirmed by its own second vote. Furetiere did not, however, again enter the Academy, but his successor was not appointed until after his death, which occurred on the 14th of May, 1688. D'Ohvet, who evidently took no pleasure in recording GENERAL HISTORY 75 the facts of this case, after contrasting the behaviour of Fureti^re during the three closing years of his life, in which he gave himseK up to acrimonious railings against his former colleagues, with the generous forbearance of the Academy, concludes his account as follows: "For a remarkable thing, and which cannot but do much honour to that Society, is that there appeared nothing on its part against him. To confound him, however, it had only to state simply what had passed on both sides. It had only, I say, to do then, in the quahty of party offended, what I have just done here in the quality of historian. " If, however. Academicians, following the Academy's example, refrained from publishing anything in reply to provoking personal attacks from their adversary, there must have been some very plain speaking about the trouble in private circles, as disclosed by the subse- quent printing of correspondence and memoirs, in which the Academy's grievance and the gravamen of the charge against Furetiere are unreservedly exposed. It is related that, a copy of as much of the condemned Dictionary of the Academy as had been printed having remained in Mezeray's possession, along with the manuscript of one or tWo letters of the rest of it, at his death the Acad- emy delegated Furetiere, as an intimate friend of its late secretary, to call upon the heirs and claim its property, but that he did not honestly acquit himself of the mission. Says Charpentier: "The faithful deputy stole the copy printed in sheets. Rich in a day, and his Dictionary completed, he copies with dihgence, changes some words at the commencement, and is minded to have a privi- lege. " It is further charged, on the same authority, 76 THE FRENCH ACADEMY that Furetiere, who from his entrance into the Academy- was one of the most diligent collaborators on its Dic- tionary, was accustomed to arrive half an hour before the usual time for opening the meetings, that he might copy undisturbed the work of each preceding session. D'Alembert, in the article on Regnier-Desmarais in his "History of Academicians," also sustains the Acad- emy. Livet takes the other side in the unhappy contro- versy, and gives a brief analysis of Furetiere's three factums — of which, it may be mentioned, the first two were suppressed by order of the pubhc prosecutor, and the third was intended as a justification of them — which last, so far from improving the deposed Academician's position, is rather a vindication of the Academy. "The Abb6 d'Olivet," says Livet, "has shown himself very partial in his recital of the wretched difference of Fure- tiere with the French Academy. Posterity does not appear to have confirmed the rigours of the ancient Academy toward a man of merit, more compromised, doubtless, by his epigrams and his biting wit than by his alleged plagiarism." Much of the matter in the factums and accompanying apologise, which together make two volumes, is irrelevant abuse, but the gist of them may be said to lie in these three propositions, which their author undertook to prove in the second factum: (1) That the Academy had no pow-er to judge him; (2) that it had not observed any form of justice in constituting itseK judge and party; (3) that, all said and done, the crime of which he was accused merited eulogium and recompense rather than indictment and deposition. It is noticeable that no attempt is made by Livet to GENERAL HISTORY 77 controvert D'Olivet's relation, except on the capital charge, as to which, granting that Furetiere was wrongly accused, his reasoning is unconvincing, when we re- member that a dictionary contains many thousand articles. In allusion to a comparison made by Furetiere of his own Dictionary with another two — that of the Academy (which had not yet been published) and that of Richelet, pubhshed at Geneva in 1680 — he says: "There could be no better proof to exculpate him from his alleged plagiarism and to show that his work was entirely original." Livet says, again, in defending Furetiere from the reproach of clandestinely entering into competition with the body of which he was a member: "Nothing is more easily explained. Furetiere, seeing for himself that of which the public was ignorant — namely, of how little utility the Dictionary of the Acad- emy would be — undertook to do better, what no one who judged of the book by its reputation would have readily attempted. " It need only be said of this singular justification of the means for the sake of the end that it seems inconsistent with what we are told by Furetiere himself, whose Dictionary must have been begun nearly twenty years before he entered the Academy, if, as he asserts in one of his factums, it had cost him forty years of labour. An edition of the Dictionary which caused so much commotion, and of which the original privilege had been suppressed on 9th March, 1685, was published at Paris in 1690 under the title, " Dictionnaire universel contenant gen^ralement tous les mots frangais tant vieux que modernes et les termes des sciences et des arts," in two folio volumes. About the same time, it was published 78 THE FRENCH ACADEMY in its complete form in Holland in three quarto volumes. Livet says of the latter edition, in concluding his defence of Fureti^re: "From every point of view its superiority over the first edition of the Dictionary of the Academy cannot be disputed ; not only are there found in it, in an order more easily followed, the same words as in the rival Lexicon, but information which is and will be more and more precious for the study of the manners and the usages of an epoch which cannot be thoroughly imder- stood without continually turning its pages. We beheve that this opinion is not alone ours, but that of all the per- sons who have compared the two works and sought to form an adequate idea of this first effort at an encyclo- pffidia, undertaken and terminated by the labour and knowledge of one man." Livet and those who think with him may be right, but it is impossible to commend Furetiere's sense of propriety before, or his sense of dignity after, his exclusion, whether or not the Academy's proceedings against him had just cause. Excessive flattery of Louis XIV. is a charge against the French Academy from which even friendly chroniclers do not absolve it. As, however, it would be altogether misleading to cite in illustration of its adulatory language selected passages from academical panegyrics or addresses having the king for their subject, it will perhaps be sufficient to limit quotation in this kind to the Dedication of the first edition of the Dictionary, which appears in full in the second chapter. To be properly understood, such pieces should at least be read in their entirety, if not in conjunction with others of the same kind from different sources; for the period was one of unhealthy emulation FRONTISPIECE : ACADEMY'S DICTIONARY OF 1694 (Reduced') [Page 79 GENERAL HISTORY 79 in praise of the sovereign — of the Roi Soleil as he had come to be called by extravagant admirers. But a more striking example of flattery, perhaps, than even the verbal adulation of the Dedication, is the frontispiece to the same edition of the Dictionary, which represents the crowning with bays of a portrait bust of the Acad- emy's first royal protector. Dr. Johnson, one of the most aggressively independent of men of letters of his time, saw no harm in the paying, by those who chose to do so, of sixpence worth of court for a shilling's worth of favour; but with the French Academy and Louis XIV. the objection appears to lie in the fact that these conditions were, at least on the surface, reversed. If, however, the Louis XIV. Academy was at times excessively courtly, it is true that its royal protector was always gracious in his relations with it. It is equally true that the royal favour conferred on it an added lustre which inured not only to the social advan- tage of every Academician, but to the advantage of the profession of letters— for such, through the prestige and influence of the Academy, it had become. We are told that even before its installation in the Louvre the Acad- emy was admitted to address the king by the same right and with the same honours as the superior courts. After he became its protector the king in 1674 caused the restoration to each of its members of the right of Com- mittimus, which had been restricted to the four oldest Academicians in the order of reception by the terms of a royal ordinance issued in August, 1669, but not especially aimed at the Academy, because, the king is made to declare, "it was represented to us that it was very pre- judicial to our subjects that an almost infinite number 8o THE FRENCH ACADEMY of communities and persons should enjoy the right of Committimus, which some abused." He also caused the reservation of half a dozen places for Academicians at performances held in the court theatre, those who attended on such occasions being treated with the dis- tinguished consideration shown to the highest of the noblesse. Again, there was hardly any academical privilege of which the Academicians had become more jealous than the equality asserted in the fifteenth article of the Statutes. In the opening years of the eighteenth century, however, as men of rank among them became more numerous, some of these, who were opposed to the Academy's republicanism in this particular, set on foot a movement aiming at a division of the Academy into two classes — men of letters, pensioned, and grands seigneurs, honorary members. This attempt was not only regarded with disfavour by the Academy, but with the liveliest indignation. It was unsuccessful. The king, when informed of the Academy's real sentiments by other members, grands seigneurs of high rank, refused to coimtenance it. Then, too, it was owing to the king's good sense, again in vindication of the cherished principle of equality, that the historic fauteuils come upon the scene. We have two distinct accounts of their introduction, which differ from each other in some particulars, but both agree in saying that so far only the director of the Academy, whose office might be filled by any Academician, accord- ing as the lot fell to him, enjoyed the dignity of a fau- teuil. It appears, according to one of these accounts, that some high dignitaries and personages objected to the GENERAL HISTORY 8i plain chairs then in use in the Academy as ill becoming their rank, especially on pubhc occasions, and even absented themselves from its sessions for this reason. No distinction could, of course, be made between the dissatisfied cardinals, dukes, and peers and the other Academicians, but a remedy was found by providing each with a fauteuil. The second account of the matter is given by Duclos. He states that Cardinal d'Estrees, having become very infirm, sought distraction from physical ills by assiduous attendance at the Academy's meetings, and asked that he might be permitted to bring a chair more suited to his weak state than the kind provided. The request was reported to the king, who foresaw the consequences of such an invidious distinction, and he ordered the superintendent of the royal garde-meuble to have forty fauteuils carried from that storehouse to the Academy, in this respect academical equality being thereby assured. Laplace, in his "Pieces interessantes et pen connues pour servir a I'histoire de la litt^rature, " closely follows Duclos. Another version, evidently, of this second account is, according to the writer of the article on Colbert, who died in 1683, in Larousse's Dictionnaire Universel, that one member, a grand seigneur, having caused a fauteuil for himself to be brought to the Academy, Colbert imme- diately had thirty-nine others sent to it, this being the origin of the fauteuils. Mesnard, after D'Alembert, expUcitly states that the fauteuils were sent to the Academy on the election of La Monnaye, in 1713, or only two years before the king's death, while D'Olivet, whose history is brought down to 1700, implies that they made their appearance early in 82 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Louis XrV.'s protectorate, but mentions no date; and the other writers cited are equally reticent. The intro- duction into the Academy of the fauteuils is established, there is little doubt of the source whence they came, but the question of the date of their appearance seems still to be an open one. D'Olivet, Duclos, Laplace, and Mes- nard agree as to the number provided — namely, forty — while one writer makes it thirty-nine. A rather whimsi- cal detail, which might have helped us to a conclusion on this point, is omitted by all these historians: there is not a word said as to the disposal of the original and perhaps ancient fauteuil of the director of the Academy — not even in connection with the mention of thirty- nine. The recorded instances of intervention by the first royal protector in academical elections are few in number. La Fontaine having been elected in preference to Boileau- Despr^aux in succession to Colbert, by a vote of sixteen to seven, confirmation of the choice was withheld by the protector for the reason that there had been "disagree- ment and cabal" in the Academy, and also because of the lapses from decorum of La Fontaine's "Contes, " a copy of which President Rose had flung on the table in opposing his election. The king had desired to see the place go to Boileau. A few months later, another vacancy having occurred, Boileau, whom it was now understood the king delighted to honour, although per- sonally disliked, for cause, by many of the Academicians, was unanimously elected to fill it; or, to make a fine distinction, he was elected without a dissentient vote. When the protector was apprised of the nomination, he made no attempt to conceal his gratification. "The GENERAL HISTORY 83 choice," he said, "which has been made of Despr^aux * is very agreeable to me, and will be generally approved. You can now receive La Fontaine: he has promised to be discreet." No sooner was this announcement made than the Academy at least gave itself the satisfaction of hastening to confirm La Fontaine's election to the first of the two vacancies, and to make arrangements for his reception before that of Boileau, who had in his satires done for not a few of his new colleagues what Pope did for his contemporaries in the "Dunciad." A more youthful aspirant for entrance into the Acad- emy than even the Marquis de Coislin was the Duke of Maine, at fifteen years of age, but the protector, whose sense of the fitness of things was in this instance greater than that of the Academy, did not approve of his candi- dacy, which therefore miscarried. As another illustra- tion of courtly language, and a further aid to its true interpretation, it may be mentioned that, when the wish of the young prince was communicated to the Academy, Racine was directed to say to him on its part that, "even if there were no place vacant, there was not an Acade- mician who would not be glad to die to make one." There is, of course, no man of sense who would take such language hterally, or think of citing it as an evidence of servility except from malevolence. One of the protector's personally recommended can- didates was Clermont-Tonnerre, Bishop of Noyon, his * So spoken of in his own time and by writers in the next century, the name coming, it is said, from a small family possession. In our time the patronymic Boileau alone sufficiently distinguishes him from all others of the same name, whom his reputation has cast into the shade, and who in their turn have to be distinguished by some addition, as Nicolas, Gilles, Abbi Boileau. 84 THE FRENCH ACADEMY mouthpiece in the Academy being the Marquis Dangeau. Something of the candidate's unpopularity is discerned in the name "Apologie" given by D'Alembert to his memorial sketch, while "Eloge" is the name heading all the others, and he makes a very good case for the bishop, who would appear to have been by no means so stupidly egotistical as repute made him, notwith- standing the very peculiar reception oration imputed to him, and reproduced, together with Caimiartin's ironical response, at the end of the "Apologie" by D'A- lembert, who ascribes to the bishop's secretary or some other hand certain otherwise almost incredibly self- laudatory passages in it.* The king was accustomed, in a polite way, to make this dignitary the butt of his witticisms, all unconsciously to their object, and the Abb^ Caumartin, who was aware of what may be called the new Academician's simplicity, took advantage of it in formally receiving him into the Academy. "What happiness for it," he said, in his address, which had actually been submitted by its author to the bishop for approval, "to be able at once to satisfy justice, its in- clination, and the wish of its august protector"; and, in allusion to the king's badinage: "He knows better than any one your merit; he knows you thoroughly; he loves to converse with you, and when he speaks to you a joy overspreads his visage which is perceived by every- body." It is hardly necessary to point out that the ridicule aimed at the new Academician in this instance also hit the king, as being perceived of every one present except the person whom it most concerned. The king, * Histoire des Membres de I'Acad. fr. (1787), II., pp. 9 seq. GENERAL HISTORY 85 it is said, never forgave Caumartin, but the bishop, who, notwithstanding his pride of birth and inordinate vanity, appears to have possessed some of those qualities con- sidered not unbecoming in a Christian priest, and although his eyes were opened to the real meaning of the address, did, and even tried to get him restored to royal favour. The hand of Louis was also visible in the election of a successor to Perrault in 1704. D'Olivet relates the oc- currence as a notable instance of the king's watchfulness over the Academy's dignity, and not as an arbitrary exercise of authority. It should be explained that, early in the Academy's history, Arnauld d'Andilly having re- fused a seat in the Academy for reasons personal to him- self and Cardinal Richeheu, the cardinal requested that candidates should thenceforth be required to offer them- selves, and that an article should even be inserted in the Statutes to that effect, but of such an article there is no record. For a time the rule, sound enough in principle, was rigidly observed, but later was relaxed, and places were exceptionally offered. In 1704 the vacancy caused by the death of Perrault was sought by the Abb6 de Chaulieu, an unwelcome candidate. On the day of election the Academy's director armounced that De Lamoignon, one of the presidents of the Parliament, was a competitor for the vacancy, and to him fell all the votes. However, De Lamoignon, unaware of the king's interest in the election, at the suit of the Prince of Cond6, Chau- lieu's patron, who wished to force the hand of the Academy by leaving it no other candidate, declined the nomina- tion. It was now that, according to D'Olivet, the king interposed. "The refusal of M. de Lamoignon was pub- licly known, without the reason being known to any one. 86 THE FRENCH ACADEMY The king, to prevent any humiliation to the Academy, cast his eyes on a subject, illustrious by birth, by digni- ties, by qualities natural and acquired — upon a subject who, by his occupation of that same place, would cause it to be forgotten that it had been disdained by any one. " Such a subject was found in Cardinal de Rohan, then coadjutor of Strasbourg. He was on the point of leaving for his diocese in Alsace, had even taken leave of the king; but late on the evening of the day before he was to set forth, Louis sent a message to him by a secretary of state requesting him to put off his departure and to solicit the vacant seat in the Academy. This the cardinal did, and was duly elected. Mesnard's account of this election differs slightly from that of D'Olivet, who, it is well to say, oversteps the limit of the date to which he had restricted himself solely to include the incident. Mesnard relates that, when the protector became aware of Chaulieu's candidacy, he sent for Tourreil, the Academy's director, and requested him to bring forward a competitor of such standing and parts as would be certain to defeat Chaulieu, whose manner of hfe caused great scandal and was highly displeasing to the king. It was in this way that De Lamoignon's name came to be proposed at the last moment by Tourreil, the result being as above stated. At any rate, when the circumstances were brought to De Lamoignon's knowl- edge, he addressed to the Comte de Pontchartrain a letter, intended for the king's eye, or ear, explaining his refusal. The reply to this letter is, in its way, a masterpiece in the art of non-committal expression, yet conveying dis- pleasure withal, and must, until events unfolded its true import, have kept the person to whom it was addressed GENERAL HISTORY 87 on the kind of tenter-hooks famihar to those who in olden time consulted the oracles. "The king," says the Comte, "to whom I have read the letter which you have taken the trouble to write to me on the subject of the refusal which you made of the place which it was desired to give to you in the French Academy, has ordered me to tell you that he was pleased at the good choice which had been made; but that, the thing not suiting you, and wishing absolutely to refuse it, it is only neces- sary to sjTupathize with the Academy for losing, or, rather, for not being able to give itseK, such a worthy confrbre as you would have been." Before proceeding to relate events of another protec- torate, it is natural and fitting, in a history of the French Academy, to record the birth of several sister academies in the protectorate in which they occurred — especially so of the Academy of Inscriptions, founded in 1663. It was at first called the Little Academy (la Petite Acad6- mie), perhaps for two reasons, one of them obviously because it was httle, being composed of only four members; but as these — ^to wit, Chapelain, Charpentier, Bourzeys, and Cassagne — were also all members of the French Academy, the name may have meant originally the French Academy in little, or a small academy within the larger. Its charge was "to labour on inscriptions, devices, medals, and to shed on all these monuments the good taste and simpMcity which make their real worth, " and hence the name Academy of Inscriptions and Medals by which it was for some time known. It met once or twice a week in Colbert's library or at Sceaux, Perrault acting as secretary. It should be added that in 1701, never so far having been formally instituted, to avert 88 THE FRENCH ACADEMY its threatened extinction the Abbe Bignon secured for it a constitution in due form as the Academy of Inscrip- tions, confirmed by edict of 1716 as the Royal Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres. At the prompting, it is said, of Perrault, the Academy of Sciences was founded by Colbert in 1666. Under the same great minister, in 1663 or 1664, was brought about the remod- elling of Lebrun's Academy of Painting, dating from 1648, as the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, with which was later incorporated that of Architecture, founded in 1671, another creation of Colbert's — ^their identity, except as sections, being ultimately lost in the post-Revolutionary Class or Academy of Fine Arts. Louis XIV. died in 1715, leaving the protectorship of the French Academy to his successors as a royal prerogative. His ashes were hardly cold before there was an almost general revulsion of feeling, and the memory of the idol before whom the nation had so long bowed down in worship was the object of revilement on every side; but not in the Academy, at least overtly. On the contrary, in 1718 in defence of it the Acad- emy formally expelled one of its most estimable mem- bers, the latest instance in its history of this act of severity. Five years before, the Abb6 de Saint Pierre, after his return from the Congress at Utrecht, at which he had assisted with Cardinal Polignac, and in whose negotia- tions he saw the well-being and happiness of peoples as little considered as if they were beasts of burden, had pub- lished a treatise entitled "Projet de Paix Perp^tuelle, " in which he proposed the formation of an international tribunal of arbitration for the settlement of national GENERAL HISTORY 89 disputes, instead of by war* There was, however, in this work little or nothing to give offence to anybody. But in 1718 appeared his "Discours sur la Polysynodie, " a development of the same idea, in which Louis XIV. is censured for waging unjust wars, for the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and deemed unworthy of the addi- tion to his name of the appellation "Great," that of "Powerful" or "Redoubtable" being mentioned as more appropriate. This latter work caused great offence at Court, or, more correctly, in certain court circles. Saint Pierre was denounced in the Academy for the dissemi- nation of such sentiments by Cardinal Pohgnac, and his expulsion demanded; Cardinal Fleury, chancellor of the Academy at the time, demanded not only expulsion, but the erasure of the offending Academician's name from its roll of membership, while both requested, to give emphasis to their attitude in the matter, that their remarks should be recorded in its registers. Saint Pierre was not present, although he had made an appeal to be heard, and no one had the courage to speak in his de- fence. When the vote was taken, there was found among the condemnatory black balls one white against expulsion. It was the silent protest of Fontenelle. The * One of the first princes in Europe and the president of a great Republic have been the means of the assembhng at The Hague of two international peace conferences, yet it is edifjmig to compare the reception given to the proposal of this amiable altruist two hundred years ago with present conditions and sentiment among princes and peoples, when it is doubtful whether the latter (republics) are any less warlike in spirit than the former. "You have forgotten an essential article," said Cardinal Fleiiry to him, "that of sending missionaries to touch the hearts of princes and persuade them to enter into your views." Cardinal Dubois said of the project: "It is the dream of a man who means well." 90 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Regent Orleans, who was virtual protector, confirmed the Academy's sentence, but requested that no successor should be appointed during the deposed Academician's lifetime, perhaps with a view to his future reinstatement. Indeed, toward the end of 1729 an attempt was made by Saint Pierre's friends, among them the Duke of Riche- lieu, to have the matter reconsidered; but it failed, principally owing to the continued enmity of Fleury and Polignac, the prime movers in the expulsion. Saint Pierre's fauteuil therefore remained vacant until his death, in 1743. His successor, Maupertuis, was forbidden by an order from the Court to pronoimce the usual eulogium of a predecessor. D'Alembert in 1775, when welcoming Malesherbes into the Academy, paid the neglected tribute to his memory. In the year following Saint Pierre's expulsion, and no doubt as a consequence of it, the young king made a formal visit to the Academy. He was, naturally, re- ceived with the respect befitting his position. Marshal Villeroi making a speech, as we are told, "full of elo- quence and dignity, and very honourable to the Society. " But there has been preserved a comphment, called forth at this interdew, which sounds rather oddly as ad- dressed to a child of ten, and may help us to a correct understanding, in other cases, of panegyrical language for which the Academy has been not a little berated. It was as follows, spoken by M. de Vahncour, the Acad- emy's director: "To-day, sire, is the finest in our lives. It will be marked in letters of gold in our annals. " Evi- dently, the ardour of loyalty for which the Academy had for half a century been distinguished had not yet per- ceptibly cooled. GENERAL HISTORY 91 Gradually, however, the cordial relations between the Academy and its protector were to undergo a change, and to be succeeded by mutual distrust and even an- tagonism. As the years passed, the despotic monarch developed a hatred of the party of Philosphers as strong as he was capable of feeling, while the Academy, on the other hand, ended by admitting into its body most of the leaders of the new movement and becoming more or less completely dominated by their doctrines, social, political, and theological. The first of the Philosophers of the eighteenth century to be elected an Academician, although Fenelon, Saint Pierre, and Fontenelle had much in common with them in independent thought and humanitarian feehng, and are properly described as their precursors, was Montes- quieu, who became a candidate for the vacancy left by De Sacy's death in 1727. So far, his literary titles con- sisted only of the "Lettres Persanes," a satire, more correctly a series of satires, in which are held up to ridicule many of the foibles and vices of the period. Expressed in a tone of flippant levity, yet keen and penetrating at times, these letters were apparently written on the principle that — "Joking decides great things, Stronger and better far, oft, than earnest can." It is a work containing perhaps as biting sarcasm as has ever been levelled at the French Academy, which, how- ever, to its credit be it recorded, has seldom allowed mere academical rancour to exclude talent from member- ship. Cardinal Fleury, who was not a great reader, had not acquired a personal knowledge of the "Lettres," but he gi THE FRENCH ACADEMY was informed of their audacious character by opponents of Montesquieu, and he immediately warned the Academy that if their author should be nominated the king would refuse his assent to its choice. Montesquieu was not to be so rebuffed. We ai-e told that he hastily got ready a judiciously expurgated copy of his book and, calling upon the minister, presented it to him with the explana- tion that his publishera in Holland had taken liberties with his text in certain places which had given offence. It is fair to say that this story of the garbled volume is not well authenticated, but Fleury's opposition was withdrawn after an interview between himself and the candidate. Montesquieu, duly elected, entered the Acad- emy on the 24th of January, 1728, with the protector's approval, although in supporting him some of the Acade- micians seem to have done violence to their real senti- ments rather than inflict on him a defeat which might deal a serious blow to his reputation, if we may trust the witness of a private letter of 20th December, 1727, from D 'Olivet to President Bouhier.* Voltaire, after many years of vain effort, succeeded in forcing himself through the breach thus made. As author of "CEdipe," "Brutus," the "Henriade," and the "Histoire de Charles XII " he first presented himself^ to the Academy in 1732, but was rejected. In 1736 he again became active with a view to nomination, as we gather from one of D'Olivet's letters to Bouhier, dated 3rd June of that year. "We have," writes D'Olivet, * Le tort qu'elle faisoit au president [in Parliament of Bordeaux], dont elle ruinoit absolument la r6putation, a touchfi quelques-una des ndtres, qui ont trouv6 plus doux d'oxposer I'honneur de la Com- pagnie que de consentir il la fl6trissure de ce fou. — Cited by Livbt. GENERAL HISTORY 93 "elected the Bishop of Mirepoix in the place of M. Mallet, and M. de La Chaussee in the place of M. Portail. . . . Voltaire has returned. He greatly desired one of the vacant places, but did not dare enter the lists, because the Keeper of the Seals is not quite appeased toward him. He is continually returning to the country place of the Marquise du Chatelet. The Duke of Richelieu and the Duke of Villars said to me yesterday that they would labour for him with the Cardinal and the Keeper of the Seals,* and that they counted on me, for my part, to do the same within the Academy. So, according to all ap- pearance, there is an election ready made for the first place which shall fall vacant." That D 'Olivet, who was to give his name to the opponents of the Philosophers in the Academy, should be prepared to assist in breaking down barriers standing in the way of the entrance of the arch-innovator of the party is explained when we learn that Voltaire was one of D 'Olivet's former pupils at the College Louis-le-Grand. The interposition of these powerful friends seems not to have been effectual, for ten more years were to pass over Voltaire's head before he obtained the coveted fau- teuil. He made a determined effort in 1743 to succeed Cardinal Fleury, with the countenance of the king, whose consent to his candidacy had been gained through the favourite, the Duchess of Ch^teauroux, at the instance of the Duke of Richelieu. Voltaire also resorted to other means to insure success which would have ruined the reputation and the memory forever of perhaps any other man, but which we almost accept as a matter of course * Cardinal Fleury and M. de Chauvelin, respectively. 94 THE FRENCH ACADEMY in this extraordinary freak of literary humankind. He wrote to Boyer, Bishop of Mirepoix — ^the head and front of the opposition to him — who had protested against the indecency of a sceptic being chosen to succeed a high dignitary of the Church: "I can say, before God who hears me, that I am a good citizen and a true Catho- lic. . . . My enemies reproach me with certain 'philo- sophical letters. ' I have written several letters to my friends ; but I have never given them this pompous title." The fact is, the " Philosophical Letters " had been publicly burned by the hangman. Voltaire was again defeated, and in exchanging correspondence on the subject with Frederick of Prussia, the great king and the great Hterary genius descended to the puerilities of the school or class room. In speaking of the ancien iv^que de Mirepoix (former Bishop of Mirepoix), in whose signature the first word was abbreviated to anc, they wrote it always dne (ass). In 1746, when his pertinacity was rewarded with success, Voltaire again almost disavowed the "Philosophical Let- ters" in a letter to Father De La Tour, Principal of the College Louis-le-Grand, and, following the example of Montesquieu, he made the printers responsible for much that was deemed reprehensible in his writings. "If ever," he says, "there has been printed under my name a page which might give offence even to the sacristan of the parish, I am ready to tear it up. . . . The world will perhaps never have my real works until after my death." By these and like questionable expedients Voltaire ob- tained the academical succession of President Bouhier, D'Olivet's friend and correspondent. On this occasion the Bishop of Mirepoix remained passive, and he was GENERAL HISTORY 95 elected unanimously, the king's approval still being assured through the influence of the new favourite, Ma- dame de Pompadour, whom Voltaire had known while she was yet Madame d'Etioles. Voltaire's true reason, if any reason given by him can be so called, for so eagerly desiring to enter a body which he'had often done his best to cover with ridicule, appears in a letter written to the Duke of Richelieu in 1750. "I thought," he says, "to make for myself a kind of rampart of the Academies against the persecutions which a man who has written with freedom must always fear in France." After Voltaire, the entrance of the leading Philosophers into the French Academy was attended with little dif- ficulty. He was closely followed by Duclos, Buff on, D'Alembert, and, later in the same protectorate, by Watelet, La Condamine, Saurin, Marmontel, Thomas, CondiUac, Saint Lambert, with others who had more or less sympathy with their teachings. Diderot — in the opinion of M. Arsene Houssaye "worth four D'Alem- berts" — Diderot, indeed, after many ineffectual attempts to overcome the hostility of the Court and a large section of the Academy, finally renounced all hope of ever occupy- ing a fauteuil. One of the earliest pronounced symptoms of growing estrangement between the Academy and its protector was the abolition of the amendment to the rule governing elections, adopted by the early Academy as a rider to Rule 10 — i.e. that the names of candidates approved by it should be submitted to the protector and after- wards receive a confirmatory vote. This formality, after having been in force for more than a century, it was de- cided to omit, and to revert to the letter of the original 96 THE FRENCH ACADEMY rule, the reason being that in 1743 the Academy, at a first scrutiny, having elected the Abb6 de La Bletterie to succeed to the vacancy caused by the decease of the Mar- quis de Sainte Aulaire, suffered the mortification of a veto by the king, confirmation being refused, on the counsel of the Bishop of Mirepoix, solely because the candidate chosen was a Jansenist, and the presentation of another name requested. Shortly thereafter, osten- sibly on the ground that at a second balloting the success- ful candidate of the first might be rejected, thereby showing a want of respect for the candidate approved by the protector, but more probably on the supposition that his veto would not be lightly interposed in the face of a thing accomplished and of public opinion, the Academy adopted a resolution that there should be only one ballot- ing in the election of new members. This mode of pro- cedure was not to the protector's liking. In 1752 he expressly ordered the Academy, in writing, first to submit the names of candidates for his approval; otherwise, it was informed, elections would be considered void. An election which, in certain aspects, exhibits the Acad- emy in a not unfavourable light was that of the Count of Clermont, who succeeded Gros de Boze in 1753, a little to the prejudice of Bougainville, the other candidate, who was unaware that he had such a formidable com- petitor. When the prince became possessed of the desire to occupy a fauteuil, he secretly consulted several Acade- micians, among whom was Duclos, and asked to be informed of the Academy's rules. Duclos, replying for the Academy, or, more correctly, for the group of Academ?- cians in the secret, which did not include those of the Court, said that the Statutes were so simple that they GENERAL HISTORY 97 needed no explanation. Then, to quote from his own statement, he writes: "The only privilege of which the men of letters, who are really the Academy, are jealous is the external equality which reigns in our assembUes: the Academician whose fortune is least would not renounce the privilege for all the pensions in the world. If his Most Serene Highness does the Academy the honour of enter- ing it, he must confirm by his presence the right of the body in never taking place above its officers." If it were otherwise, he explains: "Cardinals would form the same pretensions, then would come titled personages, and I have a good enough opinion of men of letters to believe that they would withdraw. ... It remains to observe that, when the Academy goes to compliment the king, the three officers walk at the head, and all the other Academicians according to the date of reception." The prince assented to the conditions of this manly exposition, and on the day of election, when the Academy was ready to vote, the secretary read a letter from him in which it was thanked for "the honour which it did him in assign- ing to him the vacant place." Although there were jealous murmurs among the Court members, he received more than enough votes to validate his election; not all, however, but the coveted place, of which Bougainville had felt secure, was thus snatched from him. This is the least pleasing aspect of the incident. No sooner was the election made than members of the prince's family and entourage succeeded in persuading him that it would be derogatory to his dignity to yield the precedence of his rank. Having done so, they ad- dressed to Duclos at his residence a paper affirming their views, and requesting an immediate answer. He was 98 THE FRENCH ACADEMY not at home, but the missive, because of its urgency, was delivered to him where he was dining with a friend, who, he tells us himself in his short history of the Academy, was not an Academician. In the introduction to his re- sponse, given in full below, he says, with perceptible if perhaps pardonable self-complacency: "I could not consult my confrhres, nor concert with them my reply. I took, then, upon myself to do it as follows, whatever might be its success, and at the risk of being avowed or disavowed by the body in whose name I answered. " In one or two places in the letter there is some incoherence in the construction, no doubt due to the hurry of its composition, but the tenour of the docmnent needs no explanation. We cannot think that the memoir which we have just read is authorized by his Most Serene Highness, otherwise we should be in the most cruel situation. We should have to displease a prince for whom we have the greatest respect, or betray the truth, which we respect more than anything in the world. The Count of Clermont has been elected by the Academy. If that prince does not enter it with all the semblance of equality, the glory of the Academy is lost. If the prince were to enter that of BeUes-Lettres or the Sciences, it would be necessary that he should have in either a clear precedence, because there are distinctions between the members who form these Societies. Hence it had to be given to the Czar in that of the Sciences, in placing his name at the head of the honorary members. But since, at the death of Chancellor Siguier, Louis XIV. took the Academy under his personal and immediate protection, with- out ministerial intervention, an inestimable honour which the august successor of Louis the Great has preserved and assured to us, there has never been any distinction between Academicians, notwithstanding the difference of conditions of those who compose the Academy. If his Most Serene Highness received others than those of the respect and love of the men of letters. Academicians who have some superiority of condition over their colleagues would pretend to distinctions, would succeed perhaps in obtain- GENERAL HISTORY 99 ing intermediaries between princes of the blood and the men of letters. These would, in consequence, only be farther removed from the king, for which nothing could console them, and the Academy, hitherto the object of the ambition of men of letters, would be the affliction of all those who cultivate them nobly. The epoch of the highest degree of the Academy's glory, if the rules stand, would be that of its abasement if the Statutes are departed from. Even supposing there should never be any distinction but for princes of the blood, the Academy would not the less be abased from what it is to-day. It sees no person between the king and it, but oflSlcers named by chance. Each Academician is, in that respect, only subordinate as to places to which chance may raise him. The Count of Clermont is respected as a great prince, and, besides, loved and esteemed as an honest man. He has too much real and personal honour to desire an imaginary one. He needs not but continue so: such is the prerogative which the public alone can give and which depends always on a free suffrage. It was not difficult to foresee that, after the transports of joy which the republic of letters had manifested, envy would busy itself under the mask of a false zeal for the prince. If the Czar had Hstened to frivolous persons, his name would never have been inscribed on the list of the Academy of Sciences, the only one suitable to his kind of studies. Nevertheless, that title has not a Uttle served to interest in his renown the republic of letters. When the Count of Clermont announced his intention to several Academicians, their first care was to explain in writing the sole prerogative of which their love and their gratitude toward the king made them jealous. They had the satisfaction of learning that his Most Serene Highness approved their sentiments. They can never be persuaded that they were wrong on counting on his word. We dare to say, and the prince can only esteem us the more for it, that we would never have given him our votes if we could have supposed that we were lending ourselves to our abasement. It is very strange that the rights of princes of the blood should be set forth in a memoir, as if it were a question of maintaining them in a European congress; that they should be paraded in a Society whose duty it is to know them, to publish them, and, if need be, to defend them. 100 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY Princes are adapted for honours of quite another kind than literary distinctions. Is it desired to despoil of them men of whom they are the fortune and the very existence? Are men invested with dignity of such egotism as not to be themselves fiattered that the desire of being associated with them at a single point should be an object of ambition and emulation in literature? The Academy does not wish to have any discussion with the Count of Clermont; he must not enter into judgment with it; it would sorrowfully obey the orders of the king, but it would see no longer other than its oppressor in a prince whom it claims as a judge. It loves him, it would like to preserve the same senti- ments for him — this is what it addresses to him by my voice : "Monseigneur, if you confirm, by your respectable and de- cisive example, an equality which, besides, is only fictitious, you do the Academy the greatest honour which it shall ever have received; you lose nothing of your rank, and I venture to say that you add to your fame in exalting ours. The fall or the ele- vation — the fate, indeed — of the Academy is in your hands. If you do not raise it to you, it falls below what it was; we lose everything, and the prince gains nothing which should console him for our affliction. Would it be seen to attain a joy so glorious for letters and for yourself? Those who are most tenderly at- tached to you are men of letters: would it be of a prince, their friend from childhood, that they alone should have to complain? Our profound respect will always be the same for you, Monsei- gneur; but love, which is only a tribute of gratitude, would be extinguished in all hearts which are worthy to love you and to be esteemed of you." The Count of Clermont did not further insist. He soon after dropped into the Academy at one of its ordinary- sessions, saluted his "new confreres," condescendingly accepted his jeton, remarking that it would be his "cross of Saint Louis of the Academy," and took his leave, but — and of this Duclos gives not a hint — his public reception never took place. It was his first and his last visit. Ob- viously, however, there is another side to the story which represents as a servile creature of the old Monarchy an institution of whose repubhcan spirit some of the notables GENERAL HISTORY loi in it complained even a century earlier, which could ad- dress to one of the royal family language such as has just been read, and whose destruction was finally threatened because of its subversive republican doctrines and ex- ample, some years before the Revolution, when the charge against it was the taint of aristocracy. Piron's election was prevented in 1753. When his friends proposed his nomination, it appears that the Academy, which was aware of the candidate's straitened circumstances and desired to add to his income the few hundred francs of an Academician, magnanimously par- doning his sarcastic sallies against itself, was almost unanimous in his favour, the understanding being that Piron should even be dispensed from making the cus- tomary visits of solicitation to members, as it was known he would not, and, in the state of his health, perhaps could not, make them. But the Bishop of Mirepoix, the prompter of the king's conscience, or, as was currently believed, D'Olivet, going to the king, brought to his notice a licentious poem of Piron's early youth which was given to the world by a boon companion of its author, who himself, it is said, as is not unusual in such cases, had not intended to pubhsh it. The protector sent for Mon- tesquieu, the Academy's director, and informed him that the nomination of Piron, if presented, would not be sanc- tioned, thus frustrating its benevolent intentions. And so 'poor Piron might have had graved on his tombstone the epitaph composed by himself in reference to this check — for his querulousness held the Academy respon- sible for it : Ci-git Piron, qui ne fut rien, Here lies Piron, who was nothing, Pas m^me Acad^micien. Not even Academician. 102 THE FRENCH ACADEMY It has a tang of bitterness. However, by the intercession of Madame de Pompadour, to whom Montesquieu wrote in his behalf, Piron was consoled for his repulse by a pension of a thousand francs. Referring to Piron's youth- ful literary indiscretion, Montesquieu said, in his letter: "Piron is punished enough, madame, for the bad verses which he has produced; on the other hand, he has pro- duced some very good ones. He is bhnd, infirm, poor, married, old." Buff on was elected to fill the vacancy in the Academy thus missed by Piron. As the party of the Philosophers in the Academy be- came strengthened by additional recruits after the middle of the century, the reception discourses of its open sessions and the compositions of its prize-winners teemed with allusions, indirect or pointed and more or less just, re- flecting on the administration of public affairs. They enunciated the then strange doctrines of political Hberty and equality, the greatest good of the greatest number, denounced the parasitism of the privileged few, the op- pression of unequal taxation, the robbery of the people and the government by the farmers of the revenue. Both before and after becoming an Academician, as a winner of the Prize of Eloquence and as a speaker at receptions, among the most outspoken in denunciation of the public evils was Thomas. Those who have heard of the courtly side of the Academy would be astonished at the freedom of sentiments applauded to the echo in its public sessions. Thomas, in the opening of his Eloge of Sully (Prize of Elo- quence, crowned in 1763), said: "If there were a country where disorders and evils were the same, where abuses were changed into laws, manners corrupted by abase- ment, the springs of the state relaxed by languor, it GENERAL HISTORY 103 would be for that country I should write." Proceeding, he condemned the oppressive incidence of the corvees, of the taille and the gabelle, and, in the spirit of his epi- graph or motto — utinam—t\ms held up to reprobation the farmers of the revenue: "Would that my age were even surprised to learn that the king received only thirty millions, while the people paid one hundred and fifty." In his Eloge of Marcus Aurelius (1770)— not pubhshed until 1775 because the printing of it was forbidden — in which he declared liberty to be "the first right of man, the right of obeying only the laws and fearing them only," he pictured Rome under the tyranny of the Empire, illus- trating his account by existing national instances, in language so thinly veiled as to make it clear who and what was meant. Again in 1770, as director of the Acad- emy, in his address of ^welcome to Lom6nie de Brienne, who succeeded the Duke of Villars, he was deemed by the Advocate-General Siguier, who was in his place at the reception, to have thus publicly affronted him, by some of the remarks made, in connection with his recent official conduct. Seguier carried his grievance before Maupeou, the chancellor of the kingdom, whose wrath was further intensified by reports made to him of Thomas's speech in other respects. Its eulogy of the Duke of Villars in his governorship of Provence was held to be a reflection on the maladminstration of the Duke of Aiguillon as Governor of Bretagne, and by implication on the chan- cellor himself. Maupeou sent for Thomas, demanded the manuscript of his address, threatened him with severe punishment if he should publish a line of it, and also for- bade him to speak in future at any of the Academy's public sessions. So great, indeed, was official irritation 104 'THE FRENCH ACADEMY against the French Academy at this time that the minis- ter, on the eve of the suppression of the Parliaments, was beheved to be meditating also the abolition of the Acad- emy. It became alarmed, and, to avert the impending blow, of its own motion resolved that all of its discourses or addresses to be delivered in public should first be ex- amined in the Academy in private session. Probably taken as a sign of weakness^or, at least, by an improve- ment on the suggestion — this step soon gave an opening for the tightening of the reins of authority by its protector, who charged it, in a letter dated 6th April, 1772, to be careful in its selection of new members, to have regard to their morals and opinions, so that he might be spared the necessity of negativing its choice, and, also, to have the orations for public occasions reviewed first by its officers, the intention evidently being to narrow and fix the responsibility. The place which the Academy now occupied in the public mind, as well as the number of men of rank and station in its body, were no doubt a strong defence in this crisis of its history, but there is also some ground for the belief that it was not a little indebted for its safety to Voltaire, who may be said to have taken it under his affectionate protection. This term is hardly too strong, as descriptive of Voltaire's relationship to the Academy, notwithstanding the distance of his residence from Paris. L' eclat de rire de Voltaire — that derisive laughter, with its echo resounding from one end of Europe to the other, directed against any one who excited the Patriarch of Ferney's wrath— was not braved with equanimity by ministers of state, or even by monarchs. He thus wrote in 1772 from Ferney: "I wish the Academy always to GENERAL HISTORY 105 be free, that there may be something free in France." To Chastellux, in 1775, he wrote as follows: "The Academy becomes dearer to me than ever. . . . Nothing would better make me young again than to come to pay my re- spects to you, to hear you at your reception, and to share the honour which you do us." At Ferney he probably effected more for the Academy than he could have done as a regular attendant at its meetings. As a Parisian citizen he would have been continually getting himself and it into hot water. He would almost inevitably have quarrelled with three fourths of its membership, if not with thirty-nine fortieths of it. But in his retreat at Ferney Voltaire was a model confrere. We quite forgive him for his occasional satirical attacks upon the Academy before he entered it, and almost forgive him, but not quite — no, not quite — for the unscrupulous methods to which he descended to win his seat. He kept up a more or less regular correspondence with various Academicians, among these being D'Alembert, and was constantly informed of ever3rthing of moment that was going on in the insti- tution. He always took a lively interest in elections, and when there were vacancies to fill his voice was some- times more powerful in securing nominations than that of any Academician on the scene. The Duke of Riche- lieu, who, after the death of D' Olivet, usually placed himself at the head of the opponents of the Philosophers, and an Academician of great influence because of his rank, if not highly respected, was on several occasions led to desist from intriguing against the candidates for whom the Academy showed a preference by Voltaire's entreaties or his expostulations; but not always, for on one occasion he was moved to say of the Duke, who had opposed and io6 THE FRENCH ACADEMY been the means of temporarily defeating the candidate he favoured: "He has passed his hfe in doing me kind- nesses and playing me tricks, in caressing me with one hand and scratching my face with the other." In justice to the duke, however, it must be said that he could truth- fully have retorted in kind. For example, before Vol- taire had become an exile, it fell to Richelieu, as director of the Academy, to compliment the king after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, and he engaged Voltaire to prepare his speech for the occasion. This Voltaire did, but treacherously or mischievously allowed it to be copied by some of the courtiers, who, when the time came for its delivery, were so well prepared that, as the duke made a pause in the flow of his oratory, they would murmur audibly the following phrase before it was uttered by the speaker, not a little to his rage and discomfiture and to the amusement of the auditors. Voltaire's apologies and protestations of freedom from malicious intent were, of course, profuse, and the duke's anger was soon appeased. Besides those already mentioned, other exclusions from the Academy, due to the direct interposition of the protector, were those of Suard and Delille. The rejection of these two candidates, when their names were first presented to the protector for approval, was owing to the duphcity of the Duke of Richelieu. Contrary to the usage prevailing at the time, the candidates were both elected at the same session,* on the motion of Riche- lieu himself, who, as it turned out, informed the king of the alleged irregularity when he, as substitute for the * There is nothing in the Regulations of the Academy against such a method of procedure, and at the present time it elects two or more candidates at the same session as occasion may render expedient. GENERAL HISTORY 107 absent director, the Duke of Nivernais, presented the names for confirmation, as was made clear in the pro- tector's letter of refusal, among the objections being the irregularity of the double election at one and the same session, the youth of Delille, who was thirty-four years of age, and the fact that both had been contributors to the Encyclopedic. The Academy's delegate, instead of loy- ally supporting its nominations, had gone out of his way to furnish the king with reasons for their rejection, and for the demand for the proposal of other names for the two vacancies. Beauzee and Br^quigny were thereupon chosen in their stead, and received the protector's ap- proval; but vigorous efforts were also made to counteract the treachery of Richelieu — successfully, as on the 28th of June, 1772, the Duke of Nivernais received the fol- lowing letter, in which, however, the Academy is roundly taken to task, withdrawing opposition to the renomina- tion, as vacancies occurred, of Suard and Delille. My Cousin: I have made inquiries, as I promised you, con- cerning the age, principles, and morals of the two subjects whom my French Academy proposed to me in its election of the 7th May, and, as the account given me is favourable, I charge you to announce to it that it will be agreeable to me to have them pro- posed again when places shall fall vacant. My Academy must understand that I shall always give the most scrupulous attention to an examination of the choice which it shall make in its elections, and that I shall never allow to enter it any person whose reputation is not blameless in respect to morals and probity, or whose writings and discourses are reprehensible in respect to matters of religion and government. Therefore I recommend it, as I have already done,* to be most careful only to propose subjects whose principles and morals are without re- proach, and I order you to cause the inscription of my present letter on the registers of the Society, to be there consulted and * In the letter of 6th April, before mentioned. io8 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY read, commencing with these words, " My Academy must under- stand, " etc., at every general meeting on the subject of any elec- tion. And the said letter being to no other purpose, I pray God, etc. From such examples as these, it can be seen that there was at times considerable tension in the relations between the king and his French Academy. In 1774 Louis XV. paid the debt of nature, and Suard and Delille, re-elected in the same year, before it occurred, entered the Acad- emy with the approval of his successor. The Academy's protector was now Louis XVI., perhaps one of the most well-meaning, as he was one of the most ill-fated, of the kings of France. At the opening of his reign the Academy had reached the height of its popu- larity. But the long-brewing social and political storm was fast coming to a head. The fruits of three quarters of a century of Philosophy and of ages of tyranny were about to be gathered simultaneously. Philosophy, triumphant in theory, was at length to have an op- portunity to put its teachings into practice, with con- sequences which are recorded in the pages of history, but which will be touched on here only as they affect the French Academy. Deeply rooted, however, as the new ideas had become, there were enemies of the Academy who desired to bring about its annihilation by absorption into the Academy of Belles-Lettres, less aggressive, and, they claimed, more useful. The plan was not frowned upon by Minister Maurepas, apparently oblivious of the more real danger that threatened the supreme political author- ity, and which was to involve the Monarchy and all the old institutions in a common destruction. One of the earliest elections in Louis XVI. 's protectorate was that of the pohtico-philosophical economist Males- GENERAL HISTORY 109 herbes. Turgot would probably soon have kept him company, had he not let it be known that he did not desire to enter the Academy. Without any marked change in its character, but now lagging in the rear of headstrong public opinion, the Acad- emy experienced what an unsteadfast thing is popularity. As the Court began to be left in the coldness of isolation, the pubhc also began to fall away in its attendance at the Academy's open sessions, as well as in its respect for the learned Society. So disrespectful, indeed, was the audience at the reception of the Abbe Maury in 1785 that the abohtion of public sessions was seriously considered. The dwindling popularity of the receptions flared up again to some extent, but only for a brief space. For, although enemies of the existing political abuses were of the Forty, there were among them few extremists, and to the last the Academy observed a decent and even sympathetic line of conduct toward the tottering greatness of royalty. After 1789 its prize competitions, now numbering four, were neglected, there descended upon it the chill of the dark shadow of passing and of coming events, and va- cancies were no longer filled, the election of the Abbe de Barth^lemy at the beginning of that year being the last during the Old Regime. The meetings were not, however, suspended during the opening four years of the Revolution, precarious as was the tenure of the institution's existence. On 16th August, 1790, when a motion was made in the National Assembly by Lebrun to continue the twenty-five thousand and odd francs appropriated for the expenses of the French Acad- emy, adjoiuTiment was demanded by one member until its usefulness should be ascertained, and agreed to by no THE FRENCH ACADEMY the Assembly. On the 20th, or four days later, the mo- tion was renewed by Lebrun. It again met with some opposition, but after a speech in defence of the Academies by the Abb6 Gr^goire, in which he stated that he knew them to be engaged in the preparation of rules for their government in harmony with the new order of things, the sum demanded for their maintenance was provisionally voted, and, pending the presentation of the amended rules, the question of their utility was deferred until a future occasion. Among the ablest attacks upon the French Academy at the time was a production by Chamfort, for several years preceding one of its most assiduous members, who had participated in just the kind of futilities he now pro- ceeded to ridicule and condemn. It was entitled "Report on the Academies," and was prepared for Mirabeau, who was to deliver it before the Constituent Assembly in the forthcoming discussion on the usefulness of these in- stitutions and their proposed new laws. He did not live to do so, but Chamfort published his paper, which demanded suppression. The Abb4 Morellet — Mords-les (Bite-them), as D'Alembert and Voltaire facetiously called him, from his caustic wit — so vigorously defended the French Academy against the renegade Academician, who is said within a year to have publicly refuted himself on the same subject, conceding that, from the date of publication of the Encyclopedic at least, the Academy was animated by the progressive spirit of the Philosophers, that he ran great personal risk, and after the sale of a few copies of his "Response" to Chamfort's "Report," Jan- sen, its frightened publisher, destroyed all the rest. Says Gaston Boissier: "He was not wrong. He probably GENERAL HISTORY m saved Morellet; the brochure, spread among the public, would not have saved the Academy." * Suard also wrote in its defence. But its friends were in a minority, and on the 5th of August, 1793, five of its members appeared at a meeting which was intended to be the last until the times became more settled. It proved to be the last as- sembly of the French Academy as a royal institution of the ancien regime. Three days later, in pursuance of a report in the name of the Committee of Pubhc Instruction by the Abb6 Gr^goire — whose views had undergone a change since August, 1790 — declaring the Academies to be useless and tainted with aristocracy, they were swept out of existence by a curt decree of the Convention, as follows: "All academies and hterary societies patented by the nation are suppressed." Among the suppressed institutions, besides the French Academy, were the Academy of Painting and Sculpture, and Colbert's creations, the Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Inscriptions, and the Academy of Archi- tecture, which last was, properly speaking, in affiliation with the Academy of Painting and Sculpture. Marmontel, the French Academy's secretary, retired to the country soon after the breaking out of the Revolu- tion, and his duties were assumed by the Abb6 Morellet until the suppression. It was Morellet who, in antici- pation of its fate, by what he later described as a "pious larceny," at the meeting on August 5, 1793, removed the Academy's archives into a place of safety. Toward the end of the same month, however, he was required to deliver up the Dictionary, containing the Academy's * Revue des Deux Mondes, 15th July, 1909, art. "Chamfort et I'Acad^mie Frangaise." 112 THE FRENCH ACADEMY marginal and other corrections, which he had not re- moved along with its records from the assembly hall in the Louvre, to be placed in charge of the Committee of Public Instruction. § 2. CREATION OF A NATIONAL INSTITUTE: THE FRENCH ACADEMY IN COMPLETE ABEYANCE (1793-1803); IN PARTIAL ABEYANCE (1803-1816). When the last meeting of the old Academy took place, about one half of its members were already dead, dis- persed, in hiding, or in exile. From its suppression to the creation of the First Institute in 1795, BaiUy, Males- herbes, and Nicolai' had perished on the scaffold, to which they had been preceded in January, 1793, by the Acad- emy's protector, King Louis XVI. Condorcet had en- compassed his own death. Chamfort, also, had twice attempted suicide, at least hastening his end. Others of the former Academicians had suffered imprisonment. After the Terror, when France had been "decimated of her glory" and the people's thirst for blood had been satiated, the National Convention, by Article 298 of the law known as the Constitution of the Year III., 3rd Fructi- dor, (22nd August, 1795,) decreed as follows: "There is for the whole Republic a National Institute, charged with the collection of discoveries, with the improvement of the arts and sciences." Thus, little more than two years after their destruction, literary and scientific societies which had been declared useless were revived, only under a new name and in other forms. The new Institute, of which the centenary was celebrated on the 24th of October, 1895, by an unusually brilliant public session of the five sister Academies con- GENERAL HISTORY 113 stituent in the amphitheatre of the Sorbonne, at which the French Government was officially represented by the President of the Republic and the ministers of state, and foreign governments by their ambassadors or other dignitaries, received its constitution by the law of 3rd Brumaire, Year IV. (25th October, 1795). Among its chief organizers were Lakanal, Daunou, and Carnot. They were probably indebted for the idea to a composite academy projected by Colbert in 1666, but which in the end resolved itself into the creation of the Academy of Sciences, instead of the wider states-general of learning of which the divisions, besides holding weekly individual sessions, were to meet together once a month to discuss subjects of common interest. The National Institute was to comprise three Classes: (1) Of the Mathematical and Physical Sciences, with ten sections (Mathematics proper. Mechanics, Astronomy, General Physics, Chemistry, Mineralogy, Botany, Rural Economy, Anatomy and Zoology, Medicine and Sur- gery), substantially the old Academy of Sciences; (2) of the Moral and Political Sciences, with six sections (Analy- zation of Sensations and Ideas, Social Science and Legis- lation, Moral Philosophy, PoHtical Economy, History, Geography); (3) of Literature and the Fine Arts, with eight sections (Grammar, Ancient Languages, Poesy, Antiquities and Monuments, Painting, Sculpture, Archi- tecture, Music, Declamation). Some clumsy ingenuity seems to have been exercised by the framers of the con- stitution of the Institute so to arrange at least the Second and Third of these Classes that the names of the old Academies could not be fastened on either of them or on any of their parts. The French Academy cannot be 114 THE FRENCH ACADEMY discerned in the one or the other, except in fragments: Grammar, Poesy, and perhaps Declamation of the Third, and, if we include the province which it had usurped during the generation before its suppression, the first four sections of the Second Class. The regular membership of the Institute was fixed at one hundred and forty-four, with an equal number of national and twenty-four foreign associates. The Government was to nominate forty-eight members, two in each section, who were to elect their colleagues, on the plan of the submission by each Class of a list of three or more candidates for a place to be voted on by the entire Institute, one of the chief objections to the system, which implied a closeness of relation between disparate branches of learning that does not exist, being that the first pref- erence of the Class was open to rejection by the Institute, so overruling those best, if not alone fitted to judge of the candidates' qualifications. The presidents of the Classes were to be elected every six months and the secretaries annually: two for the First Class (one for each of its grand divisions — Mathematics and Physics) and one each for the Second and Third Classes. There were to be four annual public sessions of the Institute: on the 15th of the first month of each season according to the Republican calendar — namely, of Vendemiaire, Nivose, Germinal, and Messidor. On the 6th December, 1795, (15th Frimaire, Year IV.,) the National Institute met for the first time in the hall of the former Academy of Sciences in the Louvre, the Minister of the Interior attending to read the law of 3rd Brumaire, its first charter, and the decree of the Directory appointing the forty-eight charter members, as we may call GENERAL HISTORY 115 them. Among these there was no old French Academician in any of the Classes, and when the list was completed by election there were only two — Ducis and Delille — both in the Class of Literature, to whom may be added Mar- montel as an associate. There was, however, really no more reason for placing him in the list of associates than Delille, who had sought safety in Switzerland, and whose place was, in fact, ultimately declared vacant because of prolonged absence from attendance at sessions. In September, 1797, five of the Institute's members,Vep- resentative of all three Classes — Carnot of Mathematics, Pastoret and Barthelemy of Moral Science, and Sicard and Fontanes of Literature — were proscribed and sen- tenced to deportation for purely political reasons, of which the Directory notified the Institute, at the same time declaring their places vacant and ordering new elections. On the 26th December following this arbitrary proceeding the Institute chose for one of those vacancies, that of Carnot, in the section of Mathematics, the young General Bonaparte, the hero of Toulon and of the first Italian campaign. Mesnard has this anecdote about the successful candidate which is not current in English. Some generals having asked him, when again in Italy, what he would do, the war over, to occupy his indefatigable activity, he rephed: "I shall bury myself in a retreat, and there labour to deserve the honour of being of the Institute." One reads with something like amusement of the utterance of such a sentiment by a man whose vaulting ambition was not to be satisfied with the sub- jugation of a continent and in whose mouth could be put by the poet so appropriately, in connection with the apocrj^hal "last request" for burial at sea, these ii6 THE FRENCH ACADEMY words: "The ebbs and the flows of my single soul were tides to the rest of mankind." Whether or not Napoleon regarded his place in the Institute as a mere stepping-stone to power, it is recorded that he bore his academical honours meekly and with apparent complaisance, if not with pride. At its first public session, only ten days after his election, his modest demeanour in presence of the admiration of his colleagues and the public was especially remarked. In reference to it there appeared in the report of the Moniteur a sin- gularly sagacious, and, considering the times, even hardy observation: "Ah! how well that man knows the hu- man heart, and particularly popular governments." The comedy, if such it was, was well kept up, however, for in the Egyptian campaign, which followed soon after, his orders of the day and reports to the Directory began in this form: "Bonaparte, General in Chief, Member of the Institute," while later, as emperor and virtual dictator, the statement of his civil list began thus: "Al- lowance of His Majesty the Emperor and King as Member of the Institute, 1,500 francs." * The Consular body not only concerned itself with the composition of the Institute in its membership, but with what the members should wear, and on the 29th Flor^al, Year IX., (13th May, 1801,) passed a resolution prescribing for them a uniform, as follows : Grand costume — Black coat, waistcoat or vest, breeches or pantaloons, full embroidered, with a branch of olive, in silk, deep green; French hat. Petit costume — Same form and same colom-, but having embroidery only on the collar and the cuffs of the sleeve, with a baguette on the border * Taine: Origines de la France contemporaine (1901), XI., 267. DiSECTOIRE ReSTOHATION OuB DaY COSTUME OF AN ACADEMICIAN {Frnm the Nmirniu Larousse Illustre. By permission) [Page llfi GENERAL HISTORY uj of the coat." It is to be noted that the green embroidery is usually described as of "palms," for the reason prob- ably that, in common with the olive and the laurel, the branches or leaves of the palm were in classical times used for the triumphal wreaths of victors in the arts of peace or war. The uniform has changed with fashion, but has preserved the distinctive green embroidery and the French hat, or bicorne, with the sword, worn by Academicians in full dress. In May or June, 1800, while the First Consul was again in Italy at the head of the French armies, Lucien Bona- parte, Minister of the Interior, at the instance, it would appear, of the Abbe Morellet and of Suard, encouraged the proposal to re-establish the French Academy; but it fell through, as Napoleon, on his return to Paris at the end of July, refused to give his consent to the now fully matured scheme. There was much jealous opposition to it in the Institute, and, although already almost dictator, the impolicy of antagonizing a section of his numerous colleagues may have had some weight in determining the First Consul's decision; but the initiation of a movement so important as the revival of one of the old institutions without his previous concurrence had probably more. To avert fiuther attempts of the kind, the Institute re- solved to begin the correction of the Dictionary — against the protest of Morellet, who, claiming the right of property in it for the old Academicians and cherishing always the hope of a resuscitation of the French Academy, requested permission to form a non-official society under the old name, which should continue the original programme : The Dictionary, a Grammar, and treatises on Poesy and Rhet- oric. But his demands and his plaints were alike unheeded. ii8 THE FRENCH ACADEMY At length, in 1803, the wishes of the veteran abbe were reahzed in nearly aU but name. On the 23rd of January, (3rd Pluviose, Year XI.,) a Consular resolution provided for the reorganization of the Institute. It was now to contain four Classes: (1) Physical and Mathematical Sciences, with eleven sections, the added section being Geography (transferred from the former Second Class) and Navigation; (2) French Language and Literature; (3) Ancient History and Literature; (4) Fine Arts. The Second Institute thus gave no place to the Moral and Political Sciences of the First, which, as ideology, was an abomination to Napoleon. Indeed, Lanfrey says that the sole aim of the reorganization was the suppression of this Class, and not until after the Restoration did it reappear as the fifth Academy of the Institute. The Second Class, like the old French Academy, was to have forty regular and no other members, with a permanent secretary whose appointment was to be subject to the approval of the First Consul. Each of the Classes was now to elect its own members. All nominations, how- ever, were to be submitted for confirmation to the Govern- ment. As in the First Institute and at present, the annual compensation of the secretaries, now permanent in all the Classes, was six thousand francs each, and of the members, fifteen hundred francs each, subject to deduc- tions for non-attendance. More in detail, the allowance of each member of the Institute is now fifteen hundred francs less three himdred francs to form a jeton or right of presence fund for the benefit pro rata of those members who attend more or less regularly the sessions of their Academy and of the Institute, the jeton right — real jetons no longer being used — of absent members at a session GENERAL HISTORY 119 accruing to those present. That is, the absentee member receives a minimum of twelve hundred francs, and the assiduous member not less than fifteen hundred, to- gether with his proportion of the amount forfeited by absentees. In the rearranged Institute the members occupied their places by virtue of a governmental regulation of 27th January. There were no elections; but the membership of the new Institute was almost entirely made up from that of the First Institute and the depleted ranks of the old Academicians. Napoleon, now Consul for Life, and later as Emperor, retained his place in the First Class, his name standing at the head of the Hst. The appointees in the Class of French Language and Literature were twelve of the old French Academicians,* the twelve mem- bers of the sections of Grammar and Poesy of the Third Class, and eleven members of the annihilated Class of Moral and Pohtical Sciences, to whom were added five new members to complete the forty. It was understood in the Institute that no objection would be made to the use of the term "the four Acad- emies" in referring to the four Classes, and. from the first the members of the Second Class ostentatiously spoke of it as the "French Academy." Reviving the custom of the reception oration, it was provided by one of the articles of the new rules of the Class that "the recipien- daire," or new Academician, "should eulogize his prede- cessor and treat some literary subject." Said Lacretelle * These included all the survivors except four. The exceptions were Maury, who was still in exile; Gaillard and Choiseul-GoufEer, who were placed in the Third Class; and Cardinal de Rohan-Gu6- min^e, who died at Ettenheim, 17th February, 1803. 120 THE FRENCH ACADEMY the Elder, at his reception in 1805: "Honour to the re- generator of the Academies. The French Academy is reconstituted for the discussion of all literary produc- tions." Said Frangois de Neufchateau, welcoming La Malle, after carrying the history of the fauteuil which the new member of the Class was about to occupy to its first holder in the time of Richelieu: "The French Academy exists; the Temple of Taste is reopened." Also, deceased Academicians of the Old Regime were commonly referred to as predecessors in this or that fauteuil. Having recovered something of its former organiza- tion, the Academy also relapsed to a remarkable extent into the spirit of adulation which marked it during the time of Louis XIV. In reading Mesnard, however, who, it is but just to say, if he occasionally brings into promi- nence the Academy's weak points, does not mask its strong ones, we have to be on our guard against a charac- teristic trick which he has, even if we agree with him in the main, of emphasizing by italic type certain passages or expressions which by themselves are liable to act as traps for the judgment of the unwary. The following- extract may be taken as an illustration of this practice, as well as of academical panegyric of the Emperor: "From the commencement of the Empire academical orations placed the new master above Alexander, Csesar, and Charlemagne, praises which it is always better to spare the living, the powerful, even if they are one day to be confirmed by history. The hyperboles of enthusiasm did but increase. In the session of 11th Mortal, Year XIII., Frangois de Neufchateau proclaimed the apotheosis of the new Augustus: 'To whom do we owe,' said he in the response to Bureau de La Malle, ' to whom do we owe GENERAL HISTORY 121 these literary festivals? What god has brought us this leisure? ' ' ' Such language cannot, of course, be commended on a literal interpretation and can be defended only on the score of convention or of classical prescription. But, as even the conventional compliments of social inter- course are many of them held to be extravagant hyper- bole, the degree to which the figure may be properly carried must always be debatable, because its propriety depends on a variety of considerations. The practical- minded critic, without becoming the apologist of nause- ating flattery, must, if he would form a correct judgment of panegyrical language, bring to its examination a philosophical, if not a liberal temper. He may know that virtue is its own reward, but he will also remember that it is an uncommonly heroic or modest virtue that is averse to being told that it is appreciated, that a bene- ficiary in shunning the Scylla of adulation may fall into the Charybdis of ingratitude, and that neglect of the living hero is not atoned for by the erection of monuments to his memory. Besides, it is to be feared that public benefactors, as great rulers, great generals, liberal patrons of learning, are usually considered, would sometimes weary of well-doing if they were not stimulated by present honours as well as by the hope of posthumous fame. It is not necessary to ransack history — the examples are everywhere in evidence — ^to show how amazingly suscep- tible even to the most effusive flattery have been some of the world's greatest men or how ready small men have been to try to profit by this weakness. Would Maece- nas and Augustus have continued to encourage Horace, Virgil, and contemporary poets and men of letters if some 122 THE FRENCH ACADEMY incense of praise had not been burned at their altars? If the munificence of these patrons of learning had not been celebrated by those whom they had benefited, how much less would we have known about them ! Would the name of Maecenas now be a synonym for the enlightened vi- carious cultivator of letters, and that of the Augustan age for any period in the history of modem nations in which letters have most markedly flourished? It is not, in the instance before us, a question of how much the French Emperor was a scourge as well as a benefactor, or the one more than the other; nor is it a question of the motive of the orator, but of a justification of his words in the premises. Let us scrutinize the ex- pressions emphasized by Mesnard in italic type. Perhaps there was no time at which Napoleon coiild have been more fittingly hailed as the new Augustus than when Neufchateau made his address. Notwithstanding the notoriously prominent part taken by Napoleon's Minister of Police Fouche in the supervision of the press, especially of the journalistic press, there is hardly any doubt that literature was at least as free politically in the time of the French as in that of the Roman Csesar. And if Napoleon was responsible for the banishment from his capital of one of the brilliant writers of his time in Madame de Stael, on Augustus's memoiy rests that from his of the renowned exile of Tomi. It was to Napoleon that the Second Class of the Institute owed its existence, and by a breath or a stroke of the pen he could at any time unmake it. Not many months before he had, at Aix- la-Chapelle, from the palace of his "august predecessor," decreed certain splendid prizes to achievements in learn- ing, in science, and in art, called Decennial Prizes from GENERAL HISTORY 123 the periods at which they were to be awarded, and whose distribution was to be made by his own hand, attended with circumstances of great pomp. What god has brought us this leisure? The sentence is, in words as well as idea, borrowed from the hne in Virgil's "Eclogues," Deus nobis haec otia fecit — ^that is, from a Pagan writer. An author sometimes increases and sometimes diminishes the intensity of another's words and ideas by merely citing them, according to the association or the context, and here the intensity seems to be diminished. While, therefore, the hyperbole is a bold one, it may as a classical quotation, mitigated by the indirection of the interro- gation, from a literary or a rhetorical point of view be not only classed as defensible but exceedingly well turned. Nevertheless, Mesnard adduces ample evidence of de- plorable adulation of the Emperor on the part of Acade- micians, among them Maury, now a cardinal, re-elected in October, 1806, but not received until May, 1807, because of the commotion occasioned by his demand to be ad- dressed at his reception as "Monseigneur,"* resisted energetically as a violation of the law of equality among members, which was always obstinately defended when encroached upon. The question was evidently referred to the Emperor, and was practically decided against the Academy in an article in the Moniteur of 27th December admonishing it to follow the single precedent established in 1722 in the case of Cardinal Dubois, but it made no * Colbert expressly renounced this title in addresses to himself on the part of his confreres, and the Due d'Aumale, when made aware that it was a question with the Academy whether he should be so addressed at his reception, let it be known that he wished no departure from the usual custom. 124 THE FRENCH ACADEMY great haste to comply with the implied command. When the reception did take place, on the 6th of May following, it was in the presence of an expectant throng whose curios- ity had been whetted by six months of heated discussion by the public and by the press. The cardinal's speech was ill received, not alone on account of its extravagant praise of the Emperor but its political allusions. As examples of the former the following passages are cited by Mesnard: ". . . all the events stamped with the seal of that Providence which, by so many prodigies, showed to the earth the hero called from the depth of the Eternal councils to become the instrument of its designs and the executor of its decrees. . . . It is the sudden and unani- mous cry of universal admiration that there is in the en- semble of that astonishing destiny a something greater than nature, something which cannot belong to time, and which is neither uncertain, nor inconstant, nor di- verse like it. ... I do not pretend to penetrate into the inaccessible sanctuary of his genius." Remarkable lan- guage truly from a prince of the Church, who as Abbe Maury when first welcomed into the old Academy in 1785 could be addressed by the Duke of Nivernais as knowing how "to speak of princes without adulation and without temerity." It grates the sense of propriety as applied to a mortal in the flesh, and by a curious association of ideas carries the mind back for nearly two thousand years to the simple and imposing directness of the opening words of Ovid, which do not strike us in the same way as being incongruous, if of no more lofty motive, in celebration of the apotheosis of that other Caesar dead and tm-ned to clay, before whose spirit the schoolboy certainly is not disposed to fall down and worship: Caesar in urbe sua GENERAL HISTORY 125 Deus est — Caesar in his own city is a god. The reverber- ation of the speeches at the reception extended as far as to the army headquarters in Poland of the Emperor, who, in allusion to the attack on the memory of Mira- beau by the Abbe Sicard in his response to the cardinal's oration, thus wrote to Fouch^, of whom Lanfrey ironi- cally speaks as being taken into collaboration with his imperial master in the patronage of literature: "I rec- ommend to you that there be no reaction in opinion. Have Mirabeau spoken of with eulogy. There are many things in that session of the Academy which do not please me " * Withal, literature cannot be said to have been in a flour- ishing condition during the First Empire. It shared in and felt the general repression, without having had time or opportunity to recover from the depletion of the ranks of its possible cultivators by Revolutionary as- sassins and post-Revolutionary wars. Two of the best known writers of the period, Chateaubriand and Madame de Stael, were antagonistic to the Empire and antipathetic to the Emperor, and, notwithstanding the offer of the splendid rewards just mentioned, the prizes were not distributed at the end of the first decennial period in 1810, for reasons not altogether clear; but partly, it would appear, because there was such a dearth of de- serving productions, in literature at least, in which, on that account, even with the award in one or two cases to works antedating the decade, all the prizes could not be adjudged. The Comte de Montalivet, Minister of the Interior, in reading his statement of the situation of the * Thiers: Hist, du Consulat et de I'Empire, cited by Mesnard. 126 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Empire to the Corps L^gislatif in December, 1809, thus refers to their approaching distribution: "The first of those memorable epochs, made for the exaltation of the most noble ambitions, has arrived. The Decennial Prizes are to be distributed by the very hand of him who is the source of all true glorJ^" Verily, it is not surprising that, when such language came to be used in an official state- ment, its taint should have spread through the field of oratory. The distribution of the prizes, which by a decree of 28th November, 1809, had been increased in number and in value, was postponed, and until 1812 was still in suspense, after which date momentous pohtical events probably diverted the Emperor's thoughts into very difi'erent channels. At any rate, whether, accord- ing to Lanfrey, he was struck by the insignificance of the intended laureates or he judged that the money would be better employed in the expenses of the war, the prizes awarded by the jury of the Institute were never dis- tributed, and " there remained of the magnificent in- stitution of the Decennial Prizes but the memory of a solemn farce." And farce it was if, as Lanfrey asserts on the authority of Thibeaudeau, an apologist of Napoleon, he "declared in open council of state 'that his end in instituting them had only been to furnish occupation to the intellectuals in order to prevent them from occupy- ing themselves with more serious matters.' "* In the two or three disastrous closing years of the Empire the Institute in all its parts was in a condition not unlike that of the Academies during the closing yeai-s of the old Monarchy. Men's minds were too much * Hist, de Napoleon ler, V., 312. INSTITUTE OF FRANCE Called also Palais Mazarin and, more rarely, College des Quatre-Nations (From the Nouveau Larousse Illudte. By permission) [Page 127 GENERAL HISTORY 127 engrossed in contemplation of the throes of the nation to concentrate them with settled purpose on literature, on science, or on art. With revolution in the air, the discharge of academical functions was half-hearted. Leaving for the present this period, of which the his- tory of the Second Class of the Institute forms only an inconsiderable part, it may be mentioned that the In- stitute is known and referred to by contemporary and later writers under a variety of names. Thus, in the bare announcement of its creation by the National Convention it was the Institut National; in its Annuaire * of 1806 it took the name of the Institut de France, and in that of 1807 of Institut des Sciences et des Arts; for a year or two at the last it was called the Institut Imperial; and it is now, as it has been since the Restoration, the Institut de France. After the 20th March, 1805, up to which time it held its sessions in the Louvre, it became domiciled in the College des Quatre- Nations, or College Mazarin — now usually described as the Palais Mazarin, or Palais de 1' Institut — which has itself borne so many names, the most short-lived of them all being Palais de I'lnstitut Imperial, applied to it by decree — terminable like all others with the power which made it — of 1st May, 1815, during the Hundred Days, settling the Institute there permanently. § 3. THE FRENCH ACADEMY RE-ESTABLISHED (1816). By royal ordinance of 21st March, 1816, the Institute underwent its second reorganization. This ordinance * The Institute's Annuaire, or Year Book, is printed at the Im- primerie Nationale, or National Printery. 128 THE FRENCH ACADEMY declares on the part of the king that, while still main- taining the Institute, it is deemed desirable "to restore to each of the Classes its original name, in order to connect their past glory with that which they have acquired." The order of the Classes was changed. They were now to rank according to priority, as officially considered, in the date of their erection as royal institutions: (1) The French Academy (Academie Frangaise) ; (2) the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres (Academie des In- scriptions et Belles-Lettres) ; (3) the Academy of Sciences (Academic des Sciences) ; (4) the Academy of Fine Arts (Academie des Beaux- Arts). These four, with the Acad- emy of Moral and Political Sciences (Academie des Sciences morales et politiques), a revival in 1832 through the influence of Guizot of the suppressed Second Class of the First Institute, now form the Institute of France. Following is a classified presentation of the Institute's membership by Academies (Annvaire of 1909) : Foreign Corre- Regular. Free. Associ- epond- ate. ing. French 40 Inscriptions 40 10 8 70 Sciences 68 10 8 * 116 Fine Arts 41 10 10 50 M. and P. Sciences 40 10 8 60 229 40 34 296 * Recently (1910) increased to 12. The Academy of Inscriptions, although by official ordi- nance of 1816 it has certain specified branches of study, is Uke the French Academy in that it is not divided into sections, both differing in this respect from the other three. As in 1803, the Academy of Sciences still has GENERAL HISTORY 129 eleven sections — Geometry, Mechanics, Astronomy, Geo- graphy and Navigation, General Physics; Chemistry, Mineralogy, Botany, Rural Economy, Anatomy and Zoology, Medicine and Surgery — with six regular members in each section, and one permanent secretary, of full membership but not forming part of any section, for each of the Academy's greater divisions, viz.. Mathematics and Physics. The sections and apportionment of the regular membership of the Academy of the Fine Arts is: Painting, 14; Sculpture, 8; Architecture, 8; Engraving, 4; Musical Composition, 6 — with, in addition, a permanent secretary not representing any section. Since 1832 the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences has undergone some modifications in membership and constitution, among them being an increase of its regular members from thirty to forty, or to eight in each of its five existing sections, viz.: Philosophy; Morality; Legislation, Public Law, and Jurisprudence; Political Economy, Statistics, and Finances; General History and Philosophy. The free members of the four Academies having them enjoy most of the rights and privileges of regular members. The five Academies have each one regular meeting per week, on days to suit the convenience of Acade- micians who are members of more than one Academy. The regular meeting of the French Academy is on Thursday at 3 p.m. An anomaly in connection with this academical gal- axy is worthy of note, i.e. the absence from it of the Academy of Medicine (Acad^mie de M^decine), created in 1820 by ordinance of Louis XVIII. to replace the Royal Academy of Chirurgy and the Royal Society of Medicine, dating from 1731, suppressed in 1793^ex- 130 THE FRENCH ACADEMY plained, perhaps, by the prior representation in the Insti- tute of Medicine and Surgery as a section of the Academy of Sciences, not to mention the great numerical prepon- derance of the Academy of Medicine — with a regular mem- bership of one himdred and a supplementary membership of two himdred — over any of the Academies of the Insti- tute. A few words will explain the relations of the Academies to one another and to the Institute. As a division of the Institute the French Academy, in common with the other four, is still sometimes spoken of after its quondam designation of Class. A member of any one of them may also be a member of any or of aU of the others. Each Academy, besides having its own apartments and holding its own meetings, regular and special, as a constituent division of the Institute takes part in at least six regular annual sessions of the latter — one on account of each Academy, when, in a manner, the In- stitute sits as the special academy of the occasion, and one for the five Academies as a whole, this last on the 25th of October, the anniversary of the Institute's first organization. These meetings are held, with rare ex- ceptions, in what was the chapel of the old College Mazarin, since transformed into an assembly hall. Here also take place the public meetings of the French Academy for the reception of new members, or on other special occasions, the French Academy and the Academy of Fine Arts being alike in this, that their regular meetings are private, while those of the other three Academies are open to the public. By decree of 12th May, 1884, the administration of the Institute is intrusted to a Central Commission com- posed of two members elected by each Academy and GENERAL HISTORY 131 of their permanent secretaries. On the other hand, each of the Academies manages its own affairs, the bureau of the French Academy being in charge of the director and the chancellor, changeable every three months, and its permanent secretary. The Institute has also endowments of its own, in which each Academy has a one-fifth inter- est. Its expenses, which include maintenance of the Li- brary and payment of employees and of the allowance to members, are a charge on the budget of the Ministry of Pubhc Instruction. It has the right of presentation to many professorial chairs, and sends five of its members, one from each of the Academies, chosen at a meeting of the whole, to the Superior Council of Public Instruction. Of the five Academies composing the Institute the French Academy is officially recognized as holding the first place among equals, and in point of renown, abroad if not at home, notwithstanding the strong claims to practical importance of the Academy of Sciences, it has always enjoyed in estimation a real primacy. Sainte Beuve quotes from a curious conversation which Count Joseph de Maistre had with Cardinal Maury at Venice in 1799 about the Academies of the Old Regime in this regard, and as to the pre-eminence of the early French Academy it is unequivocal. Said Cardinal Maury, ac- cording to the account : " The French Academy was alone considered in France and really gave a standing. That of the Sciences signified nothing in opinion, no more did that of Inscriptions. D'Alembert was ashamed to be of the Academy of Sciences; a mathematician, a chemist, etc., are not heard but by a handful of people: the man of letters, the orator, address the universe. In the French Academy we regarded the members of that of the Sciences 132 THE FRENCH ACADEMY as [we did?] our valets."* Although in our more utili- tarian age the audience of the scientist has enormously augmented, it is still true that, unless he can make his specialty attractive to the many by his writings, although his discoveries may be of world-wide beneficence, he is handicapped as compared with the devotee of the "most noble of all the arts, which is Eloquence, " in seeking the bubble Reputation. Herein lies the advantage of the French Academy over all the other Academies; for most men, artists and actors excepted, to become famous must write, except again as they win the short-lived fame of orators; and the French Academy can not alone add to the lustre of its own body by electing to membership the literary beacons of the other Academies, but those of any profession or calUng whatsoever. Such, indeed, seems hitherto to have been the tendency, if not the fixed policy of the French Academy in choosing its members, not seldom stretching a point, somewhat to the neglect of literature, to attain its ends. Be that as it may, in re- suming by authority of the royal ordinance of 21st March, 1816, its ancient Regulations, it practically resumed its independent existence, overshadowing in a measure the international reputation of the body of which it nominally forms but a part: members of the French Academy are almost always spoken of as French Academicians, while those of any of the other Academies are not uncommonly referred to as members of the Institute. That is, it might almost be said that, in an enumeration of a French- man's dignities, specified membership in the French * In the original: "nous regardions les membres de celle des Sciences coname nos valets." — Causeries du Lundi, Vol. IV., art. l'AbbS Mauhy. GENERAL HISTORY 133 Academy would imply greater distinction than unspeci- fied membership in the Institute, while in the case of the other Academies unspecified membership in the Institute would imply the greater honour. The same thought could not be more aptly expressed than by Tastet, who says: "A member of any other Class of the Institute dies, it is but a fact ; let a member of the French Academy die, it is to-day, as always, an event." Again, we hear very little about elections to the other Acad- emies. Sainte Beuve holds that the present Academy and the old Academy launched by Richeheu are not one and the same — ^that the one is in no sense a continuation of the other — a position in which he seems to be very much alone among French writers. He says: "M. de Toc- queville, if I remember rightly, began his speech of re- ception with these words: 'Gentlemen, everything is new in France, except the Academy.' ... It was nice. . . . The misfortune is that it is perfectly inexact and false. " * That is a matter of opinion, but it can be shown that M. Sainte Beuve is not always exact in what he says about the Academy. Thus: "An article of its reorgani- zation in 1803, and which it should never lose sight of, assigns a particular function to the Company of the Forty: 'It is particularly charged with the making of the Dictionary of the French language, the examination of important works of literature, of history, of sciences. The collection of its critical observations shall be pub- lished at least four times a year.' No chief of state since Napoleon I., no governing minister . . . having reminded * Nouveaux Lundis, I., 390, art. Les prochaines Skctions. 134 THE FRENCH ACADEMY the Academy of this feature of its constitution, it is natural that it should have been forgotten and allowed to fall into disuse."* Now, if with the ordinance of 21st March, 1816, the original Statutes of the Academy were restored,! as explicitly recorded by Mesnard and by Bruneti^re, the reasonable inference is that they super- seded the laws imposed upon the Class, and absolved the French Academy from fulfilling the obligation quoted and of rendering a periodical account of its doings. Even so, let us compare the sentiments of Sainte Beuve with those of Suard as to this requirement. Writing to Morellet in 1803, to the effect that he could not refuse to accept a place in the Class beside his old colleagues, Suard says: "But, in the name of God, no oaths. . . ; above all (and this appears to me of the highest importance), no account of our labours to be ren- dered to the Government. We did not render any either to the king or to the ministers ; and what makes me regard the Institute as a troop of slaves is that they have sub- mitted to render an account of their labours to persons necessarily more ignorant than themselves, and httle capable of judging them, who think only that one has * Nouveaux Limdis, XII., 427, art. L'Acad&mie Franfaise. In the same sketch (p. 407) Sainte Beuve is again clearly in error in saying: "Since 1803, whence dates the creation of permanent secre- taries. . . " A distinction without a difference is the "permanent secretary" of the modem regime and the secretary that "shall not be changed" of the old. Cf. Rule 3 of the original Statutes and Regulations. t Article 10 of the ordinance thus reads: "The French Academy will resume its ancient Statutes, except for the modifications which we may judge necessary and which will be presented, should there be occasion, by our minister Secretary of State for the Department of the Interior." GENERAL HISTORY 135 laboured well and well merited his salary when they see much work done."* The names of thirty-eight members of the revived French Academy were officially announced, among which those of eleven members of the former Second Class did not appear, and nine were new, thus leaving two vacant places to be filled by election, a candidate for one of these being Vaublanc, the minister who signed the royal ordi- nance which treated the institution so cavaherly in thus excluding, without consulting its wishes, so many former colleagues. The Academy had enough self-assertion to choose otherwise. The exclusions were: Cambac^r^, Siey^s, Lucien Bonaparte, Merlin, Rcederer, Etienne, Arnault, Saint Jean d'Angely, Garat, the Duke of Bas- sano (Maret), and Cardinal Maury .f Of these, Etienne and Arnault re-entered the Academy by election in the succeeding reign. At the first formal session of the reorganized Institute, on the 24th of April, 1816, presided over by the Duke of Richelieu as president of the French Academy, Vau- blanc was present at the Palais Mazarin to represent the Government. The minister was the first speaker, and he was followed by Richelieu. Then came Fontanes, vice-president of the Academy, with, as Mesnard tells us, an "elegant and sound discourse, in which he may not appear over-ambitious for the French Academy." Fontanes looked upon that institution as above all established for the improvement of the language, his opinion being that "this first object of the occupations * Quoted by Mesnard. t See Chapter III., page 252, for the new names. 136 THE FRENCH ACADEMY of the Academy" was a lofty one, and that "to labour upon a language is to labour more than is thought on the sentiments of the people who speak and write it." The present writer thinks the speaker on that occasion defined a language academy's most patently useful sphere of influence, and that even the French Academy, which has been something more than a language academy in the narrower sense, can afford to disdain the sneer which, in the course of its history. Academicians have rather resented, and perhaps still resent, that it is but the Academy of Words — little more than the Office of the Dictionary. From this time forward, at least, the direction of part of the intellectual 'domain which the Academy had in- vaded and exploited during the latter half of the eighteenth century may be said to have passed from its possession into that of the press. Protection or patronage by the chief of the state, also, becomes less and less personal until, with the end of the Second Empire, it assimies an entirely official character. Consequently the Academy has been little affected by the several political revolu- tions of which it has been a witness since 1830, as they did not involve its reorganization. Since the Restoration its history is that of a lake whose surface has, indeed, been disturbed by occasional storms, but without being stirred to its depths — this notwithstanding an unavailing attempt on the part of Napoleon III.'s ministers to diminish the prestige of the Institute and of its Academies by the establishment of a federation of 'rival provin- cial academies in connection with the University of France. Let us now pass in review some of the more noteworthy GENERAL HISTORY 137 academical events since 1830, as, among others, the elections of Victor Hugo, Berryer, and Emile Ollivier. In view of the recent centenary laudations of Victor Hugo, after due deduction on account of what may have been artificial! in them some readers may have learned with surprise, not unmixed with indignation, that, with a literary record of several volumes of odes, of lyric col- lections, and of romances, as well as of more than half a dozen plays — including some of his most famous work in these provinces — he was four times rejected between 1836 and 1841 before being elected to a fauteuil. But when inquiry is made into the possible reasons for these repeated rebuffs we are rather led to suspect that the candidate's personal foibles of inordinate vanity and craving for adulation, not alone his romanticism, with which the Academy of the time was not in sympathy, had something to do with his failures. More than this: a poetic prophet is sometimes not known to all in his own city. Even so late as 1845, when it might have been supposed his fame hardly needed a herald in Paris, and Alfred de Vigny called on Royer-CoUard to solicit the favour of his vote at the election to fill the place left by Etienne, for which he was a candidate, the unromantic philosopher, on being told that his visitor's pretensions were poetical, demurred, remarking that not long before they had elected a "certain Victor Hugo" on similar grounds. Berryer, although a royalist, was the legal defender of Prince Napoleon in his trial before the Chamber of Peers following the landing at Boulogne which ended in the imprisonment at Ham ; but, as deputy in the National Assembly, he voted for the downfall of the prince-presi- 138 THE FRENCH ACADEMY dent in 1852, the year of his own election to the Academy, this fact being responsible for the postponement of his public reception until 1855, which took place even then without the previous customary presentation to the Emperor as chief of state — a formality therefore not absolutely essential to the status of an Academician. However, any question in respect to it has been overcome by the adoption of the practice of presenting a new Academician to the chief of state after his reception into the Academy — by the Academy's secretary. Political events stood in the way of the formal reception of Emile OUivier in the ordinary course, nor was it until 1874 — four years after election — that arrangements were made for it. Then he, with as little judgment as Cha- teaubriand on a similar occasion, aiming to make of the Academy a political instead of, as it should be, a literary arena, injected into his oration an iU-timed eulogium of Napoleon III. On 26th February of that year its first reading, according to custom, took place before a com- mission of the Academy, chosen by lot, in which was Guizot, who made objection to the portion of it relating to the ex-Emperor. Called upon to modify it, Ollivier declared he would make no change. A general session was then convened to judge of the oration, but its author refused to read it a second time, and a majority of the assembly pronounced for the indefinite adjournment of his reception. A few days later, however, as a matter of expediency the Academy decided that Ollivier should be considered received, and summoned to its sessions as if the reception had taken place — another remarkable derogation of precedent. The sensational resignation of Bishop Dupanloup in GENERAL HISTORY 139 1871 having already been mentioned in connection with expulsions, it needs no additional comment. It has been stated that there is no restriction put upon an Academician as to the announcement, on the title- page or elsewhere, in any of his works, of his academical dignity; but, as a curious commentary on the exclusion of Moliere and as a nice question in good taste, there should be mentioned an objection of the Academy to the announcement by Henri Lavedan, author-actor, elected in 1898, of his quality of Academician — "of the French Academy" — on playbills and billboards. M. Lavedan being an Academician by virtue of his author- ship, and not at all of his acting, the case for the Academy is a strong one. A recent memorable occurrence in the history of the French Academy was the visit to it in 1896 of the Em- peror Nicholas II. of Russia, illustrating in its own way what has been said at the outset respecting the inter- national importance of the French language and of the French national institution recognized as the first author- ity in its use.* Assuredly, it must have been the fame of the Academy as a literary body, and not the record of the high dignitaries, civil, military, and ecclesiastic, who, according to some, have encumbered its fauteuils, that induced this visit. But a more striking demonstration of the universality of the influence of the French tongue, with which is bound up that of the French Academy, was the world-wide * other distinguished visitors to the French Academy, besides Christina of Sweden, have been a grand duke and grand duchess of Russia, a prince of Brunswick, a king of Denmark, several princes of Sweden, a monarch and an archduke of Austria. 140 THE FRENCH ACADEMY comment called forth by a circular ordinance of March, 1901, issued by M. Georges Leygues, Minister of Public Instruction, authorizing certain orthographic reforms, initiated nearly a year before, and finally assented to by the Academy. This ordinance, as published in the Journal Officiel, is in the form of a circular addressed to rectors of academies,* and is followed by the ordinance proper, which provides that "in the examinations or competitions depending on the Ministry of Public In- ptruction which involve special tests in orthography, the use of the alternatives (tolerances) indicated in the list annexed to the present ordinance will not be counted as errors against the candidates. " t The activity of the Ministry of Pubhc Instruction in the direction of speUing reform did not stop with this ordinance, which was supplemented by an extended list of words later submitted to the Academy for its opinion, with the menace, so to say, in case of failure to adopt it of the issue of an official dictionary embodying the views of the Ministry in respect to orthography. The Acad- emy, after more than a year's deliberation, in a report drawn up by M. Faguet, early in 1905 practically re- jected the list, approving of {i.e. tolerating) only about * Divisions of the great teaching body called the University of France, at the head of these divisions being officials named rectors. f This is hardly the place to discuss these changes, of which more will be said in the chapter on the Dictionary, but it is questionable if the paeans of welcome with which the ordinance has been received by some teachers of French are not premature. Giving due weight to the opening words of the above extract, it may turn out that whereas before, students, or their teachers for them, had to dis- tinguish between good usage and error, now they will have to dis- tinguish between good usage and bad, for into this many merely permissive forms resolve themselves in every language. GENERAL HISTORY 141 one hundred and fifty of the changes recommended — a conclusion which would seem to bode a conflict of authority between an institution steeped in a lexico- graphical tradition of centuries and a bureaucratic em- piricism, backed as it may be by expert pedagogical counsel, which, however sound theoretically or logi- cally, perhaps does not take sufficient account of the sentimental attachment of the passing generation to the face of the language as it has become endeared to it and would effect in a day what conservative lovers of their language — even where the expediency of reform is conceded — would leave to posterity. It is, of course, beyond question that the Ministry has the power and the right to prescribe the rules governing examinations in schools and lycees, the conffict therefore being be- tween official authority and a popular authority conse- crated by time. An admonition addressed to the Academy by the Parliamentary Budget Committee of 1901 may be cited as an additional evidence of friction between the in- stitution and the political authorities in late years. Un- important in itself, it may be regarded as a straw showing the direction of the official wind as it affects the Acad- emy, and also the Academy's readiness to resent official interference. The Budget Committee passed a vote threatening the withholding of the usual academical allowance unless the Academy hastened to a finish its work on the Dictionary, the tenour of the Committee's note implying that, incredible as it may appear, it had in mind the unfinished and abandoned historical diction- ary initiated at the instance of Voltaire and was alto- gether ignorant of the publication of the seven editions 142 THE FRENCH ACADEMY of the "Dictionary of the Academy." The Budget Committee's vote, in the circumstances, inspired neither awe nor respect in the Academy, where its announce- ment, at a regular session, was received with perhaps more indignation than it deserved. It was held that in making it the Committee exceeded its province. Parlia- ment having nothing to do with the Dictionary, which is solely the business of the Academy. The assumption of parliamentary authority is, of course, to be explained as proceeding from the nominal power of the purse vested especially in the Ministry of Public Instruction as the dispenser of a meagre state grant to a national institution. § 4. CONSPECTUS AND CONCLUSIONS. We are further enabled to understand the French Academy's development by summarizing the natural or accidental periods into which its history is divided, and reviewing briefly its relations to the protector or the government, as well as its composition, during those periods. So far, the French Academy's existence is divisible into three greater periods, which, without being fanci- ful, we might denominate (1) the Old French Academy, or French Academy of the Old Regime, from the date of its letters patent in 1635 to the suppression in 1793; (2) the Middle French Academy, or the French Academy in partial abeyance (following an interval of extinction of ten years), as the Second Class of the second or re- organized Institute, from 1803 to 1816; and (3) the Modern French Academy, or French Academy revived, as a quasi-independent division of the Institute (second GENERAL HISTORY 143 reorganization), from the restoration of the Bourbons to the present time. The first greater period, or Old Academy, naturally subdivides into the protectorates: (o) Of Richlelieu, the founder, from 1635 [4] to 1642, during which the Academy met at the residence of one or other of its members; (6) of Chancellor Siguier, from 1642 to 1672, meeting at the residence of its protector; (c) of Louis XIV., (d) of Louis XV., and (e) of Louis XVI., from 1672 to 1793, meeting in the apartment assigned to it in the Louvre. During the second period of 1803 to 1816, or that of the Middle Academy, whose identity, as the Class of French Language and Literature, was lost in that of the Insti- tute, sessions were held for a short time in the Louvre, and from 1805 in the Palais Mazarin, under the sur- veillance rather than the protectorship of the redoubt- able Consul for Life and Emperor. The third period, or Modern Academy, in the Palais Mazarin, includes the reign of Louis XVIII. (1815-24), of Charles X. (1824-30), of Louis Philippe I. (1830-48), the Second Republic (1848-52), the Second Empire (1852-70)— mentioned in detail rather as marches in the political progress of France, severally too short to have made much im- press on literature — and the Third Republic, from 1870. In Richelieu's time entrance into the French Academy depended largely on the pleasure of the protector, as might be inferred from the modification of the rule governing election, explained near the beginning, but it is made perfectly clear by a letter, dated May 18, 1638, WTitten by Chapelain to Bouchard at Rome. Chape- Iain says: "It appears by your letter that you think you can be admitted during your absence. I shall repeat {re- 144 THE FRENCH ACADEMY peterai) here, if I have not already so written, that you cannot be proposed unless you are present, and only after being approved by his eminence, who, by a special order, has desired to be consulted about all aspirants, in order to shut the door against all cabal, and only to suffer in his assembly those persons whom he knows his servants." But Richelieu was careful not to wound the susceptibilities or the self-respect of the Academy, whose members, during its early years, had certainly as high a sense of personal, and therefore of associate dignity as at any later period. Laugier de Porcheres was only one of three Academicians whose places the cardinal would have preferred to see otherwise filled, Baro and Malle- ville being the other two. The good understanding between Chancellor Seguier and the Academy seems never to have been disturbed; but, holding its sessions under its protector's roof, the Academy would not be likely to fix its choice on candidates dis- tasteful to him. Although many of the early Academi- cians were of noble descent, it was in this protectorate that members of the high noblesse first began to seek admission into their ranks, among these being Armand du Cambout, Marquis de Coishn, the chancellor's own grandson, whom the protector asked the Academy to make one of its number as a personal favour to himself, his object chiefly being the advantage Hkely to be derived by the very young gentleman from association with such an assemblage of informed and cultivated minds. He was the most youthful member whom the Academy has ever received into its body, being at the time of his election only in his seventeenth year. With this ex- ception, however, in the elections during Siguier's pro- GENERAL HISTORY 145 tectorate the literary or scholarly parts of the candidates appear not to have been lost sight of. Louis XIV. rarely interfered with the Academy's liberty of action in the filling of vacant places, and evi- dently did not look with favour on nominations secured by the princes or by the notabilities of the Court. After several elections brought about by the Duke of Pont- chartrain's patronage of the candidates, the Academy received from its protector, in a letter by Secretary Rose in reference to one of a different kind — that of Goibaud- Dubois, received in 1693 — a deUcate but unmistakable hint to maintain its independence: "I must not conceal from you a circumstance which seems to me to merit serious re- flection for the future, the pleasure which the king mani- fested on learning our suffrages were free and without mixture of the least cabal or extraneous recommendation." During the protectorate of Louis XV., court or minis- terial influence was sometimes exercised in preventing or deferring nominations; but, on the other hand, it cannot be said to have been exerted to secure success in election. Interference was, if it may be so expressed, negative rather than positive. Among candidacies pre- vented in this protectorate, not already referred to, were those of RoUin and Louis Racine, by Cardinal Fleury, be- cause of their Jansenism. In the protectorate of Louis XVI. the successful candi- dates were such almost as the Academy chose to elect. Even then, however, the name of Diderot — Philosophy incarnate — appears still to have been anathema at the Court and with the Ministry. Napoleon exercised a felt oversight in the elections to the Second Class of the Second Institute, and took order 146 THE FRENCH ACADEMY that the candidates, if of a character to become or that was dangerous, were his friends, or men whose enmity he desired to disarm. For instance, it was at his own suggestion that Chateaubriand was elected a member of the Class — a suggestion which he must soon have re- gretted. Chateaubriand was elected to succeed Joseph Ch^nier, who had voted for the execution of the king, and whom it became the duty by prescription of his royalist successor to eulogize. According to usage, he read his oration before a commission of the Academy. It displayed courage, indeed, but was lacking in the still more rare quaHty of common sense. Respecting Ch^nier, it was animated by the spirit which requires that we spare as much as possible the memory of the dead. But what most alarmed the members of the commission was its anti-Revolutionary tone. They stood aghast at the boldness of its arraignment of events since the over-" throw of the Monarchy, and dared not assent to its pubUc delivery on their own responsibihty. The speech was by request submitted to Napoleon, who had been informed of the Academy's quandary, and on reading it his anger rose high. He is said to have declared that if it had been delivered he would have walled up Uie doors of the In- stitute and thrown Chateaubriand into a dungeon for the rest of his life. In response' to one of Chateaubriand's apologists he poured forth a torrent of rebuke, ending with these remarks: "You aim at nothing less than disorders, anarchy, massacres. Are we, then, bandits, and am I but a usurper? I have not dethroned any one, sir; I found, I picked up the crown in the gutter, and the people placed it upon my head. Let their acts be respected." By the terms of the ordinance of 21st March, 1816, GENERAL HISTORY 147 eleven Academicians, as already mentioned, were arbi- trarily excluded from the Academy, nine others being as arbitrarily appointed to take the same number of vacant places, without, it seems, protest on its part. Later, and in the time of the Second Empire especially, it is charged that the Academy, in indemnification for earlier submissions, sometimes plumed itself too much on disregarding the predilections of the monarch, the real explanation perhaps being that the Academy had but changed with the changed times. Sainte Beuve, however, cites as proof positive that the Academy did not quite adapt itself to that regime the fact that no politician of the Second Empire, however talented as writer or orator, had been nominated to its membership. Comprehensively viewing the Academy's history, we arrive at the conclusion that its most brilliant period was the first, down to the Revolution, especially that part of it passed in the Louvre; * that during the short period comprising the closing years of the Consulate and the whole of the First Empire the Academy was in tutelage; and that in the third, or since the Restoration, it has per- haps as fully served the purposes for which its founder intended it, so far as we can judge them, as at any other. During the first forty or fifty years of the first period we find that, without containing many great names, in its totality its composition and its spirit were essentially literary; that during the succeeding three quarters of a * Members of the Conrart coterie, and Pellisson for them, may have been justified in speaking of its embryonic stage as the "golden age" of the Academy, but, with all due deference to M. Sainte Beuve, later historians, from its shortness alone, can hardly do so without verging on absurdity. 148 THE FRENCH ACADEMY century it was composed, in not very unequal proportions, of men of letters, men of title, and men of the mitre, or church — in Chamfort's phraseology, lettres, litres, mitres — in all three categories being men of the highest eminence, but that clerical influence so much predominated as to give colour to the slur that the Academy was an adjunct of the Sorbonne; that with the advent of the Philosophers during nearly half a century before the Revolution, cleri- cal influence not only waned, but that the opposite ex- treme of aggressive scepticism ruled in it, without at first any material falling off in the number of clerical candidates or nominees, which did not begin to be par- ticularly noticeable until after the death of Louis XV. It was during this last sub-period of half a century that the Academy became speculatively a political as much as a nterary institution, and addressed itself to expound- ing or shaping public opinion in matters utilitarian and sociological rather than intellectual, and in a manner which can hardly be defended if we limit its attributes in that direction by the twenty-second article of its Statutes. It may have been perfectly true, as was said by Malesherbes in his reception oration, that the Philoso- phers regarded "legislation as a field open to their specu- lation"; but there is reason on the side of those who think that this field would have been more legitimately cultivated by the Philosophers as such than as Acade- micians. This theoretically, as practically the Academy cannot be very severely censured for having somewhat exceeded its province. It was a time when it was perhaps well that voices which could make themselves heard should be raised anywhere and in any circumstances against an intolerably inequitable social and a hopelessly GENERAL HISTORY 149 corrapt political system in which the grinding oppression of the many is apt to be forgotten by those whose imagi- nations recoil with shuddering abhorrence from the atrocities of the Terror. It is, however, worthy of remark, in view of the misgivings of the Parhament of Paris at the Academy's creation that it has never ac- quired any real poHtical authority, and has rarely at- tempted directly to influence legislation, a notable and not indefensible instance being its attitude toward the press law in 1827, in its proposed address to the king expressing its apprehensions concerning the rumoured restrictions. This petition was not dehvered, the Acad- emy having been informed that the king would not re- ceive its director, who was to present it on its behalf; nor was it, under the circiunstances, published. In the second period the Academy, although strictly forbidden by Napoleon to discuss politics, in its composi- tion was as much pohtical as literary and so continued for some time after the Restoration. During the past fifty or sixty years, as during the first forty or fifty of its existence, the composition of the Academy has been of a true literary cast — this notwith- standing the fact that the contemporary Academy has occasionally shown a disposition to reward with a f auteml men who have earned distinction simply as Frenchmen, their hterary claims forming but a background to cix-il or political eminence. The following anecdote, whether true or not, gives point to a sort of criticism for which there must have been at least a basis of fact, otherwise it would hardly have gained currency. M. de Freycinet, whose literary baggage was by no means inconsiderable compared with that of many other Academicians, when I50 THE FRENCH ACADEMY makiug the customary round of preliminary visits to hia future confrtres is reported to have said on taking leave of M. Renan: "I hope, my dear master, that I can count on your vote." — "Why, certainly, monsieur the minis- ter, " was the response, " provided, however, the President of the Republic should not solicit my vote." The sar- casm has of course allusion to the quest for academical hterary honours by politicians, and by parity of reason- ing, if we accept M. Sainte Beuve's view of the relations between the Academy and the Second Empire, we arrive at the conclusion that the Third Republic is or has been decidedly res grata to the Academy when we consider the number of its members since 1870 who have been in politics. The following summary, presenting an analysis of the Academy's composition in April, 1910, will illustrate: Eleven politicians (orators and writers) — Messieurs Charmes, Deschanel, De Freycinet, Hanotaux, D'Haussonville, M^zi^res, De Mun, R. Poincar^, Ollivier, Ribot, De Vogu6 ; six historians and essayists — Messieurs Houssaye, Lamy, Masson, De S6gur, Thureau-Dangin, Vandal; five romandsts — Messieurs Barres, Bazin, Bour- get, Loti, Provost; five dramatic authors — Messieurs Brieux, Claretie, Donnay, Hervieu, Lavedan; foia: critics — Messieurs Doumic, Faguet, France, Lemaitre; three poets — Messieurs Aicard, Richepin, Rostand; one pro- fessor — M. Lavisse; one lawyer — M. Barboux; one savant — M. Henri Poincar^. It is notable, also, that the Academy of the Third Republic, to-day by comparison an aristocratic institu- tion — which perhaps accounts for some of the underlying public enmity felt toward it in a social democracy jealous of even the appearance of privilege or of superiority of GENERAL HISTORY 151 any kind — yet in many respects so essentially unchanged that its protector might still be a Richelieu or a Louis XIV., and thus presenting to those who consider only the social and political conditions an odd contrast with the Academy of the old Monarchy, which by comparison with the thought of its time was republican in spirit, has continued to attract the representatives of the old noblesse, to whom in Voltaire's reason for desiring to become an Academician there is food for strange if not bitter thought. One cannot but wonder if they look to the Academy as a rampart or a refuge against tyranny of a very different kind. On the other hand, the repre- sentatives of the hierarchy since 1870 have held or been held aloof, partly explained, no doubt, by the circum- stances attending the resignation of Bishop Dupanloup. There were, it is true, two ecclesiastical candidates for the place left vacant by the death of Cardinal Mathieu, one of them, Mgr. Duchesne, director of the Ecole Fran- gaise at Rome, being elected in May, 1910. While in theory a literary academy should be com- posed of men of letters, it is not an untenable position that the dignity of the French Academy may have been ] sometimes better conserved by the choice of otherwise | distinguished men than by the filling of the fauteuils/ with writers little known, or known only to be derided. But it is a question whether, if the Academy desires to have practically honorary members it would not be a good plan frankly to reserve a certain number of fauteuils solely for them, leaving all the others to legitimate men of letters. By its election of such men as are not genuine men of letters or learning first, who in an estimatior, of the Academy's literary eminence may be, and often have 152 THE FRENCH ACADEMY been, regarded as neither raising nor lowering it, its average of excellence has perhaps not been so adversely affected as at first blush may appear. Not even in France has first-class academical material at all times been superabundant — at least in the opinion of the Academy itself. For example, in 1734, when the Duke of Villars sought to succeed his father the marshal, the Abb^ G^doyn wrote to President Bouhier: "This step has given us pleasure and reheved us of great embarrass- ment, for we knew not exactly where to look, but felt only that it was not fitting to give the place of a man so illustrious to a simple man of letters of mediocre merit." D'Olivet on 30th March, 1742, also writing to President Bouhier, after mentioning Academicians deceased and likely to die, remarks: "The trouble is, that I do not very well see whom we can get to stop up the gaps." Again, in 1771, when the fauteuils of President H^nault and the Abb^ Alary fell vacant simultaneously, the Academy was at a loss for suitable successors ; and, com- plaint being made of the dearth of subjects, D'Alembert, for this reason, suggested the nomination of some notable of the Court to fill at least one of them. Thus, if at times the Academy has contained as many zeros * as there * The quatrain current at La Bruyfere's election is so well known as to be almost hackneyed; but as its contemptuous estimate of the author of "Les Caract^res" is sometimes paradoxically put forth and unreflectingly accepted as belittling the Academy itself, which had penetration enough to discern his merit in advance of contem- porary opinion, it is reproduced here: Quand L. B. se pr^sente, When L. B. presents himself, Pourquoi done crier haro? Why then such hue and cry? Pourfaireunchiffredequarante To make the number forty [401 Ne fjallait-il pas un z6ro? Must there not be a zero [cipher]? The bracketed terms in the translation are given because of the GENERAL HISTORY 153 are lO's in the number of which it is composed, it may possibly have been because, even in a country of phe- nomenal literary excellence and fertility, intellectual 9's were not always available. And D'Alembert was far from holding such a view only as a matter of necessity or mere expediency. In the Preface to his "Eloges" he deliberately states that it would be a mistake to think that the Academy should be composed exclusively of poets and orators, and asks where forty poets and orators could be found — "about as many as all the nations together had produced in two thousand years. " The Academy, he argues, being occu- pied unceasingly on its Dictionary, it needed to open its doors to good writers of all kinds; and not only so, but on similar grounds, to candidates distinguished by birth and rank, accustomed to frequent the Court. "The Society should include Academicians of that class, not merely as honoraries, but on terms truly honourable of Academi- cians useful, necessary even, to the principal object of the Academy . . . the perfecting of taste and of the lan- guage." The argument will appeal to common sense. Let us imagine, for a moment, all our books written by grammarians and scholars and our dictionaries compiled rendering of the last two lines, slightly different in wording, in a well-known learned work of reference: "Among the forty must there not be a zero?" where the point of the word-play is entirely lost, the blunder being aggravated by a gratuitous accompanying comment that it was La Bruyere's admission into "an academy of nonentities that prompted the hnes. " Compare with it the re- mark of La Bruydre himself at his reception to the effect that, judg- ing himself as would posterity, he "marvelled to see seated around him a Bossuet, a F^nelon, a Racine, a La Fontaine" — surely not nonentities. 154 THE FRENCH ACADEMY from them by their authors or by other grammarians and scholars. There is, however, abimdant evidence that the invasion of the Academy by grand seigneurs and clerical digni- taries was regarded by its own members as an evil. Segrais, in his Memoirs, commenting on the injur>- done to the French Academy by the introduction into it in too great number of persons of quahty. conceded that there must be some, but held that their number should be fixed at seven or eight, his position being that the Academy needed "grammarians, poets, orators, historians, critics, doctors in all languages, and persons experienced in the arts, in architecture, in sculpture, in painting, in navigation, besides others," and that "there would be very few sciences if there were only poets, for poets, like preachers, are ordinarily ignorant in everything outside their profession. " Holding these opinions, he has a good word for Chapelain and M^zeray, who "were weD inten- tioned regarding the interest of the Society; and when an Academician died, they would say: 'We need an Academician skilled in such a science or such a depart- ment — let us look for one.'" D'OHvet also, who had intended to bring his history down to the end of the protectorate of Louis XTV., and did actually write it but on second thought burned the MS. for the years after 1700, has something to say on this head. After giving his reasons for stopping at 1700, these remarks, which he made in a letter to Presi- dent Rose, properly take their place as a part of the his- tory of the French Academy: "And besides, as we ad- vance, the number of seigneurs and prelates does but increase in our Academy. Now, there is no pleasure in GENERAL HISTORY 155 speaking of them — which be said in general, for there are exceptions. I know, and know it but too well, that one displeases their families unless one relates everything memorable they have done or pretend to have done, whether in the State or in the Church. All that, I grant, is worthy of admiration; but, being foreign to their quality of Academician, it ought not to occupy so much space in a book where good sense demands that one con- fine himself to literary matters." So we miss some great names from the academical roll of membership. Indeed, by making selections from men of literaiy mark who have not been of the Academy, yet who have added lustre to the French language and name — not to mention such eminent female illustrations (adopting the French term) as Mesdames Scud^ry, D&houli^res, De S^vign^, De Stael, George Sand — a more distinguished occupancy can be shown for the imaginary forty-first fauteuil than for any one of the forty. Thus, in his "History of the Forty-first Fauteuil," pubhshed in 1855, M. Arslne Houssaye, by seating his pseudo-Acade- micians in it in a succession three times as rapid as found in any of the forty, and four times as rapid as the average, not only does so, but would almost invest it with a dis- tinction equal to that of the actual forty combined. His argument will be understood by the following quotation: "Never has the Academy, even under Louis XIV., repre- sented as to-day French genius. . . . Yet to-day, as al- ways, there are forty men of genius or talent who are not in the Academy. Is it their fault? Is it the fault of the Academy?" In this "hteraiy study," as he entitles it, ingenious in conception and entertaining in execution, M. Houssaye gives biographical sketches of his subjects 156 THE FRENCH ACADEMY and, in some instances, the orations in outline which they are supposed to have delivered at their reception. Fol- lowing is his record of the occupants of the forty-first fauteuil, duly elected — according to the account, the tone of real history being maintained throughout the text with a gravity that has in it a comic element * — by the Academy, a few on invitation, but the great majority after regularly posing their candidature: Descartes, 1596-1650. J. B. Rousseau, 1669-1741. Rotrou, 1609-1650. Vauvenargues, 1715-1745. Gassendi, 1592-1655. Lesage, 1668-1747. Scan-on, 1610-1660. D'Aguesseau, 1666-1751. Pascal, 1623-1662. Due de Saint Simon, MoHere, 1620-1673. 1675-1755. Cardinal de Retz, 1614-1679. AhU Provost, 1697-1763. La Rochefoucauld, 1613-1680. Helv^tius, 1715-1771. Arnauld, 1612-1694. Piron, 1689-1773. Nicole, 1625-1695. J. J. Rousseau, 1719-1778. Saint Evremont, 1613-1703. Gilbert, 1751-1780. Bourdaloue, 1632-1704. Diderot, 1713-1784. Bayle, 1647-1706. Mably, 1709-1785. Regnard, 1656-1710. Mirabeau, 1749-1791. Louis XIV., 1638-1715. Andr6 CMnier, 1763-1794. Malebranche, 1638-1715. Beaumarchais, 1732-1799. Hamilton, 1646-1720. Rivarol, 1757-1801. Dancourt, 1661-1725. Napoleon, 1769-1821. *A good example is the "election" of Napoleon. Thus: "In 1815, when the Emperor of the French went to conquer, with the grand poesy of exile, immortal sovereignty, the French Academy met in special session to admit to its body Napoleon's historian — Napoleon himself. It dispensed from visits him who was then sailing toward the cape of tempests. It was one of the great days of the Academy, for the Academy named with one voice this candidate who had not presented himself. . . . Napoleon pronounced his reception oration on the rock beaten by the winds, heard by the eagles which had visited Prometheus, and which have brought us on their wings the shreds all inflamed of that stormy eloquence.'' GENERAL HISTORY 157 MiUevoye, 1782-1816. Stendhal, 1783-1842. J. de Maistre, 1753-1821. H6g6sippe Moreau, 1810-1838. P. L. Courier, 1772-1829. Balzac, 1799-1850. Benjamin Constant, 1767-1830. Lamennais, 1782-1854. Armand Carrel, 1800-1836. Gerard de Nerval, 1810-1855. JoufEroy, 1796-1842. B^ranger, 1780-[1857]. In his preface, with apparent judicial fairness, M. Houssaye, instead of selecting a derisory group of the Academy's members unknown to literature, in support of his argument as to the equal degree of literary merit without the Academy, makes a comparison of some of the best talent in prose and verse in it with corresponding talent in the forty-first fauteuil as follows: The 40 Fauteuila. Bossuet. Racine. Balzac. Corneille. Perrault. Montesquieu. Boileau. Fontenelle. Pres. H6nault. Marivaux. F^nelon. La Bruyfire. La Fontaine. Bernardin de Saint Pierre. Condillac. Gresset. Voltaire. DeliUe. D'AIembert. Condorcet. Chateaubriand. Marmontel. M. J. Ch6mer. Chamfort. Ch. Nodier. The ilst Fauteuil. Descartes. Malebranche. St. Evr^mont. Mohere. Hamilton. Pascal. J. B. Rousseau. Bayle. St. Simon. Regnard. Nicole. La Rochefoucauld. Le Sage. Abb6 Provost. Helv^tius. Piron. J. J. Rousseau. Gilbert. Diderot. Jos. de Maistre. Mirabeau. Beaumarchais. Andre CMnier. Rivarol. P. L. Courier. 158 THE FRENCH ACADEMY The 40 FauteuOs. The 41st Fauteuit. Parny. H^^sippe Moreaa. Bonaid. Lamennais. Casimir Delavigne. Balzac. M. Houssaye's bare list of holders of the forty-first fauteuil, which, as he states, might be lengthened, is imposing, and without examination or explanation pre- sents a formidable arraignment of an institution which, national in name, should be so in fact, the impUed indict- ment against the Academy being (1) that it has shown culpable negUgence with respect to the recognition of their proper share in the national literary glory of, among others, the celebrities named, in failing to elect them members of its body, and (2) that as a body it has not adequately reflected that glory. Naturally, M. Houssaye does not dwell on the reasons which may have militated against or made impossible the appearance of these names among those of the holders of the forty fauteuils, as non-eUgibility, non-residence in Paris or France, non-acceptance of the Academy's in- vitation, non-presentation of candidature, posthumous fame or fame not yet fully established at time of decease, to which may be added also reasons of expediency which it is easy for posterity, judging an excluded ehgible sub- ject solely by his Hterary quaUfications, to overlook or ignore. Indeed, in not a few cases the reasons being absolutely prohibitive, the inclusion of such names laj^s M. Houssaye open to the charge of disingenuousness. Let us analyze partially the Hst from this point of view. The reasons for the non-recognition of La Rochefou- cauld, Piron, and Diderot, and of Rolhn, Louis Racine, and the Abb6 de La Bletterie, have already been indicated. Pascal's literary fame, like that of the Duke of Saint GENERAL HISTORY 159 Simon, was largely posthumous, and his notoriety as a controversialist cannot have recomm'ended him to the Academy. As for the "Great Amauld," he was, as a violent polemic above all else, more even than Pascal impossible as an Academician of his time. But, in addi- tion to this, while we do not know his own sentiments toward the Academy, further than that, when the subject of offering himself as a candidate was broached to him, he answered, "Have we not an academy at Port Royal?" we do know that he was the brother of Arnauld d'Andilly, whose refusal to accept the offer of a seat in it caused the adoption of a supplementary rule to the Academy's Statutes requiring candidates to offer themselves. Scar- ron, again, was a confirmed invalid as early as 1637 — that is, at twenty-seven. There was much the same objection to Dancourt as there was to MoU^re, to be referred to later. Then, judging of the precedent of M. Siguier's surrender of his fauteuil and withdrawal from membership in the Academy when he became its protector, Louis XIV. was ineligible, as was also Napoleon, although the latter's "election" is timed by M. Houssaye after the departure for St. Helena. In this connection we might ask. Why was the name of Cardinal Richelieu himself omitted? Among other non- eligible subjects for regular membership were Hamilton and Joseph de Maistre — ^both ahens. The fact of absenteeism from Paris, or even from France, is not, of course, a complete answer to the argument for any particular aspirant otherwise qualified, because the Academy has counted among its members not a few absentees — some of these, too, in a literary sense mere shadows of names; but when permanent, and especially i6o THE FRENCH ACADEMY in the case of permanent residence abroad, it must be allowed to have great weight. Descartes and Bayle come under the latter category, several on the list coming under the former — as Rotrou and Nicole. Among those who received the Academy's offer of a place in its body was Beranger, which was declined.* Then, the fact that few writers under thirty have been elected to the Academy would, for a similar reason, eliminate Vauvenargues, Gilbert, Andr6 Ch^nier, and H^g^sippe Moreau. Rivarol's reputation was founded on his "Petit Almanach," pubhshed in 1788, two years before the suppression, when the Academy with everything else in France was in a state of demoralization. Millevoye died at thirty-four — an age under which few have become Academicians; Armand Carrel, at thirty-six. Sainte Beuve expressly states, in his "Causerie" on the author of "Gil Bias," that Le Sage, who besides was afflicted with deafness, refused the invitation of his friend Danchet, the Academician, to become a candidate on the usual conditions. J. B. Rousseau, a member since 1705 of the Academy of Inscriptions, whence the French Academy has often recruited its membership, more especially during the Old Regime, was a candidate * In a letter to Lebrun about 1840, full of esteem for the Academy, Beranger enters at some length into the reasons which make him not only not desire, but actually shrink from election to a fauteuil. He says therein, in reference to a hint made by Lebrun, apparently on behalf of the Academy: "An unsolicited nomination! You think of it? Do you imagine a triumphal entry more overwhelming for my poor reputation? Prevent that, I beg you, and read my letter to yowc messieurs, if you judge it necessary. But I am mad! that fear is chimerical. ... I am but a song- writer, messieurs; let me die a song-writer." — Le B6ranger des Families, foot-note, pp.6- 11; Gamier Fr^res, Paris. GENERAL HISTORY i6i with Lamotte for the seat made vacant by the death of Thomas Comeille in 1709 and, even if unsuccessful, had every prospect of early election except for the circum- stances, when, the matter dragging on for some years, he was finally convicted in 1712 by the Parhament for the circulation of scandalous verses and for slander in basely attempting to fasten their authorship on Joseph Saurin, and sentenced to banishment in perpetuity. As for Jean Jacques — a citizen, besides, of Geneva — who can blame the Academy for not caring to have the author of "The Confessions" as a colleague? Honor6 de Balzac, although some attempt at his can- onization has been made by his translators into English, in the opinion of some of his French critics was not only wanting in style but immoral in his matter. Apropos, there is little doubt that the future historian of the forty- first fauteuil will seat in it Emile Zola (the author of the Rougon-Macquartse ries of romances, including " La De- bacle," so offensive to French patriotism), whose remains were removed under a military guard in the summer of 1908 to a resting-place in the temple of France's honoured dead — the Pantheon; yet the same charges are made against Zola, whose language has even been characterized as jargon, as against Balzac with others in addition, which made his repeated rejection by the French Academy generally approved by contemporary opinion. An obstacle to Saint Evremont's election was no doubt the resentment aroused by his satire, the "Com^die des Acad^mistes, " which the later Academy, when its author- ity had become established, could have afforded to ignore, without, however, regarding it as a chief title to admis- sion; yet it must have played a considerable part with i6a THE FRENCH ACADEMY M. Houssaye in his titular occupancy of the forty-first fauteuil. As a matter of fact, his only other work pub- lished in his lifetime was "Maximes" (1647). Moreover, Saint Evremont was involved in the fall of Fouquet, and thereafter lived in the country or abroad. Malebranche, a member of the Academy of Sciences, where he was not out of place, given up to contemplation, cannot be thought of as hankering after a seat in what may be described, notwithstanding M. Houssaye's censure of its xmsympathetic austerity, as the more mercurial literary institution.* No more can Lamennais, who, like Malebranche, in certain respects practically illus- trated II Penseroso of Milton's imagination. Mirabeau, who wished to destroy the Academy, can hardly have coveted a place in it. P. L. Courier, rejected as a candi- date for membership in the Academy of Inscriptions, did not attempt to enter the Institute as a member of the French Academy. Gerard de Nerval was subject to fits of mental derangement. And so on. But Moli^re ! Yes, the failure of the French Academy to admit Moli^re, who, let us not forget, died as long ago as 1673, is still held up to us by scandalized critics as an unpardonable sin of the institution. True, it is grudg- ingly acknowledged, sometimes as if it were an aggrava- tion of the original fault, it made a partial amends to * D'Alembert, indeed, maintaining the need of the Academy of good writers of all kinds, thus wrote (Preface to "Eloges"): "I am doubtless going to proffer a sort of literary blasphemy; but I venture to say that Malebranche would perhaps have been better placed in the French Academy than in that of the Sciences. It is not sure that Malebranche was a great philosopher; but it is certain that his style oilers the best model of the manner .in which phOosophical works ought to be written." GENERAL HISTORY 163 the memory of the inimitable comedian in 1778 by setting up his bust in its assembly hall in the Louvre, bearing the following legend, of which Saurin the Academician is author: Rien ne manque k sa gloire: il manquait k la n6tre. Again, in 1844, at the inauguration of a statue to Mo- liere in the Rue Richelieu, Paris, the Academy was represented, Etienne deUvering an oration as its delegate, so that it has gone as far in the way of atonement as could reasonably be expected. The contemporary Academy was not blind to MoliSre's literary merits. Why, then, was he, a known aspirant if not an actual candidate for membership, not elected? Because he was an actor, of a profession frowned on by the Church, appearing nightly on the stage of a theatre, subject to the hisses and jeers of fickle Parisian audiences, and the Academy, a grave and learned body, could not run the risk of being involved in the ridicule and con- tumely which might at any time be heaped upon one of its members so situated. Moliere's friends considered him superior to the actor's profession, which was then less esteemed than it is now. We are told by Livet that Boileau, who recognized the incongruity of a man of truly great mind remaining in a position so equivocal, again and again urged him to quit the stage, with the design of entering the Academy. But he steadily de- clined to sever connection with his troupe, from the creditable motive that his withdrawal would mean its dispersion and the loss to many of its members of the means of gaining a livelihood. The reader, in forming a judgment of Moliere's exclu- sion, should try to put himself in the Academy's place. 1 64 THE FRENCH ACADEMY remembering, what has now come to be a truism, that no graver injustice is Hable to be done than that of judging the men and events of one age or generation by the ideas of another. We may say that only a generation before Moliere was born, Shakespeare, although accustomed to meet men of all ranks in the tavern and coffee-house clubs of London, was not an honoured guest in the houses of the great — as the term is; and if, while the French comedian was growing to manhood, it was otherwise with Ben Jonson, it was after he had ceased to appear on the boards. A century later Dr. Johnson, when in a contemptuous or envious humour, affected disdain of Garrick as a mere showman, and we can almost detect something of depreciation in his remark that the great actor's death "echpsed the gaiety of nations, and dimin- ished the stock of harmless pleasure. " We even have it, on the authority of Mrs. Piozzi, that Johnson threatened to blackball Garrick when he was first spoken of as a candidate for admission into the tavern Literary Club, a bohemian organization in comparison with the French Academy, saying to Mr. Thrale, who expressed surprise that he should think of excluding an intimate friend and companion: "Why, sir, I love my little David dearly — better than all or any of his flatterers do — but surely one ought to sit in a society like ours, '"Unelbow'd by a gamester, pimp, or player.'" In our own day there are many most highly esteemed actors, and, in recent years, in England several * have had conferred on them the distinction of knighthood, while in Catholic Spain one* has been made a grandee; but * Henry Irving, Squire Bancroft, John Hare, Charles Wyndham, Herbert Beerbohm Tree; Fernando Mendoza. GENERAL HISTORY 165 the friends of any man of real ability who takes to the stage, perhaps unconsciously affected by the prevailing sentiment, are still apt to view his course deprecatingly — in other words, the actor's profession, as distinct from the actor himself, is not highly considered of the general, who are slow to get rid of ingrained preju- dice. Distinguished, therefore, as are the names of M. Hous- saye's list, while we acknowledge without reserve the claims of most of them to a place in the universal temple of fame, yet, considering what has been said — what we do know of the circumstances in individual cases ex- plaining apparent neglect in that they do not figure in the records of the French national literary temple, and giving the institution the benefit of the doubt in at least some of the other cases, of which the circumstances are not so well known — although we cannot acquit the French Academy of aU blame in the premises, we cannot deny that something can be said in its defence on the first count of the indictment which would hold it up to censure on the ground of culpable negligence of just claims to academical recognition. As to the second count, that it has not adequately reflected the national literary glory, if, on the whole, the French Academy has not always absolutely represented French literature at its best, there perhaps never has been an institution or an assembly which has continuously, for such a long time, so brilhantly represented its constituency. After ever5^hing has been said pro and con, let us frankly admit that admirers of the French Academy can but regret a certain dimness in the lustre of its record which might have been corrected by an infusion into its body i66 THE FRENCH ACADEMY of some of the brilliant literary elements ready to its hand in place of less choice material. Xow, at elections it was not customary for the Academy to discuss the qualihcations of candidates dther indi- vidually or in comparison with one another, from a sense of deUcacy perhaps carried to excess, nor for members themselves to propose names when there are vacancies. Sainte Beuve in a 'Xouveau Lundi," in which at the end his wrath fairly boils over, vigorously avails this method of procedure.* He says; Candidatures are not poatively posed but by letters addressed to the permanfint secretary of the Academy, and several of these candidatures remain latent and in a state of essay until the last moment. This is Ms peroration: For to see spring up imceaan^y unexpected candidates, who are animated but by their caprice and the good pleasure of a majority which puts them forwaid or which adopts them, with- out ever giving reasons or explanation: to undergo such a choice of new canjrirei. without having one's self had a voice on the head (for a mute vote is not a voice), without first having been put in a position to speak and answer, to say what one thinis and make others say what they think also, without having been well and duly vanquished or (who knows?) convinced perhaps and con- verted, and that in a Society of which equality is the principle and speech is the soul ... I have no patience with it, and I am not alone; more than one of my confreres is like me — it is rifling in the long run, it is suffocating. And that is why I have said to all the world much that I should have preferred to be able to develop within before a few. I have made my Report to the public. The panacea of Sainte Beuve for implied haphazard ♦Jfouveanx LuncHs, I. art. Des produtines QedUms. In 1869. the year of Sainte Benve's death, prdiminaiy discussiim of candi- dates' qualifications was resfrfved on and obsoved uotQ 1^0, when it was discontinued, but it was resinned in 1896. GENERAL HISTORY 167 elections, besides discussion of the candidate's qualifi- cations, is the division of the Academy into sections — eight sections with five members each — as follows: (1) Language and Grammar; (2) Dramatic Production; (3) Poesy (other than dramatic) ; (4) History; (5) Public Eloquence (Oratory); (6) Eloquence and the Art of Writing (all kinds of elevated prose); (7) Fiction; (8) Literary Criticism. However, if such a plan should ever be adopted, which is very improbable, as it does not seem at all feasible, some writers in the future as in the past might be equally distinguished in two or more of these fields, and the Academy would need to provide for a certain number of free members, or members at large, the pursuit of literature not being specialized as in the sciences and the fine arts. At best, under present conditions, in elections like those of the French Academy, should there be rival candidates for the same vacancy the result must needs cause dis- satisfaction to some. Other things being equal, we should expect the abler of two candidates to be chosen, but if there is sufficient reason to show that he might prove an undesirable or less useful colleague, the electing body may find it expedient to choose the inferior. As the arbiter of its proper composition, the French Academy, with its long and on the whole illustrious record, has, it might be thought, incentive enough to the safeguarding of its dignity and fame — of which, indeed, it seems to be increasingly jealous. Here it is perhaps not inopportune to consider the general subject of personal solicitation of the suffrages of members by candidates for vacancies in the Academy. i68 THE FRENCH ACADEMY It is one of those excrescences, the growth of time, which fasten themselves on old-estabhshed institutions in such a way as to be at length regarded as a necessary part of them, whose excision might be shrunk from as painful even when not regarded as dangerous to the life of the whole body. As is well known, convention has made the visits of candidates now almost obUgatory. D'Ohvet, writing to President Bouhier on the 15th of December, 1732, positively asserts that they were not originally or always so, and adduces the convincing proof that he was himself elected Academician in July of 1723 while he was in the country. "You know," he says, "who was received on the 25th of November, 1723. Assuredly, neither you nor I doubt that he is the least of the Acade- micians, quot sunt, quotque fuere, quotque aliis erunt in annis. Now, he was elected at a time when, for more than six months, he had been in the depths of a distant province. Does a man who is at Salins pay visits in Paris?" Besides his own experience, D'Olivet cites in the same letter the registers of the Academy, under date of 5th April, 1701, as follows: "This day the Society has again examined into what ought to be done to obviate the in- conveniences of canvassing and solicitation when there are vacant places, its intention being to allot them only to merit, so rendering its choice truly worthy of the approbation of the king its protector and of the esteem of the public. After a long and minute discussion it has been resolved by common consent that henceforth the solicitations by candidates which custom had introduced, and which are only of a nature to repel the persons most capable of consoling the Academy for its losses, should GENERAL HISTORY 169 no longer be tolerated; that, to abolish their usage, all members should pledge themselves on their honour never to have regard either to that kind of solicitation or to any other which should appear to have been sought or asked for; that, besides, each one of them should let it be understood in public, and should declare to those who should solicit, that it would prejudice rather than ad- vance; that, at the first public meeting, whichever of the members should be at the head of the Society should indicate the same thing in his speech; that, lastly, to give more force and effect to the present deliberation, an account of it should be given to his majesty. After which, lest in time any member, from not being suffi- ciently informed of this regulation, should fail to observe it, it has also been resolved that, whenever there should be a place to fill in the Academy, the secretary of the Society should read it in full assembly." The substance of this resolution was reaffirmed twenty years later. We read that in consequence of a delibera- tion of 2nd January, 1721, every Academician newly received is required to subscribe in the register that he promises, "on his honour, to have no regard to solicita- tion of any nature whatsoever; that he will never pledge his word, but will keep his vote free, to give it, on the day of election, only to him who shall appear most worthy thereof. And it is declared that in this case the signature of an Academician shall take the place of an oath. " These extracts from the Academy's registers are an evidence of the magnitude of the evil against which the resolutions were directed, as well as of its recognition and condemnation by a majority of the Academy at two different periods between which nine-tenths of its body 170 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY was entirely renewed. Unfortunately, the object of the resolutions was not attained, or only partially attained, for on the 10th of November, 1744, D'Olivet writes to the same correspondent: "Some of our confreres, sir, knowing of a letter which I formerly wrote to you, have urged me to make it public, because intrigues are per- petually recurring and the world believes that we counte- nance them, which only serves to disgust good subjects. " Even D'Olivet's zeal was not proof against the condition of inefficiency into which the Academy appears to have fallen about this time, and he confesses to disillusion and disappointment. "The Academy can nothing," he says, on the 29th of November, 1745, "without a good secretary; but, being what it is to-day, a good secretary is of no use to it." But the painful impression made by these words should perhaps be corrected by the read- ing of others addressed to the Academy itself a year before their writer's death, which occurred in 1768. D'Olivet then inscribed to the Academy the latest edition of his "Opuscules sur la Langue Frangoise," and in sending it a copy he thus wrote: "May I flatter myself that some day the examination of these remarks will steal from you a few moments? Add, retrench, correct. I foresee that you will often have to say, 'He was mis- taken'; but say sometimes, I beg of you, 'He loved us and respected us.'" Manifestly, so long as the French Academy demands or permits these visits it must to some extent be held responsible for the abuses which they encourage, even for intrigues over which it has no corporate control, in connection with elections. Personal solicitation by the candidate in visits by turn to the individual Academicians GENERAL HISTORY 171 is, as has been said, still a preliminary to nomination, although it may be, as it sometimes has been dispensed with. It is an antiquated custom which would be better honoured in the breach than in the observance, giving place only to formal application by a candidate, or by an Academician for him, to the secretary, much as is done at present, but without other formality — the record of such candidates also being always accessible to Academicians. If this had always been the method, we should probably never have heard of such effrontery as, for example, that of Madame de Villars peremptorily demanding of the Bishop of Mirepoix that he should withdraw his candidacy for a vacancy in order to leave a free field for her friend the Abbe Seguy. It has been customary to decry the French Academy not only for effusive panegyric of its protectors, espe- cially of Louis XIV., but because of its submissions to authority and of internal dissensions. In connection with panegyric of Louis XIV. by the contemporary Academy, as illustrated particularly in the Dedicatory Epistle in the second chapter, let us add here what M. Arsene Houssaye has to say of him in an apostrophe to his statue more than a century and a quarter after his death as an Academician-elect of the forty-first fauteuil: "Do you see yonder, outhned under that dome of verdure which sparkles in the sunshine? It is Jupiter, it is Apollo. In one hand it holds the thunder, with the other it salutes the poets. On the pedestal I read LOUIS THE GREAT. ... Art thou Jupiter? Art thou Apollo? What strength hadst the a! What grace ! Who taught thee to be a great king, with 172 THE FRENCH ACADEMY the majesty of a demigod?" Hyperbole! It would seem so, and in view of the wrath poured out on the Academy of the Old Regime for its effusiveness toward its protectors, it is suggestive to any flexible mind.* / Again, surely no sane man will maintain that the (French Academy, a national institution, without consti- tutional means of resistance, could have set at naught the wishes of the executive authority of the nation, even if it had been under no statutory obhgation to the con- trary. So far as elections to vacancies are concerned, one would suppose that these critics did not understand, or had never read, the first article of the Academy's .Statutes: "Firstly, no person shall be received into the lAcademy who shall not be agreeable to Monseigneur the Protector." This language is simple. Either it means nothing, or it means just what it says. If it meant nothing, there would have been no reason for embodying it in the Rules. Therefore, meaning exactly what it says, it invests the protector with a veto power which, certainly, as in the case of any similar power intrusted to an individual as opposed to the collective opinion of an assembly of intelligent men, we should have expected to see sparingly exercised. Except during the protec- torate of Louis XV., when the Academy was too often harassed by the capricious interference of the king or * Apology for excessive panegyric is not to be understood. The sole aim of the remarks on this subject is to deprecate the wooden mental attitude which makes no allowance for the exaggeration of the fervid Gallic temperament or of the time. Let it be granted once for all to those critics of the Academy who are nothing if not cen- sorious that panegyric of its protectors, of itself, of foimer Academi- cians, has, as the tendency is in such compositions, often degen- erated into vainglory in the set harangues of formal occasions. GENERAL HISTORY 173 his ministers, it is undeniable that it was so exercised. Even during this period, the Academy was not blameless: it invited some of the snubs to which it was subjected. As to the official appointments in the reorganized Second Institute, followed by other arbitrary exclusions and appointments at the Restoration, it may be asked. What was the Academy to do? Should it have resigned in a body rather than have submitted to such dictation, or did it rightly understand the futility of protest, and avoid needless humihation? If it was mistaken, then we can only regret that it did not show the spirit which its critics, in the same circumstances, would no doubt have done. Again, absolute harmony has not always reigned in the Academy. Inevitably it has had its "pacific differences" — even its "little civil wars" — has been at times divided into parties, among them those of the Ancients and Moderns, Piccinists and Gluck- ists. Philosophers and D'Olivets (or, as later, Cha- peaux and Bonnets, after the names of the Swedish poUtical factions). Romanticists and Classicists.* Their * Ancients and Modems: Maeaulay in his essay on "Sir William Temple" (1838) characterizes this controversy, which spread to England, as "idle and contemptible," disposing of the subject, from that point of view, in a few pages. Yet in the very nature of things its incidence in some form or another, after the revival of learning, was inevitable. Not to mention Italy, where it had cropped out stiU earUer, it may be said to have been smoiildering in France from the time of the Pl^iade, when Baiif wrote his " Defense et Illustration de la Langue fran9aise" (1549). So far from the controversy being in itself contemptible, except as the controversialists made it so, one can hardly conceive of a more inspiring theme, worthy even of Maeaulay himself, whose learning in a discussion of it might have revelled in a wealth of literary allusion as instructive as entertain- 174 THE FRENCH ACADEMY discussion in detail is entirely unnecessary in this history, as their very existence shows that, if there were cUques within the Academy, the Academy as a whole did not form a clique — indeed, they may in a sense be regarded as signs of a healthy diversity of opinion, inasmuch as they none of them permanently affected the Academy's composition, although they may in isolated instances have retarded a candidate's admission. We are not to suppose, for example, that the "party of the Dukes," taking its name from the Dues Pasquier, d'Aimaale, and Victor de Broglie, and as a party name surviving them, greatly influenced the policy of the Academy in elections during the closing decades of the nineteenth century, whatever the solidarity of sentiment which gave occasion for the appellation to the group. Conservatives — per- haps one should now say reactionaries, the French term having so largely displaced the first — by training as well ing. Indeed, twelve years before, in an essay on "The London Univer- sity," attributed to him, a branch of what is essentially the same sub- ject — classical versits utilitarian instruction in colleges — is treated so temperately and judicially as to raise its author above the level of a mere disputant. Piccinists and Gluckists: An account of this quarrel, over Italian versiis German music, as represented by Piccini and Gluck, is given in Marmontel's Memoirs, where it is described as "frivolous and ephemeral." Marmontel, himself a musician and writer of librettoes, warmly espoused the cause of Piccini, even composing a poem (Polym- nie) of twelve cantos in his defence. Gluck had the patronage of Queen Marie Antoinette and the Court. The Philosophers and their opponents: Lucien Brunei, in "Les philosophes et 1' Academic frangaise au dix-huiti^me sificle" (Paris, 1884), tells the story of the antagonism between these two factions in the Academy. Romanticists and Classicists: Victor Hugo's four abortive candida- cies for a fauteuU are said to have been owing in part to his leadership of the Romanticists. GENERAL HISTORY 175 as by instinct, they may indeed have helped to swell the majority against Emile Zola, but they will not be held responsible for reducing the vote for that perpetual candidate, which was never large, to nothing. Such factional episodes, if a part of, do not form the history of the Academy, any more than, except in vulgar estimation, do those occasional violent scenes incidental to every assembly of human beings met together for the purpose of debate; for Academicians are but men, and the best and wisest of men are but men at the best. When we lend an ear to an isolated tale of two irascible Academicians in that century so far forgetting themselves as to hurl the most convenient missiles — say a dictionary and an inkstand — at each other, or in this of one with a saving sense of humour being moved to the expostulation, "Gentlemen, if we spoke only four at a time!" it is but fair to listen to the other side, to the almost universal testimony as to the dignity and urbanity prevailing in the sessions of the Academy. Let us take for granted rare occasional instances of contradictions out of pro- portion to the occasion and exceptional political antag- onisms giving rise to them during the reign of Louis Philippe, such as Sainte Beuve alludes to in his historical sketch, and then hear what he further says on this sub- ject: "The custom is to live in the Academy as among confreres and to address one another with politeness. You, pubhc, you think perhaps, on the faith of the journals, that such and such Academicians are at war, at daggers drawn, and you are surprised, if by chance you pass into the court of the Institute on a Thursday at half-past four, to see the same men come out together almost arm in arm, and chatting familiarly, amicably." 176 THE FRENCH ACADEMY He adds, in a passage well worth quoting: "There are, however, in the interior sessions of the Academy days of grand discussion and as it were of pitched battle on important literary subjects. These discussions give place to jousts of speech, developed, agreeable, solid withal, veritably academic in the best sense of the word. These grand interior conversations . . . are of those days which leave the best idea of the merit and even of the charm which one always finds in the illustrious Company. " A noteworthy detail is that chance woimds engendered in the heat of discussion are not envenomed by the mention of the names of the speakers in the Academy's registers. In the secretary's minutes the record is after this kind of formula: "A member said"; "Another rephed"; etc. Some years ago there was published at Paris a work entitled "L'Armee k I'Acad^mie. " Its name is ex- planatory of its scope. It is a biographical-dictionary treatment of the subject, by Ch. de La Jonquiere, Captain of Artillery, and is chiefly interesting as grouping together no less than sixty Academicians drawn from the profession of arms, or who had at some period of their lives been soldiers. It shows, what we all know, that wielders of the sword may also be wielders of the pen, and vice versa, but we lay down the volume with the conviction that high distinction in both avocations united in a single individual is rare. Among the best known writers of the group, although little distinguished as soldiers, were Bernardin de Saint Pierre, Chateaubriand, Lamartine, and Alfred de Vigny. There is no Ca-sar in the list. In it appear the names of six marshals of France, the most eminent of the six, and the most distinguished soldier GENERAL HISTORY 177 of the sixty, being Marshal Villars, whose literary qualifi- cations were not of a very high order, yet better, perhaps, than those of Marshal Saxe, who in the contemplation of other military Academicians actually did for a moment entertain the thought of offering himself as a candidate. One of the six marshals was the Duke of Richelieu, who had no claim to academical honours other than his name and his rank. Besides these, a considerable number were grands seigneurs who owed their election almost solely to their birth and their military distinction. Of some of them the literary "baggage," to use a term to which La Jonquiere is partial, was light indeed, and a few had absolutely none. For instance, the Duke of Villars was elected simply because he was a duke and the son of his father the marshal; the Duke of La Force, because he was a patron of men of letters; the Count of Clermont, because he was a prince of the blood; etc. It is in perusing a work like that of La Jonquiere, where many of the successful candidates were not ideal Academicians, and accounts of their election follow one another in rapid succession, that we are unfavourably impressed by the means used to secure nomination, as well as by the part played in securing it by the leaders of the salons, even at the beginning of the eighteenth century, when that of the Marquise de Lam- bert was already spoken of as the antechamber of the Academy, but especially in the half-century before the Revolution. Until we consider the function of the salons in the social economy of Paris, we cannot help being possessed with a feeling of impatience, sometimes of contempt, in the reading of such fragmentary annals. Let us imagine how the different salons, even where 178 THE FRENCH ACADEMY rivalry was friendly, must have striven to outshine one another, |and to excel in the number of men of parts — of literary, lions — which each could assemble. An Academician in the society frequenting any of them was deemed almost indispensable to success, and the greater the number of Academicians the greater the success. The established salon, like that of Madame du Deffand or Mademoiselle de Lespinasse, would direct its efforts to extending as well as maintaining its supremacy, while the salon with no Academician in its circle would set itself to secure and push the fortunes of a likely candidate. D'Argenson,* for example, thus writes of the Duchesse de Boufflers: "She has resolved to keep a good house this winter, in Paris, and to that end beaux-espnts are essential. She has persuaded Madame de La Valli^re to dismiss Jelyotte, singer at the Opera, for the Comte de Bissy. To decorate the society, it has been resolved to make of the latter an Academician. " There seems to have been no doubt of the issue. We are not therefore to be shocked beyond measure when we are told of the Marquise de Lambert on the same authority that "one was seldom received in the Academy without presenta- tion to her and by her. It is certain that she has made the half of our present Academicians. " t Notwithstanding rivalries, the leaders of the Parisian salons of the eighteenth century may be described as a female oligarchy, wielding a power and authority without example in any civihzed state, before or since. It may be said that all social, and even political, patronage was ♦Cited by Sainte Beuve in "Causerie" on Madame de Lambert Vol. IV. t Ca. 1733. GENERAL HISTORY 179 in its hands. While it is not to the present purpose to examine how far the salons shared in, or how much they were responsible for, conditions which led to the sweeping away of the old French regime, it is pertinent to indicate their importance as social as well as sociological factors, in order to explain their meddling in academical elections. They were to the Parisians of that time what a free press and modern clubs combined are to ours. It was largely through them that the influence of the French Academy as a literary tribunal and a centre of "tone and taste" made itself felt, and it is since their decHne that it has become, in the narrower sense, more of a language than a literary academy. The salons were, in fact, recognized centres of pubUc opinion, and as such centres were partly its reflectors and partly its moulders. In intellectual matters especially, it was through them that public ap- probation and disapprobation were most effectually ex- pressed, so that often the nomination of a candidate for the Academy brought forward in them had at least public approval if it was not the public choice. Thus, the intrigues carried on in the salons for the purpose of influencing academical elections were not very different from what in our time in political and other elections is called canvassing or wire-pulling. It was even in the salons — in some respects informal academies — that literary reputations were occasionally made or marred, and under their auspices, instead of those of a patron, that men of letters not infrequently launched their works upon the world. When an aspiring author was about to publish a poem or other literary production, and wished to have his work talked about, it was usually his ambition to have it read in an assembly i8o THE FRENCH ACADEMY of celebrities in one of them. For instance, Bernardin de Saint Pierre gave a reading of his "Paul et Virginie" at Madame Necker's, at which, we are told, Buffon yawned and Thomas dozed, and Marmontel, Delille, La Harpe, and Saint Lambert were no more appreciative. Joseph Vernet the painter, alone of the distinguished company, was dehghted with the story, and cheered the discouraged author by assuring him that he had pro- duced a masterpiece — an opinion soon universally justi- fied. The influence of the salons on elections for the French Academy is therefore intelligible, seeing that they were so much frequented by Academicians, even if we cannot altogether reconcile ourselves to its legitimacy or its salutariness. A few words should be given to the Academy's chifif occupations. Besides its labours on the Dictionary of the Language proper, which from the nature of the work are never done, the Academy had been engaged inter- mittently for more than a century on a Historical Dic- tionary of the Language — a legacy left to it by Voltaire under circumstances to be explained farther on. The enterprise, however, has been abandoned: it is evidently not within the province of the French Academy as at present constituted. Its other publications, as orations, treatises on grammatical or critical subjects, are com- paratively unimportant. While the Academy has been criticised for not offering more than the passive resist- ance opposed by its Dictionary to literary deterioration, as from the successive waves of cant which threaten to defile the sources of pure and correct expression, it is difEcult to see how it could include in its occupations the somewhat invidious duty of censorship of the language GENERAL HISTORY i8i of the contemporary press, using the term in its widest sense, except in a passive way, without giving rise to what it has always studiously and wisely avoided — fr uitless co ntroversy, such as, for instance, would follow the publication of a "journal of its house." The cant passes, sometimes after many years, but the sooner for the Academy's example, and lies buried in the unturned pages of its forgotten users. The Academy's example remains, producing its beneficent effect almost imper- ceptibly and confirming the truth of Voltaire's saying, usually interpreted as only half-complimentary, that the institution renders greater service to literature than is generally supposed, even in doing nothing. The works; of individual Academicians are not ascribable to the Acad- emy as a body, nor are those which it has "crowned"; yet much of the Academicians' time is taken up in the adjudication of its periodical prize competitions, of which a score or more are held annually, exclusive of special prizes and the numerous Prizes of Virtue. Many of these prizes have been founded by the liberahty of Academi- cians or of friends of the Academy, and others are offered by the state. As their management must involve much irksome labour,* the French Academy is by no means an acadhnie faineante. Yet, it is almost superfluous to remark, this prize system, of which seventy-five per cent, of the growth has taken place within a century, does not form part of the Academy's constitution: it is purely adventitious, and could perhaps be abolished at any time without materially affecting the influence of the * Crede D'Olivet, who says to President Bouhier in a letter of 13th July, 1735: "Nous sommes dans la lecture des pieces qui con- courent pour les prix, triste occupation." 1 82 THE FRENCH ACADEMY institution on the language or even on literature, although some of its laureates ultimately attain the goal of a fauteuil. It remains to add one or two extracts, from various sources, concerning the utility of the French Academy to complete this general historical sketch, which will be closed by a few remarks on the part of the author, which the facts seem to warrant. Pellisson says (1652): "If this society should endure, and with the same honour as heretofore, even if it should not produce the works expected of it, it is impossible that France should not derive from it much advantage. So many men of intelligence and learning cannot assemble every week without stimulating one another to labour and the study of literature, without profiting much in these conversations, and without insensibly disseminating the profit which they shall have procured for themselves over all Paris and all the rest of the kingdom." D'Olivet says (1743): "In a word, the real fruit of its assemblies does not consist in the labours which are made in common. It consists rather in the light which the writers of the Society are in a position to borrow from one another, so becoming more capable of serving the pubHc. " D'Alembert, in his Eloge of D'Olivet, speaking of the "Opuscules" mentioned earlier, says (ca. 1775): "He has joined to his remarks a journal, written by the Abb6 de Choisy, of some grammatical discussions, made and drawn up with care in our ancient assemblies. This journal is precious both by reason of the mo?t subtle observations which it contains, and of the just idea which it is able to give of our exercises to those GENERAL HISTORY 183 who, without knowing them, affect to speak of them with contempt; they would change their tone consider- ably if they could assist at one of our private sessions. Whoever imagines that the Academy is idle in these sessions would often find himself very much embarrassed, not alone to resolve, but to analyze and regard in all their aspects, the questions which are there proposed, and which ordinarily have need, to be discussed, of the most subtle, the most luminous and the most precise ratiocina- tion. The Abb6 d'Olivet had said it before us in his History of the Society, and we do not fear to repeat it — not only does the French Academy work, and work much more than its silly enemies think or say, but it is the only Academy which works as a body: the memoirs of the other learned societies are but the isolated work of each of the members who compose them; the Dic- tionary of the French Academy and the considerable amehorations which it adds thereto with each edition are the work of the assembled Society and the result of a co mmon discussio n where each brings in tribute his knowledge and his hghts — a discussion which gives to that work, if not all the perfection of which it is sus- ceptible, at least all that it can receive from a society as a body." Mesnard says (1857): "Will it be held that the ha- rangues of its formal sessions, the compositions of its laureates, even the Dictionary itself, give the true measure of the greatness and utility of the institution? No, it is not from that point of view that it should be regarded, if it is desired to estimate at their true value the services which it has rendered, those which it may still render. In a coimtry where letters have exercised such an extra- i84 THE FRENCH ACADEMY ordinary domination, is it not in the Academy that they have found the most complete organization, the most brilliant association, and their most durable force? A public character, a regular and recognized authority, independence, dignity, all the conditions of power, the Academy has possessed, and through the Academy they have been assured to letters. Such is really the work of that Society, such the grand r6le which it has played in forming and confirming among us the reign of intelli- gence. It is by its constitution, by its liberties, by the battles which it has sometimes had to engage to mantain them, by the spirit which it has communicated to letters, by the place which it has conquered and held for them in French society, that the Academy has above all a history. " Such are the opinions of four different historians of the French Academy. They could easily be supplemented and sustained by those of other authorities. Thus Villemain, in an Introduction * to a proposed history of the Academy from the time of D'Alembert, for which he had collected the material, says of it that in the eighteenth century it "was the power preservative of the language, and, everything considered, gave the best models of it, " but that in the preceding age "this role had belonged in great part and very justly to the court." Sainte Beuve, on the other hand, by a course of reasoning not quite obvious, arrives at the conclusion that in the first thirty years of its existence it was a sovereign tribimal of taste, while during the remainder of the seventeenth century it fell into the background in presence of such writers as Boileau, Racine, Moli^re, La Fontaine — all of whom, Moliere of course excepted, were of its member- * Revue des Deux Mondes, 15th September, 1852. GENERAL HISTORY 185 ship. In the eighteenth century, he holds that the Academy's grammatical and purely literary role was set off to advantage by the philosophical character impressed upon it by Fontenelle, Lamotte, and others who fre- quented the salon of the Marquise de Lambert. Of the post-Revolutionary Academy Sainte Beuve says that it not only has had "a fine and interesting past, but . . . can render great services in the midst of the universal literary diffusion and dispersion."* On the other side of the question is Lanfrey, who says in his "Histoire de NapoMon P''" (1870): "Formed by the monarchy and for the monarchy, eminently favour- able to the spirit of intrigue, of vanity, and of courtly flattery, devoid of serious and of high ambition, incapable of a collective and sustained effort, . . . occupied ex- clusively in trivialities and futilities which it has the art to ennoble, fatal to the emulation which it pretends to develop, . . the French Academy appears to have received from its founders the special mission of trans- forming genius into virtuosity, and one could hardly mention a talent which [i.e. one of talent whom] it has not lessened." This perhaps sufficiently represents the swelling original period. Such extravagant language defeats its purpose. In style it is singularly suggestive of Macaulay, quoted farther on. Says Arsene Houssaye (Preface): "That device of the Academy, 'To immortality,' has too much taught those elected that they had already one foot in the future world, in the world of spirits. . . . The Academy in fact should be the house of men of letters — it should extend a protecting hand over all brows smitten by the * Nouveaux Lundis, XII., 436, art. L'Acadimie frangaise. i86 THE FRENCH ACADEMY dizziness of genius. Only the Academy is a little mis- anthropical; it lives retired from the world. . . . The Academy is often too old by a generation. . . . Why does not the Academy publish the journal of its house? The creation of a journal of the Academy would give a great authority to the illustrious body." As a matter of fact, the Academy is not so neglectful of budding genius as M. Houssaye would imply. The competitions of its prize system have at least this to be said for them, that they do keep the Academy in touch with many young aspirants for literary fame, the works of some of whom are from time to time crowned by it, thus giving them a recognition which entitles them to describe them- selves as Laureates of the French Academy or of the Institute, and also, by reason of the gratifying distinction of this quasi-degree, a certain standing in the literary arena. But it does more than this for the dizziness of youthful genius, for it is probably as true now as when D'Alembert, paraphrasing the English philosopher, thus wrote in the Preface to his " Eloges " : '"He who marries, ' says Bacon, ' gives hostages to fortune' ; the man of letters who holds in respect or who aspires to the Academy gives hostages to decency." The suggestion of a journal of the Academy is a good one theoretically, but its adop- tion would be the means of laying the Academy open to the meticulous criticism of all other journals and in the end make the fauteuils rather shunned than desired. Besides, it may be said that the best journals of Paris, and especially the Revue des Deux Mondes, are already more safely open to the Academy through its members when there is an}'t.hing to be said concerning it of special interest either to the literary or general public. GENERAL HISTORY 187 Macaulay, in the article contributed to Knight's Quarterly Magazine in June, 1823, or about a year after he left college, in which the object of attack was the Royal Society of Literature, then recently established, says : "The French Academy was, of all such associations, the most widely and the most justly celebrated. It was founded by the greatest of ministers; it was patronized by successive kings; it numbered in its hsts most of the eminent French writers. Yet what benefit has liter- ature derived from its labours? What is its history but an uninterrupted record of servile compliances— of paltry artifices — of deadly quarrels — of perfidious friendships? Whether governed by the Court, by the Sorbonne, or by the Philosophers, it was always equally powerful for evil, and equally impotent for good. I might speak of the attacks by which it attempted to de- press the rising fame of Corneille; I might speak of the reluctance with which it gave its tardy confirmation to the applauses which the whole civilized world had be- stowed on the genius of Voltaire. I might prove by overwhelming evidence that, to the latest period of its existence, even under the superintendence of the all- accomplished D'Alembert, it continued to be a scene of the fiercest animosities and the basest intrigues. I might cite Piron's epigrams, and Marmontel's memoirs, and Montesquieu's letters. But I hasten on to another topic. " * To the end of his life Macaulay, a literary individualist, never highly appreciated the value of academical organiza- * It will be observed that Macaulay not only uses a past tense, but speaks of the French Academy not alone as if its identity were lost in that of the Institute, but as if it had never been re-established. 1 88 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY tion, literary or otherwise. As to the cnticism in other respects, there is no doubt that, in the hands of any one who had made up his mind to darken the picture the history of the Academy could be made to look very black ; but there is no human institution which could stand the test of such one-sided argument. Subjected to analysis, it should fail of its object as completely as the arrow that overshoots its mark. Let us see! Even admitting a foundation of truth in the arraignment just quoted, and making a reasonable allowance for the exaggeration of the recently emancipated coUegian, it is incompre- hensible how, if the old French Academy was nothing but a scene of division and strife, of self-abasement and degradation, it could not alone have endured until sup- pressed by the Revolution, but that membership in it should have been regarded as a further distinction by the most distinguished men in France. There is no doubt that the Academy was the means of cementing and strengthening friendships, and it is incontestable that as a body it on different occasions stood by members who were under a cloud or in straits, while its self-assertion in the later period of the old Monarchy caused it to be viewed by the Government with a jealous eye. The reader already understands something of the Academy's "attacks" on Corneille, and, that he may also understand its real appreciation of the genius of Voltaire, in finally electing him, a comparison may be made between him and Thomas Paine. If we imagine the feehng with which Tom Paine was regarded in England after the publica- tion of "The Rights of Man," and in the United States after the publication of "The Age of Reason," we may form some idea of the antipathy excited by Voltaire and GENERAL HISTORY 189 his teachings in France in the second quarter of the eighteenth century among men of orthodox religious and poUtical views. Let us examine the witnesses named by Macaulay against the Academy. One would suppose that Mar- montel's Memoirs bristled with evidence dishonourable to it. The truth is, there is absolutely nothing in the Memoirs that reflects discredit on the Academy except the incident, granting the truth of the story, attending the election of the Abb^ de Radonvilliers, a former sub- preceptor of the infants of France, the Dauphin included, in whose favour Marmontel, who was at first a candidate for the same vacant fauteuil, withdrew. But this did not disarm the enemies of the Philosophers. Four op- ponents, with D'Olivet at their head, of the four Philoso- phers — Duclos, D'Alembert, Saurin, and Watelet — within the Academy entered into a conspiracy to render these Philosophers, and particularly Marmontel, without, in indifferent repute at the best on account of their opinions, especially odious at the court of the Dauphin. D'Olivet and his fellow conspirators — Batteux and, presumably, Paulmy (d'Argenson) and Advocate-General Seguier — after themselves spreading the report that Marmontel's party (i.e. the party of the Philosophers) would be opposed to Radonvilliers, were to blackball the candidate and attribute the black balls to the four Philosophers. But Duclos and company divined the unholy pact of D'Olivet and company, and on the day of election, one black and one white ball having been duly handed to each Academi- cian present, when four black balls were withdrawn from the voting urn — so constructed that voters could drop both balls at the same time, the dead ball falling into 190 THE FRENCH .ACADEMY one compartment and the live ball, or the one to be counted, into another — with the white ones, the Philoso- phers, after allowing D'Olivet, as spokesman for his party, to express loud indignation at the affront put upon a candidate so blameless and so estimable, opened their palms and showed each his black ball, which they had withheld by agreement, thus proving that they voted their white ones, to the confusion of the D'OIivets, who were caught in their own trap. This is the substance of Marmontel's story.* As to Montesquieu, we have seen that he presented himself to the Academy, hat in one hand and "Lettres Persanes" in the other, suing for the honour of a place in its body, with the tragic declaration that if it were refused him he would go into exile, and that, partly out of a spirit of compassi'on, it was accorded to him. And Piron's epigrams ! Any biographical notice of this witness cited against the French Academy makes it evident what manner of man Piron was. He was, in fact — to adopt a rhetorical figure familiar to the readers of Macaulay — the kind of man who would rather be known as the author of a biting sarcasm than as the saviour of the state. In his epigrams Piron was little accustomed to spare any one or any thing, when the mood possessed him. To give an example: Piron was the owner of a foho Bible on the margins of which he had written parodies, epigrams, and jests whose profanity was not their only fault. They were the source of much entertainment to himself and his friends, and he is said to have confessed * It has all the appearance of a FalstafEan version of a similar incident as recorded by C0II6 at the election of Belle-Isle, when only one black ball was withheld, in the hand of Duclos. GENERAL HISTORY 191 to greater pleasure in their composition than in that of any other of his works. Toward the close of his life, however, Piron became devout, and the Abb6 Sallier, his confessor, induced him to throw this Bible into the fire, probably with no loss to the world and with great gain to the memory of Piron. But supposing his wit- ticisms had been preserved, would Macaulay, would any one, have cited them as damaging the credit or the au- thority of the Bible? Sir Walter Scott's opinion of the French Academy is recorded in a letter to John Villiers (afterwards third Earl of Clarendon) which appears in the Appendix to the "Famihar Letters of Sir Walter Scott," published in 1894, and was written at Manchester on the 6th [7th] of April, 1821, on his way home from London, following an interview to which he had been invited for the purpose of getting his views on the creation of the Royal Society of Literature, the bete noir of Macaulay's essay, already in its formative stage — so far advanced, indeed, as to have already received the king's assent, so that the invitation to Sir Walter has, from the point of view of the historian, very much the appearance of a duty per- formed toward the literary Wizard of the North, whom it would have been unseemly to ignore in a national enterprise of the kind, yet without any intention of being guided by his advice if adverse to the project. Sir Walter was as strongly opposed to it as Macaulay and advanced many reasons in support of his position, besides his poor opinion of the French Academy, which is the only one that concerns us at the moment. He says: " Lewis the Four- teenth, in his plenitude of power, failed to make the Acad^mie respectable; nor did it ever produce any 192 THE FRENCH ACADEMY member who rose above mediocrity." There is some ambiguity of phrase in both these statements, but the answer to the first may be left to our next witness — Mr. Hallam. As to the second, if "produce" is to be inter- preted as meaning by its prize system, which was then in its infancy, or in the sense in which a imiversity is said to do so, then these pages will fail somewhat of their purpose if the reader does not become ahve to the fact that the French Academy is not primarily a school for the training of literary tyroes, but that the reward which is offered by it to the French man of letters is and always has been a place in its body, not necessarily the crown of a literary career that has reached its close, but open, strictly speaking, only to the ripe author who has made his mark or has at least laid the sohd foundations of a more or less enduring fame. It is the actual achieve- ment of the candidate, not the prospective achievement of the Academician, that seats him in a fauteuil. Of this, indeed, Sir Walter seemed to have some perception, as he continues: "Those of genius who were associated with it made their way at a late period, and rather be- cause the Acad^mie wanted them than because they required any honours it could bestow. " If, on the other hand, the statement under discussion means produce by example, of which it is impossible for any one to measure the value on individual men of letters, or that none of the members of the Academy of the Old Regime rose above mediocrity, the position is one that need not be discussed. In his history of the " Literature of Europe " Mr. Hallam writes as follows of the foundation of the French Acad- emy: "France was ruled by a great minister who loved GENERAL HISTORY 193 her glory and his own. ... He availed himself, fortu- nately, of an opportunity which almost every statesman would have disregarded, to found the most illustrious institution in the annals of polite literature. " The most significant comment which can be made on this extract is that it does not appear in the edition of 1842, but does figure in the fourth edition, after more than ten years' contemplation by the author of his subject. It is, of course, a criticism which is not exclusive either of par- ticular praise or dispraise of the French Academy, and Mr. Hallam, whose judicial mind Macaulay himself rec- ognizes in another of his essays,* as its impartial historian would no doubt have found occasion for both. Matthew Arnold's opinion of the French Academy, as set forth in his "Essay on the Literai-y Influence of Academies," t is, if anything, excessively eulogistic. Even admirers of the Academy, if they could subscribe to the premises, could not accept unreservedly the conclusions of Mr. Arnold, who imputes to its influence on the na- tional literary mind some artistic manifestations in the productions of French writers which are characteristic of the race. In this essay some of the criticism is the very antithesis of that of Macaulay in the Knight's Quarterly essay and in certain places so apposite as to ap- pear to have been in response thereto. Among other things Mr. Arnold says: "An institution like the French Academy . . . sets standards in a number of directions, and creates, in these directions, a force of educated opinion, checking and rebuking those who fall below these standards, or who set them at naught. Educated * The essay on Hallam 's "Constitutional History." t "Essays in Criticism," London, 1865. 194 'THE FRENCH ACADEMY opinion exists here [in England] as in France; but in France the Academy serves as a sort of centre and rally- ing-point to it, and gives it a force it has not got here. " However, having nothing but praise for the French Acad- emy, Mr. Arnold in his dilettante way mildly surprises his readers, who will yet probably agree with hiiri, by summing up as follows: "The reader will ask for some practical conclusion about the estabUshment of an academy in this country, and perhaps I shall hardly give him the one he expects. ... I think ... an academy quite like the French Academy, a sovereign organ of the highest hterary opinion, a recognized author- ity in matters of intellectual tone and taste, we shall hardly have, and perhaps we ought not to wish to have it." To wind up this collection of opinions with one from the album of an unnamed philosopher and French Acade- mician: "Everybody pokes fun at the Academy and everybody wants to be of it. What it ought to have embroidered on our coats, instead of the famous green palms, should be the grapes of the fable." On the whole, the unprejudiced examiner into the im- press on French literature of the French Academy is likely to arrive at the conclusion that its refining influ- ence is an unknown quantity whose correct expression, to borrow an illustration from mathematics, would fall somewhere between the —x of Macaulay and the x'' of Matthew Arnold. While there is little doubt that the French Academy, to reiterate the claim made for it earlier, has largely been the means of raising the cultiva- tion of letters in France to the dignity of a profession, the impression, rather than the opinion, of the present GENERAL HISTORY 195 writer is that its influence either in creating or moulding the national literature, if great, has not been super- lative, except through the language in its Dictionary. Until after 1651, when Chancellor Siguier returned to live in the capital, Academicians as such were com- paratively Uttle known outside their own immediate circles, and while the Academy may have accelerated as well as accentuated, it can hardly be said to have ini- tiated, the intense intellectual movement which began in France with the second quarter, and culminated toward the close of the last quarter, of the seventeenth century, when there shone simultaneously in the aca- demical firmament, from which Corneille had not long disappeared, such luminaries as Bossuet, Fenelon, and Fontenelle, Racine, Boileau, De La Fontaine, and La Bruy^re. Then, if the Academy was an important element in the quickening of men's minds after its es- tablishment, the unofficial reunions calling themselves academies must also count for something in the process, even if we admit that to the Academy, as causing them to spring up, belonged much of the credit of the effects wrought by them. Nor must we forget the contributory influence of the salons. For if the salons of the seven- teenth century appear less brilliant to us than those of the eighteenth, it is perhaps only because there is a fainter light thrown on them and they are farther re- moved. Evidently, no salon of the eighteenth century casts into the shade that of the Hotel de Rambouillet, where for many years all that was eminent in rank or intellect in Paris was accustomed to assemble, before its preciosity had degenerated into the silly faddishness made ridiculous by Moliere. But perhaps the abundant 196 THE FRENCH ACADEMY blossoming of French literature after the foundation of the Academy should be regarded as a coincidence rather than as effect following cause. If, indeed, a similar growth and development were observable in the litera- tures of Italy and Spain as a consequence of or coincident with the existence of the sister Academies beyond the Alps and the Pyrenees, it would not be unreasonable to advance the argument of post hoc, ergo propter hoc; but the writers whose names are the chief glory of Italy and Spain flourished before their creation : in Italy literature had already declined, while in Spain it had been stifled. Nevertheless, even if we make considerable deduction from the force of the subtle permeating influence of the French Academy, as defined by Pellisson, D'Olivet, and Mesnard, its utility as the guardian of the language is quite another thing. The Academy's influence on the language, and therefore on the literature through the language, by its Dictionary is direct, apparent, tangible, hardly disputable; and the authority of the Dictionary is no doubt but the complement of the authority of the Academy as fairly representative of French Uterature. With all its shortcomings, the French Academy as an institution challenges the admiration of the world. Histories, memoirs, correspondence, reviews, apostate revilement — as that of Furetiere and of Chamfort — academical records, have laid bare its inmost workings, and, on the whole, it bears well a scrutiny to the like of which no similar body has ever been subjected. Once or twice, between the fall of the first and that of the Second Empire its existence has been threatened, per- haps without any real danger to it; and quite recently the withdrawal of the military picket of honour detailed GENERAL HISTORY 197 by decree of the First Republic as an escort on the occa- sion of the joint meeting of the Academies, after more than a hundred years of its observance, apparently indicating a change in the erstwhile friendly relations between the Institute and the present Republic, caused speculation in the Parisian press as to the disappearance in the not distant future of the entire organization. Some degree of popular and official hostility toward it, begotten at least in part of envy of its riches, acquired by gift or by bequest, seemed to be recognized; and in an increasingly socialistic age the appetite for the plunder of such corporate accumulations no doubt needs to be reckoned with in any consideration of the subject. To- day, however, the destruction of the Institute, of which Renan wrote as a glory peculiar to France, no other country having an organization of literature, the arts, and the sciences to compare with it, would make more stir in the world than did that of the Academies at the end of the eighteenth century; and its suppression for the sake of confiscation of its endowments and those of the separate Academies may be expected to draw down on the heads of those responsible for it a universal ob- loquy and contempt on the part of men of enlightenment which even cupidity might hesitate to face. In the event of its disappearance as a state institution the Academies would no doubt resume independently unless tyrannically legislated against, and the question arises whether they would not flourish fully as well, wholly free from even the suggestion of official dictation. Opinion among French Academicians interviewed about this latter incident and its significance, so far as concerned the French Academy, was not unanimous, but 1 98 THE FRENCH ACADEMY was on the whole pessimistic, one of them even saying that among themselves it was common talk that some of the present occupiers of the fauteuils might be among the last, an added historical interest and value hence attaching to the title of Academician for them. Yet one cannot help thinking that the extinction of the Academy would be a serious loss — more serious than is apparent on the surface — to the entire literary fraternity of France, and be felt to some extent throughout the republic of letters. This is not to say, however, that the French Academy must necessarily remain what it is, or that it is ideally fulfilUng its mission. But let us not forget, as some of its critics appear to do, that the position of Academicians, as such, is not ideal: the pittance allowed by the state to an Academician being negligible, he must, unless more amply provided for, provide for himself, and cannot afford to sacrifice himself for the general good. Perhaps the Academy ought to be, to recur to M. Ars^ne Houssaye's phrase, "the house of men of letters," and such it might more nearly become under present conditions without any change in its essential composi- tion or radical change in its constitution, by an arrange- ment for the recognition of an honorary, a free, or a corresponding membership, or of all three — of associates as it were on probation — of limited privileges, the Span- ish Academy, with its native regular and corresponding and foreign honorary and corresponding membership, being an excellent practical example. The other divi- sions of the Institute, with their free, associate, and cor- responding memberships could not reasonably oppose such a change; but there are obstacles in the way, even GENERAL HISTORY 199 should there be no official antagonism to overcome, not the least of which is the spirit of conservatism natural in the circumstances. It would take time for the Academy to look with favour on any movement with such an inno- vation in view, and more time for it to set about achieving it; yet, as an obvious remedy for some of its imputed faults, involving loss of prestige neither to indi%idual Academicians nor to them as a body, rather the contrary, it could hardly fail of ultimate triumph. Its adoption might, besides banishing from beneath the dome of the Palais Mazarin the phantom of the forty-first fauteuil, effect a moral rejuvenation of the Academy proper by its occasional association with satellites of whom we may suppose a majority would be juniors of the regular members, at the same time widening its scope and in- fluence, with far-reaching consequences as beneficial to the national literature and language as to the institu- tion itself. POSTSCRIPTUM. As recently as the spring of 1910, and long after the above closing paragraph was written, the French Academy received from the Brabant Section of the International Federation for the Extension and Cultivation of the French Language a memorial in which was made an al- most parallel suggestion. The motive of the memorial was the proposed creation by the Minister of Sciences and Arts at Brussels of an Academy of Belgian letters, which the Section opposed, holding it to be superfluous, for the reasons that there are no Belgian letters properly so called, inasmuch as Belgian men of letters "naturalh' attach themselves, by education and national tradition, 200 THE FRENCH ACADEMY to the French or Netherlandish culture of which the cen- tres are respectively Paris and Holland," and that so far as concerns the French language in Belgium Belgians justly claim "that it has possessed for nearly three hun- dred years a natural Conservatory, which is the Academy created by Richeheu." The Section therefore "prays the bureau of the French Academy to be kind enough to examine the question whether there could not be created for foreign writers of the French language titles of cor- responding members, after the plan of the other Classes of the Institute, " on the plea "that the literary florescence of which we are so proud in Belgium, although of relatively recent date, would justify the representation of our coun- try in the bosom of the French Academy. " There is hardly any doubt that the Academy, by officially be- coming an international French language head centre, might impart an enormous stimulus to French literature abroad, especially as, for the French-speaking element of alien nationality, the institution becomes invested with a halo which does not exist to the nearer native vision. For the memorial under discussion is only a manifestation of the remarkable zeal with which ex- patriated Frenchmen of education everywhere, in common with their types of other nationalities, as Belgians, Swiss, Canadians, born to speak the French language, display in the cultivation and propagation of the mother tongue, making it a positive cult in connection with the mainte- nance of the French spirit in literature and art — a spirit which is fostered not merely by such associations as the International Federation named, but perhaps by some earnest professor or teacher, who holds occasional crni- ferences in some modest public assembly hall or even GENERAL HISTORY zoi at the homes of friends, and is sure at least of a select if not always a crowded meeting in any community in which there is a moderate racial French leaven. In America the Alliance Fran9aise, in its groups and dra- matic circles, with its thousands of members, stimulated annually by the lectures, under the auspices of the French Government as well as of the Alliance, of some eminent litterateur from the mother country, does this on a large scale, while the American Society of French Professors, numbering some four hundred, in the same spirit has instituted an annual prize competition open to pupils under the instruction of its active members, in either the pubhc or private schools, one of the prizes being a medal created from the revenue of the Botta Prize allotted to the Society in 1909 by the French Academy as an " evi- dence of sympathy and encouragement to those who en- deavour to maintain French culture in that immense American Repubhc which holds each day a greater place in the world." The medal, the Society's "Prize of Honour, " is to be awarded yearly in commemoration of that event in its short history, which dates from 1905. CHAPTER II THE DICTIONARY. § 1. THE DICTIONARY PROPER. A history of the Dictionary of the French Academy is a part of the history of the language which the Academy has done so much to develop into one of the finest instru- ments ever fashioned for expressing thought. The real importance of the Dictionary is partially overlooked. Besides fonning the vital thread of the Academy's exist- ence during its first forty, we might even say its first sixty years — or until the issue of the first edition — the Dictionary has always been the mainspring of its func- tional activities and is the international measure of its practical utility, and so a production of more than na- tional concern, presenting as it does, for the relative orthographic uniformity it has been the means of es- tablishing and so far preserving, a standing evidence of indebtedness to the Academy on the part of alien stu- dents of French which, all unconscious of it as they may be, is none the less real, this uniformity being by no means the least of the attractions of the French language to the foreign reader of it. Indeed, the Dictionary alone may be said in all seriousness to have justified the Acad- emy as a body of its device — ^A l'immortalit^ — which it would long ago perhaps have willingly let die. Its history is in outline easily mastered by a perusal of the 202 O THE DICTIONARY 203 piefaces to the various editions, printed at the beginning of the seventh (1877) edition. But, as the details of its production there given are rather meagre, obscure points are sometimes made clear only by the aid of the Acad- emy's general historian. All testimony unites to show with what distaste the early Academy regarded this work, and it is of record with what tardiness its first edition was accomphshed. The feeUng of a majority of the Academicians, several years after its composition had been undertaken, is indicated in an extract from a letter of Chapelain, of 6th January, 1639, to Bouchard at Rome: "We have resolved to begin the Dictionary also; but inasmuch as it is a work of the whole body, the members bent themselves to it but slackly, for the reason that they expected from it neither individual honour nor profit, and three fourths of them looked upon the work as a task [corvee, or, as Chapelain wrote it, courvee]. It has therefore remained suspended until a more favourable season. " It was then that efforts, which ended successfully, were making to obtain the revival of the Vaugelas pension, and thus, indirectly, remuneration for the Academician on whom was to fall the heaviest labour, as editor of the Dictionaiy. It was largely against the Academy as a dictionary maker that in these years Parisian wits directed their satirical shafts. Three works* especially, all written within a few years after its foundation, because of their ability as well as their wit, have remained famous. These were: (1) "Role des Presentations faites aux grands jours de I'Eloquence frangoise sur la Reformation de notre Langue," attributed to Sorel, by whom was * All reproduced by Livet, I., "Pieces Justificativee." 204 THE FRENCH ACADEMY also written, in serious vein, "Discours sur 1' Academic frangoise . . . pour sgavoir si elle est de quelque utilite aux particuliers et au public," both in 1634; (2) "La Com^die des Academistes pour la Reformation de la Langue frangoise" (1638), by Saint Evremont; and later, (3) "Requete presentee par les Dictionnaires a Messieurs de I'Academie pour la Reformation de la Langue frangoise, " by Menage. It is of Saint Evremont's comedy that Chapelain writes to Maynard in Auvergne, 28th April, 1638: "People are making merry at the expense of the Academy and are amusing themselves with a mahcious comedy in manu- script in which we are most of us introduced as characters, so it is said — not very agreeably. Your absence will no doubt have caused you to be forgotten by this merry- andrew, and we will pay the piper without you." One of the most celebrated passages in it is put into the mouth of Godeau, Bishop of Grasse, in answer to CoUetet, who, kneeling before him, asks if he should not kiss the prel- ate's foot: We are all equal, being sons of ApoUo. Rise, CoUetet. An example of Sorel's "presentations" is: "Appeared the Sieur Montmor, praying on behalf of M. the Prelate of Normandy, that it please the Society to declare that the French of the said Sieur Prelate is of good value. Answer: Be it communicated to the printer Estienne, who has trouble in selling his books." Others are like unto it. Pellisson says of "that ingenious Petition of the Dictionaries, " that it was written solely for the author's amusement, but was given to the world by some one, THE DICTIONARY 205 known to the Academy, after abstracting it from Me- nage's papers, temporarily in the care of a friend. Not- withstanding this ingenuous palhation, and the friend- ship of Balzac, Scudery, Benserade, Chapelain, and, of course, of the Academy's first historian, this production barred the doors of the early French Academy against its author. Manage, however, must have possessed the gregarious literary instinct which led to the founda- tion of academies, and satisfied it by holding at his own house for nearly forty years weekly reunions of savants and men of letters which took the name of "Mercuriales. " Late in life, when the Academy as a body had probably forgotten or forgiven his satire of the "Requite pr^sent^e par les Dictionnaires, " he failed of election for the va- cancy caused by the death of Cordemoy. But, like Cham- fort a centuiy later. Menage lived in " a state of epigram against his neighbour, " and as a consequence had personal enemies in the Academy, among them being Racine, the ground thus being apt for his defeat. Two plans of a dictionary had been early drawn up, one by Vaugelas and the other by Chapelain, that of Chapelain having been chosen by the Academy. Chape- lain in his plan set forth that, the design of the Academy being to render the language capable of the highest eloquence, it was necessary to compose two ample treat- ises, one on rhetoric and the other on poesy; but that, in the natural order of things, these should be preceded by a grammar and a dictionary, the dictionary, as the treasury and the storehouse of simple terms and ac- cepted phrases, being the most urgent. Of these four undertakings the Academy has attempted and accom- plished only the Dictionary. It is true, however, that 2o6 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Regnier-Desmarais, one of the Academy's permanent secretaries, published with the Academy's approval the first part of a Grammar. The second part, which was to treat of Syntax, has never appeared. Besides this Grammar, there have been collections of gram- matical decisions published under the Academy's au- spices. The preparation of the Dictionary was begun in Febru- ary, 1639, the mode of procedure in the Academy being to have those words read at the close of each meeting which were to be discussed at the next, thus affording time to Academicians for reflection. Compilation in this way proceeded slowly, with spasmodic bursts of energy on the part of the Academy. Thus, in 1640 we find a brisker note sounded by Chapelain in reference to the Academy's labours than any we have yet heard from him. In a letter to Boisrobert, dated 11th September, he says: "The Academy does not know what it is to have vacations. It labours always." * Besides holding its regular meetings, the Academy for a time was even divided into four bureaus, or companies, meeting once a week at four different places, certain Academicians being appointed to attend each; but, for want of system and because of slovenliness in the manner of the work done by these bureaus, the time lost in reducing it to order * It appears to have been the usual custom of the Academy to take vacations of ten or twelve weeks in the summer and autumn of every year, at least until 1652. Pellisson says: "L'AoadSmie prend d'ordinaire des vacations sur la fin du mois d'aolit qui durent jusques h, la Saint-Martin." D'Olivet, without saying when they were discontinued, comments as follows: "L'Acad6mie frangoise ne prend plus de vacances en quelque temps que ce soit." They probably ceased after the installation in the Louvre. THE DICTIONARY 207 in the Academy was so great that they proved of no advantage, and were discontinued. Academicians, too, sometimes fell back into the habits acquired in the years before the Dictionary was yet begun. In a rhyming epistle from Boisrobert to Balzac we find the following hnes : Voil^ comment nous nous divertissons, En beaux discours, en sonnets, en chansons; Et la nuit vient qu'^ peine on a su faire Le tiers d'un mot pour le vocabulaire.* Vaugelas, at the time of his death in 1649, had com- pleted the first two letters of the alphabet, a curious circumstance in connection with the letter A being that the word academy was overlooked in its proper place, some amusement naturally following the discovery of its omission. After ten years of labour, when so much, or so little progress had been made, the editorial method was changed, and, for the sake of uniformity, the whole had to be done over again. In 1651 Chancellor Seguier, the Academy's protector, returned to Paiis after a residence of several years in the country. Finding that the Academy had only reached the middle of the third letter, as we are informed in the Preface to the first edition of the Dictionary, he proposed that it should meet twice a week, instead of once, to insure greater expedition. This it did, more out of complaisance to its protector than from awakened interest in the Dictionary, of which Pellisson wrote in * "That is how we amuse ourselves, In fine speeches, in sonnets, in songs; And when the night comes we have hardly made The third of a word for the vocabulary." 2o8 THE FRENCH ACADEMY the following year: "Without counting that a part of what has been done in those small bureaus must be revised, it has so far only reached to about the letter I; and that slowness, with the uncertain future of the Academy, makes it doubtful if it will ever be finished." It is evident, however, that the letter I could have been reached but in a preliminary or superficial examination if the Academy was engaged on the third letter, in the new editorial method, in 1651, and had not got beyond J in the year 1658, when ex-Queen Christina of Sweden made her visit, during which a cahier of that letter was read in her presence; and we may reasonably conclude that an example of the Academy's lexicographical work was taken from that portion of it upon which it was at the time occupied, or had recently finished. The additional time taken to complete the work in its first draught con- firms this view, when we consider that the Academy was now meeting twice a week. Pellisson had something to say, as above, of the French Academy's precarious condition up to 1652, and it is emphasized in turn by D'Olivet, who thus writes of it when it entered the Louvre: "Until then, still uncertain of its future, and having no motive powerful enough to make it persevere in an enterprise so uninspiriting {triste) as is that of a dictionary, its plan had been but imper- fectly conceived." It was about this time that the first composition of the Dictionary was finished and about one half of it put in type. But so numerous were the errors that printing was suspended and a laborious revision — as D'Olivet puts it, "a longer and more labori- ous revision than an original plan" — of the entire work undertaken. This revision, with the printing, occupied THE DICTIONARY 209 twenty years, during which meetings were held three times per week, each session lasting two hours * At length, in 1694, the Dictionary was published, in two folio volumes. It was dedicated to Louis XIV., the Academy's protector, in an epistle which appears, in the original and in translation, in the second section of this chapter, and almost immediately established itself as the highest authority in the French language, as is con- fessed, or imphed, even by Montesquieu, before he be- came an Academician, in the Seventy-second of whose "Lettres Persanes" there is this malicious criticism: "I have heard of a kind of tribunal called the French Academy. There is none in the world less respected; for no sooner has it decided than the people annul its decrees, and impose upon it laws which it is obliged to follow. Some time ago, to fix its authority, it gave a code of its judgments. That child of so many fathers was almost old when it was born; and although it was legitimate, a bastard, which had * Notwithstanding the perennial gibes at the French Academy on the score of delay in the production of this Dictionary, the present writer frankly confesses that if there are in existence greater monuments of practical self-sacrificing philological industry than the Vocabolario of the Academy of the Crusca (with especial reference to the six folio volumes of the fourth edition, expanded from the single volume of the first, and representing the lexicograph- ical consummation of about a century and a quarter), or the two volumes of the first edition of the Dictionnaire of the French Acad- emy, or the six of the first edition of the Diccionario of the Spanish Academy he is not aware of them. It is true that the first and the last were undertaken voluntarily and prosecuted with zeal, while the Dictionnaire was imposed upon the French Academy as a task and accomplished only from a sense of obligation — but it was ac- compUshed; and let us not forget that all three were essentially pioneer works. 210 THE FRENCH ACADEMY already appeared, had almost smothered it at its birth."* The arrangement of the Dictionary's vocabulary, although in practice found to be inconvenient, was original and scientific. Instead of all words being ar- ranged and defined in an order strictly alphabetical, derivatives and compounds appeared under the roots from which they descended, such words as had formed branches practically independent being, however, treated as primitives. t Entirely obsolete words, vulgar ex- pletives, and words offensive to modesty were omitted. Purely technical and scientific terms were also omitted, a circumstance which may abnost be deemed inconsistent with the closing words of the twenty-fourth article of the Academy's Statutes, and this inconsistency was to some extent recognized by the publication, under the Academy's authority, of a separate dictionarj^, prepared chiefly by Thomas Corneille, containing the terms of the arts and sciences. Etymology was, and is still, neglected in the Academy's Dictionary. It had also been decided that, as true pronunciation can only be learned in inter- course with those who speak a language naturally and correctly, any attempt to represent the sound of words phonetically would be misleading, a point on which we * Furetifere's Dictionary probably, published in 1690, although Montesquieu may have had that of Richelet in mind. t Comme la Langue Frangoise a des mots Primitifs, et des mots Derivez et Composez, on a jug^ qu'il seroit agrfiable et instructif de disposer le Dictionnaire par Racines, c'est k dire de ranger tous les mots Derivez et Composez apr^s les mots Primitifs dont ils des- cendent, soit que ces Primitifs soient d'origine purement Frangoise, soit qu'ils viennent du Latin ou de quelqu'autre Langue. — Preface, 1st ed. THE DICTIONARY 211 may agree with the Academy, with the reservation, however, that the indication of even the approximate pronunciation of French words especially is sometimes a great convenience to the foreigner. A difficulty not mentioned, but which may have been felt, in dealing with this phase of the language was, that it would have been absolutely necessary to give alternatives, while in orthography dogmatism could be maintained with advantage. At least, from the beginning the practice of the Dictionary has been to indicate the pronunciation of words only in respect to exceptionally sounded or exceptionally silent letters. The Academy adhered to the established orthography, in order not to prevent books already printed from being read with facility. There were French spelling reformers in those days, just as there are in these, who urged the regulation of orthography solely by the pronunciation. Says the Academy, in the Preface to the seventh edition of its Dictionary: " Nothing more alluring at first sight ; noth- ing more chimerical on a serious examination. Orthogra- phy is the visible and durable form of words : pronuncia- tion is but the articulate expression, the accent which varies according to time, place, and person. ... A revolution in orthography would be an entire literary revolution; our greatest writers would not survive it." It had been at first intended to give citations from authors in support or in illustration of definitions, after the manner of the Academy of the Crusca in its Vocabo- lario, and a list of the proposed authorities was drawn up. It is meagre indeed compared with the ample sources of reference open to the Academy of the Crusca and the Spanish Academy in like circumstances. Among prose 212 THE FRENCH ACADEMY authors and works, the following were selected: Amyot, Montaigne, Du Vair, Desportes, Charron, Bertaud, Marion, De La Guesle, Pibrac, Despeisses, Amauld, "Cathohcon d'Espagne," "Memoires" of Queen Mar- guerite, Coeffeteau, Du Perron, Saint Frangois de Sales, D'Urf6, Frangois de Moliere, Malherbe, Duplessis-Mor- nay; Bardin and Du Chastelet, deceased Academicians; Cardinal d'Ossat, De La Noue, De Dampmartin, De Refuge, and Audiguier. Authors in verse were: Marot, Saint Gelais, Ronsard, Du Bellay, Belleau, Du Bartas, Desportes, Bertaud, Cardinal du Perron, Gamier, Re- gnier, Malherbe, Deslingendes, Motin, Touvant, Monfuron, Theophile, Passerat, Rapin, and Sainte Marthe. The most noticeable omission from the list is the name of Rabelais, because, we may conclude, of his impro- priety, or, at best, of his doubtful sanctity; for, if he received the absolution of the head of the Church, he had been condemned by the Sorbonne. Partly from its poverty, and partly, also, from the labour incident to the search for appropriate examples,* the intention of citing authorities was relinquished, with the approval of Chapelain, who had recommended citation in his plan. There was, however, a stronger reason for the omission of citations, whose weight was more and more fully realized as the century grew older. It is very simply explained by the Academy in the Preface to the first edition of the Dictionary, in this mamier: "It has been commenced and finished in the most flourishing period of the language; and it is for that reason that it does not cite, because several of our most celebrated orators and * Mais un peu aprfis I'Acad^mie commenQa d'appr6hender le travail et la longueur des citations. — Pellisson. THE DICTIONARY 213 greatest poets have laboured on it. " The same argument is also very well put by D'Olivet, who says: " If we had a Latin dictionary begun by Scipio, Terence, Lselius, contin- ued by Lucretius, Catullus, Cicero, Ctesar, finished by Vir- gil, Horace, Maecenas, would we imputeit to themasa crime not to have joined to their own authority that of a Luci- lius, a Pacuvius, or, perhaps, of a MEBviusor a Bavius?" No sooner was the first edition of the Dictionary in the hands of the public than the Academy set about the preparation of the second, which was published in 1718. But it had been at once discovered that the arrangement of the vocabulary of the first, theoretically more instructive, was disadvantageous in practice for most of its users, who opened not to read or to study attentively, but merely to get information respecting isolated words about which curiosity had been aroused. It sometimes happened that an inquirer, not recalling, not thinking of, or perhaps not knowing the primitive under which it would be found defined, sought for a compound as an independent article, only to be referred from it for its explanation to another place in the same volume (as from renouer to nceud, from rSnovation to neuf), or even from one volume to the other (as from abstrait or from abus, in the first, to traire or to user, respectively, in the second), with attendant loss of time and vexation, which could hardly be said to be obviated by a strictly alphabetical Index of the words alone at the end of each volume, with reference to page and column, as preliminary consultation of the Index to find the place of a word in the body of the book had nearly the same objections. Definition under verbal heads of families was therefore abandoned, and all words of the vo- 214 THE FRENCH ACADEMY cabulary have since been arranged in strict alphabetical order, illustrative phrases or proverbial expressions only being explained under the vocabulary word. The second edition of the Academy's Dictionary having thus been entirely reconstructed, it was issued with commendable despatch. D'Olivet's letters to President Bouhier give us some interesting particulars about the preparation of the third edition of the Dictionary — for the printer and for the press. They are, as will be noted in the following pas- sages, culled from them as published by Livet, creditable to the industry of their author, of whom Fournel thus writes: "He was a model Academician, punctual in his attendance, attentive and ardent in discussion, zealous for all the interest of the learned body, reproving the lukewarm, and making of each decision and of each election a grave affair of state." 1st January, 1736. — Apropos of the Academy, for six months it has been deliberating on orthography ; for the pleasure of the Soci- ety is to renounce in the new edition of its Dictionary the orthogra- phy followed in the preceding editions. But the means of arriv- ing at some kind of uniformity! Our dehberations for six months have only served to show the impossibihty of anything systematic proceeding from a society. Finally, as it is time to begin to print, the Academy resolved yesterday to name me sole pleni- potentiary on that head. The printer will to-morrow bring me the first volume, on which I shall make my corrections, and I estimate that my task will be finished before the end of the month. Assuredly, I do not like the disagreeable task, but I must resign myself to it, for otherwise we should have seen the arrival, not of the calends of January, 1736, but, I believe, those of January, 1836, before the Society could have come to an agreement. 8th April, 1736. — Coignard* has had the letter A for six weeks, * The Academy's printer, of whom D'Olivet speaks in another letter as the "stupidest printer in the world." THE DICTIONARY 215 but the reason that he has not yet begun to print is, that he did not take the precaution to have accented E's cast, and many of them will be required, because in many words we have suppressed the S of the old orthography, as in despescher, which we are going to write dSpScher, tHe, male, etc., etc., without adopting any of the vicious innovations of the Abb& Dangeau and Saint Pierre. 25th October, 1736. — Our Dictionary at length appears to be getting under way, but, be it understood, I bear absolutely the whole burden of correction of the proofs. I am at the seventh sheet, but I much fear that my patience will give out ; it is too great a loss of time. 24ih June, 1737. — We have entered upon the letter C. despaired of living long enough to see the printing of our Diction- ary so advanced; it made me lose all my time, for, between us, there is not one of the learned confraternity willing to touch with the end of his finger the correction of the proofs, accompanied ordinarily with the correction of the text. 16th May, 1738. — Our Dictionary advances; I am at the letter G for the volume which concerns me. When the printing of the second volume was begun, I begged that others would be good enough to take the trouble to correct the proofs. The Abb6 Rothehn and M. de Foncemagne are attending to them. 15th September, 1738. — The first volume of our Dictionary is finished; but the second progresses slowly, for M. de Fonce- magne, who corrects the proofs of it, is not a man to incommode himself, as I did, to return the sheets at a set time: he some- times makes the printer wait several days together, and you know that a workman who is not kept in check asks only an excuse for going astray. However that may be, this second volume is but half through the letter M, and it might be at R. The total of the delays incident to the printing of the second volume appears not to have much exceeded that met with in the first, for the Dictionary was published in 1740. Besides the omission of silent s, mentioned by D'Olivet, redundant b, d, and h (except in derivations from the Greek) were also dropped from the words in which they occurred, in this edition. The vowel pre- ceding the s was at first always marked with an accent, circumflex when the syllable was long, whether single 2i6 THE FRENCH ACADEMY or forming part of a diphthong, but it was soon dispensed with in the case of the diphthong, which is naturally long. Thus, for example, dbmettre became omettre; adjouster became aj&Hter, then ajouter; and authoriser, autoriser. To the vocabulary was added a considerable number of words borrowed from the arts and sciences, which the Academy recognized as having become part of the mental equipment of many speakers and writers; but, conservative always, it murmurs a little against their too common usage, charging some writers with need- lessly burdening their style with them. The fourth edition, which appeared in 1762, did not differ greatly from the third. A further orthographical change was the uniform expression in this issue of i simple, as in parmi, vrai, rot, with that letter, instead of, as formerly, with y or i indiscriminately, except for etymo- logical reasons in words chiefly derived from the Greek, as in encyclopedie, etymologie. The alphabet was in- creased by two letters by the separation, for the first time, of I from J and of U from V. The use of the accents, too, was at length reduced to something like system, and the z in the formation of the plural ot words ending in e accented became obsolete, s taking its place. When Voltaire, who from Femey had an eye always on the Academy — avail Vceil toujours sur I'Acad^ie — left his retreat to visit Paris in 1778 and assist in the production of his tragedy "Irene," he then attended several of its sessions and proposed that the next edition of the Dictionary should be on a new and more com- prehensive plan, which would give for "each word the recognized and probable etymology, the different ac- ceptations, with examples drawn from the most approved THE DICTIONARY 217 authors, and effect the revival of all the picturesque and energetic expressions of Montaigne, Amyot, Charron, which the language had lost." Voltaire himself drew up the plan of the work, also undertaking one letter of the alphabet (A— one of the heaviest) ; and, as nothing could be refused to the idol of the hour, the proposal was accepted. But the versatile octogenarian died shortly- after, his end being hastened by the excitement attending his enthusiastic reception by the Parisians and his labours in connection with his proposal to the Academy. The revision of the edition of 1762 was then continued on the old lines, but Voltaire's project survived in the Academy's Historical Dictionary of the Language, taken up at intervals in the nineteenth centurj' and finally abandoned in 1894, after the publication of four volumes devoted to the letter A. All the corrections and additions for the regular fifth edition had been made when, as related in the chapter treating of the Academy's general history, on the 8th of August, 1793, the institution was suppressed, and it held no recognized place in the National Institute es- tabhshed about two years later. When, however, public order had been partially restored, the National Conven- tion directed, by law of the first complementary day of the Year III. of the Republic, or on 17th September, 1795, that the copy of the Academy's Dictionary con- taining its marginal and other notes, which had been placed in the custody of the Library of the Committee of Public Instruction, be made ready for the printers. This edition, with whose composition, or, rather, final correction, twelve members of the Institute, chosen from the three Classes, were charged, was issued in 1798, 2i8 THE FRENCH ACADEMY but it did not undergo a final scrutiny or review by the Academy, which had ceased to exist, and which conse- quently accepts no responsibility for it.* In an appendix, words contributed to the language by the Revolution and the Republic were added, but the names of its compilers, at their own request, were not published. This edition was preceded, not by a modest "Preface," like the other editions, but by an introduction under the jnore grandiose title of "Discours Preliminaire, " reminis- cent, apparently, of the introduction of D'Alembert to the Encyclopedic. It is written in a tone of manifest disparagement of the Academy, whose authority it nevertheless somewhat grudgingly acknowledges, as when it says: "At its birth and despite all its imperfec- tions, the Dictionary of the French Academy was an authority in the nation and in the language, because the Academy itself was one." With the reconstitution and reorganization of the Institute effected by the ordinance of 21st March, 1816, the Academy found itself in a position to proceed un- disturbedly with the sixth edition of the Dictionary under former conditions, and it appeared in 1835, the bicentenary year of the letters patent of its foundation. The work, by decree, was directed by the permanent secretaries in succession, assisted by a commission of the Academy, whose findings were then discussed and * N'ayant pu, d'ailleurs, passer sous les yeiix de I'Acad^mie, qui n'existait plus, et etre soumise h son approbation, elle reste I'oeuvre toute personnelle de oelui qui I'a faite. — Preface, 7th ed. This lan- guage is not quite reconcilable with the printing, along with all the other prefaces of the Academy's Dictionary, of the "Discours Pre- liminaire" to the fifth edition in the front of the same edition in which it occurs. THE DICTIONARY 219 revised, article by article, in general sessions, the members of the commission, it is worthy of note, having not only the advantage of the judgment of fellow Academicians, but the inestimable privilege of appeal to the technical and professional knowledge, when necessary, of their many learned confreres in all the other Academies of the Institute. By this time the figure of the words in the vocabulary had very nearly assumed that which we are accustomed to see in the print of our day. Among noticeable orthographical changes in this edition are the writing of ai instead of oi in a certain class of words, as faiblesse, parlait, instead of foiblesse, parloit, thus con- forming to the pronunciation, and the retention of t in the plural of words ending in nt in the singular, as sentiments, savants, instead of sentimens, savans* With plate corrections and a supplement issued in 1852 this edition did duty for more than forty years. The seventh edition also, according to the system now established, was accomplished under the direction of a special commission of the Academy. It was pub- lished in 1877. In orthography it differs little from that of the sixth edition, but in the matter of accents it is observable that the grave has generally taken the place of the diaeresis in certain words, as poete, instead of poete. The grave also replaces the acute in such words as college, cortege, and there is a question of extending this principle to many other words in which e accented is separated by a consonant from e mute, which will by so * The latter form of such plurals, to which, it is noteworthy, none of the spelling reformers so much in evidence of late years advocate a reversion, is observed at the present time in the Revue des Deux Mondes. 220 THE FRENCH ACADEMY much make for uniformity. To give a single instance, if avenement, which would seem to be the correct marking, why not ^vSnement, instead of evenement? Other changes besides those mentioned have taken place in French orthography since 1694, when the first Dictionary of the Academy was issued; but, altogether, the changes have been so few and so unimportant, com- paratively speaking, that a perusal of books printed in the seventeenth century causes no great embarrassment to the reader of twentieth-century French. There is a certain quaintness, no doubt, in the appearance of the page of a book of the earlier period, but the language itself is the same in structure and appearance as at present. In reading MoUere or Corneille, we occasionally meet with a word that has become archaic, or even obsolete, but the language of these writers is essentially modern French: it is not the "old language" of Rabelais or of the Rabelaisian "Contes Drolatiques" of Balzac. Thus, with the issue of no less than seven editions of the French Academy's Dictionary of the Language, not including the Supplement of 1852, between 1694 and 1877 — or, say, one in every twenty-six years from the publi- cation of the first to that of the latest — and as a quarter of a century may be reckoned a minimum period within which a new and complete national dictionary of any well-developed language can be regarded as either neces- sary or desirable, there is little to be said in criticism of the Academy on this score. After pointing out, in the Preface to the seventh edition, that the same method of compilation and the same literary manner have been preserved in the Dic- tionary from the beginning, the Academy adds: "After THE DICTIONARY 221 two centuries of experience, one is justified in affirming to-day that it is still the old Dictionary of the Acad- emy . . . And when we see a body which has counted in its membership, during the course of two hundred years, so many men of merit and distinction adhere to the same tradition, persevere in the same principles, is it not almost absolutely certain that those principles are the wisest and best possible, and that it is by their constant and religious application that it is allowable to consider the Dictionary of the Academy as the authentic repertory of the French language?" The claim here made will perhaps meet with a general, if not an absolute acquiescence, after an inquiry into the scope of the Dictionary, which, instead of being a mere reflection of all usages, good, bad, and middhng, is, and from the first has been, put forth as containing a select yet complete body of French lexicological doctrine. It is not a word-inventory simply, but a guide, for inquirers who are themselves learned in the French language, as well as for those who are most in need of guidance and are ignorant or regardless of the principles of construction of the omnivorous dictionary of which the aim is to be and give a full record of fanciful or perverted applications equally with legitimate figurative and literal meanings. It is, what every dictionary in popular estimation is erroneously supposed to be — a belief which gives especial point to the saying in reference to an unnecessary dic- tionary more than to any other work in the whole range of secular bibliography, that a great book is a great evil — a standard of accuracy in propriety of language, spoken and written. The Academy says, in the Preface to its seventh 222 THE FRENCH ACADEMY edition, that its Dictionary is not a dictionary of science, or art, or trade, nor of geography, nor history, nor my- thology, but of the language of literature and correct con- versation. Neither is it, to add to these another nega- tion, a dictionary of slang or vulgar dialect. Indeed, we cannot imagine the French Academy adding, what it could no doubt easily do, from twenty to fifty thousand words to the vocabulary of its Dictionary, or an equal number of the distorted meanings of colloquial jargon to its definitions, and then pluming itself on having enriched the national store of language. Although, therefore, the Dictionary of the Academy is a history of the French language, it is a discriminating history, testimony to the wise discrimination of its composition being forthcoming from a source which will be received with respect. Larousse in 1866, in the illuminating Preface to his Dictionnaire Universel, after recording his dissent from the practice of the Academy in certain details, proceeds to declare his esteem both for the in- stitution and its great work, and cites as a proof of it what he had written, more than ten years before, for a dictionaiy designed for the use of pupils in schools, as follows: "Since the factums of Furetiere and the sallies of Chamfort, it has become to some extent the fashion, among our modern grammatists, to enter upon their career by a critique of the Dictionary of the Acad- emy, and these critiques are of an extreme vivacity, like ever3rthing produced by the burning ardour and the inexperience of youth. After having broken that lance, one is of right grammarian, as formerly one was armed knight after a brilliant action. All these critics have Judged the work of the Academy only from the reading THE DICTIONARY 223 of several isolated articles, and not after an attentive and, above all, a sustained study: they have not suflfi- ciently seized its plan and method. The Academy had to occupy itself before everything with the meaning of the words, with their real and metaphorical acceptations, with our proverbial expressions; in a word, it had to fix that language, which to an admirable clearness adds purity, liveliness, nobility, harmony, strength, and elegance. That was its programme, and it has con- scientiously fulfilled it, in making of its columns the depositary of locutions, of constructions, of turns drawn from our best writers, and which form the very ground- work of the language; so that, were a new literary vandal- ism to destroy all our masterpieces, and only the Dic- tionary of the Academy to survive, it would suffice to reconstruct our beautiful French tongue." We sometimes meet with an announcement like this, from some one who does not heed the sage advice not to prophesy unless we know: "So and so is preparing a French dictionary which will supersede that of the Academy." In truth, it may almost be said that among other French dictionaries the Dictionary of the Academy is hors concours. If it entered into competition with them in quantity of information, it would inevitably fall from its high estate as the French standard of quality. It does not enter into competition with them, neither does it repress competition. But so well established is its authority that it preserves France from a pernicious innovation in lexicography such as is encouraged in populous and fast-growing communities of uncritical readers where there is no such wholesome check. Then, too, another inestimable advantage of such a standard 224 THE FRENCH ACADEMY is that there is no danger of its growing out of date. The Dictionary of the French Academy has developed with the national language, and, although old in years, it has remained young in constitution. Like the living language, it is being eternally rejuvenated — the language by successive generations, and the Dictionary by suc- cessive Academies drawn from them. To correct any misapprehension, it should be added that nothing that has been said is intended to depreciate the all-inclusive dictionary, whose u'sefulness is indis- putable. But, although containing all the material necessary for the making of a standard, it is not a stand- ard, and cannot long maintain a factitious place as one; and where there is no real language standard, it is as clear as day that the dictionary of many undecided, capricious, or eccentric views must aid in perpetuating uncertainty, in orthography especially. It is the Dic- tionary of the French Academy that has preserved the French idiom not merely from such orthographic dis- crepancies as are to be found in books in English pub- lished on the two sides of the Atlantic, but in the books issued by different publishers on either side. When the French Academy was first estabhshed, and its functions were discussed by the Parisian world, it pleased the wits and satirists of the time to represent it as toiling day and night to invent new words that were not needed and capriciously to suppress others that were in good usage. On the contrary, the French Academy, in respect to innovations, even in the figure of words, has always been conservative, and notably less enterprising than the Spanish Academy. Its own THE DICTIONARY 225 opinion of the extent of its authority may be gathered from the following extracts: There had crept among the people in the earlier period of the Academy an erroneous opinion that it took upon itseK authority to make new words and to reject others at its pleasure. The publi- cation of the Dictionary clearly shows that the Academy never had that intention, and that all the power which it has considered as belonging to it goes only so far as to explain the meaning of words, and to declare good and bad usage. — Preface, 1st ed. Ignorance and corruption often introduce manners of writ- ing, but it is often convenience that estabUshes them. — Preface, 2nd ed. The profession which the Academy has always made, of con- forming to the usage universally received, whether in the manner of writing words or in defining them, has forced it to admit changes which the public has made. . . . We should not, in the matter of language, outrun the public, but follow it rather, submitting not to the usage which is beginning, but to the usage generally received. — Preface, 3rd ed. The Academy never pretended to exercise over the language a right of sovereignty and empire. It invents nothing, banishes nothing, but judges of good usage. ... It [the Dictionary] has not, it is true, fixed the language : to fix a language is impossible. It has restrained, moderated, regulated it in its changes. It has not polished it, in the rather despotic sense which Cardinal Riche- lieu attached to the word; languages are not polished by con- straint and main force. . . . The Academy has only made a dictionary, and a dictionary is the least imperious of masters; who is willing, submits to it. If it makes itself obeyed, it is by first obeying, although with measure and discretion. It does not invent, it chooses; it cedes much to the public, that the public may cede something. — Preface, 7th ed. It follows that the French Academy repudiates any assumption of authority over the language with which the pubUc in its own practice has not first clothed it. So much, indeed, does it confine itself to an interpreta- tion merely of the laws of language that its decisions are sometimes contrary to its own judgment of what is either 226 THE FRENCH ACADEMY desirable or expedient. As to "banishing nothing," however, it must be admitted that complaints have sometimes been heard even from members of the Academy that the vocabulary has been too much emended in re- spect to a number of expressive old words, and that new words are too tardily admitted. The difficulty of de- cision, one way or another, must be apparent to everj' one who considers the matter. For instance, the Academy says, in reference to current colloquialisms: "Can one say a vapeur for a bateau a vapeur? The Academy has thought not. Should the usage persist, it will be for the Academy of the future to see what it shall do." Speaking of the seven editions of the French Acad- emy's Dictionary which have appeared in the course of two hundred years as one work, there is probably no dictionary in existence, unless we except the Dictionary of the Spanish Academy, which has acquired and re- tained such a great measure of respect and authority, which is so unequivocally accepted as a standard. Le Dictionnaire de I'Academie dit — the Dictionary of the Academy says — in reply to any question affectmg the French language, in its meaning or its form, may be compared to the aorSs kfu — he himself said so — of the Pjdihagorean disciple. As to usage, there may be words and locutions in fair repute which the Academy ignores or of which it disapproves; but the authority of the Academy stamps what it does approve as, almost beyond cavil, current French verbal coin. The Acad- emy's Dictionary fulfils exactly the purpose of a dic- tionary as defined by Littr4 in the preface to his own: "Contemporary usage is the first and principal object of a dictionary. It is, indeed, to learn how people speak fHE DICTIONARY 227 and write to-day that a dictionary is consulted by every one." As to orthographic form, it is, as Brunetiere ex- presses it, "the law and the prophets for grammarians and correctors of the press." This in itself is a great gain: it implies the existence of a national language standard.* It is of the inestimable advantage of a standard vocabu- lary that the Ministry of Public Instruction, by sowing the seeds of orthographic discords among French writers and printers, would deprive readers of French, should it succeed in destroying the authority of the Dictionary of the Academy. And as spelhng reform in France has ceased to be merely a jest, and become a burning ques- tion, an exposition of its status as it affects the Academy * It was manifestly the creation of such a language tribunal as the French Academy and such a standard as the Academy's Dictionary that prompted Swift's "Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Language" ("Swift's Works," ed. Walter Scott, Edinburgh, 1814), addressed in 1772 to the Earl of Oxford, then Prime Minister and Lord High Treasurer of Britain. Scott quotes Dr. Johnson as speaking disparagingly of this essay, describing it as "written without much knowledge of the general nature of language, and without any accurate inquiry into the history of other tongues," and dismissing it in these terms: "The certainty and stability which, contrary to aU experience. Swift thinks attainable, he proposes to secure by instituting an academy; the decrees of which every man would have been willing, and many would have been proud to disobey, and which, being renewed by successive elections, would in a short time have differed from itself." Masterly as is the learned Doctor's treatment of the subject, it just stops short of the obvious conclusion that none but a never-dying tribunal or institution, or publishing house of fixed traditions which assembles successive editorial associations — temporary academies — is fitted for the pro- duction of a never-ending series of dictionaries which shall keep close to language change. All others, unless renewed, soon grow stale and sink into obscurity, sufficient proof of this being Johnson's own Dictionary, superseded by Walker's, which in turn has been relegated to the shelves of libraries. 228 THE FRENCH ACADEMY in its character of dictionary maker is very much to the purpose. By the forty-third and forty-fourth articles of the original Statutes, Academicians are required to observe in their writings the usage recommended by the Academy in orthography and in grammar generally. There is nothing to be said against the principle of these require- ments, but in making a choice of its members the Acad- emy has not inflexibly insisted on the ability, or even the will, of the candidate to follow them. It is said to be doubtful if Voltaire could have passed a severe examina- tion in either, but it is certain that his friend the Marshal Duke of Richelieu, a phonetic speller after a fashion, if not a spelling reformer, would have failed ignominiously if he had been tested in orthography. We are told that the noble duke, having engaged Fontenelle, Campistron, and Destouches each to write for him his reception oration, made of the three, in his own hand, a composite pro- duction whose holographic authenticity is avouched by the errors in spelhng with which it is plentifully be- sprinkled, among them being the following, the correct form being placed within parentheses: Reigne (regne), sdnt {sein), flambau {flambeau), derangassent {deran- geassent), court (cour), accez (acds), pront (prompt), pris (prix), antier (entier), cretien {chretien) — -not at all bad if, as it would seem, French spelling is henceforth to be regarded as optional on the part of the writer of it. On the other hand, the Abb6 de Saint Pierre was a phonetic-spelling reformer, and had so much the courage of his convictions as to put into practice in his own books the system of which he was an advocate. Such was the latitude in orthography exercised even by members THE DICTIONARY 229 of the Academy, while it has been made perfectly clear that the general pubhc is under no obHgation whatever to adopt the usage of the Dictionary, except that im- posed on it by universal consent — that is, by itself. Matthew Arnold in his famous essay, speaking in the sixties of the French Academy as setting standards in a number of directions, says, in criticism of an eccentric spelling in the Times, announced in a foot-note in the book collection as later abandoned: "So, again, with freaks in dealing with language; certainly all such freaks tend to impair the power and beauty of language; and how far more common they are with us than with the French! To take a very familiar instance. Every one has noticed the way in which the Times chooses to spell the word 'diocese'; it always spells it diocess, deriving it, I suppose, from Zeus and census. The Journal des Dibats might just as well write 'diocess' instead of ' dioc&e, ' but imagine the Journal des Dehats doing so I Imagine an educated Frenchman indulging himself in an orthographical antic of this sort, in face of the grave respect with which the Academy and its dictionary invest the French language!" Such respect they perhaps still inspire, although, with the promulgation of ministerial tolerances, existent and possible, and the irrepressible activity of the reformers, the orthographic Sganarelle may be prepared to dispute it with the answer: "Yes, it was so formerly; but we have changed all that." As we have seen, in recent years official pressure has been used to coerce the Academy into the adoption of a system of orthography not reflective of the prevailing popular sentiment according to its own unbiassed inter- pretation of it — to all intents and purposes, into an 230 THE FRENCH ACADEMY abdication of its role as an authority in the language; for in the end its Dictionary would cease to command respect if it came to be regarded as but the echo of minis- terial decrees. It is, thus, easy to foresee the chaotic conditions which successive ministers of a day, perhaps appointed from motives of pohtical expediency, as the tools of pedantic theorists with a hobby might bring about in the written language in the absence of all re- straint. But it is reassuring to learn that the Association of the Printers of France has resolved to adopt no changes in orthography which do not emanate from the French Academy, thus happily promising to nullify, so far as concerns general printing, any excess of ministerial or pedagogical zeal. Late accounts represent the Ministry as discounte- nancing the projects of phonetist extremists which its policy had earlier encouraged and been the means of bringing into such prominence as they would never otherwise have attained, the reasons of the Minister (M. Doumergue), as explained in the Journal Offi^id, being as follows: "The Brunot project, like the Meyer project, introduced complete confusion into our habits of writing. It would evidently have been necessary for everybody to set himself again to learn speUing. " The Ministry appears now to base its programme of reform on the tolerances earlier referred to as approved by the Academy in 1905 and a scheme submitted in 1893 by M. Gr^ard, as vice-rector of the Academy of Paris, and therefore as a Pubhc Instruction official, to his conr- freres in the French Academy. Among the ministerial reforms aimed at are: Suppression of the consonant needlessly doubled and of the h in th, ch, rh, with the THE DICTIONARY 231 change of -ph into /, in words derived from the Greek, and the substitution of i for y with the simple sound of the first character, not alone in words of Greek origin, but standing separately as adverb or pronoun; the uni- form adoption of s as the sign of the plural; besides minor changes, such as the substitution of c for t in de- rivatives having c in the primitives (as confidence, coiv- fidenciel; substance, substanciel) . Notwithstanding bitter opposition to them in the French press, they can hardly be termed revolutionary; and if adopted in whole or in part, foreigners, who have not an overpowering sense of property in the language, might be expected gradually to become reconciled to them, an object lesson being the Spanish, from which the superfluous double consonant and the h in th, etc., as above, have been absolutely banished, and the y has been changed into i except as a consonant or as a final and as a conjunction, not only without offence to the reader, but with a result in all respects so admirable.* There is this difference, how- * With respect to the aboHtion of the y, at first MacMahon's heroic mot, as "J'i suis, j'i reste," might strike us as only mock heroic; we might hesitate to interpret the stiff-looking "I Stes- vous?" as "Are you on?" and Henry of Navarre's famous distich, as "Souvent femme varie Bien fol qui s'i fie," might be deemed to have lost an undue proportion of its quaintness. Yet so much are we creatures of habit that those who would turn red or pale with indignation, according to temperament, on seeing the name of the bluff B^arnais prince written Henry de Na- varre, would accept without question Timol6on de Choisy or Marquis de Paulmy, in which the y appears to be as much of a corruption, although now the accepted form, inasmuch as in eighteenth-century editions the names will often be found printed Choisi and Paulmi. 232 THE FRENCH ACADEMY ever, between Spanish and French, that changes which in Spanish were among the last steps needed to complete a nearly phonetic language are in French regarded by the vast majority of those most interested, the French themselves, as a needless and hateful disturbance of an estabhshed orthography which is hopelessly imperfect phonetically. Now, it needs not the power of divination to under- stand something of the embarrassment of the French Academy in the preparation of the eighth edition of its Dictionary, which has been in active progress for some time, in connection with ministerial decrees and a con- sideration of the proposals of parliamentary commissions on orthography which it is not in a position utterly to ignore. It must already have retarded for years this eighth issue, which is on an average computation long overdue, when it is remembered that the harassing con- ditions outlined have in their acute form prevailed for about a decade and that with any uncertainty as to the form to be given to the vocabulary the labours of the Dictionary Commission must necessarily be relaxed or suspended, inasmuch as the sHghtest change in the manner of writing a word in the course of the work means at the very least a tedious revision of the proofs from the beginning. Certain changes, however, which may be looked upon as a consequence of the agitation for a further simpli- fication of orthography, are foreshadowed for the coming edition, either absolutely or as tolerances, such as those of ph into/, rh into r, and y simple into i in words of Greek origin; x into s as the sign of the plural in the seven nouns ending in ou (hibous, genous, etc.); confidendel for con- THE DICTIONARY 233 fidentid, etc. As will be noted, they fall something short of the demands of the Ministri,-. The intention, also, is to discard entirely the cLrcmnflex accent, the grave to take its place only where necessan' or expedient, as for appearance' sake, as in the case of the letter e and of exclamatory. Other changes besides have been taken into consideration, a petition pointing out the desirability of specified reforms ha\'ing been addressed to the Academy in which, it is said, five of the suggestions made would do away with about twenty rules and ex- ceptions to rules in French grammar. These latter changes, be it noted, are distinct from the tolerances decreed by the Ministry of Pubhc Instruction, which wiU, on the contrary, make additions to exceptions to rules. Whatever the decisions of the Academy, such is its prestige that, notwithstanding chronic faultfinders, they win no doubt meet with general and almost imme- diate acceptance, and again save France from the or- thographic uncertainty prevailing in English-speaking countries, unless, unhappilj-, the Ministry of Public Instruction should continue to foster the spirit of inno- vation, which with favouring conditions is as contagious as a plague. § 2. SUPPLEMENTARY : DEDICATION OF THE FIEST EDITION OF THE DICTION.AJIY. As the time for the issue of the first edition of the Dic- tionary drew near, the question of its dedication to the king, the Academy's protector, seems to have been the occasion of some heartburning among Academicians who desired the honour of the authorship of the dedicatory epistle. There were at least three such epistles sub- 234 THE FRENCH ACADEMY mitted to the Academy, not including that of its sec- retary, referred to later: one by Charles Perrault, an- other by Charpentier — both rejected; and a third, adopted by the Academy, also by Charpentier — so credited by Regnier-Desmarais in his memoirs, although it appears, on analysis and comparison, to be rather an adaptation or composite of the other two than an original composition. Perrault's Dedication, with Critical Remarks by certain Academicians for the Academy, among whom D'Olivet mentions the Abb6 Regnier and Racine, was published by D'Ohvet in his "Remarques de Grammaire sur Ra- cine" in 1738, and reprinted by Li vet among his "Pieces Justificatives " in his edition of Pellisson and D'Olivet's history of the Academy. In the biographical article on Regnier-Desmarais in Vol. III. of his "History of Members of the Academy deceased between 1700 and 1771" D'Alembert relates why the several epistles were prepared, and in his Notes to the same article he gives copies of all of them, with the Critical Remarks as stated above, on Perrault's, and other Critical Remarks by Regnier-Desmarais on the rejected epistle — or Letter, as it was called — of Char- pentier, accompanying the original Remarks on these two with critical observations of his own, for the most part criticising the censor, the whole forming an especiaUy entertaining exercise in criticism and counter-criticism. Says D'Alembert: "The Abb4 Regnier composed, by order of the Academy, the Preface and the Epistle; but having been obliged, before the Dictionary appeared, to absent himself on unavoidable business, some Acade- micians, who had made another Dedicatory Epistle, THE DICTIONARY 235 had credit enough to get it preferred to his; and M. Charpentier, who had also composed another Preface, obtained the same preference." If the shght put upon the Abb6 Regnier was indeed exactly as here related, of which the evidence is at least inconclusive, he had such reason for offence as might well have excused him from ever setting foot in the Academy again, much more for some bitter criticisms on the productions of his rivals. The reader is invited to form his own conclusions from D'Alembert's state- ment, and to remember, as does the writer, that D'Alem- bert was the secretary of the institution, as was Regnier- Desmarais, the memory of whose shabby behaviour on this occasion, as he viewed it, he did not scruple to per- petuate. But perhaps we get, in a contemplation of Regnier-Desmarais's disposition, a clue to the real mean- ing of the assertion that he was "ordered" by the Acad- emy to compose the Preface and the Epistle. In all questions that came before the Academy in its assemblies he was so obstinate in maintaining his opinion that opponents often yielded out of sheer weariness. He was, in fact, so notoriously disputatious that even his own friends nicknamed him the Abb6 Pertinax. Now, as it is not stated that the order was recorded in the Academy's register, it is open to conjecture whether the secretary at some meeting may not have arrogated the right to compose these pieces; and, no formal opposition having been then or later made to the assumption, he may have proceeded to act on it. D'Ohvet expressly states that Perrault was charged by the Academy with the composition of his Dedication, and probably Char- pentier was equally authorized to write his Letter. 236 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Manifestly, only one could be accepted. Nevertheless, the Abbe Regnier was not without reason for feeling aggrieved at missing the coveted honour, both on ac- count of his position as secretary of the Academy and the imdisputed assiduity of his collaboration in the pro- duction of the Dictionary; provided, however, that the secretary's compositions, on the supposition that they were submitted to the Academy, were not rejected for good cause. The Dedication as finally adopted, although not with- out dignity, has been severely criticised for the excessive adulation of its object. If we were to forget that Louis XIV. was really a dazzling sun to his own people, and in a less degree even to the rest of Europe, we might con- clude that certain portions of it were fulsome and insin- cere flattery. In so doing we should probably be wrong : some of its praise was no doubt genuine, and even its excess may be ascribed to the exaggeration of convention. Indeed, the tone of this Dedication is not unique. If we compare it with, for instance, the Dedication to James I. of England of the Authorized Version of the Scriptures, more than three quarters of a century earlier, we will be disposed to think that both monarchs are unduly exalted. We do not, on that account, necessarily come to the conclusion that the dedicators personally, in either case, were wanting in spirit or manliness. Verbal fulsomeness is perhaps too much the fault of every age: it is often necessary in our own time, and even where all are supposed to be equal, to abate considerably from the fervid rhetoric of set eulogies of less exalted personages, if we would arrive at a judicial conclusion. The authentic Dedication, or Epistle, copied Uterally THE DICTIONARY 237 from the first edition of the Dictionary of the Academy, reads as follows: AU ROY. SIRE, L'Acad^mie Frangoise ne peut se refuser la gloire de publier son Dictionnaire sous les auspices de son auguste Protecteur. Get Ouvrage est un Recueil fidelle de tous les termes et de toutes les phrases dent TEloquence et la Poesie peuvent former des ^loges; mais nous avoiions, Sire, qu'en voulant travailler au vostre, vous nous avez fait sentir plus d'une fois la foiblesse de nostre Langue. Lorsque nostre zele ou nostre devoir nous ont engagez k celebrer vos exploits, les mots de valeur, de courage et d 'intrepidity nous ont paru trop foibles; et quand il a fallu parler de la profondeur et du secret impenetrable de vos desseins, que la seule execution d^couvre aux yeux des hommes, les mots de pr^voyance, de pru- dence et de sagesse mSme ne respondoient qu'imparfaitement k nos id6es. Ce qui nous console, SIRE, c'est que sur un pareil sujet les autres Langues n'auroient aucun avantage sur la nostre. Celle des Grecs et ceUe des Romains seroient dans la mesme im- puissance, le Ciel n'ayant pas voulu accorder au langage des hommes des expressions aussi sublimes que les vertus qu'il leur accorde quelquefois pour la gloire de leur siecle. Comment ex- primer cet air de grandeur marqu^ sur vostre front, et respandu sur toute vostre Personne, cette fermete d 'ame que rien n 'est ca- pable d '^branler, cette tendresse pour le peuple, vertu si rare sur le throne, et ce qui doit toucher particulierement des gens de lettres, cette eloquence n^e avec vous, qui tousjours soustenue d 'expressions nobles et precises, vous rende Maistre de tous ceux qui vous escoutent, et ne leur laisse d 'autre volenti que la vostre. Mais oil trouver des termes pour raconter les merveilles de vostre Regne? Que I'on remonte de siecle en siecle, on ne trouvera rien de comparable au spectacle qui fait aujourd'huy I'attention de I'Vnivers: Toute 1 'Europe armee contre vous, et toute I'Europe trop foible. C 'est sur de tels f ondemens que s 'appuye 1 'esperance de 1 'Im- mortality oil nous aspirons, et quel gage plus certain pouvons- nous en souhaitter que vostre Gloire, qui asseur^e par elle-mesme de vivre eternellement dans la memoire des hommes, y fera vivre nos Ouvrages? L 'auguste Nom qui les deffendra du temps, en defiendra aussi la Langue, qui aura servi k le celebrer, et nous 238 THE FRENCH ACADEMY ne doutons point que le respect qu 'on aura pour une Langue que vous aurez parMe, que vous aurez employee k dieter vos resolu- tions dans vos Conseils, et ^ donner vos ordres k la teste de vos Armies, ne la fasse triompher de tons les sieoles. La superiority de vostre Puissance I'a desja rendue la Langue dominante de la plus belle partie du monde. Tandis que nous nous appliquons k 1 'embellir, vos armes victorieuses la font passer chez les Etran- gers, nous leur en facilitons 1 'intelligence par nostre travail, et vous la leur rendez necessaire par vos Conquestes; et si elle va encore plus loin que vos Conquestes, si elle se voit aujourd'huy establie dans la plus part des Coins de I'Europe, si elle reduit pour ainsi dire les Langues des Pais ou elle est connue, k ne servir presque plus qu'au commun du Peuple, si enfin elle tient le pre- mier rang entre les Langues vivantes, elle doit moins une si haute destin^e a sa beauts naturelle, qu'au rang que vous tenez entre les Rois et les Heros. Que si I'on a jamais deu se promettre qu'une Langue vivante peust parvenir k estre fix6e, et k ne d^pendre pliis du caprice et de la tyrannie de 1 ' Vsage, nous avons lieu de croire que la nostre est parvenue de nos jours k ce glorieux point d 'immutability, puisque les livres et les autres monumens qui parleront de Vos- tre Majest£, seroit tousjours regardez comme fait dans le beau siecle de la France, et seront k jamais les delices de tous les Peu- ples, et I'estude de tous les Rois. Nous sommes avec une pro- fonde veneration, SIRE, DE VOSTRE MAJESTE Les tres-humbles, tres-obeissants, et tres-fideUes sujets et serviteurs Les Academiciens de l'Academie Francoisb. [Translation of the Foregoing,] TO THE KING. SIRE, The French Academy cannot deny itself the glory of publish- ing its Dictionary under the auspices of its august Protector. This Work is a faithful Collection of all the terms and all the phrases by which Eloquence and Poesy can form eulogiums; but we confess, SIRE, that in wishing to labour for yours, you ha-^'e THE DICTIONARY 239 made us feel more than once the feebleness of our Language. When our zeal or our duty has engaged us to celebrate your ex- ploits, the words worth, courage, and intrepidity have appeared to us too feeble; and when it has been necessary to speak of the profundity and of the impenetrable secret of your designs, which their execution alone discovers to the eyes of men, even the words foresight, prudence, and wisdom answered but imper- fectly to our ideas. What consoles us, SIRE, is that on such a subject other Languages would have no advantage over ours. That of the Greeks and that of the Romans would show equal inability. Heaven not having wished to accord to the language of men expressions so sublime as the virtues it sometimes accords to them for the glory of their age. How express that air of gran- deur declared on joxa front, and diffused over all your Person, that firmness of soul which nothing is capable of shaking, that tenderness for the people, a virtue so rare on the throne, and what must particularly touch men of letters, that eloquence born with you, which, always sustained by noble and exact expres- sions, makes you Master of all those who listen to you, and leaves them no other pleasure than yours? But where find terms to recoimt the marvels of your Reign? Reviewing the ages, noth- ing will be found comparable to the spectacle which to-day fixes the attention of the Universe: All Europe armed against you, and all Europe too feeble. On such foundations rests the hope of ImmortaUty to which we aspire ; and what more certain pledge of it can we desire than your Glory, which, assured by itseK of living eternally in the memory of men, shall cause to live in it our Works? The au- gust Name which shall protect them through time, will protect also the Language which shall have served to celebrate it, and we doubt not that the respect inspired for a Language which you shall have spoken, which you shall have employed to dic- tate your resolutions in yoiu- Councils, and to give your orders at the head of your Armies, will make it triumph through all ages. The pre-eminence of your Power has already rendered it the dominant Language of the fairest portion of the world. While we apply ourselves to embellish it, your victorious arms diffuse it among Foreigners, we make their comprehension of it easy by our labour, and you make it necessary for them by your Conquests; and if it goes even farther than your Conquests, if it is seen to-day estabhshed in most of the Courts of Europe, if it reduces, io to say, the Languages of the Countries where it is 240 THE FRENCH ACADEMY known almost no longer to serve but for the common People, if, in fine, it holds the first rank among living Languages, it owes such a high destiny less to its natural beauty than to the rank which you hold among Kings and Heroes. And if there has ever been the promise that a living Language may come to be fixed, and no longer to depend on the caprice and the tjTanny of Usage, we have reason to believe that ours has reached in our days to that glorious point of immutabiUty, since the books and the other monuments which shall speak of Youb Majesty, will always be regarded as made in the golden age of France, and will forever be the delight of all Peoples, and the study of all Bangs. We are, with profound veneration, SIRE, OF YOUR MAJESTY The most humble, most obedient, and most faithful subjects and servants The Academicians op the French Academy. CHAPTER III MEMBERSHIP. § 1. THE FAUTEUIL LIST AND ITS BASIS. It is perhaps as well first to explain that the fauteuils of the French Academy, to give the places the name by which they have been known at least since early in the eighteenth century, are not themselves numbered, but by convention pass under the numbers 1 to 40 in an order depending on the basal principle of the system of numbering adopted, as to the identity of which there is a want of unanimity among chroniclers. Therefore, in making tables or hsts of holders of the fauteuils, any system of numbering the places which should show the due order of succession to each would not be incorrect — or, rather, not misleading. The fact is that under Riche- Heu the relative positions of Academicians could hardly have been fixed, and probably changed somewhat with every change in the place of meeting. An order some- times followed is that in which members are named by Pelhsson, who had access to the Academy's registers. This system would have been excellent — unassailable, indeed — if the record had been complete; but, unfor- tunately, it is marred by omissions and ambiguities which make it unrehable, and it is therefore rejected by some writers in favour of that which places at the head of the holders of place No. 1 the first member lost to 241 242 THE FRENCH ACADEMY the Academy by death, at the head of the holders of No. 2 the second, and so on. In effect, the numbering of the fauteuils, while a convenience in showing the order of succession, is historically valueless. In addition to the uncertainty about the order in which the names of the original members were inscribed in the Academy's registers, there have been the two breaks in the order of succession by which the institution's fauteuil hneage has become much entangled, the first of these being the suppression of the Academy in 1793, with the subsequent intermission of ten years. At its partial re- establishment in 1803 as the Second Class of the Institute, under the name of Class of French Language and Litera- ture, its forty members were named by authority. Twelve of these having been former Academicians, they could very properly be held to have succeeded themselves. But there must be some arbitrariness in the ruling which names all the others severally as the successors of par- ticular deceased Academicians. Much the same may be said of the second interruption in 1816, after the restoration of the Monarchy, when, at the complete re- establishment of the Academy, eleven members of the former Second Class were excluded on political groimds, and they were replaced by nine ministerial nominations and two academical elections. For example, Mesnard differs from the Dictionnaire Universel of Larousse and from La Grande Encyclop6die as to the predecessors of more than three fourths of the members, not old Acade- micians, nominated in the Class of French Language and Literature in 1803, and as to those of ten of the eleven members nominated and elected to replace those excluded in 1816. No two authorities, in fact, unless MEMBERSHIP 243 they simply copied each other, could agree, except by accidentally hitting on the same plan or by convention. Hence it is only by bearing in mind what has just been said that, although there is some approach to unanimity in the order of succession between the subperiods 1634 to 1793, 1803 to 1816, and 1816 to the present time, any fauteuil list or table which shows a continuous succession under the same numbers for the whole period since 1634 will not be misleading, if compared with any other which differs from it. Indeed, in view of the perplexing want of conformity in the arrangement of fauteuils in the lists pubhshed by different writers and in the order of succession at the periods of reconstruction in 1803 and 1816, it seems as if the Academy itself might come out with a deliverance on these heads, in order to their settlement for all time, as its judgment would no doubt be accepted as final. In making it the Academy possibly might not receive or be able to take credit for rendering a service to literature, but there is no question that it would thereby render a notable service to careful students of the institution's history, and save them much bootless investigation. The confusion in numbering is not les- sened by Gassier's tabular list, which places Siguier under No. 1, Conrart luider No. 2, and the other members of his coterie in an order entirely different from that named by Pellisson. It corresponds in its first occupants of the forty places with Livet's list in only six numbers, with Tastet's in nine, with Mesnard's in ten. In the different hsts of membership, also, there is a confusing number of discrepancies of one or more years in the dates of succession of some Academicians, ex- plainable by the lapse of time which separates, first, the 244 THE FRENCH ACADEMY opening of a vacancy and the election to fill it, and, next, the election itself and the formal reception of the new Academician, whose name is liable to appear under either of these two last. Another remarkable thing about lists of the Acade- micians is the variety of ways in which some of the names are written. It is evident that in biographical nomenclature there is no French standard authority. Nor is the variability owing altogether merely to the difference between the modern and the older spelling. To give only a few examples, among names of the first Academicians variously written are the following: Bau- douin or Baudoin, Serisay or Serizay (both sometimes with e), L'Etoile or L'Estoile, Saint Amant or Amand, Bautru de Serrant or Seran, Gombauld or Gombault, Bourzeys or Bourzeis, Boisrobert or Bois-Robert. Later names are the following ; Ballesdens or Balesdens, L'Her- mite or L'Ermite, Montereul or Montreuil, Monnaye or Monnoye or Monnoie, Clerembault or Clairembault, Pongerville or Pontgerville, Valincourt or Valincour. The number of names with alternative spellings is very great, but these are a pretty good indication of what the spelling of French common names would be without an authority such as the Academy's Dictionary, if in- direct evidence is worth anything. As to such names in these pages, they are written after the English method which prints with initial capitals the particles de, le, and la beginning a name — that is, standing alone — omits the hyphen between prenomens, and inserts it between surnames only when the sign is equivalent to the copida- tive and or the preposition of. Summarizing in part what is said of the Academy's MEMBERSHIP 245 foundation in the first chapter, at the formation of the French Academy, the root of the tree of forty permanent branches into which it grew was the Conrart coterie, composed of nine members when it first began to hold its meetings in 1629, who were joined by three others between that date and February, 1634, when Cardinal Richelieu not very agreeably surprised it by proposing that it should assume an official status. To repeat the names of these twelve persons in the order given to them by Pellisson, which in respect to the first nine he ex- pressly states to be purely accidental, they were: Godeau, Gombauld, Giry, Chapelain, Philippe Habert, Habert de C^risy, Conrart, Serisay, and Malleville, with the three later accessions of Faret, Desmarets, and Boisrobert. Richeheu's message was really addressed to a circle of eleven, Louis Giry having by this time ceased to fre- quent the meetings. Acting upon the cardinal's request to increase their number as they thought best, these eleven companions forthwith, says Pellisson, cahed into the fraternity several persons together, as follows : Bautru, Silhon, Sirmond, Bourzeys, M6ziriac, Maynard, Colletet, Gomberville, Saint Amant, Colomby, Baudoin, L'Estoile, and Arbaud de Porcheres. Then, in March, the Academy began to keep a register of its doings, by which it is determined by Pellisson that Servien, Jean Guez de Balzac, Bardin, Boissat, Vaugelas, Voiture, Laugier de Porcheres, Habert de Montmor, and M. C. de La Chambre were nominated before the end of the same year. Here Pellisson tells us, after naming only thirty-three Acade- micians, that the Academy now consisted of thirty-six members, and refers to its registers of 8th January, 1635, in confirmation. It was soon after this date, in the same 246 THE FRENCH ACADEMY month, at the passing of the Academy's patent under the official seal of the realm, that the list of thirty-six names went before M. Siguier, Keeper of the Seals, later Chancellor of France, who at his own solicitation was appointed to one of the four vacant places. The next nomination was that of D. Hay du Chastelet, Abbe de Chambon, in February, followed by that of Auger Granier on 3rd September, 1635. Louis Giry was only received in January, 1636. To quote from Pellisson.: "For although he had been of those assemblies of friends which took place at Conrart's he had withdrawn from them, and had not been called when the formation of the Academy into a society was begun. " Pellisson here says that the forty places of the Academy were not yet filled. Besides, two places once fiUed had fallen vacant by the death of Bardin and P. Hay du Chastelet, who were replaced by Bourbon and D'Ablan- court. Later there died Philippe Habert and M^ziriac, whose successors were, respectively. Esprit and Lamothe- Levayer, both received on 14th February, 1639. "And finally," adds PelUsson, "to fill the only place which remained of the number forty, M. de Pri4zac was pro- posed in the same assembly," his reception taking place a week later. Manifestly, if there were thirty-six names presented to the Keeper of the Seals, the Academy's historian could only on one hypothesis, after naming within the space of a few lines Seguier, the Abb6 de Chambon, Granier, and Giry as thereafter being received into the Academy to fill places until then unoccupied, have declared that the list of forty was still incomplete, namely, that Grani- MEMBERSHIP 247 cr's exclusion was judged to have voided his election. What makes the hypothesis tenable is that no successor to him is mentioned by Pellisson with those of members cut off by death at this time. Historically, however, there is no more doubt that Granier was a French Acade- mician than that Marino Faliero was a Doge of Venice. The three names so strangely, not to say carelessly, overlooked by Pellisson, in his comments on the reception of the early Academicians, were those of P. Hay du Chastelet (of whose death and successor he does make note), Baro, and Racan. Of itself the oversight would not have been of much consequence, had it not been for the subsequent loss or destruction of the Academy's records prior to 1673, but it has turned out to be so as a matter of literary history. The only extant authentic memorial of the French Academy's first membership in the order of induction is Pellisson's history, and its regrettable defectiveness leads to varied interpretations and presentations of the list. Both Livet and Mesnard profess to follow Pellisson, but with very different results, as to the numbering of the fauteuils. Livet's list, which is brought down only to 1793, is clearly incorrect in one or two particulars, notwithstanding that he declares: "Other classifications than this have been given by different writers; but, founded on authorities which cannot prevail over ours, since the registers anterior to 1673 are lost, they cannot, according to us, be justified, as being in formal contra- diction of Pellisson." Firstly, Livet, who makes Siguier the original holder of place No. 36, in faithfully following Pellisson should have contrived to place him first under 37, or, from the 248 THE FRENCH ACADEMY place of honour accorded to him in the table of the Academy, have made him the first under No. 1. Next, Livet names Granier as the first occupant of place No. 38, with Baro as his successor in 1639. This is an error, unmistakably as to date, on the authority of Pellisson himself, from whom we learn in another part of his work that Baro was one of several Academicians appointed to report their views on the verses of Corneille's "Cid" toward the middle of 1637. Mesnard mentions Baro in the group of Academicians first added to the Conrart coterie, making him the first occupant of place No. 26, and therefore consistently gives the date of his reception as 1634, in which he is sustained by Larousse and La Grande Encyclop^die. Following Baro in this fauteuil the succession is the same in all. Then, in comparing the lists of Livet and Mesnard we find that, besides being slightly at variance in the order of succession of some, they differ greatly in the arrangement of the forty fauteuils, owing to their diverse treatment of the three names omitted by Pellisson, as well as of one or two other Academicians the exact date of whose reception into the Academy is not ascertainable. Livet makes P. Hay du Chastelet the first holder of place No. 12, and Bauti-u of No. 13, the positions of these mem- bers being reversed by Mesnard. The first occupants of places Nos. 26 to 38 were: After Livet. After Mesnard. 26. Servien. 26. Baro. 27. Racan. 27. Racan. 28. Bardin. 28. Servien. 29. Boissat. 29. Balzac. 30. Vaugelas. 30. Bardin. 31. Voiture. 31. Boissat. MEMBERSHIP 249 After Livet. After Memard. 32. Laugier de Porch^res. 32. Vaugela3. 33. Balzac. 33. Voiture. 34. M. C. de La Chambre. 34. Laugier de Porch^res. 35. Habert de Montmor. 35. Habert de Montmor. 36. Siguier. 36. M. C. de La Chambre. 37. D. Hay du Chastelet. 37. Siguier. 38. Granier. 38. D. Hay du Chastelet. In the numbering of the first holders of academical places both otherwise agree. Again, Livet names the successors of Serisay, to the date of the Revolution, as De Chaumont, Cousin, Mimeure, Abb6 G6doyn, and De Bemis; and of Laugier de Por- ch^res as Pellisson, F6nelon, De Boze, Comte de Cler- mont, De Belloy, and De Duras. Mesnard's list, with those of Larousse and La Grande Encyclopedic, follow- ing D'Olivet, makes these successors of the original hold- ers change places; namely, Serisay, Pellisson, etc., and Laugier de Porcheres, De Chaumont, etc. Such differ- ences, in two writers whose systems have professedly the same basis, cannot be reconciled; and, therefore, instead of following the lead of either Livet or Mesnard, it is considered better in this history to number the first forty members in the order in which they were lost to the Academy — which seems now to be the generally accepted method, notwithstanding M. Tastet to the con- trary, who differs from all four of the authorities named, as they differ from one another, in some points of number- ing or succession, and says that he follows "the method adopted by M. Jarry de Mancy in his synoptical table of the French Academy and accepted by it and every- body."* * Histoire des Quarante Fauteuils, etc., I., 13-14. 250 THE FRENCH ACADEMY The system of numbering in order of vacancies as they occurred is illustrated in the following list of the founda- tion members of the Academy: 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 1. Bardin (1637). 2. P. Hay du Chastelet (1637). 3. Philippe Habert (1637, 1639).* 4. M6ziriac (1639). 5. Granier (1636, 1839).* 6. Arbaud de PorchSres (1640). 7. Chancellor Siguier (1642) .f 8. Faret (1646). 9. Maynard (1647). 10. Malleville (1648). 11. Colomby (1648, 1649).* 12. Voiture (1648, 1649).* 13. Sirmond (1649). 14. Vaugelas (1649, 1650).*$ 15. Baro (1650). 16. Baudoin (1650, 1651).* 17. L'Estoile (1652). 18. Serisay (165.3). 19. Balzac (1654). 20. Laugier de Porchftres (1653, 16.54). If * The first year indicates date of vacancy, and the second that of reception of successor. t When Siguier became protector of the Academy, the dignity of the new position making retention of his place in it inconsistent with its equality of membership, he was replaced in February of 1643 by Bazin de Bezons. t According to Pellisson's biographical notice, this Academician died in 1649. D'Olivet remarks: "Guichenon, a very accurate historian, who was a particular friend of Vaugelas, says that he died in the month of February, 1650." If In this case D'Olivet, who gives date of death as 1654, is corrected by Livet, who gives strong evidence for 26th October, 1653, which would make Pellisson, who was promised the first vacant place in the Academy, his successor, instead of that of Serisay, who died in November, 1653. 21. Germain Habert (1655). 22. Servian (1659). CoUetet (1659). Saint Amant (1661). Boissat (1662). Boisrobert (1662). Bautru de Serrant (1665). 28. Giry (1665, 1666).* 29. Gombauld (1666). Silhon (1667). M. C. de La Chambre (1670). Racan (1670). D. Hay du Chastelet (1671). Godeau (1673). Bourzeys (1673). 36. Gomberville (1674). 37. Chapelain (1674). 38. Conrart (1675). 39. Desmarets (1676). 40. Habert de Montmor (1679). MEMBERSHIP 251 At its dissolution in 1793 the living membership of the French Academy was thirty-two, with eight vacancies, as follows, the numbers corresponding with those adopted in the presentation of the tabular Fauteuil List farther on: 1. Florian. 2. Br^quigny. 3. D'Aguesseau. 4. Boisgelin. 5. 6. BartMlemy. 7. Vicq d'Azyr. 8. Boufflers. 9. 10. Ahhi Maury. 11. Marmontel. 12. Ducis. 13. Montesquiou-Fezensac. 14. D'Harcourt. 15. Malesherbes. 16. Lomenie de Brienne. 17. Choiseul-Goufiier. 18. 19. — 20. De Bernis. 21. De Bissy. 22. 23. DeliUe. 24. Gaillard. 25. BaiUy. 26. Chamfort. 27. Target. 28. Condorcet. 29. Morellet. 30. 31. 32. Rohan-Gu^m^n^. 33. 34. Saint Lambert. 35. Suard. 36. La Harpe. 37. Sedaine. 38. Nioolai. 39. Nivernais. 40. Roquelaure. As has already been made clear, in the National Insti- tute as at first organized the French Academy was not recognizable either in fact or in name. At the beginning of 1803, however, reaction against the destructive vio- lence of the Revolution having paved the way for the revival in effect of the old national order of things aca- demical, we witness it emerging from its eclipse of ten years as the Second Class (Class of Language and Litera- ture) of a reorganized Institute, with a membership as formerly of forty, named by Consular decree of 28th January of that year (8th Pluviose, Year XL), as follows: 252 THE FRENCH ACADEMY (a) Eleven members of the suppressed Class of Moral Sciences— (1) Volney, (5) Garat, (6) Cambaceres, (7) Ca- banis, (9) Naigeon, (10) Merlin, (11) Bigot de Preame- neu, (13) Sieyfe, (14) Lacu6e de Cessac, (15) Roederer, (22) Bernardin de Saint Pierre, (b) The twelve members of the Sections of Grammar and Poesy of former Third Class — (2) Ecouchard-Lebrun, (16) Andrieux, (18) Villar, (19) Domergue, (20) Frangois de Neufchateau, (24) Cail- hava, (25) Sicard, (26) Chenier, (27) ColUn d'Harleville, (28) Legouve, (30) Arnault, (31) Fontanes. (c) Twelve former Academicians— (3) D'Aguesseau, (4) Boisgelin, (8) Boufflers, (12) Ducis, (21) De Bissy, (23) DeHUe, (29) Mo- rellet, (32) Target, (34) Saint Lambert, (35) Suard, (36) La Harpe, (40) Roquelaure. (d) Five entirely new nomi- nations — (17) Portalis, (33) Lucien Bonaparte, (37) De- vaines, (38) Segur, (39) Regnaud de Saint Jean d'Angely. After the Restoration, the National Institute being further reorganized and the class names abolished in favour of the ancient designations, the French Academy assumes, by virtue of priority in creation, its rightful place as the first division of the Institute — again with some encroachment on its independence. By ordinance of 21st March, 1816, eleven members of the former Second Class were excluded, of whom nine were replaced by official appointment and two by academical election, as follows: (a) Official nominations — (5) De Bausset, (6) De Bonald, (10) Ferrand, (13) Lally-Tollendal, (15) Due de L6vis, (17) Choiseul-Gouffier, (30) Due de Richelieu, (32) Abb6 de Montesquiou, (34) Lain^. (6) Academical elections — (33) Auger, (39) Laplace.* * In the order given, these nominations correspond with the follow- ing exclxisions: Garat, Catnbac6r6s, Merlin, Sieyfes, Roederer, Etienne, MEMBERSHIP 253 The new nominees of this ordinance made no reception oration. FAUTEUIL LIST OF MEMBERS, 1635 [4]— 1910 [In this list the conjunction of a pre-RevoIutionary date with that of 1803 be- fore a name designates, besides a regularly elected French Academician of the Old Regime, a Consular appointee In the Second Class of the Institute, as previ- ously explained.] 1634. P. Bardin. 1803. Volney. 1637. Nicolas Bourbon. 1820. Pastoret. 1644. Salomon. 1841. Comte de Sainte Aulaire, 1670. Ph. Quinault. 1855. Due V. de Broglie. 1689. Fr. de CaiUdres. 1870. Duvergier de Hauranne. 1717. Cardinal de Fleury. 1881. SuUy-Prudhom m e . 1743. Cardinal de Luynes. 1908. Jules Henri Poincar6. 1788. Florian. 2 1634. P. Hay du Chastelet. 1803. Ecouchard-Lebrun. 1637. P. d'Ablancourt. 1807. Raynouard. 1664. Bussy-Rabutin. 1836. Mignet. 1693. Paul Bignon. 1884. Duruy. 1743. Jerome Bignon. 1895. Jules Lemattre. 1772. Q. F. de Br^quigny. Arnault, Cardinal Maury, Maret, Lucien Bonaparte, and Regnaud Saint Jean d'Angely. By this arrangement, after Larousse and La grande Encyclop^die, Choiseul-GoufEer, in succession to Etienne, resumes the fauteuil to which he was elected in 1784; but Etienne, who first held No. 17, thus occupies at his re-election in 1829, as suc- cessor to Auger, No. 33. The order of succession followed by Mes- nard is, respectively: Maret, Garat, Cambac^rfes, Cardinal Maury, Merlin, Arnault, Sieyes, Roederer, Lucien Bonaparte, Etienne, and Regnaud Saint Jean d'Angely. Mesnard's method places Choiseul- Gouffier, as successor to Arnault, in a different fauteuil from that held by him at his election in 1784, but restores Etienne, at his re- election as successor to Auger, to that which he first held. From the second inheritor onward, however, the succession to what may be called these post-Revolutionary appointments is the same in all three authorities, notwithstanding the difference in fauteuil numbers. 254 THE FRENCH ACADEMY 1634. 1639. Ph. Habert. Jacques Esprit. 1788. 1803. \ J. B. d'Aguesseau. 1678. Colbert (Archbp.). 1826. Brifaut. 1707. Abb6 Fraguier. 1858. Jules Sandeau. 1728. Abbe Rothelin. 1884. Edmond About. 1744. Abb^ Girard. 1885. L^on Say. 1748. P. d'Argenson. 1896. L. J. A. Vandal. 1634. B. de M^ziriac. 4 1805. Dureau de La Malle. 1639. Lamothe-Levayer. 1807. Picard. 1672. J. Racine. 1829. Arnault. 1699. Valincour. 1834. Scribe. 1730. La Faye. 1862. Octave Feuillet. 1731. Cr6biUon. 1891. Jean Viaud (Pierre Loti) 1762. Voisenon. 1776. 1803. \ Boisgelin (Archbp.). 1635. A. de Maul^on de Granier 5 ■. 1803. Garat. 1639. Priezac. 1816. Cardinal de Bausset. 1662. M. Leclerc. 1824. De Qu^len (Archbp.). 1692. De Tourreil. 1840. Mol6. 1714. Roland-Malet. 1856. De Falloux. 1736. Boyer (Bp.). 1886. Gr^ard. 1755. Abb6 de Boismont. 1904. Emile Gebhart. 1787. De Riilhi^re. 1909. Raymond Poincar6. 1634. A. de Porch^res. 6 1772. N. Beauz^e. 1640. 0. Patru. 1789. Abb^ Barth^lemy. 1681. Potier de Novion. 1803. Cambac^res. 1693. Goibaud-Dubois. 1816. De Bonald. 1694. Abb6 Boileau. 1841. Ancelot. 1704. Gaspard Abeille. 1855. Ernest Legouv6. 1718. Abb6 Mongault. 1903. Ren6 Bazin. 1747. Abb6 Duclos. MEMBERSHIP 7 255 1635. Pierre Siguier. 1803. 1643. Bazin de Bezons. 1808. 1684. Boileau-Desprlaux. 1836. 1711. D'Estrles (Archbp.). 1875. 1718. R. d'Argenson. 1884. 1721. LanguetdeGergy(Bp.). 1900. 1753. Buffon. 1908. 1788. Vicq d'Azyr. Cabanis. Destutt de Tracy. Guizot. J. B. Dumas. Bertrand. Berthelot. Francis Charmes. 1634. Faret. 1646. P. duRyer. 1658. D'Estr^es (Cardinal). 1715. D'Estr^es (Marshal). 1738. La Tr^moille. 8 Boufflera. 1788. 1803. 1815. Baour-Lormian. 1855. Ponsard. 1868. Autran. 1741. Rohan-Soubise (Cardinal). 1877. V. Sardou. 1756. Montazet (Archbp.). 1909. Marcel Prdvost. 1634. Maynard. 1780. Chabanon. 1647. P. Corneille. 1803. Naigeon. 1685. T. Corneille. 1810. N. Lemercier. 1710. Houdard de la Motte. 1841. Victor Hugo. 1732. Bussy-Rabutin (Bp.). 1886. Leconte de Lisle. 1736. Foncemagne. 1894. H. Houssaye. 1634. C. de Malleville. 10 1816. Ferrand. 1648. J. Ballesdens. 1825. Casimir Delavigne. 1675. Cordemoy. 1844. Sainte Beuve. 1684. Bergeret. 1870. Jules Janin. 1695. C. de Saint Pierre (Abb6). . 1875. John Lemoinne. 1743. Maupertuis. 1893. F. Bruneti^re. 1759. Lefranc de Pompignan. khhi Maury. 1907. Henri Barboux. 1784. 1803. Merlin. 256 THE FRENCH ACADEMY II 1634. Cauvigny-Colomby. 1763. Marmontel. 1649. Tristan I'Hermite. 1803. Bigot de Pr^ameneu. 1655. La Mesnardidre. 1825. Due de Montmorency. 1663. De Saint Aignan. 1826. Guiraud. 1687. Abb6 de Choisy. 1847. Ampere. 1724. Ant. Portail. 1865. Pr6vost-Paradol. 1736. La ChaussSe. 1871. Rousset. 1754. Bougainville. 1893. Thureau-Dangin. 12 1634. Voiture. 1816. Desfize. 1648. M^zeray. 1828. Barante. 1683. Barbier d'Aucourt. 1867. Gratry. 1694. Clermont-Tonnerre (Bp.). 1873. Saint Ren6 Taillandier. 1701. N. Mallzieu. 1880. Maxime Du Camp. 1727. J. Bouhier. 1894. Paul Bourget. 1747. Voltaire. S: }"•''"*• 13 1634. J. Sirmond. 1649. J. de Montereul. 1651. Fr. Tallemant. 1693. De La Loubfire. 1729. Abb6 SaUier. 1761. Abb6 Coetlosquet. 1784. P. de Montesquiou. 1803. Abb^Siey^s. 1816. Lally-ToUendal. 1830. Pontgerville. 1870. X. Marmier. 1893. Henri de Bornier. 1901. Edmond Rostand. 14 1634. Vaugelas. 1649. Scud^ry. 1668. P. Dangeau. 1720. De Richelieu (Marshal). 1788. D'Harcourt. 1803. Lacu6e de Cessac. 1841. De Tocqueville. 1860. Lacordaire. 1862. Due A. de Broglie. 1901. Marquis de Vogu6. MEMBERSHIP 257 IS 1634. B. Baro. 1630. J. Doujat. 1633. E. Renaudot. 1720. Abb6 de Roquette. 1723. Gondrin d'Antin (Bp.). 1733. Dupr6 de Saint Maur. 1775. Malesherbes. 1S03. Roederer. 1316. Due de L6vis. 1S30. Ph. de SIgur. 1373. De Viel-Castel. 1833. Jurien de La GraviSre. 1892. Ernest Lavisse. 16 1634. J. Baudouin. 1803. Andrieux. 1630. Charpentier. 1333. Thiers. 1702. Chamillart (Bp.). 1378. Henri Martin. 1714. De Villars (Marshal). 1334. F. de Lesseps. 1734. De Villars (Due). 1898. Anatole France. 1770. Lomenie de Brienne. 1634. Claude de I'Estoile. 17 1816. Choiseul-Gouffier.* 1652. A. Coishn. 1317. Laya. 1702. P. Coishn. 1333. Ch. Nodier. 1710. H. C. Coislin (Bp.). 1844. Merimee. 1733. Sarian. 1371. De Lomenie. 1754. D'Alembert. 1878. Taine. 1734. C'-ioissul-Gouffier.* 1894. Albert Sorel. 1803. Portalis. 1907. Maurice Donnay. 1807. Laujon. 1811. Etienne. 18 1634. De Serisay. 1775. Due de Duras. 1653. Pellisson. 1803. Abb6 ViUar. 1693. F^nelon (Archbp.). 1826. Abbe de F^letz. 1715. De Boze. 1850. D. Nisard. 1754. De Clermont (Bourbon Cond6), 1888. Vogiil (Vieomte). 1771. De Belloy. * In 1816 by royal ordinance. 258 rHE FRENCH ACADEMY 19 1634. Jean Guez de Balzac. 1771. De Beauvau. 1654. De Beaumont de P6r6fixe 1803. Domergue. (Archbp.). 1810. Saint Ange. 1671. De Harlay (Arclibp.). 1811. Parseval-Grandmaison. 1695. Andr6 Dacier. 1835. Salvandy. 1722. Dubois (Cardinal). 1857. E. Augier. 1723. Renault. 1890. C. L. de Freycinet. 20 1634. Laugier de PorchSres. 1803. Fr. de NeufchS.teau. 1654. De Chaumont. 1828. P. A. Lebrun. 1697. Louis Cousin. 1874. Alex. Dumas. 1707. Valon de Mimeure. 1896. Andr6 Theuriet. 1719. Abb6 G6doyn. 1908. Jean Richepin. 1744. De Bernis (Cardinal). 21 1634. Germain Habert (Abb6). 1810. Esm^nard. 1655. Abb6 Cotin. 1811. Lacretelle (jeune) 1682. Abb6 Dangeau. 1856. J. B. Biot. 1723. Morville (Fleuriau). 1863. De Cam6. 1732. Abb6 Terraeson. 1876. Ch. Blanc. 1750. 1 TA r>-_ 1882. Pailleron. 1803. 1 TA r>- 1882. Pailleron. JDeBissy. 1900. Paul Hervieu. 22 1634. Servien. 1814. Aignan. 1659. Villayer. 1824. Soumet. 1691. Fontenelle. 1845. Vitet. ' 1757. A. L. S^ier. 1874. Caro. 1803. Bern, de Saint Pierre. 1888. G. P. 0. d'Haussonville. 23 1634. CoUetet. 1760. La Condamine. 1659. Gilles Boileau. 1774. 1 auuxt^.-h 1670. J. de Montigny. 1803. ) ^^^^ ^^^'"«- 1671. Ch. Perrault. 1813. Campenon. 1704. De Rohan (Cardinal) 1844. Saint Marc Girardin. 1749. Vaur6al. 1874. M6zi6res. MEMBERSHIP 24 1634. Saint Amant. 1813. Michaud. 1661. J. C. Cassagne. 1840. Flourens. 1679. De Cr6cy. 1868. Claude Bernard. 1710. Ant. de Mesmes. 1878. Renan. 1723. Abb6 Alary. 1893. Challemel-Lacour. 1771. Gaillard. 1897. Gabriel Hanotaux. 1803. J. F. Cailhava. 25 1634. Boissat. 1803. Sicard. 1662. FuretiSre (Abb6). 1822. Frayssinous. 1688. La Chapelle. 1842. Pasquier. 1723. D'OHvet (Abb6). 1863. Dufaure. 1768. Condillac. 1881. Cherbuliez. 1780. Tressan. 1900. Emile Faguet. 1784. Bailly. 26 1634. Boisrobert (Abb6). 1781. Chamfort. 1662. Segrais. 1803. M. J. Chenier. 1701. Campistron. 1811. Chateaubriand. 1723. Destouches. 1849. Due de Noailles. 1754. Boissy. 1886. Edouard Herv6. 1758. Sainte Palaye. 1899. Paul Deschanel. 27 1634. Bautru de Serrant. 1785. Target.* 1665. J. Testu (Abb6). 1803. Collin d'HarleviUe. 1706. M. de Sainte Aulaire. 1806. Daru. 1743. Mairan. 1829. Lamartine. 259 1771. Francois Arnaud (Abb6). 1870. Emile Ollivier. 28 1636. Louis Giry. 1666. Ahhi Boyer. 1698. Abb6 Genest. 1720. Abb^ Dubos. 1742. Abb6 du Resnel. 1761. Saurin. * See also No. 32 for Consular appointment in 1803. 26o fHE FRENCH ACADEMY 1781. Condorcet. 1803. Gabriel Legouv6 1812. Alex. Duval. 1842. Ballanohe. 1848. \'atout. 1S49. De Saint Priest. 1852. P. A. Benyer. 1869. De Champagny. 1882. De Mazade-Percin. 1894. J. M. de Heredia. 1906. Maurice Barres. 1634. Gombauld. 1666. Abb6 P. Tallemant. 1712. Danchet. 1748. Gresset. 1777. Millot. 1785. 1803. } Abb6 Morellet. 29 1819. Lemontey. 1826. Fourier. 1830. Victor Cousin. 1867. Jules Favre. 1880. Rousse. 1907. Marquis de Segur. 30 1634. J. de Silhon. 1667. J. B. Colbert. 1684. La Fontaine. 1695. Abb6 CMrembault. 1714. Ch. Massieu. 1723. C. Houtteville. 1742. Marivaux. 1763. Abb6 de Radon villiers. 1803. Arnault. 1816. Due de Richelieu. 1822. B. J. Dacier. 1833. Tissot. 1854. Dupanloup (Bp.). 1878. Due d'Audiffret-Pasquicr. 1906. A. F. J. Ribot. 31 1635. M. C. de La Chambre. 1803. Fontanes. 1670. Abb6 Regnier-Desmarais, , 1821. Villemain. 1713. La Monnaye. 1871. Littr^. 1729. La Riviere. 1881. Pasteur. 1730. Hardion. 1896. Gaston Paris. 1766. Thomas. 1903. Fr^d^ric Masac 1786. Guibert. 32 1634. Racan. 1696. Fleury (Abb6) 1670. P. C. de La Chambre. 1723. J. Adam. 1693. La Bruy^re. 1735. Abbe S6guy. MEMBERSHIP 261 1761. Rohan-Gu^m6n^e(Card.). 1803. Target.* 1806. Maury (Cardinal). 1816. F. Montesquieu (AbM). 1832. Say. 1854. Silvestre de Sacy. 1880. Eugene Labiche. 1888. Meilhac. 1898. Henri Lavedan. 33 1635. D. Hay du Chastelet 1803. Lucien Bonaparte. (Abb6). 1816. Auger. 1671. Bossuet (Bp.). 1829. Etienne. 1704. Polignac (Cardinal). 1845. Alfred de Vigny. 1742. Giry de Saint Cjn-. 1865. CamiUe Doucet. 1761. Abb6 Batteux. 1896. Costa de Beauregard. 1780. Lemierre. 1910. 34 Alfred Capus. 1634. Godeau. 1803. Maret. 1672. FMchier. 1816. Lain6. 1710. Nesmond (Bp.). 1836. E. Dupaty. 1727. Amelot. 1852. Alfred de Musset. 1749. De Belle-Isle (Marshal). 1858. De Laprade. 1761. Abb6 Trublet. 1884. Fr. Copp^e. 1770. 1803. 1 Saint Lambert. 1909. 35 Jean Aicard. 1634. Abb6 de Bourzeys. 1817. Roger. 1672. Abb6 Gallois. 1842. Patin. 1707. Mongin. 1876. Gaston Boissier. 1746. khh€ de La ViUe. 1909. Ren6 Doumic. 1774. 1803. } Suard. 36 1634. Gomberville. 1803. Lacretelle {ain£). 1674. Huet. 1824. Joseph Droz. 1721. J. Boivin. 1851. Montalembert. 1727. P. H. Saint Aignan. 1871. Due d'Aumale. 1776. Colardeau. 1898. Guillaume. 1776. 1803. \ La Harpe. 1905. Etienne Lamy. * For election to the Academy of the Old Regime in 1785 see No. 27. 262 THE FRENCH ACADEMY 37 1634. Chapelain. 1803. Devaines. 1674. Benserade. 1803. Parny. 1691. E. Pavilion. 1815. De Jouy. 1705. Sillery. 1847. Simonis Empis. 1715. Due de La Force. 1869. A. Barbier. 1726. Mirabaud. 1882. Perraud (Cardinal Bp.) 1760. Watelet. 1906. Cardinal Mathieu. 1786. Sedaine. 1910. 38 Mgr. Duchesne. 1634. Conrart. 1789. Nicolai. 1675. Rose. 1803. L. Ph. de Segur. 1701. Louis de Sacy. 1830. Viennet. 1727. Montesquieu. 1869. J. 0. B. d'Haussonville 1755. Chateaubrun. 1884. Ludovic Hal^vy. 1775. Chastellux. 1909. 39 Eugene Brieux. 1634. J. Desmaret?. 1816. Laplace. 1676. J. J. de Mesmes. 1827. Royer-CoUard. 1688. Testu de Mauroy (Abb6) . 1846. R6musat. 1706. De Louvois (Abb6). 1875. Jules Simon. 1719. Massillon. 1897. Comte de Mun. 1743. De Nivernais. 1803. Regnaud Saint Jean d'Angely. 40 1634. Habert de Montmor. 1818. Cuvier. 1679. Abb6 Lavau. 1832. Dupin (aini) 1694. Caumartin (Bp.) 1866. Cuvillier-FIeury. 1733. Moncrif. 1888. Jules Claretie. 1771. 1803. > Roquelaure (Archbp.) . Notes. First, it should be observed that the fauteuils of the French Aeademy have given place to chairs again, al- MEMBERSHIP 263 though the term fauteuil continues to be applied to an Academician's seat or place after the disappearance of the fauteuils, as it has long been customary so to refer to it before their introduction. From the commencement of the Academy in 1634 down to 1900 the record of its membership exhibits four hundred and ninety-four names, of which sixteen figure in it twice, or, at least, at two different dates — namely, those of the twelve old Academicians officially nominated in the Second Class of the Institute in 1803, that of Choiseul-Gouffier similarly nominated in the restored French Academy in 1816, and those of Cardinal Maury (1807), Arnault (1829), and Etienne (1829), all three re-elected. Counting these as new names, the number of Academicians to 1900 would stand as five hundred and ten; and inasmuch as the number of duplications is about equal to that of the losses the Academy would have sustained if there had not been a break of ten years in the continuity of its existence, we may ac- cept the latter total as the normal membership for the period. It follows that the French Academy renews itself on an average about every twenty-one years, which is, therefore, the average duration of each member- ship. The academical life of members, however, ranges from less than a year to more than the average lifetime. Among notably brief memberships was that of Colar- deau, who died in the year of his election, before formal reception. It was then established by a decision of the Academy that a candidate who had been elected and had received the protector's approval had an unques- tionable right to the title of Academician, whether his reception had taken place or not, the judgment having 264 THE FRENCH ACADEMY been rendered in response to an inquiiy from Colardeau's friends as to whether he might properly be referred to as a French Academician in the funeral obsequies. Ed- mond About, also, died before he could be received. From these examples and those of Emile Ollivier Michaud, Berryer, and Vatout it thus appears that two prime requisites under the rules and by prescription to the title of Academician — formal reception into the Acad- emy and formal presentation to the chief of the state — have on occasion been dispensed with: formal reception in the case of Colardeau and About owing to death, in the case of Emile Ollivier for reasons explained in the first chapter, and of Michaud owing to political events; formal presentation to the chief of the state, in the case of Berryer, because of political rancour, and both re- ception and presentation, in that of Vatout, because of his voluntary exile following a revolution and the rise into power of a new chief of state antagonistic to the Academician-elect's political leanings. The Academician of greatest age, and, with the ex- ception of the Marshal Duke of Richelieu, who entered the Academy in 1720, when only twenty-four, and died in 1788, of longest membership at the time of death was Fontenelle, who was born in 1657, entered the Academy in 1691, and died in 1757, his centennial year. Following is an extract from a letter of 27th August, 1741, from D'Ohvet to President Bouhier, which is not without interest: "Why were you not on Thursday last at the assembly which was held for the distribution of prizes? You would have heard our venerable dean open the session with a fine discourse, in which he made the re- newal of his academical vows, at the end of fifty years MEMBERSHIP 265 which he counts since his reception. He said thereanent some very pretty things; but what will appear to you more singular in him, he showed feeling {de I'dme)." This closing remark hints at Fontenelle's natural or acquired want of human sympathy, due in part perhaps to the dulling effect of advancing years, during which he had seen pass away all his early friends. Nevertheless, it is a fact that his philosophy was not warmly philan- thropic, one of his rules of living being, as stated by him- self: "Men are foolish, vain, and ill-disposed; but, such as they are, I have to live with them, and I said so to myself early." Still another Academician whose membership would have stretched beyond the half-century, and run even the long terms of Fontenelle and the Duke of Richelieu very close had it not been for the Revolutionary inter- mission, was the Comte de Bissy, elected in 1750, and nominated in 1803 among the forty members of the Second Class of the reorganized Institute, of which he died a member in 1810. Charpentier's academical span fully bridged the semi-centennial period, another member whose term reached the semi-centennial year being the Abbe Bignon (1693-1743), and yet another, in our own time, Ernest Legouve (1854-1904). A glance through the Fauteuil List, especially of the period of the Old Regime, reveals on the part of the Academy an effort to maintain the traditions of certain fauteuils — as family, ecclesiastical, ofhcial — which was too often responsible for elections open to criticism from a literary standpoint. Indeed, a searching scrutiny of the list will demonstrate that a considerable proportion of the noblemen, clergymen, and political placemen 266 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY whose names are included in it were men of letters only in a somewhat narrow sense; but it will also show that a goodly number even of them were not without a legiti- mate right to the title. Naturally, a critical examination of the list also shows that the maintenance of literary tradition has been an object in the filling of vacancies. Again, it is curious to note, in connection with Arsene Houssaye's criticism of the Academy as being often too old by a generation, that, without any age limit either maximum or minimum — e.g. the veterans Biot, Laujon, and Bon Joseph Dacier elected as octogenarians, along with quite a number of others at over three score years and ten, and the Marquis de Coislin at seventeen — the average age at election not only has increased over that of the first Academy, but seems to be increasing. Thus, the ages at date of election of the foundation members, so far as known, average forty-one, of the members in 1900 fifty-one, while the general average since 1635 to the latter date wiU be found to be short of fifty. The French Academy therefore, never a company of juniors, is in very truth, as it always has been in the common acceptation of the term, a literary senate. § 2. PERMANENT SECRETARIES. The French Academy has so far (1910) had twenty permanent secretaries,* whose names, given in full in the Alphabetical List of Membership {q. v.), are as fol- lows: * Paul Hay du Chastelet, who did secretarial work for the Academy, although spoken of by some writers as secretary, cannot have been more than temporary acting secretary, as Pellisson does not give him the official designation. MEMBERSHIP 267 1634. Conrart. 1803. Suard. 1675. M^zeray. 1817. Raynouard. 1684. Regnier-Desmarais. 1826. Auger. 1713. Dacier. 1829. Andrieux. 1722. Dubos. 1833. Arnault. 1742. Houtteville. 1834. Villemain. 1742. Mirabaud. 1871. Patin. 1755. Duclos. 1876. Doucet. 1772. D'Alembert. 1895. Boissier. 1783. Marmontel. 1908. Thureau-Dangin. As the position of secretary of the most unpretentious or the most frivolous hterary association must make considerable demands upon the time and the attention of its holder, it may well be believed that the secretary- ship of a national institution such as the French Academy, the most celebrated literary assembly in the world, if not, especiaUy in its early years, entirely to be acquitted of frivolity, has never been a sinecure. For more than a century, however, the duties of the office were dis- charged practically without compensation; although, beginning with Dacier, in 1713, to the secretary was ac- corded a double claim for attendance, or two jetons to one of the other Academicians. At length, in 1749, by an arrangement already explained, the secretaryship became salaried, and also endowed with rent-free apart- ments for its holder in the Louvre, and later in the Palais Mazarin, as at present. A position of great dignity, with these apartments and the salary of six thousand francs, it is now a worthy object of ambition. In choosing its permanent, or, to give the literal trans- lation, perpetual (perpetuel) secretary the French Acad- emy needs to be guided by the most practical considera- tions, not alone by the literary fame of the candidate, and it cannot ignore them except to its own hurt and the 268 » THE FRENCH ACADEMY gathering of a plentiful crop of repentance. Erratic or flighty genius would in this situation be out of its element. There is no reason for surprise, therefore, that most of the secretaries of the French Academy have had more merit than reputation and that the names of comparatively few of them are familiar to the general reader. Without giving biographies of any, a few perti- nent memoranda concerning some of them, particularly of Conrart, which could not appropriately be introduced in the chapter on "General History" and are outside the narrow hmits set for the "Biographical List," may here take the form of Notes. Of Valentin Conrart, the Academy's first secretary, "to whom," Pellisson says, "that charge was given in his absence, by common consent, everybody being agreed that no one could better fiU that place," the fame does not rest on what he has himself written, but on the im- perishable foundation of the institution which came into being under his roof and with which his name is insepa- rably coimected, to which may be added what has been written about him by would-be detractors. Boileau in his First Epistle, which was addressed to the king, wrote in 1667 as follows: Quelque orgueil en secret dont s'aveugle un auteur, II est facheux, grand roi, de se voir sans lecteur, Et d'aller, du recit de ta gloire immortelle, Habiller chez Francoem' le sucre et la canneUe. Aussi, craignant toujours un funeste accident, Je garde, sur ton nom, un silence prudent.* "Whate'er the secret pride with which an author is blinded, It is sad, great king, to see one's self without readers, VA LI'IXTI N ( 'ON HA RT / li'.'td ijf the i-iA rnr f-ulli-il by his naiiji; froin which spnitig the i'Vciifl] Aoadi;iny, .•uiil the yVcadeirjy'.s firBt pcnnaiK'rit ,si-cretary [rwjr 20,S MEMBERSHIP 269 After Conrart's death in 1675, a permanent place was given in the printed text to a variant, since become an aphorism, of the last verse, viz., J'imite de Conrart le silence prudent,* which probably passed from mouth to mouth in his life- time, and the original line now appears as the variant. Other writers, some of them with perhaps less talent or taste than Conrart, taking their cue from the morose and sardonic Boileau, have affected to treat his literary reputation with a condescension which has humorous aspects of which they seem to be unaware. It does not appear that Conrart arrogated literary honours or as- sumed authorial airs: much, therefore, written about him in this vein may be set down as shallow impertinence. Conrart, while observing in general a "prudent silence" so far as publishing his compositions went, was a fertile writer, a fact of which a collection comprising about twenty folio volumes of manuscript in the Bibliotheque de I'Arsenal, at Paris, is cited as a proof by the Abb6 d' Olivet, who says, in his biographical notice of the French Academy's first secretary, that many reasons might have prevented him, notwithstanding his parts and his taste, from giving more of his work to the world, as modesty, difficulty of pleasing himself, preference for reading rather than for production, public employment, domestic cares, and, as he was a martyr to gout during the last thirty years of his hfe, chronic ill-health. What- Aad to go, from the recital of thy immortal glory, To wrap up at Francceur's sugar and cinnamon. So, fearing always a terrible accident, I keep, as to thy name, a prudent silence." *"I imitate of Conrart the prudent silence." 270 THE FRENCH ACADEMY ever the reason, there is abundant evidence, in the dedi- cations of their works to him by contemporary writers, that great store was set by his hterary judgment and countenance. In the third edition of his history D'Ohvet has a foot- note in which he states, in reference to an assertion in the text that Conrart, who did know Itahan and Spanish, knew neither Latin nor Greek, that since the appearance of the first two editions there had been communicated to him an original manuscript in the hand of Conrart containing twenty-four epistles after the manner of Horace, from which he gives, as a specimen of the versi- fication, an extract as follows: Au-dessous de vingt ans, la fille, en priant Dieu, Dit: "Donne-moi, Seigneur, un mari de bon lieu, "Qui soit doux, opulent, lib&al, agr^able." A vingt-oinq ans: "Seigneur, tin qui soit supportable, "Ou qui, parmi le monde, au moins puisse passer." Enfin, quand par les ans elle se voit presser, Qu'elle se voit vieillir, qu'elle approche de trente: "Un tel qu'il te plaira. Seigneur, je m'en contente." * D'Olivet does not unsay in the text of his third edition what had before been asserted, unless by inference as to Latin in this note, which gives Livet the opportunity to remark in another note that nothing proves that Conrart did not know Greek, and that it did not seem * "Under twenty years the maiden, in praying God, Says: 'Give me, Lord, a husband of good estate. Who shall be kind, rich, liberal, agreeable.' At twenty-five years: 'Lord, one who shall be supportable, Or who, in society, shall be at least passable.' Finally, when by years she sees herself pressed. She sees herself grow old, she approaches thirty, 'Such an one as shall please thee. Lord, I am content.'" MEMBERSHIP 271 possible that he did not have some knowledge of Latin, as in the collection of his manuscripts there are critical dissertations on certain texts of Cicero and Horace. Conrart may not have risen above mediocrity as a man of letters, and may have known neither Greek nor Latin, but what we know of him would lead us to beHeve that, besides being a man of most agreeable commerce and much intellectual refinement, enjoying to the end of his life the respect and affection of his many friends, as secretary of the French Academy he discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his fellow Academicians. F. Eudes de Mezeray was appointed Conrart's successor, not, says D'Olivet, because he had ever been regarded as a correct writer, but because of his fitness for the exacting labour of preparing, from meeting to meeting of the Academy, the outline of the Dictionar}' as the revision, undertaken partly on his advice, progressed, for general discussion and completion. The reign or dictatorship, for such it appears to have been, of the Abb6 Regnier-Desmarais lasted thirty years, being the longest term in the office of secretary except those of Conrart and Villemain. It is manifest from the treatment which he received in the matter of the Dedi- cation and Preface to the Dictionary that his yoke had become galling to the Academy and that, much as it owed to him, it felt itself to some extent released from its obligations by being made too much to feel their burden. After the publication on the part of this sec- retary of the first part of a French Grammar treating of the Parts of Speech, with the approval of the Academy, he was so much incensed at an attack made on it by the Jesuits in the Journal de Trevoux that he did not go on 272 THE FRENCH ACADEMY with the second part, on Syntax. Boileau's hostile senti- ments toward Chapelain are well known. Of Regnier- Desmarais, whose friend he was, or professed to be, he is credited with saying, and the remark certainly has an authentic ring: "He thinks himself a great man be- cause he has inherited something of Chapelain's grimace." Regnier-Desmarais had as successor the distinguished classical scholar Andr^ Dacier, to whom fell the ungrate- ful task in his official quality of announcing to the Regent Orleans the Academy's vote of expulsion against the Abbe de Saint Pierre. Following him came the Abb6 Dubos, during whose term Philosophy, in the person of Montesquieu, first gained a foothold in the Academy. The Abbe Houtteville, his successor, died within a few months after his election, and was replaced by Mirabaud. It was of him D' Olivet wrote to President Bouhier, as quoted in the first chapter: "The Academy can nothing without a good secretary." This sounds like, and no doubt was, a reflection on Mirabaud, whose age and infirmities compelled him to resign the secretary's pen in 1755; but, we are informed by D'Alembert, until his death in 1760 he occupied the apartments and received the emoluments of the office, his successor, the Abb6 Duclos, making this a condition of his acceptance of the secretaryship. With the Abb6 Duclos the French Academy passed under the controlling influence of the Philosophers, who retained it until the suppression. He was a man evi- dently of a forceful if, on his own showing, a somewhat unrefined character, whose personal influence in the Academy, even before being chosen secretary, is demon- stated by his success in inducing it to change the theme MEMBERSHIP 273 of the Prize of Poesy, and by the part he took in arranging for the nomination of the Count of Clermont and in the proceedings subsequent to the prince's election. Du- clos's capital work was the "Considerations sur les Moeurs de ce Si^cle, " published in 1751. It was not only received with high popular favour throughout France, but had the distinction of being one of the few books read by Louis XV., who was so far pleased with it as to express the none too extravagant encomium that it was the work of an honest man. The truth is that, not- withstanding his reputation for blunt independence, Duclos possessed in a marked degree the quality of pru- dence, and knew so well what to say and when to say it that we get the key to his character in the phrase applied to him by Jean Jacques Rousseau, un homme droit et adroit. In 1771 the antagonism between the Philosophic and anti-Philosophic factions in the Academy — respectively, the Chapeaux and Bormets, to give them their then current appellations — was unusually bitter, consequent on, as well as for other reasons, the emulation aroused to secure the success of their several candidates in one or two previous elections, and was again to rise high in 1772 over the choice of successors to the fauteuils, both vacant at the same time, of the Abb6 Duclos and Jerome Bignon, and of a permanent secretary in place of the former. It has been related how Suard and Delille were excluded from these fauteuils by the veto of the Acad- emy's protector. For the secretaryship Jean le Rond d'Alembert was the candidate of the Philosophers, and the Abbe Batteux of their opponents, led by the Duke of Richelieu, the dean of the Academy. Richeheu openly 274 'J^H.E FRENCH ACADEMY declared that, if the election went to D'Alembert, he would use his influence with the king to invalidate it — an unexampled exhibition of arrogance — notwithstand- ing that Voltaire had written to the duke begging him to take into consideration the merit and poverty of the candidate of the Philosophers, to whom the secretary's emoluments would be a material help. At the election D'Alembert received seventeen votes to ten for his rival ; but Richelieu's hostility so wrought on him as to induce him to take the unusual step, with respect to the in- cumbency of the secretary's office, of requesting the protector's confirmation, which was granted. D'Alem- bert, whom Macaulay qualifies as the " all-accompHshed, " has been spoken of, in a kind of antithesis not uncommon in French, as a great mathematician among men of letters and a superior man of letters among mathemati- cians. J. F. Marmontel, D'Alembert's successor in the per- manent secretaryship, was another conspicuous figure among the French Philosophers of the eighteenth century. His "Contes moraux" in the Mercure, one or two mod- erately successful tragedies, and his philosophical prin- ciples had gained for him entrance into the Academy in 1763, and five years later his hterary reputation was much extended by his political romance "Belisaire," a story Tounded not on the real life of Belisarius, "glory of the Romans," but on the popular tradition which represents the great Byzantine general as the victim of the tyranny and ingratitude of Justinian, and, deprived of his sight, reduced to beg his bread in the streets of Constantinople. The success of the work was partlj' owing to its condemnation by the Sorbonne. At the MEMBERSHIP 275 opening of the Revolution in 1789, becoming a candidate for deputy from Eure to the States General, and suffering defeat, Marmontel withdrew from the capital to the country, and thenceforth hved in retirement. During his absence his duties as secretary of the French Academy were assumed by the Abbe Morellet, whose niece he had married in 1777, the bond of affinity and a friendship extending backward many years no doubt leading Morel- let to act and the Academy to accept him as Marmontel's substitute. J. B. A. Suard was elected secretary of the Second Class of the Institute in 1803, and held the office in the recon- stituted Academy until his death in 1817. On his memoiy rests a large share of responsibility for the exclusion, after the second Restoration, by the ordinance of 21st March, 1816, of eleven of his former associates. Among these was Garat, a personal friend, to whom he had the cool assurance to say, after making without consulting him the recommendations of exclusion to the new Gov- ernment: "My friend, I know that you do not care much about the Academy, and I have effaced your name from the new fist of the Institute, in order to facilitate our arrangements and the admission of some men who are ambitious to sit among us." Suard's successor, F. J. M. Raynouard, resigned the secretaryship in 1826, ten years before his death, and was followed by the unfortunate L. S. Auger, who, afflicted with a nervous disorder, was driven, as it is supposed, to put an end to his fife by drowning. Some days after a disappearance from his home in February, 1829, his body was found in the Seine. F. G. J. S. Andrieux, dramatic author, and for nearly twenty years 276 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY Professor of Literature at the College de France, was elected to the vacant office. His successor, A. V. Ar- nault, was one of the eleven excluded members of the former Second Class in 1816, who had been also exiled from France, but, recalled in 1819, had been re-elected to the Academy in 1829. He did not long enjoy this mark of the Academy's esteem, as he died in the year following his election to the secretaryship. Arnault early acquired, and seems to have retained to the last, the favour of Napoleon, by whom he was pensioned when emperor and in whose will he was named for one hundred thousand francs. The name of Abel Frangois Villemain, writer, pro- fessor, and tv/ice Minister of Public Instruction — first in the ministry of Thiers from May, 1839, to March, 1840, and then in that of Guizot from December, 1840, to De- cember, 1844, when he resigned — is of great celebrity among French men of letters. His active pohtical career was bounded by the years 1836 and 1844. When a proposition was made by Lacretelle on 11th January, 1827, at an ordinary meeting, that the French Academy should adopt some means of acquainting the king with its views on the press bill, introduced a fortnight before in the Chamber of Deputies, Villemain was one of its strongest supporters, and the 16th of January was ap- pointed for a formal deliberation of the subject. This intention becoming noised abroad, the Government resolved to warn the Academy through the Archbishop of Paris, one of its members, of the possible conse- quences in a letter to Auger, then its secretary. On the 16th, in an unusually full assembly of twenty-nine Academicians, Lacretelle submitted a sketch of a petition MEMBERSHIP z-jj to be addressed to the king in the name of the Academy on the obnoxious bill. Thereupon the Academy's sec- retary, asking leave to produce Archbishop Qu61en's letter, proceeded with the reading of it until he came to a sentence conveying a warning that the intended step might "gravely compromise the existence of the Academy." Villemain here interposed. "Gentlemen," he said, " out of respect for the Academy as well as for the author of the letter which is being communicated to us, I demand that the reading be immediately sus- pended. All counsel, all menace, all insinuation even, concerning the duration and the existence of this literary body would be an obstacle to the freedom and liberty of our discussions. Permit me to recall here one of those citations with which the habit of teaching has rendered me familiar: 'Non tutum est rescribere ad eum qui potest proscribere. ' " Discussion of the proposed peti- tion was then opened. Auger, Cuvier, and Roger were opposed to it, as being outside the Academy's province. Several Academicians, among whom were Villemain, Michaud, and Raynouard, spoke in favour of it, Raynou- ard citing as a precedent action not dissimilar in 1778 by the Academy, in which it made certain representa- tions on a regulation affecting the publishing of books. Finally, eighteen of the twenty-nine Academicians present voted in favour of making the petition, which was not in the end, as stated elsewhere, presented. On the 17th of Januarj?- the Moniteur announced that Lacre- telle was reheved of his functions as dramatic censor, VUlemain of his place as master of requests, and Michaud of his as king's lector. The Academy, which was not otherwise interfered with, probably had not forgotten 278 THE FRENCH ACADEMY the part taken by Villemain in this matter when it elected him permanent secretary in 1834. It was Villemain who wrote the Preface to the Dictionary of the Academy in the edition of 1835, a learned and much-praised dis- sertation. He intended to write a history of the Academy, and his introduction was published in the Revue des Deux Mondes in September of 1852, but it never appeared. Perhaps the nearly simultaneous publication a few years later of the history by Mesnard, who was unaware of Villemain's project when he undertook his work, of Livet's edition of Pellisson and D'Olivet, and of a new edition of Tastet's "History of the Forty Fauteuils" may have led him to the conclusion that persistence in his enter- prise was for the time inopportune. Villemain, after a long secretaryship of thirty-seven years, was succeeded by H. J. G. Patin, a writer on Greek and Roman literature, and holder from 1833 of the chair of Latin poesy at the Sorbonne, to be followed after five years by Camille Doucet, whose successor, Gaston Boissier, professor of Latin literature at the College de France, is well known to readers of English as well as of French as a writer on Roman archaeologj"^ and literature. Among his works which have been published in English translations are "Cicero and His Friends," "Rome and Pompeii," "The Country of Horace and Virgil," "Archaeological Walks in Algiers and Tunis," and "Tacitus and Other Roman Studies." M. Thureau-Dangin is the present holder of the office. § 3. ALPHABETICAL ANB BIOGRAPHICAL LIST. For the reader who, with reason, may regard the fauteuil list as at best but a bald presentation of the com- MEMBERSHIP 279 position of the Academy, the following alphabetical list of Academicians with its biographical detail, brief as it is, will perhaps be more satisfying. Indeed, lack of space forbids a sufficiently adequate treatment of this department of the work in a single volume of which the biographical matter could form only a restricted part. It is therefore generally confined to a statement of the kind of literary work by which the Academician was especially distinguished or to which he applied him- self, with, in some cases, circumstances or incidents of relative historical importance from a literary standpoint — in other words, its purpose is mainly to identify its subject in connection with his chief literary output, small prominence, be it observed, being accorded to an Acade- mician's honours, adventitious or acquired, such as those of birth or high place, when election to a fauteuil turned on them instead of on literary distinction. It has been thought best also, in the interest of brevity as well as of utility, to treat of the production of dramatic authors, of whom the Academy has comprised so many examples proportionately, generally in the mass. So names of pieces are given only in exceptional instances — e.g. in which, on classic themes, the pieces have themselves become classics, or, on themes social or historical, have become current household words, as also in the case of some living Academicians and of others recently deceased about whose works curiosity is equally vital — almost the only instructive feature attending a detailed enumera- tion being, broadly speaking, the evidence it affords of the ultimate displacement in France of the classic or erudite by modern or popular social themes subsequent to the fall of the First Empire, and especially since the 28o fHE FRENCH ACADEMY middle of the nineteenth century. No attempt has been made, it may be added, to measure by nimaber of lines the reputation of one subject compared with that of an- other, because in some cases nothing at all could be said except in description, which takes up space, while in others the mere mention of the author's works is all that is necessary for the purpose aimed at — compactness of information. [The chief sources of the biographical data in this list are the works cited in the Preface. The figures immediately following the name give the years of birth and death and the year of election, the number in brackets, after this last date, preceded by A. (=Acad- emician), being the Academician's fauteuil or place number. In some instances in which the exact date of either election or reception is not ascertainable, it has been assumed that the known year for either is the same for both.] Abeille, Gaspard: 1648-1718; A. 1704 [6]. Author of several tragedies. Attributed to him, although issued under another name, is "Soliman," notable as the first new piece, and in that respect the inaugural piece, presented (Oct. 11, 1680) by the company of the national Com^die Frangaise. Ablancourt, Nicolas Perrot d': 1606-1664; A. 1637 [2]. Translator of Greek and Latin classics — chiefly historical. About, EdmondFrangois Valentin: 1828-1885; A. 1884 [3]. Historian, novelist, dramatist, journalist; editor of the XIXe Sihcle. Educated at the French College at Athens. Died without having been formally re- ceived into the Academy. Notable works: La Gr^ce MEMBERSHIP 281 contemporaine (1855) — "a brilliant and cruel satire"; Trente et Quarante (1858); Alsace (1872); Roman d'un brave homme (1880). Famous journalistic contributions were: Lettres d'un bon jeune homme (Figaro) ; Lettres d'un bon jeune homme k sa cousine Madeleine (Ofrinion Nationale); Chroniques (iVowwZfe Revue de Paris) — published in book form as "Cause- ries." Adam, Jacques: 1663-1735; A. 1723 [32]. Translator. Collaborator of Abb6 Fleury in hia ' ' Histoire ecclesiastique. ' ' Aguesseau, Henri Cardin Jean Baptiste d': 1746-1826; A. 1788 and 1803 [3]. Lawyer and dignitary of state; grandson of the more distinguished chancellor. No literary record. Aicard, Frangois Victor Jean: 1848- ; A. 1909 [34]. Poet and dramatic author. Several of his poetic collections have been crowned by the Academy. Imaginative prose productions are: I'lllustre Maurin (1903); Maurin des Maures (1905). Aignan, Etienne: 1773-1824; A. 1814 [22]. Dramatist, historian, occasional poet, translator. As a dramatist, unsuccessful. Semi-historical works still consulted are: BibliothSque ^trang^re d'histoire et de litt^rature ancienne et modeme (1823-24, 3 vols.); Extraits des m^moires relatifs k I'histoire de France depuis I'annee 1767 jusqu'^ la Revolution (in collaboration, 1825, 2 vols.). Alary, Abb6 Joseph: 1689-1770; A. 1723 [24]. Social economist; of no great literary repute. 282 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Alembert, JeanleRondd': 1717-1783; A. 1754 [17]. Literary reputation rests on the "Discours pre- liminaire" to the Encyclopedie, on articles con- tributed to that pubhcation, and on eloges, or bio- graphical sketches, of Academicians, to which may be added a semi-scientific work on the elements of music and five volumes of literary, historical, and philosophi- cal miscellanies. Academy's secretary, 1772 to 1783. Amelot, Jean Jacques, Marquis de Combrande: 1689-1749; A. 1727 [34]. Statesman; without literary titles. Ampere, Jean Jacques Antoine: 1800-1864; A. 1847 [11]. Son of the great physicist. Historian; author of literary, philological, and linguistic studies, among which, worthy of special mention, is a "Voyage dantesque, " treating of the life and works of Dante and the political troubles of Italy at the beginning of the 14th century, and literary histories of France (1) before the 12th century, (2) before Charlemagne, (3) during the Middle Ages. Others of his works are: Grece, Rome et Dante [including the "Voyage dan- tesque"] (1848); I'Histoire romaine a Rome (1861-64, 4 vols.); La science et les lettres en Orient (1865). Ancelot, Jacques Arsfene Frangois Polycarpe: 1794-1854; A. 1841 [6]. Dramatic author and poet. Andrieux, Frangois Guillaume Jean Stanislas: 1759-1833; A. 1803 [6]. Dramatic author and miscellaneous writer. Argenson, Marc Antoine Reni de Voyer de Paulmy d': 1722-1787; A. 1748 [3]. Administrator; ambassador. Grandson of Marc MEMBERSHIP 283 Ren^, below. Without original literary titles, but published many volumes of "Melanges tir6s d'un grand biblioth^que." This hbrary was of his own formation, and, later becoming the property of the state, is now known as the Bibhotheque de I'Arsenal. Argenson, Marc Ren€ de Voyer d' : 1652-1721 ; A. 1718 [7]. Councillor of state and minister. Without literary titles. Arnaud, Abb6 Fransois: 1721-1784; A. 1771 [27]. Author of meagre production. A 'protege of Choiseul. Arnault, Antoine Vincent: 1766-1834; A. 1803 [30] and 1829 [4]. Dramatic author. Excluded from the Academy in 1816 by executive ordinance; re-elected. Produced, besides several successful tragedies, autobiographical works as follows: Souvenirs d'un sexag^naire (1833, 4 vols.) ; Souvenirs et regrets d'un vieil auteur drama- tique (1829, 2 vols.). Audiffret-Pasquier, Due d': 1823-1905; A. 1878 [30]. Politician. At the time of his election to the Academy had pubhshed nothing, his literary pro- duction consisting chiefly of parliamentary speeches. Auger, Louis Simon: 1772-1829; A. 1816 [33]. Literary critic and editor; leader of the opponents of Romanticism. Academy's secretary, 1826 to 1829. Augier, Guillaume Victor Emile: 1820-1889; A. 1857 [19]. Successful dramatic author, individually, as well as in collaboration (chiefly with Jules Sandeau). Published a complete edition of his dramatic works in 1876-78 in 6 vols. 284 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Aumale, Due d': 1822-1897; A. 1871 [36]. Episodical historian. Among his works may be noted: Si^ge d'Alesia; Histoire des princes de Cond6; les Zouaves; les Chasseurs k pied. The Due d' Au- male bequeathed to the Institute of France his cha- teau and domain of Chantilly, with a rich collection there of works of art, a condition being that the chateau should be maintained as a museum — the Musee Cond^ — for the preservation of these artistic treasures. Autran, Joseph: 1813-1877; A. 1868 [8]. Dramatic and epistolary author and poet. "OEuvres completes" published in 8 vols. (1874-81). B Bailly, JeanSylvain: 1736-1793; A. 1784 [25]. Astronomer and politician; guillotined. Author of historical works on (1) ancient astronomy, (2) modem astronomy, (3) Indian and Oriental astron- omy. Ballanche, Pierre Simon: 1776-1847; A. 1842 [28]. Speculative philosopher, to whose ideal social sys- tem has been given the name Ballancheism. From his first work, "Essai sur le sentiment" (1801), Chateaubriand is said to have borrowed both the term g^nie du christianisme and its theme, Ballanche, in turn, being equally indebted to Charles Bonnet in respect to palinginesie. Ballanche's Utopian views — which foreshadow an era of Christian peace and good will, the outcome or accompaniment of moral perfectionment — outlined in his "Antigone" (1814) MEMBERSHIP 285 and reiterated in his "Essai sur les institutions so- ciales" (1818), are developed in " Paling6nesie sociale" (1827 + ). Ballesdens (Balesdens), Jean: d. 1675; A. 1648 [10]. Chancellor Siguier's secretary. Author and trans- lator. Chapelain says of him (M^moires des gens de lettres vivants en 1662): "Everything he has published is below mediocrity." Balzac, Jean Louis Guez de: 1594(7)-1654; A. 1634 [19]. One of the fathers of modern French prose. Bal- zac's hterary fame, great among contemporary men of letters, was founded largely on Letters (to Conrart, Chapelain, and others) and Dissertations (ethical, critical, and political). These were published in 2 vols, in 1665 at the instance of Conrart. Baour-Lormian, Pierre Marie Frangois Louis : 1770-1854; A. 1815 [8]. Dramatic author, romance writer, poet. Chief works : Omasis, ou Joseph en Egypte (Th. Fr., 1807) ; Duranti, premier president du Parlement de Toulouse, ou la Ligue en province (1828, 4 vols.); trans, in verse of Tasso's "Gerusalemme Liberata" and of Ossian's Poems. Barante, Amable Guillaume Prosper, Baron de: 1782-1866; A. 1828 [12]. Man of letters. Chief works: Tableau de la lit- t^rature frangaise au XVIIIe siecle (1809); trans. of Schiller (1821); historical and literary studies, particularly of the Revolutionary period. Barbier, Henri Augusta: 1805-1882; A. 1869 [37]. Poet, prose-writer, and translator. Original poeti- 286 THE FRENCH ACADEMY cal works: lambes (1831); Rimes historiques (1843); Satires (1865); etc. Prose works: Trois passions (1867); Contes du soir (1879); etc. Translations: Boccaccio's "Decamerone" (1845); Shakespeare's "Julius Cffisar" (1848); Coleridge's "Ancient Mari- ner" (1876). Barbierd'Aucourt(Aucour)Jean: 1641-1694; A. 1683 [12]. Man of letters and jurisconsult. Literary works: A critique of Pere Bouhours's "Entretiens d'Ariste et d'Eugene" (1671); Les Gaudinettes [satires]; etc. Barboux, Henri Martin: 1834-1910; A. 1907 [10]. Distinguished lawyer and forensic orator. Works' Discours et Plaidoyers (1889-94); etc. Bardin, Pierre: 1590-1637; A. 1634 [1]. Chief work : Le grand chambellan de France. Baro, Balthasar: d. 1649 (?); A. 1634 [15]. Poet, dramatic author, and romance writer. Barrfes, Maurice: 1862- ; A. 1906 [28]. Man of letters. Began his literary career as a con- tributor to the reviews. Works: Culte du moi (1893); Les Deracines (1897); etc. "Les Dera- cines" is one of a trilogy entitled "Roman de I'^nergie nationale, " of which the second (I'Appel au soldat, 1900) discusses the Boulangiste movement, and the third (Leurs figures, 1902) the Panama affair. Barth^lemy, Abb6 Jean Jacques: 1716-1795; A. 1789 [6]. Savant; Orientalist, numismatist, antiquarian. No- table among his literary works is the "^'^oyage du jeune Anacharsis en Grece, " in which an imaginary Scythian visits Athens in the middle of the 4th century before Christ to study the moral and material con- MEMBERSHIP 287 ditions of the country, to that end making excursions into the provinces and "interviewing" such illustrious men of the time as Phocion, Epaminondas, Plato, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Aristotle. Bassano (Due de) (see Maret). Batteux, Abbg Charles: 1713-1780; A. 1761 [33]. Philosophical writer, grammarian, translator of Horace. Notable works: La morale d'EpictSte tiree de ses propres Merits (1758) ; Traits de la construction oratoire (1763) ; Cours de belles-lettres (1765, 5 vols.) ; Beaux-Arts r^duits a un mfime principe [part of a 6-vol. work, "Principes abr6ges de litt^rature, " etc.] (1777); etc. Baudouin (Baudoin), Jean: 1590(?)-1650; A. 1634 [16]. A voluminous writer, most of whose works are mediocre translations of ancient authors. Still con- sulted are: Iconologie (1636); Recueil d'embl^mes (1638). Bausset, Cardinal de: 1748-1824; A. 1816 [5]. Man of letters and publicist. Chief literary works : Histoire de Fenelon (1808-09, 3 vols.); Histoire de Bossuet (1814, 4 vols.). Bautru de Serrant (Seran), Guillaume: 1588-1665; A. 1634 [27]. Satirist and occasional poet. Bazin, Rene: 1853- ; A. 1903 [6]. Novelist, story writer, journalist; author of travel impressions (in France, Spain, and Italy); professor of law. Among his best works are: la Terre qui meurt (1899); les OberM (1901); le BM qui l^ve (in Revue des Deux Mondes, 1907). 288 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Bazin de Bezons, Claude: 1617-1684; A. 1643 [7]. Dignitary of state. No literary record. Took the place of Chancellor Seguier in the Academy when the Chancellor became its protector. Beaumont (see Perefixe). Beauvau, Charles Juste, Prince de: 1720-1793; A. 1771 [19]. Marshal of France. No hterary record. Beauvilliers (see Saint Aignan) . Beauz^e, Nicolas: 1717-1789; 1772 [6]. Grammarian and translator. Among his works may be noted ; Dictionnaire de grammaire et de httl- rature [a collection of grammatical articles orginally written for the Encyclopedic]; trans, of Sallust (1770) and of Quintus Curtius's "History of Alexander the Great" (1789). Belle-Isle, Charles Louis Auguste Fouquet, Due de : 1684- 1761; A. 1749 [34]. Marshal of France. Without literary titles. Belloy, Dormontde: 1727-1775; A. 1771 [18]. Dramatic author. Benserade, Isaac de: 1612(?)-1691; A. 1674 [37]. Dramatic author and poet. Translator, in ron- deaux, of Ovid's "Metamorphoses" — a failure. In high favour and repute at court, where for thirty years he composed verses for the king's ballets. Bergeret, Jean Louis: d. 1694; A. 1684 [10]. Without literary record. By an unjust preference, D'Olivet says, a powerful cabal secured his election over that of Manage, the rival candidate. MEMBERSHIP 289 Bernard, Claude: 1813-1878; A. 1868 [24]. Professor of physiology and of medicine, whose literary production consisted mostly of professorial lectures, lessons, and articles. Bernardin de Saint Pierre (see Saint Pierre). Bernis, Frangois Joachim, Cardinal de: 1715-1794; A. 1744 [20]. Poet and miscellaneous writer. Berryer, Antoine Pierre: 1790-1886; A. 1852 [28]. A lawyer and political orator, whose forensic and parliamentary speeches, published in book form, repre- sent his literary production. Berthelot, Pierre Eugfene Marcelin: 1827-1907; A. 1900 [7]. Renowned chemist. Member also of the Academy of Sciences, of which he was a permanent secretary. Author of many works and hundreds of articles on chemistry, science, and philosophy. Bertrand, Joseph Louis Fransois: 1822-1900; A. 1884 [7]. Mathematician, who acquired reputation as a savant at the early age of eighteen. Author, in addition to scientific works, of historical and biographical sketches of other French savants, as Poinsat, Gariel, Michel Chasles, Elie de Beaumont, L6on Foucault, Belgrand, etc. Bignon, Armand Jerome; 1711-1772; A. 1743 [2]. Successor of his uncle Paul in charge of the Biblio- thlque du Roi, election to the vacant fauteuil being a natural consequence. Bignon, Abbd Jean Paul: 1662-1743; A. 1693 [2]. King's preacher and Hbrarian. Protector of the 290 THE FRENCH ACADEMY botanist Tournefort, by whom his name has been immortalized in that of the plant Bignonia. Bigot de Pr^ameneu, F^lix Julien Jean, Comte: 1747- 1825; A. 1803 [11]. Magistrate. Collaborator with Tronchet and Por- talis in drafting the plan of the Code civil. Biot, Jean Baptiste: 1774-1862; A. 1856 [21]. Mathematician, physicist, astronomer. Besides pro- lific authorship of works in his special fields, Biot wrote articles of criticism, travel, and biography, collected and published under the title: Melanges scientifiques et litteraires (1858, 3 vols.). Bissy, Claude de Thiard, Comte de: 1721-1810; A. 1750 and 1803 [21]. In literature an amateur. Translator of Bohng- broke's "Letters" in part, and, also in part, of Young's "Night Thoughts." Blanc, Auguste Alexandre Philippe Charles: 1813-1882; A. 1876 [21]. Art critic; journalist. Author of numerous bi- ographical and critical articles on celebrated histrionic artists, architects, painters, and sculptors. Chief work : Histoire des peintres de toutes les 6coles (1848- 76, 14 vols.). Boileau, Abb6 Charles: 1648-1704; A. 1694 [6]. Renowned as a preacher; wrote homilies, sermons, panegyrics, pensees. Boileau, Gilles: 1631-1669; 1659 [23]. Poet and translator. Brother of Despr^aux. His work in prose included a translation of Epictetus and of Diogenes Laertius's "Lives of the Philosophers"; MEMBERSHIP 291 in poetry, his productions are preserved, or lost, in contemporary collections. Boileau-Despr^aux, Nicolas: 1636-1711; A. 1684 [7]. Poet. Notable works: Satires (1660 + ) ; Epitres (1669 + ); Lutrin (1673 + )-, I'Art po^tique (1674 + ), "which is," says D'Alembert {Eloge of B.-D.], "in our language the code of good taste, as that of Horace is in Latin — superior even to that of Horace. " Boisgelin, Cardinal Jean de Dieu Raymond de Cuc6 de: 1732-1804; A. 1776 and 1803 [4]. Wrote, besides theological works, in lighter vein, as poet, for friends. Boismont,Abb6 Nicolas Thyrelde: 1715-1786; A. 1755 [5]. Reputed author, with Abb6 Maury, of: Lettres secretes sur I'etat actuel du clerge et de la religion de France (1781-83). Boisrobert, Frangois le M6tel, Abb6 de: 1592-1662; A. 1634 [26]. Author of theatrical pieces, poems, and romances. In the comedy "La belle plaideuse" he utilized the extraordinary incident of President de Bercy and his spendthrift son meeting each other as usurer and would-be borrower, thus anticipating Moli^re's " I'Avare" on the same theme. Boissat, Pierre de: 1603-1662; A. 1634 [25]. Poet, historian, moralist. Boissier, Marie Louis Antoine Gaston: 1823-1908; A. 1876 [35]. Man of letters, professor of Latin at the College de France, archaeologist. Member also of the Academy of Inscriptions. Among his works, some of which 292 THE FRENCH ACADEMY have been translated into English, are: Cic^ron et ses amis (1865); Rome et Pomp^i (1880); Horace et Virgile (1886); Mme de S6vign6 (1887); Saint- Simon (1892); I'Afrique romaine (1895); Tacite (1903) ; la Conjuration de Catilina (1905). Academy's secretary, 1895 to 1908. Boissy, Louis de: 1694-1758; A. 1754 [26]. Play-writer. Editions (incomplete) of his works have been published (1766; 1791). Managing editor, for a time, of the Gazette de France. Boivin, Jean: 1665-1726; A. 1721 [36]. Author; translator from the Greek and Latin. Bonald, Louis Gabriel Ambroise, Comte de: 1754-1840; A. 1816 [6]. Writer on social and political economy. Bonaparte, Lucien: 1775-1840; A. 1803 [33]. Excluded, 1816. Poet and hterary amateur. Among his later works may be mentioned: La v6rite sur les Cent-jours (1835); M^moires (1836). Bornier, Henri, Vicomte de: 1825-1901; A. 1893 [13]. Man of letters and poet; journalist. Author of a goodly number of stories, novels, and theatrical pieces, his capital work was "La Fille de Roland" (1875), a drama in verse. His poems "complete", dating from 1850 to 1893, were published in 1894. Bossuet, Jacques Blnigne: 1627-1704; A. 1671 [33]. Bishop of Meaux; renowned pulpit orator. Author of funeral orations, sermons, discourses (of some pre- tension being the " Discours sur I'histoire universelle " ) , theological treatises, etc. MEMBERSHIP 293 Boufflers, Catherine Stanislas Jean, Marquis de: 1738- 1815; A. 1788 and 1803 [8]. Story writer and occasional poet. Bougainville, Jean Pierre de: 1722-1765; A. 1754 [11]. Antiquary, whose literary fields of predilection were archaeology and ancient history. Bouhier, Jean: 1673-1746; A. 1727 [12]. Magistrate and president {d mortier) in Parliament of Dijon. Writer on legal as well as more purely literary subjects, and versifier; correspondent of the Abb4 d'Olivet, whose letters to Bouhier give much interesting information about the Academy. Bourbon, Nicolas: 1574-1644; A. 1637 [1]. Professor of rhetoric and of Greek. Author of poems and prose works in Latin. The poems were collected arid pubhshed in 1830. Bourget, Charles Joseph Paul: 1852- ; A. 1894 [12]. Poet, essayist, novelist. A contributor to journals and reviews at an early age, his first volumes were collections of poems and psychological essays. These were followed by novels, among which were: Crime d'amour (1886); Cosmopolis (1893); Une idylle tragique (1896); I'Etape (1902); un Divorce (1904); les Deux Soeurs (1906). The fruit of a sojourn of some months in the United States was "Outre mer" (1895). Bourzeys (Bourzeis), Abb6 Amable de: 1606-1671; A. 1634 [35]. Voluminous writer on matters pertaining to the Cathohc Church and faith. Boyer, Abb^ Claude: 1618-1698; A. 1666 [28]. Dramatic author. One of a group dubbed by 294 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Furetiere " Academiciens jetonniers, sans nom et sans autorite. " Boyer, Jean Frangois: 1675-1755; A. 1736 [5]. Bishop of Mirepoix. Of no literary reputation. Boze, Claude Gros de: 1680-1753; A. 1715 [18]. Numismatist and antiquarian, these appellations indicating his literary fields. Br€quigny, Louis Georges Oudart-Feudrix de: 1714-1794; A. 1772 [2]. Learned historian, whose pubhshed literary studies embraced history both ancient and modern. Brieux, Eugfene: 1858- ; A. 1909 [38]. JoumaHst and dramatist. Several of his plays, individual or in collaboration, had been represented at different Parisian theatres during the two closing decades of the 19th century, la "Robe rouge" (1900) confirming his reputation, since sustained by the production of half a dozen or so more pieces, of which may be named: "les Avaries (1901); Maternite (1903); I'Armature (1905; a dramatization of Paul Hervieu's romance); les Hannetons (1906); Les trois filles de Monsieur Dupont (1909?). Brifaut, Charles: 1781-1857; A. 1826 [3]. Man of letters. Works, dramatic, poetical, and reminiscent, collected and published in 1859. Broglie, Achille Charles Leonce Victor, Due de: 1785- 1870; A. 1855 [5]. Author of works on poUtical economy, of "sou- venirs," etc. Broglie, Jacques Victor Albert, Due de: 1821-1901; A. 1862 [14]. Histcrian. Son of the foregoing. Works: I'Eglise MEMBERSHIP 295 et I'Empire romaine au IVe siScle; etc. Author, also, of ethical and literary studies. Bruneti^re, Ferdinand: 1849-1906; A. 1893 [10]. Miscellaneous writer, critic, professor; success- ful lecturer. Started on his hterary career as critic for the Revv£ Bleue; from 1875 connected with the Revue des Deux Mondes, of which in 1893 he became managing editor. His principal works comprise essays and studies in criticism and on philosophical, social, and religious questions, in which last he was an earnest defender of the Catholic faith. Buffon, Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte de: 1707-1788; A. 1753 [7]. Celebrated naturahst. Monumental work: His- toire naturelle, generale et particuhere (1749-1789). Only three of its thirty-odd volumes had been pub- lished at the time of his election to the Academy. Bussy, Roger de Rabutin, Comte de: 1618-1693; A. 1664 [2]. Soldier and writer. His literary remains consist chiefly of "Memoires" and " Correspondance " written subsequent to his election, as so far he had published nothing. His election may, indeed, have been brought about in an attempt to ward off from him the consequences of the authorship of a scandalous pro- duction entitled "Histoire amoureuse des Gaules, " current for some years in manuscript, and intended only for private entertainment, recounting or hint- ing at the gallant adventures of certain great ladies of the time, including "Madame," which, coming to the knowledge of King Louis XIV., incurred his high 296 THE FRENCH ACADEMY displeasure. Besides breaking a promising mDitary career, it caused its author's imprisonment for more than a year in the Bastille, and then in 1666, in the guise of a favour, his banishment to his country place in Burgundy. There he occupied his enforced leisure in editing and expanding his memoirs, for which he had made notes during his imprisonment, detailing the events of his life to that date, and in an extensive and varied correspondence with more than one hun- dred and fifty friends in Paris and elsewhere, among them being one or two of the ladies whom he had made Hght of in the "Histoire amoureuse, " more forgiving than the king, to whom he repeatedly but unavail- ingly appealed for pardon. Bussy, Michel Celse de Rabutin, Comte de: d. 1736; A. 1732 [9]. Bishop of Lugon. An enlightened lover of litera- ture, but not himself a producer. Cabanis, Pierre Jean Georges: 1757-1808; A. 1803 [7]. Physician, whose hterary activity ranged from pro- fessional subjects to work on social polity and on the relation in man between the physical and moral, to which may be added an imitation in verse of the oath of Hippocrates and an eloge of Vicq d'Azyr. Cailhava, Jean Frangois: 1730-1813; A. 1803 [24]. Author of several theatrical pieces. An enthu- siastic admirer of Moliere, his "Discours prononc6 par Moliere le jour de sa reception posthume k I'Acad^- mie frangaise, avec sa R^ponse, " may have suggested ArsSne Houssaye's study, "Le 41me fauteuil." MEMBERSHIP 297 Caillferes (CalUferes), Frangoisde: 1645-1717; A. 1689 [1]. Philologist and poet. By his "Histoire po^tique de la guerre nouvellement declar^e entre les Anciens et les Modernes" (1688) he inflamed that famous quarrel. (See Perrault.) Cambac^rfes, Jean Jacques R€gis de: 1753-1824; A. 1803 [6]. Excluded, 1816. Statesman. Published in his name: Projet de Code civil et Discours preliminaire (1794). (Cf. Bigot de Preameneu and Portalis.) Campenon, Frangois Nicolas Vincent: 1772-1843; A. 1813 [23]. Poet and prose-writer. Campistron, Jean Gilbert de: 1656-1723; A. 1701 [26]. Author of tragedies, comedies, operas, of great contemporary repute. Capus, Alfred: 1858- ; A. 1910 [33]. Man of letters and dramatic author; story writer; contributor to various periodicals and journals. Among his published volumes are : les HonnStes Gens (1878); Qui perd gagne (1890); Faux depart (1891); Monsieur veut rire (1893) ; Annees d'aventures (1895) : Of his work for the theatre a dozen or more pieces, of from one to five acts, have been successfully pre- sented at half a dozen Parisian playhouses, some of which have been collected and published in volume form. Carn€, Louis Harden, Comte de: 1804-1876; A. 1863 [21]. As a historian, wrote on contemporary French history, on the French monarchy in the 18th century, and on representative government in France and 298 THE FRENCH ACADEMY England. Contributor to the journalistic and periodi- cal press, and author of "Souvenirs de ma jeunesse au temps de la Restauration " (1872). Caro,Edme Marie: 1826-1887; A. 1874 [22]. Historian and moral philosopher. Notable among his works are: Le materialisme et la science (1868); Problemes de morale sociale (1876); M. Littre et le positivisme (1883). Cassagne(s) (Cassaigne[s]), Ahh6 Jacques: 1636-1679; A. 1661 [24]. Wrote, besides epics, odes, and occasional poesy, a Preface to the works of Jean Guez de Balzac. Caumartin, Jean Frangois Paul Le Fevre de: 1668-1733; A. 1694 [40]. Bishop of Blois. Literary work unimportant. Cauvigny-Colomby, Frangoisde; 1588-1648; A. 1634 [11]. Poet and prose-writer. Translator, in part, of Tacitus's "Annals." Chabanon, Michel Paul Gui de: 1730-1792; A. 1780 [9]. An author whose literary production included tragedies, a life of Dante, an opera, and also a work on music, "considered by itself and in its relations with speech, language, poesy, and the theatre." Challemel-Lacour, PaulArmand: 1827-1896; A. 1893 [24]. Publicist, journahst, politician. His published work includes, besides a translation of Ritter's "History of Modern Philosophy," the original production, "La philosophie individualists" (1864). Chamfort, S^bastien Roch Nicolas: 1741(?)-1794; A. 1781 [26]. Dramatist and poet. Author of a discourse con- MEMBERSHIP 299 demnatory of the French national academies, of th French Academy especially, to have been delivered by Mirabeau in the Constituent Assembly had not the death of the latter intervened. Chammilart, Frangois Joseph: d. 1714; A. 1702 [16]. Bishop of Dol, later of Senlis. Without literary reputation. Champagny, Frangois Joseph Marie Th€rfese Nompfere, Comte Franz de: 1804-1882; A. 1869 [28]. Writer and politician. His most considerable literary production was a work on the Roman Empire in three parts (4 + 3 + 3 vols.) issued at long intervals. The first, "les Cesars, " appeared in volume form in 1841 to 1843 after publication in fragments in the Revue des Deux Mondes; the second, "les Antonins, " in 1863; and the third, "les C&ars du Ille siecle, " in 1870. Author, also, of many miscellaneous re- ligious and historical works, markedly pro-Catholic. Chapelain, Jean: 1595-1674; A. 1634 [37]. Author, poet, critic, of varied erudition. His name will be associated for all time with the early French Academy, which in the critical years of its infancy he did much to keep alive. One of the four original members of the Academy of Inscriptions. Works: La Pucelle (first 12 cantos published in 1666; last 12, at the hands of an enterprising bookseller, in 1882) ; Lettres (correspondence with the chief savants and men of letters of his time, preserved in the Bibho- theque National); etc. Chapelle, Jean de la: 1655-1723; A. 1688 [25]. Dramatic author, biographer, historian. 300 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Charmes, Marie Julien Joseph Fransois, called Francis: 1848- ; A. 1908 [7]. Publicist and politician; journalist. In the early part of his career connected with the XIXe Siede, and then with the Journal des DSbats, to which he re- mained attached until 1873. Later an associate editor on the staff of the Revue des Deux Mondes, he succeeded Ferdinand Brunetiere as its managing editor or director. Charpentier, Frangois: 1620-1702; A. 1650 [16]. Man of letters. One of the four foundation members of the Academy of Inscriptions; and, it is worthy of note, advocate of the use of French, instead of Latin as was then the prevailing custom, for inscriptions — specifically, for example, for the Arc de Triomphe. This fact and his work, "De I'excellence de la langue frangoise" (1683, 2 vols.), indicate his position in the controversy already in progress between the Ancients and Modems. Chastelluz, Fransois Jean, Marquis de: 1734-1788; A. 1775 [38]. Pubhcist, whose work, "De la f61icit6 publique" (1772), Voltaire exalted over Montesquieu's "Esprit des lois." Wrote also for the theatre. Chateaubriand, Francois Reni, Vicomte de: 1768-1848; A. 1811 [26]. Author and politician. Works: "G^nie du Chris- tianisme" (1802), of which "Atala" and "Ren6" originally formed a part; "Les Natchez" and "Les aventures du dernier Abenc^rage" (1826-27); "M6- moires d'outretombe, " published after the author's death; etc. MEMBERSHIP 301 Chateaubrun, Jean Baptiste Vivien de: 1686-1775; A. 1755 [38]. Man of letters ; author of several tragedies. Chaumont, Paul Philippe de: d. 1697; A. 1654 [20]. Bishop of Dax. Theological writer. Ch^nier, Marie Joseph: 1764-1811; A. 1803 [26]. Dramatic author and poet. Cherbuliez, Charles Victor: 1829-1899; A. 1881 [25]. Novelist and publicist, a native of Switzerland, naturalized as a Frenchman in 1880; a frequent con- tributor of articles on literary history and foreign politics to the Revv£ des Deux Mondes. Works: Le Comte Kostia (1863); L'aventure de Ladislas Bolsky (1869); L'id^e de Jean Teterol (1878); Noirs et Rouges (1881) ; Une gageure (1890) ; Apres fortune faite (1895); Jacquine Vanesse (1898); etc. Choiseul-GoufSer, Marie Gabriel Florent Auguste, Comte de: 1752-1817; A. 1784 and 1816 [17]. Archaeologist and diplomatist. His literary re- mains comprise "Voyage pittoresque de la Grece" (1780-1824) and his official " Correspondance. " Choisy, Frangois Timol^on, Ahh6 de: 1644-1724; A. 1687 [11]. Author of writings ranging through religion, history, biography, etc. Works: Histoire de I'Eglise (11 vols., 1706-23); etc. Claretie, Arslne Arnaud, called Jules: 1840- ; A. 1888 [40]. A versatile and prolific writer, whose literary pro- duction comprises novels, plays, historical studies, 302 THE FRENCH ACADEMY biographical sketches, etc. Manager of the Com^die Frangaise since 1885. Cl&embault, Abb^ Jules de: d. 1714; A. 1695 [30]. Without hterary record. Clermont, Louis de Bourbon Cond6, Comte de: 1709-1771; A. 1754 [18]. Prince of the blood. No literary titles. Clermont-Tonnerre.Fransoisde: 1629-1701; A. 1694 [12]. Bishop of Noyon. "Without literary titles; the founder of the Academy's Prize of Poesy. Coetlosquet, Jean Gilles de: 1700-1784; A. 1761 [13]. Bishop of Limoges. Tutor of the Duke of Bur- gundy, and so eligible as an Academician by a sort of prescription applying to preceptors of "infants of France." Coislin, Armand du Cambout, Due de: 1635-1702; A. 1652 [17]. The youngest French Academician. Elected in deference to the wish of Chancellor Siguier, the youth's grandfather and the Academy's protector, with a view to his intellectual improvement by association with the other members of the Society. The entering wedge, if we exclude the Chancellor himself, of the purely, grand-seigneurial non-literary element into the Academy. Father of Henri. Coislin, Henri Charles de: 1664-1732; A. 1710 [17]. Bishop of Metz. Authorship nominal. Coislin, Pierre de: 1636-1706; A. 1702 [17]. Bishop of Orleans and cardinal. Authorship only nominal. Brother of Armand. MEMBERSHIP 303 Colardeau, Charles Pierre: 1732-1776; A. 1776 [36]. Poet, author of comedies and tragedies, and trans- lator. Colbert, Jacques Nicolas: 1655-1707; A. 1678 [3]. Son of the great minister; Archbishop of Rouen. Colbert, Jean Baptiste: 1619-1683; A. 1667 [30]. Louis XIV. 's great minister. Patron of all the royal academies and creator of three of them: In- scriptions, Sciences, Architecture. Colletet, Guillaume: 1598-1659; A. 1634 [23]. Poet and dramatist; one of "the Five Authors," so called, collaborators on occasion with Richelieu. ColUn d'Harleville, Jean Frangois: 1755-1806; A. 1803 [27]. Dramatic author, several of whose comedies, from 1786 onward, had a successful representation on the stage. Condamine, Charles Marie de La: 1701-1774; A. 1760 [23]. Author of works of travel, especially in South America, and of articles in the Collection of the Acad- emy of Sciences; etc. Condillac, Etienne Bonnot, Abb^ de: 1714-1780; A. 1768 [25]. Philosopher and economist. Works: Essai sur I'origine des connaissances humaine (1746); Traite des sensations (1754) ; a treatise on commerce (1776) ; etc. Condorcet, Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, Marquis de: 1743-1794; A. 1781 [28]. Savant, mathematician, economist, politician. Pub- Hshed in 1786 a work on the influence of the American Revolution in Europe. Wrote, besides mathematical 304 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY works and biographical sketches of deceased scientific worthies, on jurisprudence, against negro slavery, on political and social reform, etc. Most important work: Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progr^ de I'esprit humain (1794). Conrart, Valentin: 1603-1675; A. 1634 [38]. The French Academy's first permanent secretary. A man of letters, who, however, published httle, so giving occasion for Boileau's malicious line, J'imite de Conrart le silence prudent; but he left many volumes of MSS., portions of which have been given to the world. Conrart's most mem- orable hterary production was the charter of the French Academy. Copp^e, Fransois (Francis) Edouard Joachim: 1842-1908; A. 1884 [34]. Dramatist, poet, and miscellaneous writer. His works comprise dramas, poems, stories, romances, and collections of tales. Cordemoy, G^raud de: 1620-1684; A. 1675 [10]. Historian and philosopher; author of works on the early history of France, on the system of Descartes, on metaphysics, etc. Corneille, Pierre: 1606-1684; A. 1647 [9]. Dramatic author and poet. Besides being one of the quintette whom Richelieu employed to turn his scenarios into verse, he was known as the author of several comedies before the tragedy of "Le Cid" (1636) raised him to the heights of fame. Its phenom- enal success, more than reputed oppression, prob- ably made him cautious, for it is not until 1640 that MEMBERSHIP 305 he reappears on the scene with " Horace" and " Cinna. " There being some uncertainty as to the exact year of production of his next pieces, until 1646, it is with this understanding that the dates are appended to them in the following list of his subsequent works: Polyeucte (1642); Pomp^e (1643); le Menteur (comedy, 1643) ; Theodore (1645) ; Suite du Menteur (comedy, 1645); Rodogune (1646); H^raclius (1647); Don Sanche d'Aragon (tragi-comedy, 1650); Ni- com^de (1651); GEdipe (1659); Sertorius (1662); Sophonisbe (1663); Othon (1664); Attila (1667); etc. Brunetiere, alluding to the wonderful flexibility of mind which enabled Corneille to apply himself by turns to comedy and severe tragedy, speaks of "Le Menteur" and "Suite du Menteur" as masterpieces. Corneille, Thomas: 1625-1709; A. 1685 [9]. Dramatic author, philologist, translator, whose reputation would be greater were it not measurably eclipsed by that of his brother, the more illustrious Pierre. Besides producing more than forty dramatic pieces, he published a dictionary of the arts and sciences, a universal geographical and historical dictionary, translations in verse from Ovid, including the "Metamorphoses"; etc. (See Testu db Mau- ROY.) Costa de Beauregard, Charles Albert, Marquis de: 1835- 1909; A. 1896 [33]. Episodical historian. Elected deputy from Savoy to the National Assembly in 1871 while a German prisoner of war, he withdrew from public Hfe in 1876, thenceforth devoting himself to literary occupations. Works: Un homme d'autrefois (1878); la Jeunesse 3o6 THE FRENCH ACADEMY du Roi Charles-Albert (1888); Les dernieres annees du Roi Charles-Albert (1890); Predestine (1896); etc. Cotin, Abb6 Charles: 1604-1682; A. 1655 [21]. Savant, preacher, poet. Wrote, besides poetical and epistolary collections, several works of a lofty moral and Christian philosophy. Cousin, Louis: 1627-1707; A. 1697 [20]. Author of a history of Constantinople from Justin the Elder to the end of the Empire and of a history of the early Church (trans, from Byzantine authors, 1672-76); etc. Cousin, Victor: 1792-1867; A. 1830 [29]. Professor of philosophy, historian, biographer. From 1826 published, besides "literary fragments," treatises on philosophy from Aristotle to Kant. Works: Histoire generale de la philosophie (1864); etc. Cr^billon, Prosper Jolyot de : 1674-1702; A. 1731 [4]. Dramatic author. Works: Rhadamiste et Z6no- bie (1711); Semiramis (1717); Pyrrhus (1726); etc. Cr#cy, Louis Verjus, Comte de: 1629-1709; A. 1679 [24]. Diplomatist. Without literary titles. Cuvier, Georges Leopold Chretien Fr^d^ric Dagobert, Baron: 1769-1832; A. 1818 [40]. Celebrated naturalist. Author, in addition to his works on zoology and paleontology, of historical eloges of members of the Academy of Sciences (1800- 1827). Cuvillier-Fleury, Alfred Auguste: 1802-1887; A. 1866 [40]. Literary critic and political writer on the staff of the Journal des Debats, whose collected articles comprise many volumes. MEMBERSHIP 307 Dacier, Andrg: 1651-1722; A. 1695 [19]. Learned philologist and translator. His capital works were a translation of Horace and of Plutarch's "Lives." The Academy's secretary from 1713 to 1722. Dacier, Bon Joseph: 1742-1833; A. 1822 [30]. Scholar and writer. Translator of the "Histories" of iElian the Sophist and of Xenophon's " Cyropsedia ' ' ; author of many eloges of Academicians, historical studies, philosophical dissertations, etc. Daguesseau (see Aguesseau)- D'Alembert (see Alembert). Danchet, Antoine: 1671-1748; A. 1712 [29]. Dramatic author; writer of many Hbrettoes for operas and ballets of ephemeral reputation. Dangeau, Louis de Courcillon, Abb6 de: 1643-1723; A. 1682 [21]. Author of grammatical works, theological dia- logues, historical tables of the French monarchy, a treatise on historical geography, etc. As a gram- marian, a spelling reformer. Dangeau, Philippe de Courcillon, Marquis de: 1638-1720; A. 1668 [14]. Author of a journal of the life of the French Court for the years 1684-1720, forming interesting historical material. Daru, Pierre Antoine Noel Bruno: 1767-1829; A. 1806 [27]. Author and translator. Works: A history of the Republic of Venice (1819) ; translations from Cicero (1787) and Horace (1798); etc. 3o8 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY Delavigne, Casimir; 1793-1843; A. 1825 [10]. Poet and dramatic author. Became suddenly- known to fame by the pubhcation at the end of 1815 of three patriotic " Mess^niennes " treating of the nation's duty to itself consequent on Waterloo and the occupation of Paris by the Allies. These were suc- ceeded by others on Joan of Arc, the revolt of the Neapolitans, the freeing of Greece, etc. His success- ful career as a dramatist began in 1818 with "Les VSpres sicihennes." DeUUe,Abb6 Jacques: 1738-1813; A. 1774 and 1803 [23]. Poet. Translator of Virgil's "Georgics" (1770) and the ".^neid" (1804), also of Milton's "Paradise Lost." Original works: L'homme des champs, ou Les G^orgiques franQaises (1802); La conversation (1812; poem in 3 cantos, highly praised by Sainte Beuve for its human interest and readableness). Deschanel, Paul Eugfene Louis: 1856- ; A. 1899 [26]. Publicist and politician; contributor to divers journals. Has published: la Question de Tonkin (1883); la Politique Frangaise en Oc^anie (1883); Orateurs et hommes d'Etat (1888); Figures litt^ raires (1889); la Question sociale (1898); etc. Desfeze, Remain: 1748-1828; A. 1816 [12]. Lawyer and magistrate; a briUiant orator. De- fender with Malesherbes of Louis XVI. in the trial for his life before the National Convention. Desmarets (de Saint Sorlin), Jean: 1595-1676; A. 1634 [39]. A conventional poet and play-writer until 1645, when his productions took on a marked religious tone. His "Comparaison de la langue et de la po6sie frangaise MEMBERSHIP 309 avec la grecque et la latine, et des pontes grecs, latins et frangais" (1670), in which he asserted the supe- riority of the French language and of the Christian social organization over the ancient tongues and poli- ties, is said to have started the long quarrel between the "Ancients" and "Moderns." Destouches, Philippe Ngricault: 1680-1754; A. 1723 [26]. Author of numerous comedies, among them "Le Glorieux" (1732), his masterpiece, considered one of the best comedies of manners of the 18th century. Collections of his works have been pubhshed at various dates since his death. Destutt de Tracy, Antoine Louis Claude, Comte: 1754- 1836; A. 1808 [7]. Philosophical writer, among his productions being works on the faculty of thought, on pubUc instruction, ideology, logic, the will, etc. Devaines, Jean: 1750-1803; A. 1803 [37]. Distinguished more as a literary amateur and a Maecenas than as an author. D'Olivet {see Olivet). Domergue, FranfoisUrbain: 1745-1810; A. 1803 [19]. Grammarian and poet. Donnay, Charles Maurice: 1862- ; A. 1907 [17]. Dramatic author. In the early nineties he was a member of the literary bohemia which frequented the cabaret of the Chat-Noir, in that section of Paris called the Butte Montmartre, where he recited his own verses and where the attendants travestied the uniform of French Academicians. His first legiti- mate theatrical success, " Les desirs des amoureux, " 310 THE FRENCH ACADEMY was presented at Sarah Bernhardt's Renaissance Theatre (ca. 1891), and since then nearly every year has seen one or more new plays from his hand, among the more remarkable being : Amants (1896) ; I'Affran- chie (1898); I'Autre danger (1902); le Retour de Jerusalem (1904). Doucet, Charles Camille: 1812-1895; A. 1865 [33]. Dramatic author. The Academy's secretary from 1876 to 1895. Doujat, Jean: 1609-1688; A. 1650 [15]. A scholar, versed in law and languages. Works: Histoire du droit canonique (1677); Historia juris civilis Romanorum (1678); etc. Doumic, Rene; 1860- ; A. 1909 [35]. Man of letters, critic, journalist. Contributor of numerous articles to the chief Parisian reviews and journals; associate on the staff of the Revue des Deux Mondes; lecturer in France, United States, and Canada. His published writings include works on Uterary his- tory, biography, etc. Droz, Frangois Xavier Joseph: 1773-1850; A. 1824 [36]. Moralist and historian. As a dramatist, unsuccess- ful. The work which most influenced his election to the Academy was "La philosophie morale, ou Des differents syst^mes sur la science de la vie," later philosophical works confirming his reputation. Dubois, Guillaume: 1656-1723; A. 1722 [19]. Cardinal minister. Gave great offence by demand- ing that, contrarj' to precedent, at his reception he be addressed as " Monseigneur, " thus exalting himself above his confreres. MEMBERSHIP 311 Dubois, Philippe Goibaud-: 1626-1694; A. 1693 [6]. Translator of certain of the works of Saint Augustine and of Cicero. Tutor to the Duke of Guise, a position which carried with it eUgibility to a place in the Academy. Dubos, Abhi Jean Baptiste: 1670-1742; A. 1720 [28]. Historian and critic. Among his works were: Histoire de la Ligue de Cambrai (1709); Histoire critique de I'^tablissement de la Monarchic frangaise dans les Gaules (1734 ; 2nd ed. 1742) . The Academy's secretary from 1722 to 1742. Du Camp, Maxime: 1822-1894; A. 1880 [12]. Poet, publicist, historian, and miscellaneous writer. One of the founders, in 1851, of the Revue de Paris, suppressed in 1858 after Orsini's attempt on the life of Napoleon III., and later an associate editor of the Revue des Deux Mondes. Works: Souvenirs et pay- sages d'Orient (1848); Egypte, Nubie, Palestine et Syrie (1852); Expedition des Deux-Siciles (1861); les Buvem's de Cendre (1866); le Crepuscule (1893); Paris : ses organes, ses f onctions et sa vie (1869-75) ; etc. Duchesne, Mgr. Louis Marie Olivier: 1843- ; A. 1910 [37]. Director of the French Archaeological School at Rome since 1895; an authority in early Christian church history. Works : An edition of the " Liber pontificalis," with commentary (1885-92); Les pre- miers temps de I'Etat pontifical (1898) ; Origines du culte Chretien (3rd ed., 1905) ; Histoire ancienne de I'Eglise (1906); etc. 312 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Duds, Jean Frangois: 1733-1816; A. 1778 and 1803 [12]. Dramatic author, his productions including adapta^ tions from Shakespeare. Duclos, Abb€ Charles Pinot: 1704-1772; A. 1747 [6]. Historian. Works: Histoire de Louis XI (1745); Considerations sur les mceurs de ce siecle (1751); a short historical sketch of the Academy; etc. The Academy's secretary from 1755 to 1772. Dufaure, Jules Armand Stanislas: 1798-1881; A. 1863 [25]. Famous political and forensic orator. Dumas (fils), Alexandre: 1824-1895; A. 1874 [20]. Dramatic author and novelist. Besides collabo- rating with his father he produced many individual romances and plays, among the latter being "La dame aux Camillas, " from the novel of the same name, known throughout the civilized world in presenta- tions by the celebrated tragediennes Bernhardt and Hading. Dumas, Jean Baptiste: 1800-1884; A. 1875 [7]. Author of works on chemistry. Dupanloup, F^lix Antoine Philibert: 1802-1878; A. 1854 [30]. Bishop of Orleans. A much-quoted authority on the instruction and education of the youth of both sexes. He resigned his fauteuil in protest on the election in 1871 of Littr4 — the first and so far the only example of the kind in the Academy's history. The vacancy was not filled until his death. (See p. 71.) Dupaty, Louis Emmanuel F61icit€ Charles Mercier- : 1775- 1851; A. 1836 [34]. A soldier who abandoned the army to follow a literary career. Author of numerous theatrical pieces. MEMBERSHIP 313 Dupin {ainS), Andrg Marie Jean Jacques: 1783-1865; A. 1832 [40]. Writer; magistrate. Author of much occasional writing on legal subjects, including a brochure on duelling, to which he was strongly opposed. Works: Libertes de I'Eglise gallicane (1824); M^moires: souvenirs du barreau (1855-61); etc. Dupr€ de Saint Maur, Nicolas Fransois: 1695-1774; A. 1733 [15]. Writer; economist. His literary equipment as a candidate for the Academy was a translation of Mil- ton's " Paradise Lost. " In 1746 he published an essay treating of the relation between money and the price of provisions from the eleventh century forward, and in 1762 another on the comparative value of money and the price of grain before and after the Council of Frankfort. Duras, Emmanuel F€licit6 de Durfort, Due de: 1715-1789; A. 1775 [18]. Has been described as a marshal of France who had not commanded an army and a French Academi- cian who had not written an3^hing. Dureau de la Malle, Adolphe Jules C^sar Auguste: 1777- 1857; A. 1805 [4]. Began his literary career as a poet; later wrote on natural history, botany, history proper, geography, political economy. Duruy, Victor: 1811-1894; A. 1884 [2]. Author of works on sacred and profane history, ancient and modern. Duval, Alexandre Vincent Pineux: 1767-1842; A. 1812 [28]. Author of more than sixty dramatic pieces; also 314 THE FRENCH ACADEMY of a history of the French theatre for the half-century prior to 1838. DuvergierdeHauranne, Prosper: 1798-1881; A. 1870 [1]. Historian, journahst, politician. A writer on repre- sentative government in general and author in par- ticular of: Histoire du gouvernement parlementaire en France de 1814 h 1848 (1857-72). E Empis, Adolphe Dominique Florent Joseph Simonis : 1795- 1868; A. 1847 [37]. Dramatist and historian. Esmlnard, Joseph Etienne : 1769-1811; A. 1810 [21]. Poet, publicist, and journalist. Esprit, Jacques: 1611-1678; A. 1639 [3]. Authorship meagre. Works: La faussete des vertus humaines (1678) ; etc. Estoile (Etoile), Claude de 1': 1597-1651; A. 1634 [17]. Dramatic author and poet; one of the quintette of poets, called specifically "the Five Authors," who collaborated on occasion with Richeheu. Estrdes, C^sar d': 1628-1714; A. 1658 [8]. Bishop of Laon and cardinal. Without literary titles. Uncle of the two following. Estr^es, Jeand': 1666-1718; A. 1711 [7]. Appointed Archbishop of Cambrai in 1716, but died before consecration. Without hterary titles. Estrdes, Victor Marie, Due d' : 1660-1737; A. 1715 [8]. Admiral and marshal of France. Brother of Jean, above. Literary titles non-existent, unless exception be made for the following memoirs: "La navigation MhMlihPJJflP 3/5 Unra uatwralUi <iZf:fMive ordinance; r6-el/;^rt//l on the gftcon^l 'lat';. F fagtiet, Emile: 1847- ; A, 19uX'MHh (imiy, Voltaire n8&4); Yh-nUtri. (W/.i); Hktoire 'Je la !H: f.^z-Wui^rf-iomier mi/l in 1^:)oet, translator. Works; Hi>,' t//ire chronoloj.'ique dr« (HXOisuxm (WZl); Hl«toif'; rornaine (Jfi2^;, tran». of IJitropia^;; YlAimiMc \u)UiUtit, on I'Atiy fe (IHiO)-, co-founder of L'Eledeur (\^',H). Workit: Ij& libert/; ats (1801-29); translator of Horace; biographer. F€nelon, Franjois de Salignac de la Mothe-: 1651-1715; A. 1693 [18]. Archbishop of Cambrai; a proUg^ of the Duke of Beauvilliers, by whose influence he was appointed tutor to the Dauphin (the Duke of Burgundy). As a writer, philosophy, theology, politics, history, liter- ature, morality, occupied his pen. Among his works which rank as classics are: (1) " Traits de I'^ducation des filles" (1688), written expressly for Madame de Beauvilliers, and not intended for publication; (2) "Aventures de T(§16maque" (1699), written for the instruction and entertainment of his royal pupil, for whom also he composed the moral and political studies entitled "Fables" and "Dialogues des morts"; (3) "Lettre sur les occupations de 1' Academic fran- gaise" (1714), addressed to Dacier, the Academy's secretary, in which the proposed programme of the Academy is extended to include treatises on Tragedy, Comedy, and History, the letter concluding with a balanced discussion on the Ancients and Moderns, slightly inclining in favour of the Ancients. Ferrand, Antoine Frangois Claude, Comte: 1751-1825; A. 1816 [10]. Dramatic author, historian, and writer on con- temporary politics. MEMBERSHIP 317 Feuillet, Octave: 1821-1890; A. 1862 [4]. Dramatic author, novelist, journalist. Works: \a\ roman d'un jounc hommc pauvrc (1858 — later drama- tized in five acts), Ilisloire dc Sibyllc (18G2), Monsieur de Camors (1867) — all three "read, discussed, and translated throughout litciary Europe"; etc. Fl^chier, Esprit: 1632-1710; A. 1672 [34]. Bishop of Nlmes. Writer of history, biography, funeral orations, etc. Fleuriau, Charles Jean Baptlste: 1686-1732; A. 1723 [21]. Dignitary of state. Without literary titles. Fleury, Abb6 Claude: 1640-1723; A. 1696 [32]. Church and law historian, moralist, archaeologist. Called to the bar when not yet twenty, he devoted nine or ten years to law before being ordained. The literary fruits of this experience were: Histoire du droit frangais (1674); Institution au droit eccl^sias- tiquc (1677). His most important work, however, covering the subject from the beginnings of Christian- ity to 1414, or to the opening of the Council of Con- stance, was his "Histoire eccl6siastique " (1691—1720, 20 vols.), placed, it may be noted, on the Roman Index. Fleury, like his protector Bossuet, as a Churchman was a zealous Galilean. Fleury, Andr6 Hercule de: 1653-1743; A. 1717 [1]. Cardinal, and minister of Louis XV., to whom he had been tutor. Florian, Jean Pierre Claris de: 1755-1794; A. 1788 [1]. Authorship included plays, romances, fables. Flourens, Pierre Jean Marie: 1794-1867; A. 1840 [24]. Famous physiologist, whose literary production 3i8 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY was mostly professional, among his many works being: Examen de 1' ' Origine des Especes' de Darwin. Foncemagne, Etienne Laur^ault de: 1694-1779; A. 1736 [9]. Author of works on episodes in French history, etc. Fontanes, Louis de: 1757-1821; A. 1803 [31]. Poet; translator of Pope's "Essay on Man." Fontenelle, Bernard Le Bovier de: 1657-1757; A. 1691 [22]. Versatile writer: poet, dramatist, critic, geometri- cian, biographer, historian. Four times rejected as a candidate for a fauteuil before being elected, one reason being because in his "Poesies pastorales" he rather favoured the Moderns, thus antagonizing the prevailing sentiment of the Academy at the time, as against the Ancients. His "Dialogues des morts" (1683) preceded those of Fenelon, and his "Entre- tiens sur la pluralite des mondes" (1686) is notable as a popular literary treatment of astronomy, the first of its kind. A member of the Academy of Sciences, he was long one of its secretaries; member, also, of the Academy of Inscriptions. Fourier, Jean Baptiste Joseph, Baron: 1768-1830; A. 1826 [29]. Geometrician, physicist. Works: Th^orie ana- l5rtique de la chaleur (1822) ; etc. Fraguier, AbbI Claude Frangois: 1666-1728; A. 1707 [3]. Poet ; an editor of the Journal des Savants. Works : Poesies latines; articles on ancient literature con- tributed to the "Collection" of the Academy of Inscriptions; etc. MEMBERSHIP 319 France, Anatole {real name, Anatole Frangois Thibault) : 1844- ; A. 1896 [16]. Poet, novelist, satirical critic and historian. First became known to fame as a writer of verse, but since 1876 has confined himself to prose. Of his several novels, "Le crime de Sylvestre Bonnard" (1881) is the best known. Notable works of their kind in crit- icism and history are: Vie litt6raire (1889-90, 4 vols.) ; Histoire contemporaine (1897-1901, 4 vols.); File des Pingouins (1909). An essay in history of a serious kind was his "Jeanne d'Arc" (1908), which was somewhat severely criticised. M. France visited South America as a lecturer in 1910. His works are being translated and pubhshed in an English edition. Frayssinous, Denis, Comte de: 1765-1841; A. 1822 [25]. Prelate and writer. Works : Defense du Christia- nisme (originally delivered as lectures in the Church of Saint Sulpice, Paris, 1803-09 and 1814-22) ; etc. Freycinet, Charles Louis de Saulces de: 1828- ; A. 1890 [19]. Engineer and politician. Author of important scientific works on "rational mechanics," sanitation, the planetary system, economic grades for railways, etc. Has written also on the Egyptian question. Member, also, of the Academy of Sciences. Furetiere, Antoine, Abbe de ChaHvoy: 1619-1688; A. 1662 [25]. Writer and lexicographer; author of romances, poems, fables. His famous Dictionary, the cause of his expulsion from the Academy (1685), was not pub- lished until after his death. 320 THE FRENCH ACADEMY G GaiUard, Gabriel Henri: 1726-1806; A. 1771 [24]. Historian and literary critic. Gallois, Abb€ Jean: 1632-1707; A. 1672 [35]. Learned critic. Editor of the Journal des Savants from 1666 to 1674. Does not appear to have left any works of importance. Member also of the Academy of Inscriptions. Garat, Dominique Joseph, Comte: 1749-1833; A. 1803 [5]. Excluded, 1816. Historian, biographer, journalist. Gebhart, Emile: 1839-1908; A. 1904 [5]. Historian, literary critic, and miscellaneous writer; professor of literature. His favourite literary field was Italy of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, from which he produced several volumes. Among his other works were: Rabelais (1895); Au son des cloches, contes et Mgendes (1898) ; Conteurs florentins (1901); Florence (1906). G6doyn, Abb6 Nicolas: 1677-1744; A. 1719 [20]. Author; translator of Quintilian (1718), of Pau- sanius (1733), etc. Genest, Abb6 Charles Claude: 1639-1719; A. 1698 [28]. Dramatist and miscellaneous writer. Girard,Abb6 Gabriel: 1677-1748; A. 1744 [3]. Grammarian. Author of " L'orthographe frangaise sans Equivoque et dans ses principes naturels" (1716). Girardin, Saint Marc: 1801-1873; A. 1844 [23]. Man of letters and journalist; a versatile writer, who treated of literature, education, travel, history, biography. MEMBERSHIP 321 Giry, Louis: 1596-1666; A. 1636 [28]. Author and translator. Godeau, Antoine: 1605-1672; A. 1634 [34]. Bishop of Grasse and Vence. Author in prose and verse, whose earher Uterary essays were read before the Conrart coterie, the germ of the French Academy. Goibaud-Dubois (see Dubois) . Gombauld, Jean Ogier de: 1567-1666; A. 1634 [29]. Poet and prose-writer. Works included romances, poems, sonnets, plays, letters, epigrams. Gomberville, Marin Le Roy de: 1600-1674; A. 1634 [36]. Man of letters. Singular works from a youthful pen were: Tableau du bonheur de la vieillesse (1614); Discours des vertus et des vices de I'histoire (1620) — together with "Traits de I'origine des Frangois." Among works of his maturity were: Polexandre (1638-41, 5 vols.— romance); La Cyther^e (1640, 4 vols. — romance); Doctrine de mceurs (1646). Gondrin d'Antin, Pierre de Pardaillan de: 1696-1733; A. 1725 [15]. Bishop-Duke of Langres. No literary record. Granier, Auger de Maul^on de: A. 1635 [5]. An ecclesiastic, dropped from the Academy's rolls in May, 1636, for malversation. Gratry, Auguste Joseph Alphonse: 1805-1872; A. 1867 [12]. Philosophical writer and morahst. Works: Cours de philosophie (1855-57) ; les Sophistes et la critique (1864); laPaix (1861); les Sources (1862); etc. Gr^ard, Vallery element Octave: 1828-1904; A. 1886 [5]. Moralist-educator and writer. Administrator in 322 THE FRENCH ACADEMY the Department of Public Instruction; he has left many pedagogical works and memoirs. Gresset, Jean Baptiste Louis: 1709-1777; A. 1748 [29]. Dramatic author. Guibert, Jacques Antoine Hippolyte, Comte de: 1742-1790; A. 1786 [31]. French general. As an author, wrote on profes- sional topics. Guillaume, Jean Baptiste Claude Eugene: 1822-1905; A. 1898 [36]. Sculptor and writer; director of the Academy of France at Rome. Works: Etudes d'art antique et modeme (1888); Notices et discours (1895); Essai sur la theorie du dessein et de quelques parties des arts (1896); etc. Guiraud, Pieire Marie Therbse Alexandre, Baion: 1788- 1847; A. 1826 [11]. Dramatic author and poet. Guizot, Francois Pierre Guillaume: 1787-1874; A. 1836 [7.] Historian and statesman. Notable works: EBs- toire de la Revolution d'Angleterre (1827 -h, 5 vols.); Memoires pour servir h I'histoire de mon temps (1885- 1868, 9 vols.); etc. Member, also, of the Academies of Inscriptions and the Moral Sciences, of which latter, as r^torer after its extinction by Napoleon, he was while he lived the autocrat. Habert, Germain, Abb6 de Cerisy: 1615-1654; A. 1634 [21]. Poet and prose-writer. Author of an essay (1636) on the multiphcity of languages, of which the purpose was to illustrate the utihty of a universal language. MEMBERSHIP 323 Habert de Montmor, Henri Louis: d. 1679; A. 1634 [40]. Natural philosopher. Wrote little that has been published. Held at his own house a regularly con- stituted academy for the discussion of questions in physics, etc. Habert, PhiUppe: 1605-1637; A. 1634 [3]. Poet and prose-writer. Chief work: Le temple de la mort (1637). Hal^vy, Ludovic: 1834-1908; A. 1884 [38], Dramatic author and novelist. Of his dramatic works — comedies, vaudevilles, light operas — most of them in collaboration with other authors, but especially with Henri Meilhac {q. v.) for a period of twenty years (from 1861 to 1881), the list is por- tentous. Among the best known of the comic operas are: Orph^e aux enfers (1861), la Belle Helene (1864), Barbe-Bleue (1866), la Grande Duchesse de Gerol- stein (1867), la Vie parisienne (1867), la Perichole (1868), les Brigands (1869), le Petit Due (1878); and of the comedies: les Brebis de Panurge (1863), Fanny Lear (1868), Froufrou (1869), le Mari de la debutante (1879). "Froufrou" has since 1892 been in the reper- tory of the Comedie Frangaise. — After the rupture with Meilhac, Halevy devoted himself mainly to the production of novels, of which "I'Abbe Constantin" has had the highest acclaim, echoed on the stage in its dramatized form. Hanotauz, Albert Auguste Gabriel : 1853- ; A. 1897 [24]. Historian and politician. Works: Etudes his- toriques sur le XVIe et le XVIIe si^cle en France (1886); Histoire du cardinal Richelieu (1893-96); 324 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Histoire de la France contemporaine [1870-1882] (1903-09, 4 vols.) ; etc. Harcourt, Frangois Henri d': 1726-1794; A. 1788 [14]. As tutor to the young Dauphin Louis Joseph, eh- gible to a fauteuil. Author of several theatrical pieces in verse. Hardion, Jacques: 1686-1766; A. 1730 [31]. Scholar and historian. Harlay, Frangois de: 1625-1695; A. 1671 [19]. Archbishop of Paris. No literary record. Harleville {see Collin d'Harlbville). Haussonville, Gabriel Paul Othenin de Citron, Comte d': 1843- ; A. 1888 [22]. Writer on social, literary, and historical subjects, and politician; son of Joseph (following). Works: les Etablissements p^nitentiaires en France et aux Colonies (1875) ; Sainte-Beuve, sa vie et ses oeuvres (1875) ; le Salon de Mme Necker (1882) ; Etudes bio- graphiques et litt^raires (1879-1888); Socialisme et Charit6 (1895); Salaires et miseres des Femmes (1900); etc. Haussonville, Joseph Othenin Bernard, Comte d': 1809- 1884; A. 1869 [38]. Historian and politician. Author of works on incidental French history: e.g. foreign policy from 1840 to 1848 (1850), the reunion of Lorraine with France (1854-1859), the Cathohc Church and the First Empire (1868) ; etc. Hay du Chastelet, Daniel, Abb6 de Chambon: 1596-1671; A. 1635 [33]. Literary amateur. MEMBERSHIP 325 Hay duChastelet, Paul: 1592-1636; A. 1634 [2]. Historian and publicist. H6nault, Charles Jean Frangois: 1685-1770; A. 1723 [19], Poet and historian. Heredia, Jos6 Maria: 1842-1905; A. 1894 [28]. Poet and prose-writer, of Cuban birth, educated in France. Works: Les trophies (1893 — collected poems); La v^ridique histoire de la conquSte de la Nouvelle-Espagne (1877-87, trans, of the work of Bemal Diaz del Castillo); etc. Herv€, Aiin€ Marie Edouard: 1835-1899; A. 1886 [26]. Publicist; contributor to divers reviews and journals; founder in 1893 of the Soleil, which he directed until his death. Hervieu, Paul Ernest: 1857- ; A. 1900 [21]. Novehst; dramatic author and critic. Works — romances: Flirt (1890); Feints par eux-memes (1893); TArmature (1893);— plays: les Tenailles (1895); la Loi de I'homme (1897); Th^roigne de M^ricourt (historical drama, 1902) ; Connais-toi (1908). Houssaye, Henry: 1848- ; A. 1894 [9]. Historian, critic, journalist. As a historian, best known for his works on the fall of the Napoleonic Empire, his earlier contributions to history treating of ancient Greece. Collections of his journalistic essays, also, have been published in book form. Houtteville, Alexandre Claude Frangois: 1686-1742; A. 1723 [30]. Writer on religious subjects. His literary reputa- tion was founded on " La religion chretienne prouv^e par les faits, " in which work, it was charged by a 326 1'HE FRENCH ACADEMY facetious critics, most unjustly in the opinion of D'Alembert, the author made his objections so much stronger than the answers to them that an appro- priate title would have been: La reUgion chr^tienne detruite par les faits. Academy's secretary, 1742. Huet, Pierre Daniel: 1630-1721; A. 1674 [36]. Bishop of Avranches; savant; vaned writer in prose and verse, philologist, mathematician. Author of Latin and Greek songs; of works on the origin of romances, the best way of making translations, the commerce and navigation of the ancients, Cartesian- ism; etc. Hugo, Victor Marie: 1802-1885; A. 1841 [9]. Poet, dramatist in prose and verse, romance writer. Following are some of his best known works — lyrics: les Feuilles d'automne (1831); les Rayons et les ombres (1840); — dramas: Hernani (1830); Marion Delorme (1830); le Roi s'amuse (1832); Ruy Bias (1838); Lucr^ce Borgia (in prose, 1833); — romances: Han d'Islande (1823); Notre Dame de Paris (1831); les Mis^rables (1862); I'Homme qui rit (1869), fol- lowed closely by " Quatre-vingt treize." To these may be added "I'Art d'etre grandplre" (1877). Janin, Jules: 1804-1874; A. 1870 [10]. Author, critic, journalist. A prolific writer, but, like Dumas the Elder, he lent his name to works not of his own production. Examples of his works are: L'ane mort et la femme guillotin^e (1829); Histoire de la litt^rature dramatique en France (1853-58, 6 vols.) ; Beranger et son temps (1865, 2 vols.). MEMBERSHIP 327 Jay, Antoine: 1770-1854; A. 1832 [32]. Varied writer, some of whose journalistic contri- butions were collected and published in 1831 as "(Euvres litt^raires" (4 vols.). Jouy, Victor: 1764-1846; A. 1815 [37]. Dramatist, journalist — with a versatile and ready pen. Works: L'hermite de la Chauss^e d'Antin, ou Observations sur les moeurg et les usages frangais au commencement du XIXe siecle (1812-14); L'her- mite de la Guyane (1816, 3 vols.); L'hermite en province (1824 -f, 14 vols., in collaboration); "Let- tres" in the Gazette de France (in book form, 5 vols.); besides operas and tragedies, etc. Jurien de La Graviere, Baptiste Edouard: 1812-1892; A. 1888 [15]. Author and admiral, whose works treat chiefly of naval subjects in general and of the French marine in particular. L Labiche, Eugfene Marin: 1815-1888; A. 1880 [32]. Dramatic author, whose works, complete, were pubhshed in 1878-79 in 10 vols. La Bruyfere, Jean de: 1645-1696; A. 1693 [32]. Moral philosophical writer. His great work was "Les caracteres, " of which the first edition appeared in 1688 and the ninth in 1696, each successive edition with augmentations and improvements by the author. He was engaged on "Dialogues sur le quietisme" at the time of his death. La Chambre, Marin Cureau de: 1594(?)-1669; A. 1635 [31]. Physician to the king and writer. Chief literary work: Characteres des passions (1640-1662). 328 THE FRENCH ACADEMY La Chambre, Pierre Cureaude: 1640-1693; A. 1670 [32]. Cur^ of Saint Barth^lemy. Son of Marin. Lit- erary production consisted in large part of religious panegyrics and funeral orations. La Chauss6e, Pierre Claude Nivelle de: 1692-1764; A. 1736 [11]. Dramatic author. Lacordaire, Jean Baptiste Henri: 1802-1861; A. 1860 [14]. Renowned pulpit orator. Published works com- prise funeral orations, sermons, letters, etc. Lacretelle (jeune), Jean Charles Dominique: 1766-1855; A. 1811 [21]. Historian and pubUcist. Wrote several volxmies of French history of the 18th and the first quarter of the 19th century. Lacretelle (aine), Pierre Louis de: 1751-1824; A. 1803 [36]. Pubhcist; varied writer, the range of whose works included biography, philosophy, ethics, politics, liter- ature, etc. Lacu^e, Jean Gerard, Comte de Cessac: 1752-1841; A. 1803 [14]. Soldier, who wrote chiefly on professional themes. Lacurne de Sainte Palaye, Jean Baptiste de : 1697-1781 ; A. 1758 [26]. Learned philologist and antiquarian. Works: Les amours du bon vieux temps [Aucassin et Nicolette] (1756); M^moires sur I'ancienne chevalerie (1759, 1781 — 3 vols.; new ed. 1826, 2 vols.); Dictiormaire historique de I'ancien langage frangais (1876-82, 10 vols.); etc. La Faye, Jean Frangois L6riget de: 1674-1731; A. 1730 [4]. Poet, writer, soldier. MEMBERSHIP 329 La Fontaine, Jean de: 1621-1695; A. 1684 [30]. Poet. Works: Contes (1655); Fables (1669 + ); Adonis (1671); Psyche (1671); etc. La Force, Henri Jacques Nompar de Caumont, Due de: 1675-1726; A. 1715 [37]. Patron of men of letters, but not himself a writer. La Harpe, Jean Frangois : 1739-1803; A. 1776 and 1803[36]. Critic and poet, journalistic editor; translator of Camoens's "Lusiad" and "The Twelve Caesars" of Suetonius. His first and practically his only success as a dramatist, among several essays, was the tragedy "Warwick" (1763). Considered his most important work was: Cours de litterature (1799-1805). He wrote, perhaps on a slender basis of fact, but after the events, a piece entitled " Une soiree chez Cazotte," or " La proph^tie de Cazotte, " described by Sainte Beuve as his masterpiece. Lain€, Vicomte Etienne Henri Joachim: 1767-1835; A. 1816 [34]. Statesman; not distinguished as a writer. Ap- pointed Academician by royal ordinance. Lally-Tollendal, Trophime Gerard, Marqviis de: 1751- 1830; A. 1816 [13]. Appointed Academician by royal ordinance. Lamartine, Alphonse Marie Louis de Prat de: 1790-1869; A. 1829 [27]. Poet, prose-writer, and politician. Had published several collections of verse before his election to the Academy. Among his prose works are: Voyage en Orient (1835, 4 vols.); Histoire des Girondins (1847); Confidences (1849 and 1851). 330 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Lamothe-Levayer, Frangois de: 1588-1672; A. 1639 [4]. Writer on philosophy and ethics; appointed by RicheHeu to direct the studies of Louis XIV. Lamotte, AntoineHoudardde: 1672-1731; A. 1710 [9]. Dramatic author, poet, critic. As dramatist, has been compared with Corneille. Collected and se- lected editions of his works have been published at different dates. Lamy, Etienne Marie Victor: 1845- ; A. 1905 [5]. Historian and politician. Distinguished as an orator, as a member of the National Assembly, in the early years of the Third Republic. Works: le Tiers parti (1868); Etudes sur le Second Empire (1895); La France du Levant (1900); etc. Languet de Gergy, Jean Baptiste, Ahh6 de Bernay: 1675- 1750; A. 1721 [7]. Archbishop of Sens. Theological and polemical writer. Laplace, Pierre Simon, Marquis de: 1749-1827; A. 1816[39]. Renowned geometrician and astronomer, who pro- duced many works under both of the heads indicated by these titles. Laprade, Pierre Martin Victor Richard de: 1812-1883; A. 1858 [34]. Poet and prose-writer; moralist. Works: Les poemes ^vang^liques (1852); Questions d'art et de morale (1867); I'Education homicide (1867); I'Edu- cation Ub6rale (1873); etc. La Rivifere, Michel Poncetde: d. 1730; A. 1729 [31]. Bishop of Angers. Brilliant orator. Eloquence exemplified in published sermons and funeral orations. MEMBERSHIP 331 Laujon, Pierre: 1727-1811; A. 1807 [17]. Dramatic author and song-writer. Lavau (Louis Irland), Ahh4 de: d. 1694; A. 1679 [40]. Keeper of the books of the natural history col- lections of the Cabinet du Roi, as it was then called ; later, the Jardin des Plantes, or Museum of Natural History. No literary record. Lavedan, Henri L^on Emile: 1859- ; A. 1898 [.32]. Dramatic author and actor; satirist, in light dra- matic form, of contemporary manners. Several of his more ambitious pieces have been represented on the stage. Lavisse, Ernest: 1842- ; A. 1892 [15]. Professor of mediaeval history, writer, and lecturer; author of pedagogical and historical works. Laya, Jean Louis: 1761-1833; A. 1817 [17]. Dramatic author. Complete works published in 5 vols, in 1836. Lebrun, Pierre Antoine: 1785-1873; A. 1828 [20]. Lyric and dramatic poet. Won the favour of Napoleon and a pension at the outset of his literary career by an ode to the Grand Army. His "Voyage en Grece" is described as an "estimable poem." Lebrun, Ponce Denis Ecouchard-: 1729-1807; A. 1803 [2]. Poet and satirist. Called Pindar Lebrun by his contemporaries in recognition of the quality of his odes, of which, especially, two on the Lisbon disaster, one to Buffon, and one to Voltaire made him famous, but at the hands of his later critics there is a shade of irony in the appellation. 332 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Leclerc, Michel: 1622-1691; A. 1662 [5]. Dramatic author and critic. Leconte de Lisle, Charles Marie Ren6: 1818-1894; A. 1886 [9]. Poet and prose- writer; translator of Greek and Roman classics. Designated by Victor Hugo as his preferred academical successor and elected accord- ingly. Lefranc de Pompignan (see Pompignan). Legouv^, Gabriel Jean Baptiste Ernest Wilfrid: 1807- 1904; A. 1855 [6]. Man of letters: noveUst, dramatist, miscellaneous writer, lecturer. Of his several romances "Edith de Falsen" (1840) is considered the best; but it is to his dramatic work that he chiefly owes his celebrity. Famous among his dramas, not alone as Uterary pro- ductions but by reason of the first histrionic exponents of the heroines, were: Louise de LigneroUes (with Dinaux, 1848; Mile. Mars); Adrienne Lecouvreur (with Scribe, 1849; Mme. Rachel); M^d^e (written about mid-century for Rachel, who refused the role; played by Mme. Ristori, in an Italian version, in Paris in 1855, and other chief cities of Europe in 1856). Among others of his plays were: Bataille de dames (with Scribe, 1851); Contes de la reine de Navarre (also with Scribe, 1851) ; Par droit de conquete (1855) ; Beatrix (1861; written to introduce Ristori in a French part). In the latter half of his life, resuming an early bent, he wrote much as an amiable moralist : on the influence of woman in the home and in society, on the relations between parents and children, etc. MEMBERSHIP 333 Special mention needs to be given to his "Soixante ans de souvenirs" (1886-87, 4 vols.). Legouve, Gabriel Marie Jean Baptiste: 1764-1812; A. 1803 [28]. Dramatic author; poet and prose- writer. Best known work: Le m^rite des femmes (1801). Father of Ernest, above. Lemaitre, Fransois Elie Jules: 1853- ; A. 1895 [2]. Dramatist, poet, critic. Notable among his works is "Les contemporains, " in 4 vols., in which are in- cluded articles on Hugo, Ohnet, Zola, etc. Lemercier, Louis Jean Nepomucfene: 1771-1840; A. 1810 [9]. Author of comedies, tragedies, critical essays, etc. Lemierre, Antoine Marin: 1723-1793; A. 1780 [33]. Dramatist and poet. Lemoinne, John Margueritte Emile: 1815-1892; A. 1875 [10]. Publicist and journalist. Lemontey, Pierre Edouard: 1762-1826; A. 1819 [29]. Historian and miscellaneous writer. Lesseps, Ferdinand de: 1805-1894; A. 1884 [16]. Not a man of letters, properly so called; elected Academician as "le Grand Frangais," the success- ful promoter of the Suez Canal; promoter, also, of an abortive Panama Canal. L6vis, Gaston Pierre Marc, Due de: 1764-1830; A. 1816 [15]. Politician, who in his later years became a literary amateur. 334 'THE FRENCH ACADEMY Littre, Maximilien Paul Emile: 1801-1881; A. 1871 [31]. Savant, philosopher, philologist and lexicographer, literary and natural historian. Wrote as a master in many departments of human knowledge, but his capital work was without doubt the " Dictionnaire de la langue frangaise. " Lomenie, Louis Leonard de: 1815-1878; A. 1871 [17]. Author of biographical, historical, and literary sketches and stories. Lomenie de Brienne (Etienne Charles de Lomenie) : 1727- 1794; A. 1770 [16]. Cardinal Archbishop of Sens. Without literary titles. Loti, Pierre {real name, Louis Marie Julien Viaud): 1850- ; A. 1891 [4]. Essayist and novelist of an exotic, ultra-senti- mental type; officer of the French navy (retired, 1910). Works: Le roman d'un spahi (1881); Pe- cheurs d'Islande (1886) ; Le mariage de Loti (1882 — published two years earlier as "Rarahu"); Mon frere Yves (1883); Madame Chrysantheme (1887); etc. Loubfere, Simon de La: 1642-1729; A. 1693 [13]. Historian, mathematician; envoy extraordinary of Louis XIV. to Siam. Works: Du royaume du Siam (1691, 2 vols.); Traits de I'origine des jeux floraux de Toulouse (1715); La revolution des Equa- tions ou I'Extraction de leurs racines (1732) ; etc. Louvois, Abb^de: 1675-1718; A. 1706 [39]. King's librarian. Luynes, Pauld'Albertde: 1703-1788; A. 1743 [1]. Cardinal; no literary titles. His rival candidate was Voltaire. MEMBERSHIP 335 M Mairan, Jean Jacques Dortousde: 1678-1771; A. 1743 [27]. Physicist and writer. Malesherbes, Chretien Guillaume de Lamoignon de: 1721- 1794; A. 1775 [15]. Less distinguished as a writer than as a protector of the Philosophers. MaMzieu, Nicolas de: 1650-1727; A. 1701 [12]. Author of theatrical pieces, verses, stories, pre- served in the "Divertissements de Sceaux" (1712) and of a mathematical work, "Elements de g6o- m^trie." Malle (see Dureau de la Malle). Mallet (see Roland-Malet) . MalleviUe, Claude de: 1597-1647; A. 1634 [10]. Poet and prose-writer. Maret, Hugues Bernard, Due de Bassano : 1763-1839; A. 1803 [34]. Excluded, 1816. Statesman. Editor of the Bulletin de I'Assemblee Nationale, and later of the Moniteur universel. Marivaux, Kerre Carlet de Chamblain de ; 1688-1763; A. 1742 [30]. Dramatist, romance writer, journalist. The Eng- lish novelist Richardson is said by Ferdinand Brune- tiere to have drawn inspiration from Marivaux's masterpieces in fiction: Vie de Marianne (1731-1- ); Paysan parvenu (1735). To characterize the senti- mental affectation of his style and expression, the words marivauder and marivaudage were added to the French vocabulary. His dramatic pieces num- bered more than thirty, of which "Le jeu de Tambour 336 THE FRENCH ACADEMY et du hasard" and "Les fausses confidences" are in the repertory of the Th^Mre Frangais, and performed there at intervals. Marmier, Xavier: 1809-1892; A. 1870 [13]. Writer and traveller. Author of works in literary and general history; of letters of travel in various regions of the globe. Marmontel, JeanFransois: 1723-1799; A. 1763 [11]. Dramatic author, librettist, and romance writer, but best known abroad, perhaps, at the present day by his "Memoires d'un p^re pour servir a I'instruction de ses enfants" (1804) — a pecuhar model. The literary work which particularly recommended him for a place in the Academy was his "Contes moraux," published in volume form in 1765 after their appear- ance in the Mercure. Martin, Bon Louis Henri: 1810-1883; A. 1878 [16]. Historian and writer of historical romances. Massieu, Guillaume: 1665-1722; A. 1714 [30]. Poet and prose-writer. Massillon, Jean Baptiste: 1663-1742; A. 1719 [39]. Bishop of Clermont; famous preacher, whose literary production consisted mostly of sermons and funeral orations. Masson, Fr^d^ric: 1847- ; A. 1903 [31]. Historian. Begirming as a chronicler of Revolu- tionary episodes, he later devoted himself to the production of a series of works entitled "Napoleon et sa famille, " notable for abundance of detail, of which the seventh volume was issued in 1906, com- plementary of these being a dozen or more other vol- MEMBERSHIP 337 umes treating of events and persons connected with his hero. Mathieu, Fransois D€sir6: 1839-1908; A. 1906 [37]. Bishop and cardinal. Author of a history of the " Concordat. " His thesis for the doctorate in letters — "L'Ancien Regime dans le province de Lorraine" (1878) — was crowned by the Academy. Maupertuis, Pierre Louis Moreau de: 1698-1759; A. 1743 [10]. Mathematician and astronomer. Many who know nothing of his scientific work are familiar with the incidents of his rivalry with Voltaire at the court of Frederick of Prussia through Macaulay's essay. Mauroy (see Testu de Maueoy) . Maury, Abb6 Jean Siffrein {later Cardinal): 1746-1817; A. 1784 [10] and 1806 [32]. Excluded, 1816. Literary remains consist for the most part of a few doges and panigyriques. Maynard, Franjois: 1582-1646; A. 1684 [9]. Dramatic poet. Mazade-Percin, Louis Charles Jean Robert de: 1820-1893; A. 1882 [28]. Historian, publicist, journalist. Works: I'Espagne modeme (1855) ; I'ltalie et les Italiens (1864) ; Lamar- tine (1868); Thiers, cinquante ann6es d'histoire contemporaine (1884); etc. Meilhac, Henri: 1831-1897; A. 1888 [32]. Dramatic author — sole, or in collaboration with Ludovic HaMvy {q. v.) and others — of many pieces. As a bookseller's clerk, contributor at first, from 1852 to 1855, of humorous illustrated skits to the Jour- 338 THE FRENCH ACADEMY nal pour rire and later of fantaisies to the Vie parisi- enne, his dramatic career proper opening with the production of vaudevilles. Then came his fruitful collaboration with HaMvy, which, enduring from 1861 to 1881, was productive of a long Ust of operettas and comedies, which achieved a rousing success in their day, although with one or two exceptions they already seem to be lapsing into oblivion, attempts at their revival mostly falling flat. Of the comedies, "Froufrou" (1869), considered the best piece of the Meilhac and Halevy collaboration, has had the dis- tinction of a place in the repertory of the Com6die Frangaise since 1892. M€rim6e, Prosper: 1803-1870; A. 1844 [17]. Dramatist, romance and story writer, critic. Works: Colomba, Carmen, Ars^ne Guillot, Lettres a une inconnue; etc. Merlin, Philippe Antoine, Comte: 1754-1838; A. 1803 [10]. Excluded, 1816. Jurisconsult; author of works on jurisprudence. Mesmes, Jean Antoine de: 1661-1723; A. 1710 [24]. No literary record. Mesmes, Jean Jacques de: 1630-1688; A. 1676 [39]. No literary record. Mesnardifere, Hippolyte Jules Pilet de La : 1610-1663; A. 1655 [11]. Poet and prose-writer. M^zeray (M^zerai), Frangois Eudes de: 1610-1683; A. 1648 [12]. Historian. His chief work was a history of France in three volumes. MEMBERSHIP 339 M^ziferes, Alfred Jean Frangois: 1826- ; A. 1874 [23]. Learned writer and critic. Has published several volumes on Shakespeare, his works and his critics, his predecessors, contemporaries, and successors. Other works: Dante et I'ltaUe nouvelle (1865); W. Goethe (1872-73); Morte et vivants (1898); etc. M^ziriac, Claude Gaspard Bachet de: 1581-1638; A. 1634 [4]. Of considerable contemporary reputation as a linguist, mathematician, and poet — hardly sustained by his published works. Michaud, Joseph Frangois: 1767-1839; A. 1813 [24]. Historian and publicist. Works: Histoire des Croisades (5 vols.); Les quinze semaines, ou le Der- nier regne de Bonaparte; etc. Mignet.FrangoisAuguste Marie: 1796-1884; A. 1836 [2]. Episodical historian, whose works treat of the French Revolution, the Spanish Succession, Mary Stuart, Charles V., Francis I., etc. Millot, Abbg Claude Frangois Xavier: 1726-1785; A. 1777 [29]. Historian, whose "Elements" of the history of France (1767-69), of England (1769), of general history ancient and modern (1772-83), were collected and published under the title: (Euvres de I'abbe Millot (1800, 15 vols.). Also author-editor of "Me- moires pour servir a I'histoire de Louis XIV et de Louis XV" (1777, 4 vols.), based on manuscripts of the Due de Noailles. Mimeure, Jacques Louis Valon de: 1659-1719; A. 1707 [20]. General of the French army; of little distinction as a writer. 340 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY Mirabaud, Jean Baptiste de: 1675-1760; A. 1726 [37]. Soldier; poet and philosophical writer. Trans- lator of Tasso's "Gerusalemme liberata" and of Ariosto's "Orlando Furioso." Elected permanent secretary of the French Academy in 1742, a position which he resigned in 1755 on accomit of increasing infirmities. Mol€,Comte Louis Mathieu: 1781-1855; A. 1840 [5]. Author at twenty-five of "Essais de morale et de politique. " Moncrif, Frangois Augustin Paradis de: 1687-1770; A. 1733 [40]. Poet and romance writer. Mongault, Nicolas Hubert de, Abb€: 1674-1746; A. 1718 [6]. Professor of the humanities at the College Vendome. Translator of the Greek historian Herodian (1700) and of the "Letters of Cicero to Atticus" (1714). Member, also, of the Academy of Inscriptions. Mongin, Edme: 1668-1746; A. 1707 [35]. Bishop of Bazas; pulpit orator. Received the Academy's Prize of Eloquence three times in succes- sion. Monnaye (Monnoye), Bernard de La: 1641-1728; A. 1713 [31]. Poet and prose-writer. Montalembert, Charles Forbes, Comte de: 1810-1870; A. 1851 [36]. Publicist, politician, journalist. Works: Vie de sainte Elisabeth de Hongrie (1836); I'Eglise libre dans I'Etat libre (1863); etc. MEMBERSHIP 341 Montazet, Antoine de Malvin de: 1772-1788; A. 1756 [8]. Archbishop of Lyons; theological writer. Montereul (Montreuil), Jeande: 1613-1651; A. 1649 [13]. Literary amateur, but without record as a writer. Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat de: 1689-1755; A. 1727 [38]. Man of letters, magistrate, jurisconsult. Notable works: Lettres persanes (1721); Grandeur et de- cadence des Remains (1734) ; L'esprit des lois (1748) . Montesquiou-Fezensac, Anne Pierre, Marquis de: 1739- 1798; A. 1784 [13]. General in the French army. Author of some theatrical pieces and political essays. Montesquiou-Fezensac, Frangois Xavier Marc Antoine, AbbI de BeauUeu: 1757-1832; A. 1816 [32]. Academician by royal ordinance. Montigny, Jeande: 1637-1671; A. 1670 [23]. Bishop of Saint Pol de L^on; miscellaneous writer in prose and verse. Montmor (see Habert de Montmor). Montmorency, Mathieu Jean F^Iicit6, Due de: 1727-1819; A. 1825 [11]. Soldier and politician. MoreUet, Abb6 Andr6: 1727-1819; 1785 and 1803 [29]. History, biography, philosophy, sociology, were some of the literary fields cultivated by this writer. Morville, Comte de (see Fleuriau). Motte (see Lamotte). Mun, Adrien Albert Marie, Comte de: 1841- ; A. 1897 [39]. Writer; lecturer on religion and politics. A 342 THE FRENCH ACADEMY champion of the Roman Catholics. Works: Catho- Hques et libres penseurs (1876) ; La question ouvri^re (1885); etc. Musset, Louis Charles Alfred de: 1810-1857; A. 1852 [34]. Poet, and also prose-writer. Has been described as "the poet of love." Complete and "selected" editions of his works have been pubhshed since his death. N Naigeon, Jacques Andr6: 1738-1810; A. 1803 [9]. Philosopher; associate editor of the Encyclopedic; author of philosophical and ethical works. Nesmond, Henri de: 1645-1727; A. 1710 [34]. Archbishop of Toulouse, whose literary production comprised discourses and sermons. Neufchateau, Comte Frangois de: 1750-1828; A. 1803 [20]. Writer, of vast and varied literary production — fables, stories, poems; works on agriculture and politics; translations, anthologies, etc. Nicolai,Aimar Charles Marie: 1747-1794; A. 1789 [38]. First- president of the Chambre des Comptes. Has no literary record, but owed his election to his talent as an orator and his high official position. Nisard, Jean Marie Napoleon D6sir€: 1806-1888; A. 1850 [18]. Writer of literary criticism and journahst. Chief work: Histoire de la htt^rature frangaise (1844-61, 4 vols.). Nivernais, Due de: 1716-1798; A. 1743 [39]. Diplomatist and man of letters. "(Euvres com- MEMBERSHIP 343 pistes" published in 1796 in 8 vols., and "(Euvres posthumes" in 1807 in 2 vols. Koailles, Due de: 1802-1885; A. 1849 [26]. Historian; biographer. Works: Histoire de la maison royale de Saint-Louis etablie k Saint-Cyr (1843); Histoire de Mme de Maintenon (1848-50). Nodier, Charles: 1780-1844; A. 1833 [17]. Historian, entomologist, philologist, dramatist, poet, biographer—of voluminous authorship. Novion, Nicolas Potier de: 1618-1693; A. 1681 [6]. Magistrate. No literary record. Olivet, Pierre Joseph Thoulier, Abb€ d': 1682-1768; A. 1723 [26]. Author, translator and editor of ancient classics, grammarian. Notable among his original hterary works was his continuation of PeUisson's history of the Academy. Ollivier, Olivier Emile: 1825- ; A. 1870 [27]. Author and politician; lawyer. Notable among his varied literary production is "I'Empire liberal, audes, r^cits et souvenirs" (1895 -|-), still (1910) in course of pubhcation. Other works: Democratic et liberte (1867); Thiers k I'Acad^mie et dans I'his- toire (1879). P Pailleron, Edouard: 1834-1899; A. 1882 [21]. Dramatic author, the most successful of his pieces being "Le monde ou Ton s'ennuie," a satire on aca- demical salons. 344 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Paris, Brano Paulin Gaston: 1839-1903; A. 1896 [31]. Scholar and mi3ceIlaneo^la writer. Wrote, besides separate volumes in prose and verse, much for various publications, his special province being ancient French language and hterature, of which he was a professor at the College de France. Parny, Evariste D6sire de Forges: 17.53-1814; A. 1803 [37]. Poet of great repute among his contemporaries; praised by Voltaire, Chateaubriand, Lamartine; imi- tated by Beranger. Parseval-Grandmaison, Frangois Augtiste: 1759-1834; A. 1811 [19]. Poet; translator from the Greek, English, Portu- guese, Itahan. Chief work, a heroic poem: Philippe Augaste (182.5). This epic, in twelve cantos, although much praised by contemporaries, has fallen into obHvion. Pasquier, Etienne Denis, Due de: 1767-1862; 1842 [25]. Literary amateur. Works: Discoiu^ (1842); Opi- nions (1842); Memoires (published posthumously). Pasteur, Louis: 1822-1895; A. 1881 [31]. Savant, chemist, bacteriologist. Contributor of more than two hundred articles to scientific reviews. Author of works in book form on fermentation, wines, vinegar, silkworms, and their maladies, etc. Pastoret, Claude Emmanuel Joseph Pierre de: 1756-1840; A. 1820 [1]. Historian, novelist, poet. Patin, Henri Joseph Guillaume: 1793-1876; 1842 [35]. Writer. Works: Etudes sur les tragiques grecs (1841-43) ; etc. Academy's secretary, 1871 to 1876. MEMBERSHIP 345 Patru, Olivier: 1604-1681; A. 1640 [6]. Lawyer, whose literary production was mostly in the form of pleadings, factums, letters. Pavilion, Etienne: 1632-1705; A. 1691 [37]. Poet and prose-writer. Admitted by Voltaire as far only as the threshold of his Temple of Taste. Pellisson Fontanier, Paul: 1624-1693; A. 1653 [18]. Historical writer, whose most notable literary pro- duction was his "Histoire de 1' Academic frangoise jusqu'en 1652. " His works as a whole were pubhshed in 1749 under the title: Histoire de Louis XIV. P^rlfixe, Hardouin de Beaumont de: 1605-1670; A. 1654 [19]. Preceptor of Louis XIV. (1644) ; Bishop of Rhodez (1648); Archbishop of Paris (1662). This election would seem to have established the precedent of eligibility to a fauteuil of instructors of the "infants of France, " as the candidate was unknown as a writer. Among his published works was a "Vie de Henri le Grand" (1661). Perraud, Adolphe Louis Albert: 1828-1906; A. 1882 [37]. Bishop of Autun; cardinal. Works: Etudes sur rirlande contemporain (1862) ; le Cardinal de Riche- lieu (1882) ; (Euvres pastorales (1883) ; etc. Perrault, Charles: 1628-1703; A. 1671 [23]. Writer in prose and verse. Champion of the Moderns in the literary war between the Ancients and Moderns, Boileau being champion of the Ancients. It was, D'Olivet says, the reading by Perrault of a poem laudatory of the age of Louis the Great (Le poeme du si^cle de Louis le Grand) on the 27th of 346 THE FRENCH ACADEMY January, 1687, that originated, but it would perhaps have been more correct to say inflamed, this quarrel. (Cf. Desmarets.) In the subsequent course of it he produced in defence of the position taken by his side the following works: Parallele des anciens et des modernes (1688-98, 4 vols.); les Hommes illustres qui ont paru en France pendant le X^'IIe siecle (com- prising one hundred portrayals, 1697-1701). But the most celebrated work of Perrault was a collection of folk-tales (Bluebeard, The Sleeping Beauty, Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, etc.), in prose and verse, published in 1697 under the name of his grandson and the title: Contes de ma mere I'Oye. However much he may have been indebted to the "Penta- merone" as the fountain of some of them or to their oral currency, to him belongs the credit of the impulse which rapidly spread these and other Mother Goose stories throughout Christendom in printed form — in translation, paraphrase, imitation, or adaptation of the French. IHcard, Louis Benoit: 1769-1828; A. 1807 [4]. Writer of comedies and romances. Poincarg, Jules Henri: 1854- ; A. 1908 [1]. Distinguished mathematician, vimong his latest and most widely knowTi works are: la Science et I'Hypothese (1902); Le?ons de mecanique celeste (1905); la Valeur de la Science (1906). Poincare, Raymond: 1860- ; A. 1909 [5]. Politician, writer, and orator. Works: Du droit de suite dans la propriete mobiliere (1883) ; I'Ancien Droit et le Code civil (1883); Id^es contemporaines (1906); etc. MEMBERSHIP 347 Polignac, Melchior de: 1661-1742; A. 1704 [33]. Cardinal, diplomatist, author. Chief literary pro- duction: Anti-Lucrece. Pompignan, Jean Jacques Lefranc, Marquis de: 1709- 1784; A. 1759 [10]. Poet; translator of the Psalms and other poetical books of the Bible (1751-55) ; of the tragedies of ^Eschy- lus (1770) ; of the " Georgics " of Virgil (1784) . Origi- nal works : Didon (a tragedy, 1734) ; Odes chretiennes et philosophiques (1771); etc. Poncet de La Riviire: (see La Riviere). Ponsard, Frangois: 1814-1867; A. 1855 [8]. Dramatic author — ^tragic and comic. Pontgerville (Pongerville), Jean Baptiste Aime Sanson de: 1792-1870; A. 1830 [13]. Author and translator. Among his works are paraphrases of Ovid, epistles, biographical sketches, and translations of Virgil's "^neid" and Milton's "Paradise Lost." Porchferes, Frangois d'Arbaud de: 1590-1640; A. 1634 [6]. Poet and prose-writer. So little is known of the two Porcheres that they are sometimes confounded. Porchferes, Honorat Laugier de: d. 1653; A. 1634 [20]. Poet. Portail, Antoine: d. 1736; A. 1724 [11]. Orator and hterary amateur; a first-president of the Parliament of Paris. Portalis, Jean Etienne Marie: 1746-1807; A. 1803 [17]. Jurisconsult and pohtician, whose literary activity is exemplified chiefly in his speeches. Collaborator 348 THE FRENCH ACADEMY with Bigot de Preameneu and Tronchet in drawing up the projet preliminaire of the Code civil. Preameneu (see Bigot de Preameneu). Provost, Marcel: 1862- ; A. 1909 [8]. Novelist, dramatist, essayist. Since 1887, when his novel "le Scorpion" saw the light, down to the year of his election, which witnessed the issue of "Th^rese et Pierre," following serial appearance in the Revue des Deux Mondes, he has published a score or so of works, including a comedy in four acts, "la Plus faible, " represented at the Com^die Frangaise (1904) with great success, and several series of psy- chological "Lettres de femmes." A recent work is "F^minites" (1910), a title which M. Provost says is good French. Pr6vost-Paradol,LucienAnatole: 1829-1870; A. 1865 [11]. Man of letters and journalist. Works include his- torical, educational, ethical, and theological treatises and brochures. "La France nouvelle" (1868) is considered the most durable of his writings. Pri^zac, Daniel de: 1590-1662; A. 1639 [5]. Man of letters. Protege of Chancellor Siguier, by whom he was called to Paris from Bordeaux, where he was a doctor of law. Qu61en, Hyacinthe Louis, Comte de: 1778-1839; A. 1824 [5]. Archbishop of Paris. His episcopal charges, pas- toral letters, and funeral orations constitute the bulk of his literary production. MEMBERSHIP 349 Quinault, Philippe: 1635-1688; A. 1670 [1]. Writer of many plays and operas until 1686, when, near the close of his life, reHgious devotion caused him to abjure the theatre. R Rabutin (see Bussy). Racan, Honorat de Bueil, Marqtiis de: 1589-1670; A. 1634 [32]. Poet and prose-writer. Works: Bergeries (1625, a pastoral) ; etc. Racine, Jean: 1639-1699; A. 1672 [4]. Dramatic and lyric poet. From religious scruple he renounced the "profane" theatre in. 1677, while in his prime, after a fruitful decade of dramatic pro- duction. Works: Andromaque (1667); Plaideurs (comedy, 1668); Britannicus (1669); B^r^nice (1670) ; Bajazet (1672); Mithridate (1673); Iphig^nie en Aulide (1764); Phedre et Hippolyte (1677); etc. Religious pieces: Esther (1689); AthaHe (1691). Radonvilliers, Claude Frangois Lysarde de: 1709-1789; A. 1763 [30]. Assistant tutor of the royal children. Literary production comprised translations, pedagogical trea- tises, occasional poetical effusions. Raynouard,Fransois Juste Marie: 1761-1836; A. 1807 [2]. Dramatic author, poet, philologist. Regnaud (Regnault) Saint Jean d'Angely, Michel Louis Etienne, Comte: 1762-1819; A. 1803 [39]. Ex- cluded, 1816. Politician and journalist. 350 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Regnier-Desmarais, Abb6 Frangois S^raphin: 1632-1713; A. 1670 [31]. Historian, grammarian, translator from the Greek, Latin, Spanish, Italian. Academy's secretary, 1684 to 1713. R^musat, Charles Frangois Marie, Comte de: 1797-1875; A. 1846 [39]. Historian, poet, biographer. Renan, Ernest: 1823-1892; A. 1878 [24]. Historian and philosophical writer. Works: Les origines du Christianisme (of which the first volume was "La \ae de Jesus," and the last, "Marc Aurele"; 1863 + ) ; Histoire du peuple d'Israel (1868 + , 5 vols.) ; Dialogues philosophiques (1876); Drames philoso- phiques (1878-86) ; etc. Renaudot, Eusfebe: 1646-1720; A. 1689 [15]. Theological historical writer. Resnel, Abb€ JeanFrangoisdu: 1692-1761; A. 1742 [28]. Man of letters. Author of critical and moral essays and of dissertations inserted in the Memoii-s of the Academy of Inscriptions, of which he was also a member. Ribot, Alexandre F61ix Joseph: 1842- ; A. 1906 [30]. Politician; doctor of law. Works: Biographic de lord Erskine (1866); la R^forme de I'enseignement secondaire (1900); Quatres annees d'opposition : Discours politiques (1905) ; etc. Richelieu, Due de: 1766-1822; A. 1816 [30]. Soldier; collateral descendant of the cardinal founder of the Academy. MEMBERSHIP 351 Richelieu, Mar^chal de: 1696-1788; A. 1720 [14]. Grand-nephew of the cardinal. Richepin, Jean: 1849- ; A. 1908 [20]. Poet, novehst, dramatist, of considerable fecundity in all three genres; contributor to divers journals; actor. Some of his theatrical pieces have met with great success, and in "Nana Sahib" (1883), one of them, the author for a time played the principal role with Sarah Bernhardt. Roederer, Pierre Louis, Comte: 1754-1835; A. 1803 [15]. Excluded, 1816. JournaHst and politician. Roger, Jean Frangois: 1776-1842; A. 1817 [35]. Dramatic author, historian, politician. Rohan, Armand Gaston de: 1674-1749; A. 1704 [23]. Cardinal. No literary record. Rohan-Gu^men^e, Louis Ren6 Edouard: 1734-1803; A. 1761 [32]. Cardinal. No literary record. Rohan-Soubise, Armand de: 1717-1756; A. 1741 [8]. Cardinal. No literary record. Roland-Malet, Jean: d. 1736; A. 1714 [5]. Versifier. Author, on the authority of D'Alem- bert, of at least one ode. Roquelaure, Jean Armand de: 1720-1818; A. 1771 and 1803 [40]. Archbishop of Malines. No literary record. Roquette, khh€ Henri Emmanuel de: d. 1725; A. 1720 [15]. Doctor of the Sorbonne, with some reputation for eloquence, but without distinction in literature. 352 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Rose, Toussaint: 1611-1704; A. 1675 [38]. Secretary of Louis XIV. Rostand, Edmond: 1868- ; A. 1901 [13]. Dramatic poet. Had published a collection of verse and several theatrical pieces before the appear- ance in 1897 of "Cyrano de Bergerac," which im- mediately estabUshed his reputation as a dramatist of the first rank. "L'Aiglon, " which appeared in 1900, still further enhanced his fame. Since then pubHc expectation had been alternately aroused and held in suspense by announcements and postpone- ments of the production of his much-heralded barn- yard or animal play " Chantecler, " until February 6, 1910, when it was presented at the Porte St. Martin Theatre, Paris, to an audience which it roused to almost hysterical enthusiasm. RotheUn, Charles d'0rl6ans, Abb^ de: 1691-1744; A. 1728 [3]. Numismatist. Protege of Cardinal Polignac. Rousse, Aim6 Joseph Edmond : 1817-1906; A. 1880 [29]. Lawyer. Literary production comprised speeches, pleadings, treatises on the parliaments of France, etc. Rousset, Camille F^ix Michel: 1821-1892; A. 1871 [11]. Author of historical works on the French Revolu- tion, Louvois, Napoleon's Grand Army, the Crimean War, etc. Royer-Collard, Pierre Paul: 1763-1845; A. 1827 [39]. Philosophical writer and political orator; professor of the history of philosophy. His published philo- sophical work is more or less fragmentary. MEMBERSHIP 353 Rulhifere, Claude Carloman de: 1734-1791; A. 1787 [5]. Writer on historical subjects: e.g. the overthrow of Peter III. of Russia, of which as secretary of lega- tion at St. Petersburg, he was a witness; the degener- acy of Poland; the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Ryer, Pierre du: 1606-1658; A. 1646 [8]. Poet and prose-writer; translator of Greek and, particularly, of Roman classics; author of numerous theatrical pieces, among them "B6r6nice," a tragi- comedy in prose. S Sacy, Isaac Louis de: 1654-1727; A. 1701 [38]. Lawyer by profession; author and translator. Sacy, Samuel Ustazade Silvestre de: 1801-1879; A. 1854 [32]. Author and journahst. A collection of articles by hira has been pubUshed under the title: Vari6t6s litt^raires, morales et historiques. Saint Aignan, Frangois Honorat de Beauvilliers, Due de: 1610-1687; A. 1663 [11]. Soldier; author of occasional poems. Saint Aignan, Paul Hippolyte de Beauvilliers, Due de: 1684-1776; A. 1727 [36]. Soldier and diplomatist. Saint Amant, Antoine Girard de: 1594-1661; A. 1634 [24]. Poet. A complete edition of his works was pub- hshed in 1855 for Charles Livet. Saint Ange, Ange Frangois Fariau de: 1747-1810; A. 1810 [19]. Poet; translator of Ovid, etc. 354 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Saint Cyr, Odet Joseph de Vaux de Giry de, Ahb6: d. 1761; A. 1742 [33]. Sub-preceptor of the Dauphin, son of Louis XV. In his eloge of this Academician, D'AIembert says: "It is an ancient and so to say sacred usage of the Academy to receive among its members the preceptor and sub-preceptor of the infants of France. The merit of such as Bossuet, F^nelon, Fleury, suffices to justify that usage." Saint Aulaire, Louis Clair de Beaupoil, Comte de: 1778- 1854; A. 1841 [1]. Historian and pohtician. Among his historical productions were works on the Fronde, the Valois, the Guises, Henri IV. Sainte Aulaire, Frangois Joseph de Beaupoil, Marquis de: 1643-1742; A. 1706 [27]. Poet, but of meagre production. Sainte Beuve, Charles Frangois de: 1804-1869; A. 1844 [10]. Poet and critic. Among collections of his articles contributed to reviews and journals and published in volimies were: Portraits htt^raires, Portraits de femmes, Portraits contemporains, Causeries du Lundi, Nouveaux Lundis. Sainte Palaye (see Lacurne de Sainte Palaye). Saint Lambert, Jean Frangois de: 1716-1803; A, 1770 and 1803 [34]. Poet and philosophical writer. Works — poetical: Les saisons, etc; — prose: Abenaki, Sarah K . . . et Zim^o, Fables orientales, etc. Saint Pierre, Charles Ir€n6e Castel, Abb6 de: 1658-1743, A. 1695 [10]. Publicist, philanthropist; philologist and spelling MEMBERSHIP 355 reformer. Works: Projet de paix perp^tuelle (1713, 3 vols.); Discours sur la polysynodie (1718; an am- plification of the preceding work); Projet pour per- fectionner I'orthographe des langues d'Europe (1730). Excluded from the Academy in 1718 for reflecting on the official acts of Louis XIV. Saint Pierre, Jacques Henri Bernardin de : 1737-1814; A. 1803 [22]. Best known as the author of "Paul et Virginie, " which first appeared in 1789 in the fourth volume of his "Etudes sur la nature" — inspired by Bacon's "Novum Organum." The fifth volume of the "Stud- ies" included a similarly sentimental-philosophical novel, "La chaumiere indienne," which was well received, but did not acquire the prodigious celebrity of "Paul and Virginia." Saint Priest, Alexis Guignard, Comte de: 1805-1851; A. 1849 [28]. Historian and diplomat. Saint Sorlin (see Dbsmarets). Sallier, khU Claude: 1685-1761; A. 1729 [13]. Learned in languages and philology. Salomon, Fransois Henri: 1620-1670; A. 1644 [1]. This author, of no great repute, living at Bordeaux, elected in preference to Corneille, living at Rouen, the latter's non-residence in Paris being made the pretext of his rejection. Salvandy, Narcisse Achille, Comte de: 1795-1856; A. 1835 [19]. Statesman and man of letters. Besides contrib- uting articles to reviews and journals, he pubHshed many volumes of history. 356 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY Sandeau, Leonard Sylvain Jules: 1811-1883; A. 1858 [3]. Novelist and dramatist. Works: Madame de Sommerville (1834); Les revenants (1836); Ma- demoiselle de Kerouan (with Arsene Houssaye — 1842) ; Valcreuse (1846) ; Mademoiselle de La Seigliere (1848) ; Le Chateau de Montsabrey (1853) ; Jean de Kom- meray (1873); etc. Some of his novels, notably "Mademoiselle de La Seigliere," have been dramatized by himself or in collaboration. Sardou, Victorien: 1831-1908; A. 1877 [8]. Popular dramatic author of great fertility. Follow- ing are some of his best known pieces: Nos intimes (1862) ; Nos bons villageois (1866) ; Patrie (historical drama, 1869); I'Oncle Sam (1873; played first in New York); Dora (1877); Divorgons (1880); Fedora (drama, 1882); la Tosca (drama, 1887); Cleopatre (drama, 1882); Madame Sans-G^ne (1893); Marcelle (1896) ; Robespierre (drama, 1899) ; le Dante (drama, 1903 ; in collaboration) . ' ' Robespierre ' ' and ' ' Dante ' ' were produced in English in London by Sir Henry Irving, for whom they were written, himseK playing the title parts. Sardou wrote several romances, among them: la Maison de Robespierre (1895). Saurin, Bernard Joseph: 1706-1781; A. 1761 [28]. Dramatist and poet. The success of his tragedy "Spartacus" (1760) and comedy "Les mceurs du temps" (1761) firmly established his literary reputa- tion. His most celebrated line is no doubt — Rien ne manque h, sa gloire, il manquait k la n6tre, for the bust of Moliere in the French Academy. MEMBERSHIP 357 Say, L€on: 1826-1896; A. 1885 [3]. Economist, statesman, journalist. Speeches and articles on political and social economy form the bulk of his literary production. Works: le Socialisme d'Etat (1884); les Solutions d6mocratiques et la question des impots (1886); Turgot (1887); Contre le socialisme (1896) ; etc. Scribe, Augustin Eugfene: 1791-1861; A. 1834 [4]. Dramatic author of, let us say, enormous industry. By means of a thoroughly organized system of collab- oration he was enabled to turn out year after year, for the principal theatres of Paris, and especially for the Gymnase between 1820 and 1830, a succession of pieces as astonishing in number and in variety as, if one may judge by their success, in excellence of quality. They included comedy, tragedy, baUet, vaudeville, together with librettoes for opera from the hands of some half-dozen different composers, totalhng more than three hundred between 1815, the date of his first success, and the year of his death. The pieces of which he was sole author (Bertrand et Raton, 1833; la Camaraderie, 1836; la Verre d'eau, 1840; Une Chaine, 1841; etc.), with those written in collaboration with Ernest Legouv^ {q. v.), are con- sidered the best. His romances, of which he wrote a few, did not have much vogue. Besides several limited editions of selections from his works, his "(Euvres completes" have been published in seventy- six volumes. Scuddry, Georges de: 1601-1667; A. 1649 [14]. Dramatic author, critic, and poet. 358 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Sedaine, Michel Jean: 1719-1797; A. 1786 [37]. Dramatic author. Segrais, JeanRegnauldde: 1624-1701; A. 1662 [26]. Dramatic author and poet; translator of Virgil's "Georgics." Siguier, Antoine Louis: 1726-1792; A. 1757 [22]. Magistrate and advocate-general; enemy of the Philosophers and their school of thought. No literary record. Siguier, Pierre: 1588-1672; A. 1635 [7]. Keeper of the Seals and Chancellor of France; surrendered his place in the Academy at the end of 1642 to become Richeheu's successor as protector. S6gm, Louis Philippe de: 1753-1830; A. 1803 [38]. Historian, poet, dramatist, story writer. Complete works published in 34 vols. (1824 + ). S^gur, Pierre, Marquis de: 1853- ; A. 1907 [29]. Biographical historian, among his subjects being Mademoiselle de Conde, Marshal S^gur, Madame Geoffrin and the frequenters of her salon. Marshal Luxembourg, and Mademoiselle de Lespinasse. SIgur, PhiUppe Paul de: 1780-1873; A. 1830 [15]. Son of Louis PhiHppe, above. Author of historical works on Charles VIII., Russia and Peter the Great, the Napoleonic era, and of 8 vols, of souvenirs en- titled: Histoire et m6moires (1873). S6guy, Joseph, Abb€ de Genlis: 1689-1761; A. 1735 [32]. Had some contemporary reputation as a wit, poet, and orator. Serisay (Serizay), Jacques de: 1590-1653; A. 1634 [18]. A member of the Conrart coterie. MEMBERSHIP 359 Servien, Abel: 1593-1659; A. 1634 [22]. Dip'omatist and politician. Sicard, Roch AmbroiseCucurron, Abb^de: 1742-1822; A. 1803 [25]. Author chiefly of pedagogical works. Sieyfes, Abb6 Emmanuel Joseph: 1748-1836; A. 1803 [13]. Excluded, 1816. Politician. Author of articles and treatises on contemporary politics. Silhon, Jean de: 1600(?)-1667; A. 1634 [30]. Writer on the immortality of the soul, human knowledge, politics, etc. Sillery, Fabio Brulart de: 1655-1714; A. 1705 [37]. Bishop of Soissons. No literary record. Simon, Jules: 1814-1896; A. 1875 [39]. Philosopher and statesman. Voluminous writer in varied departments of knowledge — on ethics, government, politics, social economy, capital and labor, etc. Sirmond, Jacques: 1559-1651; A. 1634 [13]. Writer; appointed king's historiographer by Riche- lieu in recognition of Uterary services of a contro- versial character. Sorel, Albert: 1842-1906; A. 1894 [17]. Historian, who began his literary career as a romance writer; contributor of historical and literary articles to the Temps, the Gaulois, and the Revue des Deux Mondes. Chief work, "I'Europe et la Revolution frauQaise" (1885-1904), for which he was adjudged a prize of 100,000 francs by the Institute of France. 36o THE FRENCH ACADEMY Soumet, Alexandre: 17881-845; A. 1824 [22]. Poet. Entered the Academy as a dramatist. Sub- sequent epic productions were: La divine 6pop6e (1840); Jeanne d'Arc (1845). Suard, Jean Baptiste Antoine: 1734-1817; A. 1774 and 1803 [35]. Miscellaneous writer; translator from the English. Sully-Prudhomme, Ren6 Frangois Armand: 1839-1907; A. 1881 [1]. First poetic collection published in 1865, followed at intervals by others. Awarded the Nobel Literary Prize in 1901. Prose works: De I'expression dans les beaux-arts (1884); Reflexion sur I'art des vers (1892); 16s ProblSmes des causes finales (in collabo- ration; 1902) ; la Vraie Religion selon Pascal (1905). Surian, Jean Baptiste: 1670-1754; A. 1733 [17]. Bishop of Vence. Of no literary distinction. Taillandier, Saint Ren6: 1817-1879; A. 1873 [12]. Author of many literary, critical, and historical studies contributed to reviews — notably to the Revue des Deux Mondes. Taine, Hippolyte Adolphe: 1828-1893; A. 1878[17j. Distinguished author in the domains of criticism, travel, history, biography, philosophy. Of especial interest are his "Histoire de la litt^rature anglaise" (1863) and "Origines de la France contemporaine" (1871-94). Tallemant, Frangois: 1620-1693; A. 1651 [13]. Translator of Nani's "History of Venice"; also of Plutarch's "Lives" (not printed). MEMBERSHIP 361 Tallemant, Abb6 Paul: 1642-1712; A. 1666 [29]. Poet and prose-writer, whose works have not sur- vived their author. Cousin of Frangois, above Target, Guy Jean Baptiste: 1733-1807; A. 1785 [27] and 1803 [32]. Jurist and politician. His inconsiderable literary production was pohtico-legal. Terrasson, Abbd Jean: 1670-1750; A. 1732 [21]. Man of letters ; professor of Greek and Latin philos- ophy at the College de France. Works : Dissertation critique sur I'lliade d'Homere (1715); Sethos (a philosophical romance; 1731); etc. Testu, Jacques, Abb6 de Belval: 1626-1706; A. 1665 [27]. Man of letters; literary production, including prose and verse, unimportant. Testu deMauroy, Abbe Jean: 1626-1706; A. 1688 [39]. Preceptor of Ihe daughters of "Monsieur," brother of Louis XIV. D'Alembert, in his "Eloge" of this Academician, says: "The Academy, which possessed two Abb6s Testu, lost them in 1706, within two months of each other; we do not know whether they were relations, or rather we presume they were not, for the sole fact of relationship had prevented the Society from possessing at the same time the two Corneilles, and there is no likelihood that it would have treated the two Testus more favorably." * Theuriet, Claude Adhemar Andre: 1833-1907; A. 1896 [20]. Poet, novelist, story writer. Some of his many works are — poesy: Chemin des bois (1867); Nos * The prejudice here spoken of must have been exceptional in the case of the Corneilles. See, for examples to the contrary, before D'Alembert's time, Habert, Pobchehes, Tallbmant, etc. 362 fHE FRENCH ACADEMY oiseaux (1886); — romances: le Bleu etleNoir (1873); Raymonde (1877); Sauvageoime (1880); Peches de jeunesse (1883); La vie rustique (1887) ; le Manuscrit du chanoine (1902): les Revenants (1904); Mon Flo (1906); — tales: Contes pour les soira d'hiver (1890). He had ambitions as a playwright, but, except for a one-act society piece, called "Jean Marie," which has maintained a place in repertoire, they came to naught in point of success. Thibault, Anatole Frangois (see France, Anatole). Thiers, Marie Joseph Louis Adolphe: 1797-1877; A. 1833 [16]. Historian and statesman. Works: Histoire de la Revolution (1824-27); Histoire du Consulat et de I'Empire (1840-55) ; etc. Thomas, Antoine Leonard: 1732-1785; A. 1766 [31]. Philosophical writer; professor at the College de Beauvais. Among his works may be mentioned eloges of Sully, Descartes, Marcus Aurelius, etc. Thureau-Dangin, Paul Marie Pierre: 1837- ; A. 1893 [11]. Historian and publicist. Author of several volumes of national and foreign history, but the work which specially recommended him as a candidate for elec- tion to the Academy was his "Histoire de la Monar- chie de Juillet" (1884-1892). A militant defender of the Catholic faith, another considerable work is his "Histoire de la Renaissance catholique en Angleterre" (1899-1906). He succeeded Gaston Boissier as per- manent secretary of the Academy in 1908. Tissot, Pierre Frangois: 1768-1854; A. 1833 [30]. Historian, critic, poet. Works: Etudes sur Vir- MEMBERSHIP 363 gile, etc. (1825-30) ; Histoire complete de la Revolu- tion frangaise (1833); etc. Tocqueville, Alexis Charles Cllrel de: 1805-1859; A. 1841 [14]. Writer and traveller. His best known work is: La democratie en Amerique (1835 -f). Tourreil, Jacques de: 1656-1715; A. 1692 [5]. Author of essays on jurisprudence; translator of Demosthenes. Tr^moille, Charles Armand Reii6 de La: 1708-1741; A. 1738 [8]. Grand seigneur and literary amateur, not a writer. Tressan, Louis Elisabeth de la Vergne, Comte de: 1705- 1783; A. 1780 [25]. Man of letters, of varied literary production, in- cluding memoirs, essays, biographies, translations from the Italian, adaptations of old French plays, etc. Tristan rHermite, Frangois: 1601-1655; A. 1649 [11]. Dramatic author and poet. Trublet, Abbe Nicolas Charles Joseph: 1697-1770; A. 1761 [34]. Author of literary and biographical essays. Valincour (Valincourt), Jean Baptiste Henri du Trousset de: 1653-1730; A. 1699 [4]. Author of a life of Francis of Lorraine and of the Duke of Guise; also, it may be mentioned, of the preface to the second edition (1718) of the Dictionary of the Academy. 364 THE FRENCH ACADEMY Vandal, Comte Louis Jules Albert: 1853- ; A. 1896 [3]. A writer who first became known by a volume of travel impressions: En karriole k travers la SuMe et la Norvege (1876). His most important works are historical; e.g. "NapoMon et Alexandre I®''," which influenced his election to the Academy, and "I'Av^ne- ment de Bonaparte" (1902). Vatout, Jean: 1792-1848; A. 1848 [28]. Historical writer, among whose works may be noted : De I'Assemblee constituente (1822); Histoire du Palais Royal (1830); La conspiration de Cellamare (1832). Died in exile without having been received into the Academy. Vaugelas, Claude Favre de: 1585-1650; A. 1634 [14]. According to Gaston Boissier (Revue des Deux Mondes, 15th July, 1909, art. "Chamfort et I'Aca- demie Frangaise") "the most illustrious of French grammarians." Works: Remarques sur la langue frangoise (1647); etc. Vaur^al, Louis Gui de Gu^rapin de: 1687-1700; A. 1749 [23]. Bishop of Rennes; dignitary of state. Without literary record other than the writing of despatches, etc. Viaud, Louis Marie Julien (see Loti). Vicqd'Azyr, F€lix: 1748-1794; A. 1788 [7]. Man of letters; anatomist. Chief work; Traite d'anatomie et de physiologie (1786). Viel-Castel, Louis de: 1800-1887; A. 1873 [15]. Historical writer and diplomatist. Chief work: Histoire de la Restauration (1860-70, 2 vols.). MEMBERSHIP 365 Viennet, Jean Pons Guillaume: 1777-1868; A. 1830 [38]. Man of letters and politician. Author of tragedies, comedies, librettoes for operas, epistles and satires, fables. Vigny, Alfred Victor de: 1797-1863; A. 1845 [33]. Poet and prose-writer; successful dramatic author. Beginning to write verse in 1815, his first collection of poems appeared in 1822. Works in prose: Cinq- Mars (1826; historical romance); Servitude et gran- deur militaires (1835; inspired by patriotism). His dramatic works include an adaptation of the "Moor of Venice" (1829). Complete works pubhshed in 8 vols. (1863-66). Villar, Abbg Noel Gabriel Luce: 1748-1826; A. 1803 [18]. Politician; of no distinction as a writer. Villars, Honorl Armand, Due de: 1702-1770; A. 1734 [16]. Soldier; son of the marshal, whom he succeeded. Villars, Margchal Claude Louis Hector de: 1653-1734; A. 1714 [16]. Literary remains consist of memoires, of some value as historical material. Villayer, Jean Jacques Renouard de: d. 1691; A. 1659 [22]. Without Uterary record. Ville, Abb6 Jean Ignace de La: 1690-1774; A. 1746 [35]. Diplomatist. Literary production insignificant. Villemain, Abel Frangois: 1790-1870; A. 1821 [31]. Historian and literary critic, miscellaneous writer, politician; professor, at the Sorbonne, of history and French literature. Works: Histoire de Cromwell 366 THE FRENCH ACADEMY (1819) ; Cours de litt^rature frangaise (tableau of the 18th century; 1828); etc. Among the miscellaneous production of Villemain, who was the Academy's permanent secretary from 1834 to 1871, may be cited the Preface to the sixth edition (1835) of the Diction- ary of the Academy. Vitet, Ludovic: 1802-1873; A. 1845 [22]. Historical and critical writer. Chief work: La Ligue (1844, 4 vols.). Voglie, Eugene Marie Melchior, Vicomte de: 1848-1910; A. 1888 [18]. Man of letters, contributor to reviews and journals, diplomatist. Author of books of travel in the East, literary and historical studies, etc. Inspired by his environment as secretary of embassy at St. Peters- burg were: Le Roman russe (1886); Cceurs russes (1894). Vogiig, Charles Jean Melchior, Marqtiis de : 1829- ; A. 1901 [14]. Archaeologist and diplomatist; member, also, of the Academy of Inscriptions (1868). The works which estabhshed his reputation as an antiquarian writer followed explorations in Palestine and Syria in 1853-54. His authorship includes, also, works on modern historical episodes. Voisenon, Claude Henri de Fusde, Abb6 de: 1708-1775; A. 1762 [4]. Dramatic poet. Complete works pubHshed in 1781. Voiture, Vincent: 1598-1648; A. 1634 [12]. One of the fathers of modern French prose. Works, comprising poems and letters, were pubHshed in 1650. MEMBERSHIP 367 Volney, Constantin de Chasseboeuf, Comte de: 1757-1820; A. 1803 [1]. Historian and orientalist. Chief work: Les ruines, ou Meditations sur les revolutions des empires (1790) . Member, also, of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. Voltaire, Franjois Marie Arouet de: 1694-1778; A. 1747 [12]. A writer remarkable at once for versatility and for the eminence attained by him in nearly every de- scription of literary composition which he undertook. Besides being poet, historian, novelist, dramatist, critic, he was author of a vast mass of "correspond- ence," real and fictitious, and of miscellaneous literature more or less philosophical in character. Among his more important works may be mentioned — in poesy: La Henriade (1723; epic); Le Temple du Gout (1733; critical satire) ; — in history: Histoire de Charles XII (1731) ; Siecle de Louis XIV (1751) ; Histoire de Russie (1757 -1-); — in philosophy: Essai sur les moeurs (1756); Dictionnaire philosophique (1764); Philosophic de I'histoire (1765);— in fiction: Candide, ou I'Optimisme (1759); L'Ing6nu (1767). Beginning with "CEdipe" (1718) and ending with "Ir^ne" (1778), his period of dramatic production exceeded in years the average lifetime. Other trage- dies of note were: Mariamne (1724); Brutus (1730) Zaire (1732); La mort de Cfear (1735) ; Alzire (1736) Zulime (1740); Mahomet (1741); M^rope (1743) S^miramis (1748); Catiline (1752); Tancrede (1760). It is worthy of remark that he attempted comedy with but moderate success. 368 THE FRENCH ACADEMY W Watelet, Claude Henri: 171^1786; A- 1760 [37]. Author and artist (paints, setdptor, ^igraver). His literMy production omiprised a didactic poem CTtitled "I'Art de peindre" (1760) and a "Dietion- naire de peinttire, de gravure d; de sculpture" which last had not received the author's final tooches; it was pubhshed by L^esque in 1792. § 4. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF MEMBEBSHEP BY PBOTEXJTOEATES AKD ADMEflSTEATIVE PEBIOD6. "Hie membership hst which follows brings under the eye in short space the names of Academicians in chrono- logical order of election, and shows ^proximately the period whea any individual Acadanician or group of Acad^nicians flourished. With the iaxAeaSi £uid alpha- betical Usts it completes the aspects in which the vaesDr benship of the Academy need be considered. The fauteuil numb^ of any Academician is most conv^ently found by reference first to the name in its dphabetical order in the biographies. Names in italics tDdic^;e sectmd nomi- nations ather by official ^pointment or by election, as dsewhere explained. OLD RgGIMB. Protectobate of Richeukc, 16-3.5(41-1642. — Godeaa, Gom- baald, Cfaapelain, Hiilippe Habert, Germain Habrat, Coniart, Serisay, ilalleviHe, Faret, Desmareta, Boisrobert, Bantru, Sflhon, Sjinond, Boarzeys, Me^riac, Maynard, CoDetet, GomberviDe, Saint Amant.Colomt^, Bandonin, L'Estoile, Arbaod de Forc-beres, Qer^wa, Balzac, Baidin, Boissat, Vaogelas, Voitnre. Laogier de PorcfaSres, Habert de Montmor, M. C. de Ia Cbambre, P. Hay du Chastelet, Baro, Bacan, S^;ider, D. Hay da Chastekt, Granira', MEMBERSHIP 369 Louis Giry; Bourbon, Ablancourt, Esprit, Lamothe-Levayer, Pri6zac, Patru.— Total, 46. Protectorate of S:6guier, 1642-1672.— De Bezons, Salomon, Du Ryer, Pierre Corneille, Ballesdens, M6zeray, Montereul, Tris- tan rHermite, Scud^ry, Doujat, Charpentier, Fr. Tallemant, A. Coislin, PelUsson, Hardouin de P6r6fixe, De Chaumont, Cotin, La Mesnardifire, Cardinal d'Estr^es, De Villayer, Gilles Boileau, Cassagnes, Furetidre, Segrais, Leclerc, Beauvilliers de Saint Ai- gnan, Bussy-Rabutin, Abb6 Testu, Abb6 Claude Boyer, Paul Tallemant, J. B. Colbert, Marquis de Dangeau, De Montigny, Regnier-Desmarais, P. C. de La Chambre, Quinault, De Harlay, Bossuet, Perrault.— Total, 39. Protectorate of Louis XIV., 1672-1715.— FMchier, Racine, Abb6 Gallois, Benserade, Bp. Huet, De Cordemoy, Rose, Jean Jacques de Mesmes, Archbp. Colbert, Lavau, Cr6cy, De Novion, Abb6 Dangeau, Barbier d'Aucourt, La Fontaine, Boileau-Des- pr6aux, Thomas Corneille, Bergeret, Abb6 de Choisy, Testu de Mauroy, La Chapelle, Cailteres, Renaudot, Fontenelle, Pavilion, Tourreil, F^nelon, La Bruy^re, Abb6 Bignon, La Loubere, Goibaud-Dubois, Caumartin, Ch. Boileau, Clermont-Tonnerre, Abb6 de Saint Pierre, CMrembault, Andr^ Dacier, Abb6 Fleury, Louis Cousin, Abb6 Genest, Valincour, Louis de Sacy, Campis- tron, MaMzieu, Chamillart, P. Coislin, Gaston de Rohan, Cardinal Polignac, Abb6 Abeille, Brulart de Sillery, Marquis de Sainte Aulaire, Abb6 de Louvois, De Mimeure, Bp. Mongin, Fraguier, Houdard de La Motte, Jean Antoine de Mesmes, Bp. Nesmond, H. C. Coislin, Abb6 Jean d'Estrfes, Danchet, La Monnaye, Marshal ViUars, Massieu, RolandrMalet, Due de La Force, Mar- shal d'Estr^es, Gros de Boze. — Total, 68. Protectorate of Louis XV., 1716-1774. — Cardinal Fleury, Ren6 d'Argenson, Abb6 Mongault, Massillon, Abb6 G6doyn, Abb6 Dubos, Abb6 de Roquette, Marshal Richelieu, Jean Boivin, Bp. Languet de Gergy, Cardinal Dubois, Abb6 Houtteville, Fleuriau de Morville, Destouches, Abb6 d'Olivet, Jacques Adam, H6nault, Abb6 Alary, Antoine Portail, Bp. Gondrin d'Antin, Mirabaud, P. H. Saint Aignan, Bouhier, Amelot, Montesquieu, Abb6 Rothelin, Bp. La Riviere, Sallier, La Faye, Hardion, Cr^billon, Bp. Bussy-Rabutin, Terrasson, Bp. Surian, Dupr6 de Saint Maur, Moncrif, Due de ViUars, Abb6 S^guy, Boyer (Bp. of Mirepoix), La Chau8s6e, Foncemagne, La Tr^moille, Cardinal 370 THE FRENCH ACADEMY de Rohan-Soubise, Vaux de Giry, Abb6 du Resnel, Marivaux, Due de Nivemais, De Mairaa, Cardinal de Luynes, Jerome Bignon, Maupertuis, Abb6 Girard, Abb6 de Bernis, Voltaire, Abb6 de La Ville, Abb6 Duclos, Paulmy d'Argenson, Gresset, Marshal BeUe-Isle, De Vaur^al, Comte de Bissy, Buffon, Comte de Clennont, Bougainville, Boissy, D'Alembert, CMteaubrun, Abb6 de Boismont, Archbp. de Montazet, A. L. Siguier, Sainte Palaye, Lefranc de Pompignan, La Condamine, Watelet, Bat- teux, Bp. Coetlosquet, Abb6 Trublet, Saurin, De Rohan-Gu6- m^n^e, Abb6 de Voisenon, Abb6 de Radonvilliers, Marmontel, Thomas, Condillac, Saint Lambert, Bp. Lom6nie de Brienne, De Roquelaure, De Beauvau, Gaillard, Abh€ Amaud, De BeUoy, Beauz^e, Br^quigny, Delille. — Total, 94. Protectorate op Louis XVI., 1774-1793. — Suard, Males- herbes, De ChasteUux, De Duras, Archbp. Boisgelin, Colardeau, La Harpe, Abb6 MiUot, jDucis, Chabanon, Lemierre, De Tressan, Chamfort, Condorcet, Choiseul-Gouffier, Bailly, Montesquiou- Fesenzac, Abb6 Maury, Target, Abb6 MoreUet, De Guibert, Sedaine, De Rulliifere, D'Aguesseau, Florian, Vicq d'Az5rr, De Boufflers, Due d'Harcourt, NicolaJi, Abb6 BartMlemy. — Total, 30. MODERN R]fiGIME. GoNSULATE AND EMPIRE (Napoleon), 1803-1815. — (Second Class of the Institute : i.e. of Language and Literature.) Volney, Garat, Cambaceres, Cabanis, Naigeon, Merlin, Bigot de Pr^ameneu, Sieyes, Lacuee de Cessac, Roederer, Bemardin de Saint Pierre; Ecouchard-Lebrun, Andrieux, Villar, Domergue, Francois de Neuf chateau, CaiUiava, Sicard, M. J. Ch^nier, Collin d'Harle ville, Gabriel Legouve, Arnault, Fontanes; D'Agtiesseau, Boisgelin, Boufflers, Duds, Boissy, Delille, MoreUet, Target, Saint Lambert, Suard, La Harpe, Roquelaure; PortaUs, Lucien Bonaparte, Devaines, S6gur, Regnaud Saint Jean d'Angely.* Maret (Due de Bassano), Laeretelle the Elder, Parny, Dureau de La MaUe, Daru, Cardinal Maury, Raynouard, Laujon, Picard, Destutt de Tracy, Saint Ange, Lemercier, Esm^nard, Parseval de Grand- maison, Chateaubriand, Laeretelle the Younger, Etienne, Du- val, Michaud, Campenon, Aignan, De Jouy, Baour-Lormian. — Total, 63, less 13, equals 50 actual. * Forty nominations by decree of 8th Pluvidse, year XI (28th January, 1803). See pages 251 and 252. MEMBERSHIP 371 Restored Monabchy: (1) Louis XVIII., 1816-1824.— (Re- established Academy.) De Bausset, De Bonald, Ferrand, Lally- Tollendal, Due de L^vis, Choiseul-Gouffier , Duo de Richelieu, Abb^ de Montesquieu, Lain^; * Auger, Laplace, Des6ze, Laya, Roger, Cuvier, Lemontey, De Pastoret, Villemain, Bp. Frayssi- nous, Bon Joseph Dacier, Archbp. Qu^len, Soumet. (2) Charles X., 1824-1830. — Droz, Casimir Delavigne, Due de Montmorency, Brifaut, Guiraud, Fourier, De F61etz, Boyer-CoUard, P. A. Le- brun, De Barante, Arnault, Etienne, Lamartine, Ph. de S^gur, Pontgerville. (3) Louis Philippe I., 1830-1848.— Viennet, Vic- tor Cousin, Jay, Dupin, Tissot, Thiers, Charles Nodier, Scribe, De Salvandy, Dupaty, Guizot, Mignet, Flourens, M0I6, Victor Hugo, Comte de Sainte Aulaire, Ancelot, De Tocqueville, Bal- lanche, Due de Pasquier, Patin, Saint Marc Girardin, Merimee, Sainte Beuve, Alfred de Vigny, Vitet, De R^musat, Empis, Ampere, Vatout. — Total, 67, less 3, equals 64 actual. Second Republic (Prince-Peesident Napoleon), 1848-1852. — Due de Noailles, De Saint Priest, D6sir6 Nisard, De Monta- lembert, Alfred de Musset, Berryer. — Total, 6. Second Empire (Napoloen III.), 1852-1870. — Bp. Dupan- loup, Silvestre de Sacy, Ernest Legouve, Due V. de Broglie, Ponsard, Biot, De Falloux, Emile Augier, De Laprade, Jules Sandeau, Lacordaire, Due A. de Broglie, Octave Feuillet, De Carn6, Dufaure, Pr^vost-Paradol, Camille Doucet, Cuvilher- Fleury, Gratry, Jules Favre, Autran, Claude Bernard, De Cham- pagny, J. O. B. d'HaussonviUe, A. Barbier, Jules Janin, Emile OUivier, Duvergier de Hauranne, X. Marmier. — Total, 29. Third Republic, 1870-(Od.) 1910.— Littr^, Rousset, De Lo- m^nie. Due d'Aumale, Saint Rene Taillandier, De Viel-Castel, Alex. Dumas, Caro, M^zieres, John Lemoinne, J. B. Dumas, Jules Simon, Ch. Blanc, Gaston Boissier, Sardou, Henri Martin, Renan, Taine, Due d'Audiffret-Pasquier, Maxime Du Camp, Labiche, Rousse, Cherbuhez, Pasteur, SuUy-Prudhomme, Cardinal Per- raud, Pailleron, De Mazade-Percin, About, Coppee, De Lesseps, Duruy, Bertrand, Hal^vy, Leon Say, Leconte de Lisle, Edouard Herv^, Greard, G. P. 0. d'Haussomdlle, Jurien de La Gravi^re, Jules Claretie, Meilhac, Vicomte de Vogii6, De Freycinet, Jean Viaud (Pierre Loti), Ernest Lavisse, Thureau-Dangin, Bornier, * Nine nominations by ordinance of 21st March, 1816, replacing the same number excluded. See page 252 and foot-note. 37Z fHE FRENCH ACADEMY Challemel-Lacour, Bruneti^re, De Heredia, Albert Sorel, Paul Bourget, Henry Houssaye, Jules Lemaltre, Anatole France, C!osta de Beauregard, Gaston Paris, Andr6 Theuriet, De Mun, Vandal, Gabriel Hanotaux, Claude GuiUaume, Henri Lavedan, Paul Deschanel, Paul Hervieu, Emile Faguet, M. P. E. Berthelot, Edmond Rostand, Marquis de Vogu^, Ren6 Bazin, Fr^d^ric Masson, Emile Gebhart, Etienne Lamy, Felix Joseph Ribot, Maurice Barres, Maurice Donnay, Marquis de S6gur, Henri Bar- boux, Francis Charmes, Jean Richepin, Jules Henri Poincar6, Ren6 Doumic, Marcel Pr6vost, Jean Aicard, Eugene Brieux, Ray- mond Poincar6, Alfred Capus, Mgr. Duchesne (May 27, 1910). — Total, 89. SUMMARY. Old Regime: Protectorate of Richelieu, 1635[4]-1642, elections 46 " Siguier, 1642-1672, elections 39 " " Louis XIV., 1672-1715, elections 68 " " Louis XV., 1715-1774, elections 94 " " Louis XVI., 1774-1793, elections 30 Total (Old Regime) 277 Modern Regime: Consulate and Empire, 1803-1815, ofiBcial appoint- ments and elections (63 less 13) 50 Restored Monarchy, 1816-1848, official appointments and elections (67 less 3) 64 Second Republic, 1848-1852, elections 6 Second Empire, 1852-1870, elections 29 Third Republic, 1870-(Ort.) 1910, elections 89 Total (Modern Regime) 238 Grand total, 515. SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS CHAPTER I J 1. The Academy of the Old Regime, 1-112. The fame of the French Academy, 1-2. Pellisson's History: its author rewarded by a supernumerary pkce, with promise of the first vacancy, 2-3. The Conrart coterie — character of itfs meetings — called "the Academy" by its members — its origin — brought to the knowledge of Richelieu, who induces it to become an institution under state authority — membership of forty, preferably residents of Paris, 3-5. Expulsion of Granier, 6. Literary merit and social position of the first Academicians — as Academicians, equals, 6-7. First assemblies of the official Academy, 7. Selection of a name: Academie Franfoise — at first spoken of by other names, without foundation — appellation of a member, Acad4miste, then Acad4micien, 8-10. The Acad- emy's Statutes and Regulations, 10-16. Earlier Academies in Prance, 16. Comment on the Rules: the Academy's motto the occasion of raillery — presentation of new members to the pro- tector — academical examination of the works of members not obligatory, 16-20. The Academy's letters patent — pass the Great Seal, 29th January, 1635, which marks the beginning of its public existence, 20-24. M. Siguier, Keeper of the Seals, allotted one of the vacant places, 24. Verification of the letters patent refused by the Parliament of Paris — letter from Riche- lieu to First President Le Jay thereon of non-effect, 24-25. Royal lettres de cachet ordering verification — an example of one, 25-26. Reason of Parliament's opposition, 26-28. Academy assembles regularly at the house of one or other of its members, notwithstanding lack of patent, 28. The "affair of the 'Cid'", 29-34. Hallam's opinion of the "Sentiments de I'Acad^mie sur le Cid", 34-36. The affair of the "Gd" and the Academy's letters patent, 36-37. Comeille one of Richelieu's "Five Au- thors," 37. Comeille's pension — criticism by the Academy of "La Grande Pastorale," a comedy of Richelieu's conception, 38- 373 374 SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS 39. Comeille's election to the Academy, after being twice re- jected, 39. The idleness of the Academy. 39-40. Jean Chape- lain, the Academy: his character — his reputed avarice — contem- porary esteem for him universal — satirized by Boileau — founda- tion of Boileau's enmity, 40-48. Richelieu's displeasure at the Academy's frivolity, 48. Vaugelas becomes editor of the Dic- tionary, 48. Patru's election: his reception oration — its ex- travagant estimate of the literary merit of his confreres — its importance as a precedent, 49-50. Death of Richelieu, 50. Chancellor Siguier becomes protector of the Academy, saving it from extinction, 51. It holds its meetings at Chancellor Se- guier's residence, 51. Richelieu's projected Prytaneum and the homeless Academy, 51-52. Self-assertion of the Richeheu Academy, 53-54. Events of Chancellor Siguier's protectorate: protest by Pellisson against confirmation of the election of GiUes Boileau — D'Aubignac's proposal of another state academy — visit of ex-Queen Christina to the Academy and etiquette of the occasion; a curious coincidence — resolution to hold open sessions at receptions of new members, 54-59. First public reception of a new Academician, 59. Colbert's object in recommending pub- lic receptions, 60. Receptions not open to women until 1702 — eligibility of women for membership in the Academy, 61. Prize of Eloquence first won by Mademoiselle Scud^ry in 1671 — its subject, 61-62. Prize of Poesy inaugurated — ^its subject, 62. Visits of candidates to Academicians to solicit their votes, 62-63. Informality of elections corrected, by advice of Perrault, 63. Feminine interference in elections — first instance, 64. Death of Chancellor Siguier, 64. Louis XIV. becomes protector of the Academy and assigns to it an apartment in the Louvre — ^medal struck to commemorate the occasion, 64-65. Academicians without compensation, 65. Jetons de presence coined by direc- tion of Colbert, for distribution among Academicians: their value — the secretary in 1713 gets two jetons to one of the other members, 65-67. Secretary later pensioned and assigned apart- ments in the Louvre, 67. Value of the jeton doubled just before the Revolution, 67. Provision for the Academy's petty ex- penses, 67. An academical library, 67-68. Composition of the Dictionary finished — printing suspended and the work with- drawn for revision, 68. The Academy's Dictionary privilege, nominally for twenty, practically for forty years, 68-69. Expul- sion of Pureti^re — other expulsions, 69-71. Dupanloup's resig- nation, 71. Fureticre secures a privilege for his Dictionary, SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS^ 375 71-72. The Academy suspects infringement of its privilege — its suspicions confirmed, 72-73. Furetiere expelled, 22nd January, 1685 — the king's surprise, 74. The behaviour of the Academy and of Furetiere contrasted by D'Ohvet, 75-76. Furetiere's factvmis, 76. Livet's apologia for Furetiere, 76-77. Furetiere's Dictionary, 77-78. Academy's flattery of Louis XIV., 78. The protector's consideration for the Academy, 79-80. The fauteuils: different accounts of their introduction, 80-82. Louis XIV. 's intervention in elections: La Fontaine, Boileau, the Duke of Maine, Clermont Tonnerre, Abb6 de Chau- lieu. Cardinal de Rohan, 82-87. De Lamoignon's refusal of a nomination, 86. Sister Academies, 87. Death of Louis XIV., 88. Protectorship of the Academy becomes a royal prerogative, 88. Expulsion of the Abb6 de Saint Pierre, 88-90. Visit of the yoTing king to the Academy, 90. The Philosophers and the king, 91. The Philosophers and the Academy: Montesquieu, Vol- taire, 91-93. Voltaire's repeated rejections, 93-95. Entrance into the Academy of the leading Philosophers, 95. Estrange- ment between the Academy and its protector, 95-96. Election of Louis de Bourbon — part taken in it by Duclos, 96-101. Veto of Piron's election, 101-02. Academical discourses and compo- sitions assume a pohtical tone, 102-03. Existence of the Acad- emy in jeopardy: safeguarded by its prestige, the quality of its membership, the influence of Voltaire, 103-06. Veto of the elections of Suard and Delille — withdrawal of opposition to their renomination in an admonitory letter, by the protector, 106-08. Death of Louis XV., 108. Last royal protectorate of the Old Regime: popularity of the Academy at its opening — official hostility developed — waning popularity — last election of the Old Regime, 108-09. The Revolution, 109-10. Chamfort's betrayal of the Academy in a "Report" composed for Mirabeau, 110. The last assembly of the Academy of the Old Regime, 111. Suppression of all the royal Academies, 111. Abb6 Morellet acting secretary of the French Academy, 111-12. § 2. Creation of a National Institute, 112-127. Demoralization of the Academy at the time of its last meeting, 112. Execution of its protector and three of its members — suicide and imprisonment of others, 112. The National Insti- tute: its centenary — its three Classes — its membership — its first meeting — political proscription of five of its members and their places declared vacant — election of Napoleon to fill one of these vacancies, 112-16. Costume of the members of the Institute, 376 SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS 116-17. Abortive attempt to re-establish the French Academy, 117. Reorganization of the Institute in 1803: its four Classes, 118. Annual compensation of the secretaries and of members, 118-19. Composition of the remodelled Institute — its four Classes spoken of as "the four Academies," the Second Class (of Language and Literature) being "the French Academy", 119. The Academy's adulation of the Emperor, 119-22. Napoleon the "new Augustus" — decrees Decennial Prizes, 122-23. Car- dinal Maury's demand to be addressed as " Monseigneur " at his reception — his extravagant eulogy of the Emperor, 123-25. State of literature during the First Empire, 125. Distribution of ! the Decennial Prizes postponed — never made, 126. Various names and the places of meeting of the Institute — its Annuaire, 127. § 3. The French Acadbmt Re-established (1816), 127-142. Second reorganization of the Institute: the old academical names of the Classes restored — the order of the Academies, 127-28. Academy of Moral and Political Sciences revived, 128. Classified membership (1910) of the Institute by Academies, 128. Sections and studies of the Academies — their regular meetings, 128-29. Academy of Medicine, 129-30. Relations of the Academies to one another and to the Institute, 130. Meetings of the Institute, 130. Administration of the Institute and of the Academies, 130-31. Primacy of the French Academy — its advantages in the selection of members — the Institute over- shadowed, 131-33. According to Sainte Beuve, the modem Academy not a continuation of the old, 133. Sainte Beuve and a periodical account by the Academy of its stewardship — Suard's opinion, 133-34. Restoration of the original Statutes: ordinance of 21st March, 1816, 134 and fn. Membership of the revived Academy — exclusions, 135. According to Fontanes, improvement of the language the prime object of the Academy, 135-36. Personal protection of the Academy by the chief of state become but a name, 136. Unavailing attempt by Napo- leon III.'s ministers to diminish the prestige of the Institute and the Academies, 136-37. Elections of Victor Hugo, Berryer, Emile OUivier, 137-39. Proper use of the term "of the French Academy" after an Academician's name, 139. Visit of Nicholas II. of Russia to the Academy in 1896: its significance — other distinguished visitors, 139 and fn. Orthographic reform: con- flict of opinion between the Academy and the Ministry of Public Instruction, 140-41. Remarkable admonition by Parliamentary Budget Committee, 141-42. SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS 377 t 4. Conspectus and Conclusions, 142-199. Three greater periods of the Academy's existence, 142-43. Attitude of the protectors, from Richelieu to Napoleon III., towards elections, 143-47. Literary composition of the Academy at diflferent periods to the present time: the Old Regime- First to Second Empu-e — last fifty or sixty years, 147-49. Classi- fied composition of the Forty in April, 1910, 150. The Academy of our day essentially the same in spirit as in the time of Richelieu and Louis XIV., 150-51. Members of other than literary dis- tinction — comparative scarcity of genuine first-class academical ' material, 151-52. La Bruyfere's election and current quatrain, 152 and fn. D'Alembert's defence of the election of men of rank and polish — their excess regarded as an evil — D 'Olivet's opinion, 153-55. Great names wanting to the roll of the Acad- emy, 155. The "forty-first fauteuil": Arsfene Houssaye's list of its occupants, 156-57. His comparison of the best talent in the forty fauteuils with that inihe "forty-first", 157-58. Analysis of M. Houssaye's Ust, 158-62. MoliSre and the Academy — why he was ignored — the old-time prejudice against the actor's pro- fession — Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Garrick, actors of our day, 162-65. The author's opinion in Houssaye versiis the Academy, 165. Procedure at academical elections — Sainte Beuve's disap- proval — his remedy, 166-67. Most eminent candidate not necessarily the most desirable member, 167. Visits of candidates to members to solicit their votes — recognized as an evil as early as 1701 — attempts to remedy it— ineffectual — D 'Olivet's dis- couragement — intrigue the natural accompaniment of such visits, 167-71. Panegyric of Louis XIV. by the Academy — a modem instance by Ars&ne Houssaye, 171-72. Subserviency of the Academy to its protectors, 172-73. Dissensions and parties in the Academy: examples — not the history of the Academy — prevailing urbanity— Sainte Beuve as witness, 173-76 and fn. 173-74. Soldiers in the Academy: not all ideal Academicians, 176-77. The influence of the salons in elections, 177-79. The salons literary as well as social centres, 179-80. Occupations of the Academy — prize competitions, 180-82. Opinions for and against the usefulness of the Academy: Pellisson, D'Olivet, D'Alembert, Mesnard, Villemain, Sainte Beuve, Lanfrey, Arsfene Houssaye, Macaulay, Sir Walter Scott, Hallam, Matthew Arnold, an unnamed Academician, 182-94. The author's impressions, 194-96. The duration of the Institute — of the French Acad- emy, 196-98. A suggestion as to broadening the Acad- 378 SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS emy's scope, 198-99. Postscriptum: a parallel suggestion, 199-201. CHAPTER II 5 1. The Dictionakt, 202-203. Importance of the Dictionary, 202-03. An undertaking dis- tasteful to the Academy, 203. The Academy as language cus- todian early satirized, 203-05. Plan of the Dictionary, 205-06. Work on it begun in 1639 — continued with spasmodic zeal — progress to 1649, 206-07. In 1651, for greater expedition, the Academy meets twice a week — progress to 1658, 207-08. First composition finished about 1672, but full of errors — printing suspended and a thorough revision undertaken, 208-09. The Dictionary published in 1694 — its authority immediately estab- lished, 209. A monument of self-sacrificing philological industry, 209 fn. Arrangement of words in the vocabulary by families — absence of etj'mology and pronunciation — observance of estab- lished orthography, 210-11. List of authorities selected for citation — reasons for omitting citations, 211-13. The second edition — words now in alphabetical order, 213-14. The third edition — D 'Olivet's part in its preparation — orthographical changes, 214-16. The fourth edition, 216. Voltaire's proposal for a more elaborate dictionary, 216-17. The fifth edition — • issued by the Institute, 217-18. The sixth edition — prepared by an academical commission, 218-19. The seventh edition, the latest issued, 219. Changes in French orthography since date (1694) of first edition, 220. The successive Dictionaries of the Academy the authentic repertory of the French language, 220-21. The scope of the Dictionary — compared with other dictionaries, 221-24. The French Academy conservative in respect to language change, 224-26. The Dictionary of the Academy a national standard, 226-27. Swift and Dr. Johnson on a similar English standard, 227 fn. Friction between the Academy and the Ministry of Public Instruction on orthographic reform, 227-28. No claim by the Academy to dictatorship in orthography, 228-29. Eccentric spelling more common in English than in French due to the absence of a standard, 229. Pressure put upon the Academy by the Ministry — the Academy sustained by the printers, 229-30. Proposed ministerial reforms, 230-31. EmbaiTassment to the Academy from official inter- ference, 232. Projected orthographic changes in the eighth edition of the Dictionary, 232-33. SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS 379 I 2. Dedication of the First Edition op the Dictionary, 233-240. Its authorship — its tone of adulation, 233-36. In the French, 237-38. In translation, 238-^0. CHAPTER III § 1. The Fauteuiii List and its Basis, 241-266. Academical places not numbered — consequent diversity of conventional numbering, 241-43. Discrepancies in dates — varied spelling of proper names, 243-44. Pellisson's defective enumeration of the first forty — varied interpretation of it, 244-49. System of numbering in this history, 250. Membership of the Academy at its dissolution in 1793, 251. Members of the Second Class (Class of Language and Literature) of the Institute as reorganized in 1803, 251-52. Changes in membership by ordi- nance of 21st March, 1816 (second reorganization of the Insti- tute), 252. The Fauteuil List, 253-62. Notes: Chairs, not fauteuils, now in use in the Academy, 262-63; Average duration of an academical membership — informalities of membership — long memberships, 263-65; Maintenance of traditions in elections to a place, 265-66; No maximum or minimum age limit for can- didates — average age at election, 266. §2. Permanent Secretaries, 266-278. List, 267. Literary reputation of the secretaries, 268. Notes: Valentin Conrart, 268-72; Abb6 Duclos, 272-73; D'Alembert, 273-74; Marmontel, 274-75; Villemain, 276-78; Gaston Bois- sier, 278. §3. Alphabetical and Biographical List, 278-368. Introductory, 278-80. Biographies, 280-368. § 4. Chronological List of Membership bt Protectorates and Administrative Periods, 368-372. Explanatory, 368. Old Regime: list, 368-70. Modem Regime: list, 370-72. Summary, 372. ERKATA. On page 238, line 11, for "Coins" read "Cours"; the second date in line No. 5 of the first column on page 250 should he 1639 instead of 1839 ; the date preceding the name of Voltaire under f auteuil No. 12 on page 256 and of election following it on page 367 should be 1746 instead of 1747; in the second and third lines of page 283 the words ' ' d'un grand bi- bliotheque " should be " d'une grande bibliotheque, " and, similarly, on page 299, s. i>. Chapblain, line 10, "National " should be " Nationale."