Science in the Service of the State: Condorcet’s Eloges des acaddmiciens

de 1 ’Acaddmie royale des sciences’

TIM REEVE

‘Toutes les fois que le gouvernement s’occupe de la culture, de l’industrie, des manufactures, du commerce, des travaux publics, des moyens d’etablir des communications’, Condorcet declared in his Eloge de M . de Montigni, ‘ce n’est que dans les sciences physiques qu’il peut trouver la base de ces opkrations’ (ii.585). This is a view consistent with one of the original functions of the Academy specified by its founder Colbert, that the institution was to provide a consultative service to the Crown advising on technical matters concerning the running of the State. As permanent secretary to the Academy, it was through Condorcet of course that any ministerial request for assistance would be channelled. His role was that of formal liaison officer between government and science, and it was with this in mind that he had written to Voltaire shortly after his nomination: ‘on peut regarder une place de cette nature comme un moyen de faire sourdement le bien que l’on peut faire’.2 Indeed, in the doges of some of the Academy’s foreign members, Condorcet’s praise of the readiness among other European nations to seek the guidance of men of science implies a criticism of France for failing to make the most of that resource. As director of mathematics at the Academy of Berlin, for example, Lkonard Euler had been commissioned by the King of Prussia to examine the navigability of the country’s internal waterways: ‘Ce prince’, Condorcet told his Paris audience, ‘n’ktait pas nC pour croire que de grands talents et des connaissances profondes fussent jamais des qualites superflues’ (iii.30). Another mathematician Pierre Wargentin, permanent secretary to the Academy of Sciences in Stockholm, had been charged by the government of Sweden to carry out what equated to a modern demographic survey of the population: ‘on avait cru en Sukde’, Condorcet announces somewhat dryly, ‘qu’un mathkmaticien habile pouvait, lorsqu’il s’agissait de prononcer sur des rksultats de calculs, sikger a cbtk des membres de l’administration’ (iii.123).3

Although the eulogies of Montigni, Euler and Wargentin were all pronounced in the early 1780s, this mobilisation of scientists in the service of the realm that Condorcet was quite clearly advocating in fact described a situation that had existed in France for several decades. By the 1750s the Bureau du commerce (the agency responsible for setting and implementing French economic policy through the supervision of trade and industry) was appointing academicians as salaried inspectors and advisers in most key

British Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 28 (2005), p.229-238 o BSECS or41-867X

230 TIMREEVE

areas of manufacturing.4 Of those in Condorcet’s pantheon who held such posts, the chemist Pierre-Joseph Macquer was both director of dyeing at the government-controlled Gobelins tapestry looms, and scientific adviser to the royal porcelain works at Sbvres. Montigni, also a chemist, shared this latter responsibility with Macquer, as well as serving as permanent consultant to the cotton industry.5 Inventor of machines Jacques de Vaucanson had the job of Inspector-General of silk manufactures, whilst, independent of the Bureau, Henri-Louis Duhamel’s talents in arboriculture earned him the post of Inspector-General of the Marine (timber of course being essential in the construction of ships). In addition to employing scientists in permanent positions, the Bureau du commerce also engaged them as consultants on an ad hoc basis: they might, for example, be asked to judge the validity of a new process of manufacture put forward by an artisan seeking to sell his idea to the State. Although the 6rst documented demand dates back to 1725, it was again around mid-century that the Academy began to experience a significant rise in the number of requests of this kind.6

For a period of years, then, academicians had served the government - usually under the auspices of the Bureau du commerce - as part of a policy of industrial improvement which involved exposing the arts and crafts to the rational scrutiny of science. On the whole, technological progress was encouraged by administrators for mercantilist reasons - their aim being to capture foreign markets by ensuring that French goods were superior to those produced elsewhere. Careful protection of any innovative method or formula was then necessary in order to maintain that superiority. Behind this strategy lay the intention to generate further income for the government through the additional tax revenue arising both from an increase in sales, and Gom the higher prices such goods could command. At Sbvres in 1763, for example, Macquer was instructed by an intendant of finance to examine the possibility of producing a ‘hard’ porcelain rivalling that manufactured in Saxony, the German province celebrated for its ceramics of this type. Indeed, the original purpose for establishing the works at Skvres had been to create porcelains of a finer quality than those made in that country.7

In the doge of Jean-Charles-Philibert Trudaine, head of the Bureau du commerce under Turgot and highly respected by Condorcet, we see a condemnation of the ‘fausse politique’ of mercantilism and of the use of science in the pursuit of that goal. New technology raised standards of living, and as an ‘administrateur humain et 6clairC’ (ii.216), Trudaine did not believe that the knowledge gained by one nation to improve a product or process should be withheld from others, keeping the prices of goods high and restricting availability. Commercial interests should therefore give way to the greater interest of humanity, allowing as many people as possible to benefit from the latest advances. Condorcet observes (ii.223):

Ces idkes mercantiles, qui font regarder l’industrie etrangkre comme ennemie, et supposer qu’il existe dans les arts et dans le commerce un intkrEt national sCpar6 de I’int6rEt g6n6ral de I’humanit6; ces id6es 6taient trop 6loign6es des

Condorcet ’s ‘Eloges des acaddmiciens’ 231

principes de M. Trudaine, et surtout de son caractbre. I1 Ctait convaincu que les hommes de tous les pays n’ont qu’un mEme interbt, celui que [...I chez toutes les nations, les arts soient au plus haut degre de perfection, puisque le veritable interbt de tous les hommes est d’avoir, avec le plus d’abondance, des denrees meilleures et des marchandises plus perfectionnCes.8

Trudaine moreover believed that the wealth of a nation should not be measured in terms of its Treasury receipts and by the size of its exchequer, but instead in terms of the welfare of its citizens (ii.230). This was the proper concern of any government, and it was for such a reason that an administrator should encourage technological progress through the employment of scientists. Condorcet takes up this point again in the &loge of the Swiss polymath, Albert de Haller. Haller was an elected member of the cantonal council of Bern, and, because of his scientific expertise, had been given administrative responsibility for the town’s municipal salt works. Salt was a vital commodity in the eighteenth century, but with production under State control in many European countries, governments took advantage of this basic need, charging monopoly rates and imposing high levels of duty. France was no exception: the gabelle, or ‘salt tax’, was one of the most detested impositions among the nation’s poorer classes, upon whom the burden of any excessive duty on essential commodities naturally weighed heaviest. At the Bern works, however, what motivated Haller to implement a programme of rationalisation was the desire to relieve public misery by making savings in the costs of production which could be passed on to the consumer. Doubtless with French officials in mind, Condorcet makes quite clear that such altruistic intentions were rare (ii.312):

I1 [Haller] perfectionna l’administration des salines, non pas, comme on pourrait l’imaginer, en augmentant le revenu qu’elles produisaient au gouvernement, mais en rendant leur exploitation rnoins onereuse au public. I1 mCnagea les interbts pecuniaires du peuple en diminuant le prix de la denrCe, et (ce dont il est douloureux d’btre obligC de faire un objet d’eloge) il veilla sur sa sante, en ne negligeant aucun des moyens de rendre cette denrCe plus pure et plus ~a r fa i t e .~

Whilst the enrichment of the State may have been the motive for the Bureau du commerce to employ scientists in industry, the scientists themselves viewed their positions in a somewhat different light. To be given royal authority (as an inspector of manufacturing) to examine, and above all to improve, processes and their products which broadly speaking affected the quality of people’s everyday lives, provided an excellent opportunity to make an immediate and direct contribution to the public good.IO Montigni, for example, whether perfecting the art of dyeing cotton, supervising the mechanisation of the textile trades, or investigating the contamination of salt, saw in all these responsibilities ‘un moyen de consacrer ses lumibres a l’utilitk publique’ (ii.584-85).11 Duhamel’s appointment as inspector at the Ministry of the Marine, Condorcet writes, ‘fit espkrer au citoyen qu’il pourrait se rendre utile’ (ii.619) - with Duhamel being fully aware that his work on the properties,

232 TIMREEVE

preservation, and the shaping of timber would have other applications outside the Navy. That these men rejected the concept of mercantilism is shown by their readiness to place the fruits of their examinations in the public domain. A common way of propagating technical innovation in the manufacturing trades would be for an inspector to submit to the Bureau a confidential report, which was then passed on to other (regional) inspectors, who would instruct craftsmen in the new methods.12 Like Trudaine, however, the scientists believed that knowledge of these advances must be made openly available, not only to benefit communities internationally, but also to facilitate progress. Macquer. we learn, drew directly upon his experiences as an inspector to publish the Art de la teinture en soie (iii.134): similarly Duhamel, making use of his privileged access to naval workshops, produced treatises on rope-making and ship-construction (ii.625). All of these works appeared as part of the Academy’s Description des arts et me‘tiers - ‘la collection’, Condorcet writes, ‘[ ...I qui fournit chez un grand nombre de nations la subsistance d’une partie du peuple’ (ii.625).13

Unfortunately for the scientist-inspector, not all artisans shared his desire to place descriptions of their trades in the public domain, nor even were they willing to pass such knowledge on to fellow workers within the industry. For those who had managed to discover - or perhaps stumble upon - some trick of manufacture that made their product superior to others, it was not in their financial interest to divulge this information. Primarily concerned with their own welfare, many preferred to keep these new techniques secret, as in this way they could sell their products at a higher price.I4 If they were willing to co-operate with the inspector and to allow him to examine their discoveries, they did so rarely out of any concern for humanity, but more often in the hope of obtaining a reward from the Bureau du commerce for an innovation which officials might judge to be of value to the State (all such petitions required technical approval prior to the release of cash). In an anecdote in the Macquer doge, Condorcet denounces this practice of secret-keeping and of putting personal gain before the interests of the public. Macquer had been commissioned to analyse a number of medicinal preparations which a certain comte de la Garaie wished to sell to the government. Unusually, the comte’s aim in this was not to increase his wealth, but to raise money for a hospital he had founded. Yet whilst the author admires the petitioner for his benevolent motives (iii.130), he cannot condone his actions: ‘I1 est singulier, peut-Stre, qu’un homme si bienfaisant fit un secret de ses decouvertes, et qu’il ne s’empressiit point de les consacrer gratuitement a l’utilite commune: [...I puisque ceux qui sollicitent des grkes oublient si facilement que c’est aux depens du sang du peuple qu’ils cherchent a satisfaire leur avarice ou leur ambition’ (iii. 129-30) .I5

Besides a reluctance to disclose potentially lucrative ideas, a further reason for the artisans’ unwillingness to co-operate with the inspector was the fear that, aspart ofthe rationalisationoftheir trades, theimpositionofmoreefficient processes of manufacture would lead to a loss of employment. Both Montigni

Condorcet ’s ‘Eloges des acade‘miciens’ 233

and Vaucanson faced opposition as they sought to introduce into the textile industry automated, labour-saving machines which performed the tasks of several men.Ih Indeed, such was the strength of this animosity that, during an official visit by Vaucanson to Lyon, a mob of angry silkworkers chased and hurled stones at the academician on hearing of his plans to modernise their profession (ii.654). Contrary to the artisans and their corporations, however, Condorcet himself believed that mechanisation would bring about an increase in employment, and in the e‘loges of both these inspectors he produces long statements defending what he describes as a ‘politique Cclairee’ (ii.655). In the portrait of Montigni, for example, he asserts (ii.588):

On croyait ces machines nuisibles prkiskment par le mgme principe qui les rend si utiles, parce qu’elles font plus de travail avec moins de bras. I1 est vrai que ce principe, qu’une fausse humanite opposait a l’introduction de ces machines, aurait d6 aussi faire rejeter la charrue, les voitures de transport, les canaux [...I; et il n’est point difficile de sentir que toute epargne dans la main d’ceuvre, loin de diminuer les moyens de travail pour le peuple, tend au contraire ?I multiplier ces moyens m&mes, en augmentant pour tous les hommes la masse des objets de consommation, et par consequent celle de leur joyances et de leurs richesses.’7

Condorcet’s argument here, although perhaps not too clearly expressed, is essentially one of economic interdependence. Through the use of machines, productivity is increased, costs are diminished and a greater quantity of items is therefore sold. With so many of these items now in circulation, new jobs are created in spin-off and support industries, easily compensating for the number of redundancies caused by mechanisation. Notably in this statement, Condorcet again makes the point that the scientist-inspector is there to rationalise the trades for the purpose of increasing public happiness: by introducing machines into all areas of manufacturing, a whole variety of products would then be brought to within affordable reach of everyone.18 Included among those to benefit would of course be the artisans themselves, and in the Vaucanson e‘loge, following his account of the hostilities in Lyon, Condorcet laments the fact that the very people the academician was trying to help failed to recognise this: ‘quiconque veut apporter aux hommes des lumikres nouvelles doit s’attendre a &re persCcutC; et les obstacles de toute espece qui s’opposent a toute innovation utile, tirent leur principale force des prCjugb de ceux mCme ?I qui on veut faire du bien’ (ii.654).

For Condorcet, then, a constructive and collaborative relationship between artisan and inspector, representing a step towards his much-desired union between the arts and sciences, was essential for progress to be achieved.I9 In many of the crafts, practices had remained unchanged for years. Workers were often unable to provide any explanation as to why they were following a particular procedure, apart from the fact that things had been done that way for as far back as they could remember. Before Duhamel began his reform of ship-building, Condorcet complains, the constructors in France’s naval yards were nothing more than ‘carpenters’: ‘chacun d’eux s’assujettissait, dans ses

234 TIMREEVE

constructions, a des plans particuliers que l’habitude, l’instinct ou quelques premiers succbs le portaient a preferer’ (ii.475). With soine cynicism, the author reflects how Macquer’s new processes for dyeing silk distinguished themselves from most other procedures in the arts by being based on sound and rational method: ‘ces procedes sont le fruit d’observations chimiques tres fines, et, ce qui est rare dans les operations des arts, on y est guide par une methode stu-e’ (iii.135). Not all practices, Condorcet was willing to admit, were antiquated and crude. Occasionally, for example, Macquer would encounter techniques which, although he was tempted initially to dismiss, proved on closer examination to be instructive and ofvalue. Yet these were the exception rather than the rule, and the author was in no doubt that without exposure to the light of science, the arts would in most cases remain in perpetual obscurity: ‘tandis qu’au milieu de ces prodiges, qui excitent son admiration, il [le savant] voit I’ignorance Btablir ou perpktuer des routines absurdes, et les prkjuges de toute espbce [...I opposer aux progrbs des arts une barribre que la thkorie seule peut briser’ (ii.625). For the perfection of the trades, therefore, the artisans must be prepared to welcome the inspector into their midst.

Harmonious co-operation may have been the ideal, but it was precisely the perception of the scientist as an hornme de the‘orie that provided another reason for many craftsmen to reject his interventions. In their opinion, neither theory nor its agent could bring any advantage to the practical arts.” Naturally, Condorcet was angered by such a prejudice. It stemmed, he maintained, from the artisans’ jealousy of those whose intellect and depth of learning surpassed their own: for the practician, it was far easier to disparage science than to master its complexities (ii.396). This indeed describes the reaction Duhamel met with during his inspections of the naval yards, not only from the ship-builders themselves, but also from some of the sailors. Condorcet responds to the academician’s opponents, however, with his own form of disparagement, using humour and direct speech to magnify the incident, increasing the derisory effect (ii.621-22):

Un jeune officier, cherchant peut-btre a le [Duhamel] embarrasser, lui fit un jour une question. ‘Je n’en sais rien’, fut dans cette circonstance, comme dans bien dautres, la reponse du philosophe. ‘A quoi sert-il donc d’Etre de l’Academie!’ dit le jeune homme. Un instant apres, interroge lui-mbme, il se perdait dans des rkponses vagues qui decelaient son ignorance. ‘Monsieur’, lui dit alors M. Duhamel, ‘Vous voyez a quoi il sert d’Ctre de 1’AcadCmie; c’est a ne parler que de ce qu’on sait’.

Taking a more sympathetic view, also in the Duhamel doge Condorcet acknowledges that the artisans’ distaste for theory could in some cases be attributed to an alienating attitude of superiority towards them on the part of the inspector.” This is perhaps not surprising. With such a difference in social status between the two groups under the ancien rigime, it was inevitable that many scientists treated the craftsman with condescension.” Moreover, inspectors (particularly the inspecteurs-geniruux) were quite high- ranking government officials. Those employed by the Bureau du commerce,

Condorcet ’s ‘Eloges des academiciens’ 235

for example, had the authority to fine or imprison - another factor which may have contributed to their sense of superiority. The men in the elloges who held such positions, however, Condorcet is eager to point out, were far from arrogant. Most are specifically praised for an integrity and moral excellence that enabled them to inspire confidence and to encourage collaboration. It was because o€ his virtuousness, for instance, that Duhamel eventually managed to overcome the resistance of the ship-builders and secure their trust: ‘il en sut triompher par les deux moyens les plus siirs pour dksarmer l’amour-propre, la modestie et cette purete d’intentions et de conduite a laquelle cbdent a la longue et toutes les haines et toutes les passions’ (ii.621): it was Montigni’s good character that made him the perfect choice for the various missions on which the Bureau would send him as an itinerant inspector: ‘Le caractere de M. de Montigni le rendait propre aux travaux dont M. Trudaine voulait le charger. I1 avait a la fois de la modkration et de la fermetk; ses opinions n’etaient point exagkrkes: il aimait naturellement a agir avec sagesse et avec mesure’ (i i .~86);‘~ and finally, the rational approach Macquer adopted in his work, Condorcet observes, was matched by a similar attitude in his dealings with others: ‘L’esprit que l’on remarque dans [sles ouvrages [...I est le meme qui dirigea sa conduite. Tout en lui ktait d’accord: cette justesse d’esprit, cette modkration dans ses jugements, cette reserve dans ses assertions’ (iii.135).

In reality, however, the gulf between artisan and academician was too wide to be bridged simply by friendly conduct. Craftsmen were angry that control over their activities lay in the hands of members of an elitist institution from which they, however talented, were specifically excluded.’4 They resented in particular the power given to the scientist as adjudicator when it came to issuing money for an invention or a new idea. Perhaps, then, as an appeal for artisans and scientist-inspectors to cast aside their differences and to work together for the public good, Condorcet notes both in the doges of Duhamel and Macquer that the various antagonisms he has been describing have now become a thing of the past. These belonged to a time, he maintains, when the usefulness of science in the arts had not yet been recognised by all classes of society: when unenlightened craftsmen still failed to understand that by keeping processes secret, they were both denying others the benefits of their innovations and inhibiting progress.2* In the doge of the comte de Maurepas, who, as Minister of the Marine, had appointed Duhamel to the post of inspector, Condorcet uses the latter’s success with the ship-builders to put forward an illustration of the perfect relationship between artisan, academician and administrator. Of interest here is that, even in a craft associated with such an important concern as the nation’s defence, gaining supremacy over other countries yields to the greater need which is to share knowledge for the good of all (ii.476):

M. Olivier, constructeur de vaisseaux, vit que son art avait besoin du secours des sciences mathkmatiques, et il quitta tout pour les etudier. Plus il s’instruisait, plus il sentait le besoin d’une grande rkforme. I1 s’adressa directement au ministre, auquel il Ctait inconnu; et le ministre, frappC de la justesse de ses vues,

236 TIMREEVE

appuyees du suffrage de M. Duhamel, s’empressa de les seconder. M. Olivier fut envoye en Angleterre pour y etudier un art qui alors y etait plus avance qu’en France. M. de Maurepas [...I voulait rbpandre dans le public la connaissance des bois employes dans la marine, de leurs usages, de leurs differentes qualitb. [...I La composition de ces d8erents ouvrages [... fut confiee ...I a M. Duhamel, qui depuis longtemps avait merite la confiance du ministre, par un zele actif et dbsinteressi, par des conseils utiles en plus d’un genre.

As this and many other examples we have considered so far demonstrate, Condorcet’s commitment to the involvement of academicians in the practical arts was absolute. Evidence from the doges also reveals, however, a deep concern that such an involvement was monopolising the Academy’s resources to the detriment of more abstract research. Although not of immediate benefit to man, research would bear fruit in years to come. The progress of science depended upon it, and without it Condorcet’s Elysian vision of a future world where human ills had been eradicated would remain the stuff of dreams. Only within the Academy, Condorcet was convinced, as a collective body ofFrance’s greatest scientific minds backed by the pecuniary power of royal patronage, could any significant advancements be made: ‘C’est dans ces academies seules que les recherches qui ne sont pas d’une application immediate [...I peuvent Ctre appreciees, ou esperer de trouver une recompense’, he declared in the Macquer &loge, ‘Si, skduites par des vues d’une utilitk prochaine, les compagnies savantes se livraient exclusivement a des recherches pratiques, la marche des sciences en serait retardee aux depens de cette mCme utilitt a laquelle on les aurait imprudemment sacrifices' (iii.136-37). This is by no means an isolated remark: an almost identical statement is made in the Eloge de M . de Fouchy (iii.314), whilst similar comments appear in the portraits of the marquis de Courtivron (iii.192) and AndrBSigismond Margraaf (ii.608). It seems, then, that Condorcet was in a dilemma over where an academician’s priorities should lie. The most compelling evidence for this appears in the Eloge de M. Duharnel. Whilst urging members not to delimit their inquiries ‘aux objets qui prksentent une application immediate’ (ii.642), he praises a career devoted to such objects as ‘une des plus heureuses que l’histoire des sciences puisse pr6senter’ (ii.641). Duhamel, he adds, ‘fera Cpoque dans cette histoire, parce que son nom s’est trouve liC avec cette revolution dans les esprits qui a dirige plus particulikrement les sciences vers I’utilite publique’ (ii.641).

The obvious solution to Condorcet’s dilemma would have been to ensure that the Academy possessed sufficient resources to address both the long-term and short-term practical aims of science. An examination of his proposals for the new Socie‘te‘ nationale, the post-Revolutionary body that was to replace the Academy, confirms that this was indeed the conclusion the author himself had reached sometime before the plan was issued in the spring of 1792. (The Society was to comprise 150 scientists - as opposed to the 50-odd of its predecessor - and approximately half of these were to commit themselves to the ‘application of the sciences to the arts’.26) Meanwhile, perhaps a partial response to the problem of resourcing may be found in the Eloge de M . de

Condorcet ’s ’Eloges des acaderniciens’ 237

Montigni. To avoid the savants being unnecessarily distracted from their work by the government’s continual demands for consultation, Condorcet discusses the merits of attaching to the administration someone who, conversant in the sciences, would be able to determine whether or not these requests genuinely required the counsel of the Academy: ‘Souvent les questions qu’il faut rCsoudre sont trop peu importantes, ne sont pas susceptibles dune dCcision assez prkcise, n’appartiennent pas assez directement a m sciences, et sont melees a trop de considkrations ktrangbres, pour que l’avis d’un corps de savants puisse les aider. [...I Celui qui exerce cette place [...I est, en quelque sorte, un intermkdiaire entre les savants et les administrateurs’ (ii.593). As to whether Condorcet believed abstract or practical science to be of greater value, it seems that this was a matter he was unable to resolve. Both functions, he concluded, were of equal importance: ‘ceux qui contribuent par leurs decouvertes aux progrbs des sciences, et ceux qui les font respecter en les rendant utiles, ont Cgalement droit a l’estime des hommes, et doivent nous 6tre Cgalement chers’ (ii.594).

NOTES

I. The Eloges, memorial panegyrics dedicated to a selection of deceased luminaries of the Academy, were composed by Condorcet in his capacity as secretary to that institution between 1773 and 1793. They are assembled in volumes two and three of the (Euvres de Condorcet, ed. A. Condorcet-OConnor and F. Arago, 12 vols (Paris 1847-1849; repr. Stuttgart, 1968). All references are to this edition.

2. D18372,16 May 1773. See Voltaire, Correspondence and Related Documents, ed. Theodore Besterman. ~01.85-135 (1968-1977), (Euvres completes de Voltaire (Geneva, Banbury and Oxford 196%).

3. See also the Eloge de Roemer (ii.81). Condorcet does accept that some progress has been made. In his portrait of the comte de Maurepas, a minister who was actively engaged in pressing science into the service of the State in the early decades of the century, he differentiates between the situation ‘then’ and ‘now’ (1782). See the Eloge de M. de Maurepas (ii.479).

4. The Bureau pour les aflaires du commerce was part of the Ministry of Finance, and therefore came under the authority of the Controller-General, For an explanation of the complex (and confused) structure of government in the ancien rigime, see Harold T. Parker, An Administrative Bureau during the Old Regime: The Bureau of Commerce and its Relations to French Industry from May I 781 to November I 783 (London and Toronto 1993)~ p.13-16.

5. Macquer was also general inspector of dyeing. Montigni additionally travelled the country as an itinerant ‘problem-solver’, dispatched by the Bureau to investigate complaints across a range of industries (ii.589-91).

6. Harold T. Parker, ‘French Administrators and Scientists during the Old Regime and the Early Years of the Revolution‘, in Ideas in History: Essays Presented to Louis Gottschnlk by his Former Students, ed. Richard Herr and Harold T. Parker (Durham, NC 1969, p.85-109 (p.93). See also Roger Hahn, The Anatomy of a ScientiJc Institution: The Paris Academy of Sciences, I 663 -I 803 (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1971), p.119.

7. See Charles Coulston Gillispie, Science and Polity in France at the End of the Old Regime (Princeton, NJ 1980). p.392.402.

8. In the Eloge de M. de Montigni. Condorcet similarly comments: ‘tout secret dans les arts, arrache a la politique fausse et mercantile d’un pays, est dans la realit6 un service rendu a toute l’espece humaine’ (ii.587).

9. In his Vie de M. Turgot, Condorcet describes the oppressive levels of indirect taxation (that is, taxation on goods and commodities) in France as ‘[la] source premiere de la misere et de I’avilissement du peuple’ (v.85). Importantly, any revenue the government did receive was to be spent on projects that benefitted the public (presumably helping those from whom the money

238 TIMREEVE

had originally been taken), rather than on frivolous schemes which gave pleasure only to the great. In the iloge of the minister Maurepas, applauded by Condorcet for his ’disposition si utile des fonds publics’, we read: ‘Pendant son ministkre, on vit construire a Paris un magnifique egout [et] une machine a elever I’eau [...I: les monuments destines a l’utilitk publique furent constamment prefkres a ceux qui n’ont pour objet que de satisfaire des gofits frivoles, ou de flatter la vanite’ (ii.484). In order to accomplish such works, Maurepas of course turned to the Academy for advice, providing further employment for the savants. 10. Even a piece ofporcelain, Condorcet argues in the Eloge deM. Marquer, could be considered

useful rather than an item of luxury: ‘sans &re d’une necessite reelle, [cet objet] pourrait devenir d’une veritable utilite’ (iii.135).

11. See, in the same iloge, p.587-90. 12. Parker, ‘French Adminstrators’, p.94. On the various categories of inspector and their

functions, see Philippe Minard, ‘Colbertism Continued? The Inspectorate of Manufactures and Strategies of Exchange in Eighteenth-Century France’, French Historical Studies 23 (zooo), P.477-96 (P.481-83).

13. Duhamel himself was editor of the Description. Mercantile policies were not enforced: to publish artisan practices may have been undesirable as far as some ministers were concerned, but it was not illegal. Nevertheless, it would probably have been an advantage that the Academy had an automatic privilege to print.

14. This is a general statement. Many of the articles written for the Encyclopidie would not have been possible, for example, had not Diderot and his contributors received co-operation from the artisans. See Gillispie. Science and Polity. p.355.

15. In the eZoge of Trudaine, Condorcet praises this administrator’s alternative methods of recompensing petitioners (ii.224).

16. See respectively ii.588 and ii.653-54. 17. See similarly p.653-54 in the Vaucanson eloge. 18. Condorcet’s views show the influence of the Scottish economist Adam Smith in his Wealth

of Nations (1776). See especially the section ‘Of the Division of Labour’, p.5-I4 in vo1.i of the James E. Thorold Rogers’ edition, z vols (Oxford 1880). Smith’s work was greatly admired by Condorcet.

19. For Condorcet’s support for a union between the arts and sciences, see the Eloge de M. de Fouchy (iii. 3 14-1 5).

20. In the Eloge de M. de Maurepas, the author states: ‘I1 est des questions [dans la pratique] ou la theorie est inutile: mais qui en est droit de I’assurer, sinon celui que son genie a eleve au dessus d’elle? et si enfin cette theorie n’est inutile que parce qu’elle n’a pas encore kt6 portee assez loin, n’est-ce pas une raison pour chercher a l’approfondir davantage au lieu de la nkgliger? En vain la paresse et une presomptueuse ignorance repktent-elles, tantat la theorie ne sert a rien. tantat elle est trop compliquee’ (ii.474-75).

21. The author writes: ‘Dans tous les genres, ceux qui se livrent a la pratique ont pour la theorie une aversion qu’il ne faut pas attribuer a leur ignorance, et moins encore a l’inutilite de la theorie: mais ils voient avec un sentiment douloureux cette espkce de superiorit6 qu’elle donne, et qui blesse d’autant plus qu’elle semble tenir a une superiorite personnelle’ (ii.620).

22. On this point, see Hahn, Anatomy of a ScientGc Institution. p.40-42; also Parker, ‘French Administrators’, p.95.

23. The reference here is to Daniel Trudaine, father of Jean-Charles-Philibert, and director of the Bureau du commerce 1749-1769.

24. Note that this was not the case, for example, in the Royal Society of London, to which English artisans were admitted.

25. See respectively ii.621 and iii.135. 26. See Hahn, Anatomy of a Scientijic Institution, p.208-209.