THE INSTITUTE.
The Institute--Its Unique Character--The Objects of its Projectors--Its
Constitution.
The Institute--immediately facing the wayfarer who crosses by the Bridge
of Arts from the right bank to the left--is, says M. Renan, who was
himself a member of it, “one of the most glorious creations of the
Revolution, and a thing quite peculiar to France. Many countries have
academies which may rival our own by the distinction of the persons
composing them, and by the importance of their labours; France alone
possesses an Institute in which all the efforts of the human mind are
bound together as in a sheaf; where the philosopher, the historian, the
philologer, the critic, the mathematician, the physicist, the
astronomer, the analyst, the economist, the jurisconsult, the sculptor,
the painter, the musician, may call one another colleagues.” The simple
and great men who conceived the design of this absolutely new
establishment were preoccupied by two thoughts: the first, admirably
true, that all the productions of the human mind have something in
common and are interdependent; the second, more open to criticism, but
connected in any case with all that is deepest in the French mind, that
science, literature, and art are state affairs, recognisable in
corporate form, which the country is bound to protect, encourage, and
reward. On the last day but one of the Convention, October 25th, 1795,
appeared the law destined to realise this idea, so prolific of great
things. The object of the Institute was the progress of science; the
general utility and glory of the Republic. Every year it renders an
account to the legislative body of the progress accomplished. It has its
budget, its collections, its prizes. It sends out scientific missions at
its own expense. To form the nucleus of the institution forty-eight
persons were named, a third of the whole number of members, the
remaining two-thirds to be nominated by the original members. The three
men to whom, in particular, this project was due, were Lakanal, Dainon,
and Carnot. Unhappily France was at that time in the condition of a
patient who is just recovering from an attack of fever. Entire branches
of human culture seemed to have disappeared; the moral, political, and
philosophical sciences were at the lowest level. Literature scarcely
existed. The historical and philological sciences counted scarcely more
than one man of eminence, Silvestre de Sacy. On the other hand the
physical and mathematical sciences were at one of their highest states
of development. The division of the institute into classes and sections
was affected by this condition of things. There were originally three
classes; one answered precisely to the Academy of Sciences as it now
exists, and contained nearly the same sections; the second was called
the class of moral and political science; the third represented
Literature and the Fine Arts. It embraced what is now known as the
French Academy, the Academy of Fine Arts, and the greater part of the
Academy of Inscriptions. The principal error of this division was that
it took no count of historical science. To tell the truth, the mistake
was excusable, since the science in question had then scarcely come into
existence in France. Historical science presupposes long traditions,
together with a refined and, up to a certain point, aristocratic
society. Philosophy, on the other hand, cannot be made to order, and
defies classification. Something rather scholastic, savouring of the
pedagogue, presided over this primitive distribution. The second class
had a section called “Analysis of sensations and ideas.” Six persons
were constantly occupied with this difficult labour. The third class
comprised eight sections, which were entitled: “Grammar, Ancient
Languages, Poetry, Antiquities and Monuments, Painting and Sculpture,
Architecture, Music, and Declamation.”
This organisation lasted six years; to be subsequently modified by
various regulations. In 1816, immediately after the Restoration, a
serious blow was struck at the Institute, whose revolutionary origin was
not forgotten. The First Consul had suppressed the class of moral and
political sciences, without depriving of their titles those who had
belonged to these classes. The case was not the same in 1816, when
twenty-two persons, with the painter David, the Bishop Grégoire, Monge,
Carnot, Lakanel, and Sieyès, were deprived of a title on which they
themselves conferred honour. On the other hand seventeen persons
received, by royal edict, a title which has no value except when it is
conferred on a man of letters or of science by the free suffrage of his
peers.
Under Louis XVIII. and Charles X. science was held as of no account, and
the academy which represented historical studies was invaded by
gentlemen of the chamber, who had neither literary nor scientific
claims. The Duke of Berry, the Duke of Angoulême, everyone connected
with the royal family or with the court could be admitted to the honours
of the Institute. M. Renan declares that there were candidates so
degraded as to wish to become members of the Institute simply that they
might wear an embroidered uniform and carry a sword.
The Revolution of 1830 brought better days, though the Legitimist party,
defeated in the public street, had still the majority in all the
academies. Gradually the slightly-educated men of modern fashion and
ancient birth--“benè nati, benè vestiti, moderatè docti,” as used to be
said at All Saints, were eliminated, or rather were allowed to disappear
in the ordinary course of nature without being replaced.
Such as it now exists, “the Institute,” says M. Renan, “is one of the
essential elements of intellectual labour in France, controlled as it is
by three powers, neither of which can be allowed to reign
absolutely--the government, the academies, and the public. These three
great patrons are not always of one mind, and the divisions between them
afford the necessary guarantee of liberty for thinkers, writers, and
inventors. Constituted into irresponsible senates, the academies would
often show themselves narrow, egotistical, and self-willed. The
government, possessing means of action superior to any the academies can
possess, corrects at need their unjust exclusiveness; while the public,
with the crown of glory it holds in its hand, can always console those
who, in spite of everything, are kept out. Alone privileged to decide in
intellectual questions, the government would often be too much
influenced by personal considerations. But the academies bring it back
to a healthy appreciation of the men themselves, while the control
exercised by the public prevents it from yielding everything to court
favour or party interests. The public is often a bad judge; it is
incapable of appreciating certain scientific merits. The government and
the academics can enable scientific men to dispense with public
encouragement in order to pursue those special studies which fifty
persons in Europe follow and understand, while they at the same time do
justice on the intriguers and charlatans who contrive so often to enlist
the suffrages of the public and the favours of journalists. Nowhere is
the unity of power more dangerous than in intellectual matters.
Intellectual liberty results from contrary forces, unable to absorb one
another, and helping by their very rivalry the cause of progress.”
The Institute is composed of five academies. I. The French Academy,
founded in 1635 by Richelieu, with forty members, of which mention will
afterwards be made in a special article. II. The Academy of Inscriptions
and Belles-lettres, founded in 1663 by Colbert, with forty titular
members, ten free members, eight foreign associates, and fifty
correspondents. III. The Academy of Sciences, founded in 1666 by
Colbert, with sixty-five titular members, ten free members, eight
foreign associates, and ninety-two correspondents. IV. The Academy of
Fine Arts, formed between the years 1648 and 1671 by the union of the
three academies of sculpture and painting, of music, and of
architecture; with forty titular members, ten free members, ten foreign
associates, and forty correspondents. V. The Academy of Moral and
Political Sciences, with forty titular members, six free members, six
foreign associates, and from thirty to forty correspondents.
The Institute is administered by a commission composed of a president,
a secretary, and a treasurer, all of them members. Each of the academies
has a president and a perpetual secretary. The Academy of Sciences has
two perpetual secretaries. The French Academy has a director, a
chancellor, and a perpetual secretary. Members of the academies are
elected by the members of each of them. Under the Monarchy the election
had to be confirmed by the decree of the sovereign; and on two occasions
under the Restoration King Louis XVIII. refused to approve the elections
of the Academy of Sciences. The French Academy is the only one of the
five which enjoys liberty of election. The new member is presented to
the chief of the state by the perpetual secretary. In 1852, under the
Second Empire, M. Berryer, as a Legitimist, refused to be presented,
which was not allowed to invalidate his election.
Every two years the whole body of the Institute is summoned to decree a
prize of 20,000 francs, founded by the Emperor Napoleon, for “the work
or the discovery most fitted to honour or to serve the country.” On
these occasions each of the academies puts forward a candidate, in
support of whose claims all the members of the Institute give their
suffrages.
Every year, on the 14th of August, the Institute holds a public meeting
at which the members of all the academies are invited to attend. The
Palace of the Institute, also known as the Palais Mazarin, is the
ancient college founded in conformity with one of the clauses of
Cardinal Mazarin’s will, and constructed in 1663 on the site of various
mansions, including the Hôtel de Nesle, with its famous tower. The
Institute possesses a choice, and at the same time copious, library,
which is not absolutely free to the public, but to which admission can
be obtained by presenting the card of one of the members of the
Institute.