题记：命运多相似，

MauriceCrosland Science under Control: the French Academy of Sciences 1795-1914.Cambridge University Press, 1992, p224-226

影响当选的几个在因素：宗教信仰、政治、教育等

Some external influences onelections

We have spoken of the influence of factors internal to science,notably scientific specialisms, in elections. We may now briefly consider theinfluence of external factors, especially religion and politics, education andinstitutional loyalty. As a generalisation we may say that politics alone hadcomparatively little influence on the choice of Academicians in most cases. Allthe famous examples of purely political interference in elections relate not tothe choice of the Academy but the decision of governments to expel certainmembers or to refuse to confirm an Academy election. As far as the members ofthe Academy were concerned, it would only be in cases where candidates wereassociated with extreme political positions that this aspect might seriouslyinfluence their choice. There is the case of the mathematician Binet(1786-1856), who waited as a candidate for thirty years (1813-43) before he wassuccessful. The mathematics section always placed him as their first choicebut, according to a standard history, ' Binet was a zealous Catholic anddevoted to the Bourbons and therefore unacceptable to the majority. Binet'sfriend, the mathematician Cauchy, provides a further example of prejudice,combining as he did extreme attachment to the Bourbons with outspokenCatholicism. Cauchy's unpopularity was the greater because he had entered theAcademy by royal nomination rather than through the normal process of election.We shall argue that religion was much more a relevant factor in elections thanpure politics and we shall follow one particular line of patronage where itseems that strong religious commitment constituted a serious handicap in thestrongly secular Academy stakes. Of course, there were probably other quitedifferent cases of prejudice in elections. The examples mentioned below,however, illustrate a common thread.

In 1843 Cauchy acted as the sponsor of Barre deSaint-Vennat(1797-1886). Saint-Venant, who at the age of forty-six had aconsiderable record of important publications, received no more than six votesout of a total of fifty-four.

Another fifteen years were to elapse before there was anothervacancy in the mechanics section. The section again placed Saint-Venant inequal first place but he received no more than twelve votes from the Academy,compared with forty-three for his rival Clapeyron. Cauchy had died the previousyear but alliances were not easily forgotten. When there was a further vacancyin 1864, the mechanics section overlooked completely the candidature ofSaint-Venant, who had to write in as if he were some junior unknownmathematician. Only in 1868 did the Academy agree to admit Saint-Venant, whohad by then reached the age of seventy-one!

In the few years of power granted to him as an Academician,Saint-Venant acted as the patron of another Catholic mathematician of the firstrank, Boussinesq (1842-1929) was to make importantcontributions to nearly all branches of mathematical physics and notably tohydrodynamics. He did not have the advantage of belonging to any of the grandesécoles. Hewas largely self-taught, owing much of his early education to his uncle, apriest. His thesis of 1867 on the diffusion of heat won him the favourableattention of Saint-Venant, who henceforth acted as his patron. In 1870Saint-Venant, acting as rapporteur for a memoir by Boussinesq, praised theauthor for his “remarkable spirit of invention, constantly supported by greatedanalytical ability”. Boussinesq made repeated, but unsuccessful, attempts toenter the Academy in 1868, 1871, 1872(twice), 1873, 1880 and 1883. By this timeSaint-Venant had become the doyen of the mechanis section and thus the personwith responsibility for comparing the merits of rival candidates. His reportfor the election of 1886 has survived. It shows an impassioned advocancy of hisprotégé who, he pointed out, was unique in being the only survivor ofthese early elections not to have been elected to the Academy. He must haveprevitely compared the fate of his protégé with his own situation earlier.Saint-Venant’s advocacy was one of his last acts. He died on 6 January 1886without knowing Boussinesq would succeed. When the vote was taken on 18 January1886 Boussinesq was elected by a narrow majority, receiving twenty-nine votescompared with twenty-six given to his rival, the engineer Deprez.

Although Boussinesq lived a simple existencedevoted to mathematics, he was also passionately interested in the relevance ofscience to religion. In conversation he would go out of his way to raisedifficult theological problems and he even extracted philosophical conclusionsfrom his mathematics. In his study of solutions to differential equations hedrew attention to the possibility of indeterminism, which he suggested applieduniquely to living systems. Taking this further, he argued in favour of humanfree well. It was in a spirit of Christian humility that he spoke of “thesmallness of the ensemble of our unclouded knowledge lost in an ocean ofdarkness”.