I shall now, after the five universitaires deal with three académiciens. The example of Anatole France has already proved that one can belong to the Academy without rating Napoleon particularly high. About Hanotaux, the third of the trio now under survey, it will soon be noticed that his admiration is by no means unmixed. To be sure, he strikes a different note from that of the universitaires, and one seems to feel that he has been in closer communion with Vandal and Sorel than they. Nevertheless the true outlook of the Académie will be found rather in Bainville, and especially in Madelin, and I have therefore deemed it appropriate to deviate here from the chronological order and to deal with the work of Hanotaux after that of the other two. My last author, George Lefebvre, an unmistakable universitaire, but who has absorbed much of the other conception, fits in too well with Hanotaux for me to part them from one another.
BAINVILLE'S Napoléon of 1931 is probably the most read biography of Napoleon in our time. If only for a moment, the book confronts us with a difficulty which we have usually been spared. Ought we to classify the author as for or against? I have already mentioned him in passing, among the admirers who achieved access to the Académie, but when one reads in his conclusion that 'apart from glory, apart from art' it would probably have been better if Napoleon had never lived,1 one would be inclined to assume that we are dealing with one of the critics. The book, however, constantly strikes another note. By whatever point among those which usually give rise to disapproval we test it -- the wars, centralization, terroristic methods, lack of spiritual freedom, the attempt to subject the Church -- we shall meet either with apology____________________