Turning a Funeral into a Celebration

"According to the rules, as a member of the Academy of Sciences and one of the reviewers of this paper, I also have the right to express my thoughts," Napoleon said quickly, seemingly afraid that if he spoke too slowly, Joseph would directly announce the end of the meeting.

After saying this, Napoleon breathed a sigh of relief. He knew that although Joseph was very annoying and wicked, if you were to use a zigzag grid of zodiac signs, he would definitely be in the lawful alignment. As for whether he was lawful evil, lawful good, or lawful neutral, different people in the family had different opinions. But everyone agreed that Joseph was a rule-abiding person. Since Napoleon had the right to discover this according to the rules, and Napoleon had pointed it out, Joseph shouldn't break the rules and deny him a chance to speak.

Sure enough, Joseph frowned, but he still said, "Alright, Academician Bonaparte, please come up and say a few words. But it would be best to keep it brief..." He then took out his pocket watch and glanced at it, "So as not to disturb everyone's lunch."

"No, no, I'm very short, I'm very short," Napoleon said as he hurried up to the podium.

Napoleon knew that a crucial political skill was the ability to turn tragedy into celebration. For example, when a plague was raging and the dead were piling up, he could claim it was "because we had the highest number of tests in the world"; or when a large number of young people, who generally had better immunity, contracted the plague, he could say it was "a good thing that more young people were getting sick." By skillfully turning tragedy into celebration, one could even portray oneself as someone who respected science and was willing to admit and correct mistakes—a truly upright and honorable person.

"Fellow members, gentlemen," Napoleon said, "I am deeply sorry to have made such a mistake so soon after joining the Academy of Sciences. Although Mr. Evans is not present, I still wish to apologize to him. This is a great paper that should have won the 'Prometheus Prize,' but due to my outdated and conservative thinking, bound by past habits, I failed to recognize its profound significance and even denigrated it, thus misleading many colleagues. This is my mistake, and therefore, I must apologize to those colleagues as well."

On the path of science, there is no room for the slightest arrogance, complacency, or self-righteousness. Only by shedding all kinds of outdated prejudices and boldly discarding those old ideas can our science and our cause continue to progress.

Speaking of this, I am reminded of Danton's famous saying. During the most dangerous period of the Republic, Danton said, "We must be bold, bold, always bold, and France will be saved!" In fact, in science, we must also have a bold and enterprising spirit, not be bound by past habits and dogmas, but boldly break through these constraints. We must be bold, bold, always bold, so that science can make progress.

But mere boldness is not enough. We can see how rigorous Mr. Evans's arguments are in this paper. To be honest, because I couldn't accept his conclusions that challenged my outdated views, I spent a lot of time looking for flaws in the paper's arguments. Of course, as you know, I was unsuccessful.

However, my failure, or rather Mr. Evans' success, also demonstrates that science requires not only the courage to make groundbreaking breakthroughs but also meticulous and cautious operation. Only by combining these two can we achieve the glory of our science, and even of France's continuous exploration and progress."

Napoleon felt that with this speech, he had successfully turned a tragedy into a celebration. Although Joseph had embarrassed him, he wasn't the only one who had made a mistake; the entire École Normale Supérieure had been attacked along with him. Moreover, his primary identity was that of a politician and military leader, with his identity as a scientist being merely secondary. Furthermore, the fact that he had made the same mistake on a scientific issue as scientists shortlisted for the "Prometheus Prize" proved that his level was not far behind theirs, hence the shared error. Only those with exceptionally high levels of expertise, comparable to Laplace and his contemporaries, would make such a mistake; they were not worthy of such an error! Thus, Napoleon had also achieved a spiritual victory.

Next comes the matter of the propaganda department. This matter must be discussed carefully, and we must ensure that the funeral is genuinely turned into a joyous occasion. It must be a truly joyous occasion. We absolutely cannot be like that certain country in later generations, where a funeral was turned into a celebration, and as a result, they couldn't even fool their own people.

The Academy of Academy of Sciences' journal, Mathematics, issued a special issue in preparation for this paper. This hastily added issue, as thick as a book, first published the full text of Mr. Lucien Evans's paper, followed by papers from Joseph and Gauss proving the paper from different angles and using different methods, then a speech by Academician Fourier, then a speech by Dean Bonaparte, and finally, of course, a speech by Napoleon.

Given France's leading position in science, especially in mathematics, the French Academy of Sciences' journal Mathematics is undoubtedly the most authoritative journal in the field worldwide. For mathematicians from many countries, having their papers published in a French journal like Mathematics is considered the highest honor. Even mathematicians at Oxford and Cambridge in England are increasingly willing to publish their papers in French journals like Mathematics, not only because of the higher remuneration offered (the British have already raised the remuneration of some of their specialized journals), but also because publishing in Mathematics brings greater academic prestige.

However, from a promotional perspective, the journal Mathematics has a major problem: its circulation is too small. Its readership is limited, confined to a very small circle. The content in Mathematics is often too advanced for most people to understand. For most, the articles in Mathematics are completely incomprehensible, like gibberish. This is even true for many university students studying science and engineering.

However, this doesn't mean that Mathematics magazine has little influence, because it has a high level of prestige. Prestige itself is a form of influence. For people in the press, news related to Mathematics magazine is always particularly attractive. Moreover, this supplement to Mathematics magazine contains so much newsworthy content.

First, a revolutionary, groundbreaking theory emerged, and the author was unknown. Then, this revolutionary, groundbreaking theory led to a split within the French Academy of Sciences, ultimately resolving their differences through a hearing that resembled a duel. How interesting! More importantly, the opponents in this scientific duel were brothers. And most importantly, these brothers were the most prominent brothers in France, arguably the most prominent brothers in all of Europe.

One was the First Consul of the French Republic, the other the President of the French Academy of Sciences. One was Augustus of the Roman Empire, the other Roman Empire Caesar. In the past, these two brothers were a model of brotherly love and harmony, but now they were facing off in a duel over this paper. What a huge news story! For journalists around the world, always striving to create a sensational story, this was something to report!

So, before the special issue of Mathematics was published, * Science Truth Daily * newspaper published a related report first. Because of their special news-gathering methods, they always managed to get big news first. "'Euclidean Geometry' faces a challenge; Mathematics journal is about to publish a groundbreaking paper." The report focused on "mathematics" itself, specifically on the existence of triangles with interior angles less than 180 degrees. However, the report also mentioned at the end that Dean Bonaparte and Academician Bonaparte disagreed on the paper.

Immediately following suit, the Sun, with its world's fastest reporters, jumped on the bandwagon. Of course, the Sun didn't care about the sum of the triangle's interior angles, and in fact, none of its readers did. So, the Sun 'The Sun headline was naturally: "Who won the battle between Caesar and Augustus?" and the focus of the report was naturally on the brothers' rivalry.

Of course, even if you gave the Sun a hundred times the courage, it wouldn't dare to actually stir up trouble and say that the Bonaparte brothers had fallen out. In its report, the two brothers still maintained the attitude of "I love my brother, but I love the truth more." Their argument was merely a gentlemanly debate based on differing viewpoints.

Even at the end of the article, the Sun, in a desperate attempt to avoid controversy, attributed the brothers' argument to France ideals of equality, liberty, and fraternity.

They stated that the debate involved the First Consul, the President of the Academy of Sciences, academicians, and academicians interns, but when discussing scientific issues, no one used their status or position to intimidate others, which reflects the fundamental spirit of France's founding—equality.

And everyone speaks freely and without reservation on a single issue, which is precisely a manifestation of the spirit of freedom that inspired the founding of France.

The enthusiasm shown for a paper by an unknown author is a testament to the philanthropic spirit that founded France. Therefore, it is no wonder that France is invincible!

With these two newspapers leading the hype, the Mathematics magazine had already generated considerable buzz even before its publication. Not only the France, but people from other countries were also very interested. Even Britain newspapers widely reprinted the news.

Of course, the Britain weren't going to say anything nice; they focused more on mocking Napoleon's academician status. They implied that Napoleon's membership in the French Academy of Sciences of Sciences was entirely due to his political position.

Of course, there are also some pro- France media outlets, especially those with trade ties. These media outlets are funded by companies that export textiles or import machinery. They all need "good Anglo-French relations," so their voices naturally differ.

"We interviewed Professor Cohen of University of Cambridge about the academic level of Bonaparte's rule. Professor Cohen said that Bonaparte's research level in complex functions was very high, and judging from his papers, it was only natural that he was awarded the title of Academician of the Academy of Sciences."

The reporter mentioned that some people believe Bonaparte's academic papers may have been ghostwritten. Professor Cohen responded that the nonsense spouted by those conspiracy theorists is not even worth refuting. He said, "You lose to those people the moment you look at them."

Regarding the claim that it "shaken Euclidean Geometry," Professor Cohen stated. "I am very much looking forward to seeing the next issue of <Mathematics>. I personally estimate that it will likely be a paper on the fifth postulate. Since the Greece era, countless mathematicians have been trying to reduce this postulate to a theorem. This is a problem that has persisted for thousands of years. Perhaps our France colleagues have made progress on this issue..."

As a result of the hype or bandwagon effect from these media outlets, the special issue of "Mathematics" had already successfully generated buzz even before it was published.

Amidst such intense public attention, the special issue of <Mathematics> was finally published.

Then, the newspapers immediately erupted in excitement.

The newspaper * Science Truth Daily * first interviewed several prominent scholars from the University of Paris and the École Normale Supérieure. They offered their own perspectives on the significance of the paper. Although their viewpoints differed, they all acknowledged the importance of this breakthrough for mathematics.

The newspaper "Science Truth Daily" published a large number of letters from readers. Most of these letters expressed a love for science and admiration for both sides in this scientific duel.

"Dean Bonaparte's scientific acumen and talent, as well as his rigorous, meticulous, and pragmatic spirit, are truly admirable. He has become a role model for many young people who love science. His brother, Academician Bonaparte, initially dared to insist on his own views, but after realizing his mistakes, he bravely admitted them, examined his own shortcomings, and corrected them. This demonstrates the noble character of a scientist." -- <Science Truth Daily - Reader's Letters Column>

Led by Les Science Truth Daily, the entire France media almost unanimously sang praises of Napoleon. Many newspapers even stated: Although Academician Bonaparte lost to his brother, Dean Bonaparte, in the scientific duel, proving that your brother is still your brother, Academician Bonaparte seems even more endearing now.

In other countries, newspapers certainly wouldn't praise Napoleon like France newspapers, because even France newspapers had to follow basic rules—or rather, basic methods—when praising Napoleon. But foreign media didn't care about such things; their praise of Napoleon could even make Napoleon himself blush.

This isn't surprising. In later generations, some media outlets in certain countries, when praising foreign countries, also made similar claims, such as "powerful little passports," "conscientious sewer systems," "a free house," "the dignity of the slums," "the meticulousness of oil-paper packaging," and "the conscience of free healthcare," exaggerating the beauty of foreign countries to the point of being unbelievable. This led foreigners to mistakenly believe that the media was subtly mocking them.

Nowadays, in some Europe countries, some media outlets like to exaggerate France's achievements in order to satirize its own country. This kind of media exists not only in Italy, but also in the Confederation of the Rhine, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and even in Britain.

Moreover, the situation in Britain was quite unique. In Austria and Russia, the reformers praised France and Napoleon, while the conservatives criticized France and Napoleon. But in Britain, the situation was different. In Britain, there was no longer the conservative aristocracy that was far behind the times, as in Austria and Russia.

However, the Britain had both pro-French and anti-French factions. Logically, the pro-French faction should praise France, while the anti-French faction should criticize France; the pro-French faction should praise Napoleon, while the anti-French faction should criticize Napoleon. But things in this world are particularly strange. In Britain, both the pro-French and anti-French factions praised France and Napoleon together.

The pro-French faction goes without saying, but what about the anti-French faction? What do they praise? They praise the France for their patriotism, unlike Britain, which has so many damned pro-French traitors. The France have been secretly supporting, or even openly supporting, domestic separatist forces all along, yet these damned British traitors still follow the France for a pittance. Look at the France, look at Napoleon, when have they ever done anything so shameless? Ah, if only Napoleon were Britain, he would have sent these British traitors to the guillotine long ago! (Napoleon thought that Robespierre would have been a better choice for this kind of thing.)

They also praised Napoleon for developing industry, especially heavy industry, unlike those incompetent Britain bureaucrats who watched as Britain heavy industry gradually fell behind and became increasingly uncompetitive. Their mantra was. "If our prime minister were Napoleon, we would have raised tariffs on France goods long ago."

In short, their praise of Napoleon is malicious. They praise Napoleon to criticize those in the country whose interests are not aligned with theirs. Their praise of Napoleon is like Xin Qiji praising Sun Shiwan. Although Sun Shiwan was repeatedly defeated on the battlefield, compared to the emperors of my country, he really deserves praise; at least he dared to launch a northern expedition against the Central Plains.

Of course, this time they had another opportunity to praise Napoleon: "Napoleon was willing to admit and correct his mistakes, but those guys who did Napoleon many wrong things and ruined all of Britain were shameless. Well, they do have one advantage over Napoleon: their skin is thicker."

Thus, Napoleon successfully turned a funeral into a celebration.