Botulism in the philosophical sense
Bernard-Henri Lévy is found out.
By Jonathan Derbyshire Published 10 February 2010 18:39Le tout Paris can't quite contain its delighted disbelief at the news that the writer and "philosopher" Bernard-Henri Lévy has made a fool of himself (yet again). The Times reported yesterday that BHL had quoted liberally, in his new book De la guerre en philosophie, from the work of the anti-Kantian zealot Jean-Baptiste Botul. The only problem being that Botul is a fiction, the creation of Frédéric Pages, a journalist at Le Canard Enchaîné, the French equivalent of Private Eye.
In 1999, Pages published a book entitled La vie sexuelle d'Emmanuel Kant under Botul's name, and it's this volume that BHL was quoting from.
Pages also maintains a website, devoted to this "philosopher of the oral tradition about whose work and life we know little", and is the animateur of the "Friends of Jean-Baptiste Botul", an organisation which wrestles with the unfortunate fact that "botulism is also the name of a serious illness". Happily, the Friends' mission statement reassures us that their activities extend only to "disseminating botulism in the philosophical sense".
Pages says Lévy should have suspected something was up when he read the story, recounted in La vie sexuelle, of a "community of Germans from Königsberg who fled to Paraguay to establish a colony strictly governed by the principles of Kantian philosophy". This raises questions, he concludes, about "the way he [BHL] works". Quite.
UPDATE: Sholto Byrnes refers in the comments below to a diary piece that Lévy wrote for the New Statesman in 2007. You can read his reflections on Bernard Kouchner, Maurice Blanchot and Bono (!) here.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















4 comments
Brilliant... too good for words.
Perhaps BHL should have read Malcolm Bradbury's satire on structuralism and deconstructionism, Mensonge.
As the back cover puts it:
"Mensonge's major work, La Fornication comme acte culturel, established the domination of French culture in Europe and his reviews of contemporary theatre were original in that they were inspired by an absolute refusal to see the play in question. If in fact Mensonge did actually exist, his raison d'etre was an exquisite state of non-being...."
NS readers might like to look up BHL's diary from a few years ago. Hilarious in quite a different way, but not entirely intentional, either.
What am I not getting here? BHL used an argument. He hilariously credited a wrong source, which is sloppy work perhaps, but it does not make the argument wrong. Who cares who wrote it, or if no one did at all? If you would find out that Immanuel Kant never existed, and that his philosophy was an elaborate joke perpetrated by Fritz Joseph-Mcdonald of Sweinstaadt in Bavaria, would that affect your assessment of his philosophy? Did no one note the “death of the author” lately? Butol is as legitimate as any biological philosopher—in fact, probably superior to some (bravo Pagés).
By the way, J Write doesn't exist either--he's a made-up character I just made up. Pray do not let this effect the manifest veracity of "his" words!
Has the concept behind Jwrite read Page 122? (I suspect he is aDerridean deconstructing as he writes) It uses the name of Botul as cachet. Botul!
@jwrite "Who cares who wrote it, or if no one did at all?" Presumably, then, it would not matter if the work was credited to another living person? Or would that somehow be different? Would it be ok to do one, but not the other? Clearly, you are not a scholar, as such a lapse by BHL calls into question the thoroughness of his inquiry, would you not think?
Maybe you don't think! Maybe that's the thing.