Talk:Henri de Boulainvilliers

de Boulainviller

"Abregé ou courte Exposition de l'Opinion de Spinoza touchant la Divinité, l'Esprit Humain et les Fondements de la Morale"

"Extrait du Traité Théologo-Politique de Spinosa et la Réfutation de quelques-uns de ses Sentiments"

"Essay de Métaphysique dans les principes de B... de Sp..."

"Exposition du système de Benoît Spinosa et sa Défense contre les Objections de M.Régis"

"Examen de la Réfutation faite par M. Régis de l'Opinion de Spinosa sur l'Existence et la Nature de Dieu"

Those are the texts of Henry de Boulainviller on Spinoza published by Renée Simon in "Henry de Boulainviller: Oeuvres Philosophiques" La Haye: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973. In none of these Spinoza's conatus is identified with the "right of conquest" or the right of the strongest nor do they mark any extravagant nor indeed any "admiration of the feudal system" at all. On pg 10 of the cited reference Renée Simon attributes "Analyse du Traité théologi-politique de Spinosa" (1767) --fort probablement-- to the pen of Voltaire.

There seems to be something about Wikipedia that attracts contributors to discover "one of the first theory of races". Historical events such as the Inquisition over the "Limpieza de sangre" in 15th century Spain hardly seem to contribute to the debate.

"A prodigious change happened to the world on that occasion" de Boulainviller wrote of the fall of the Roman Empire "each province of the empire became the conquest of some particular nation up to then ignored. Such was the beginning of a different kind of nobility that perpetuated among us and in the kingdoms formed from the dismemberment of the roman empire. An odious nobility, if you want, because its origin let itself be known and felt by a terrible violence that desolated the earth and enslaved a free people living in peace and unprovoking. Nevertheless one has to also recognise that having defended themselves badly they justly underwent the law of the victor and there is realy no more real nobility than the one aquired by the right of conquest, like there is no greater distinction between men than that born from the submission of the vanquished."( from: "Mémoire sur la Noblesse" manuscript Angoulême no 23, page 512 as quothed by Renée Simon in :"Henry de Boulainviller -Historien, Politique, Philosophe, Astrologue (1658-1722)" Paris: Boivin & Cie, s.d.;pg 71)

Such was de Boulainviller's description of what became known as a natural law of goverment. As such his theory seems to have much in common with Hobbes. Renée Simon relevates a significant reference to the English Puritans in de Boulainviller's text.(in op.cit.pg 105). Compare:" Thomas Hobbes and the Revolution in Political Thought." in Christopher Hill: "Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in Interpretation of the English Revolution of the 17th century" London: Mercury Books, 1962. But the devil is in the details. While writing as a true critical historian from what was available sourcewise de Boulainviller indeed refered to the conquest of Gaul by the Franks. His "racial theory" however seems to have been read into this with no justice whatsoever to this on many counts truely remarkable philosopher. (Lunarian 12:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

At Pains

"He was at great pains to prove the pretensions of his own family to ancient nobility..." The relation between the "de Boulainviller" and the " House of Croÿ " was no matter of pretension as the familycrest showed.The Duc de Saint-Simon who was one of the most acid critics of the Court of Louis XIV had the greatest respect for Henry de Boulainviller (a rare honour) because of the way he was unpretensious about this. As far as de Boulainviller was concerned , he could not conceive of any other way of transmission of this relation as through the "bloodline". Yet this was a personal matter. One should read his "la Vie de Mahomed avec des reflexions sur la religion mahométane et les coutumes des Musulmans" (1731 /2002,for the english translation) to appreciate his vision of humanity in comparative cultural studies. A very long way from "racialism" indeed. (Lunarian 12:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

Back To The Source

Apparantly the source for the misunderstanding about de Boulainviller is Théophile Simar :"Etude critique sur la doctrine des races au XVIIIe siècle et son expansion au XIXe siècle" Académie Royale de Belgique -Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques- Mémoires, Deuxième série, T;XVI,fasc.4 et dernier; Bruxelles 1922.

Apart from the fact that Simar's knowledge of de Boullainviller was extremely scarce it does not follow from his study that de Boulainviller's remarks were to be taken as a racial theory. Simar stresses the point by noting that de B. defends a theory of classes (in cursivo, pg 24) exactly as he noted the same (in cursivo, pg 20) for François Hotman whose "Franco-Gallia" (Genéve, 1579), with the same thesis of de B. but a different political conclusion, preceded de B. by that many decades. Thus not only did de Boulainviller not invent a "discourse on the Nordic races", even the source of his political discourse did not originate with him. One should leave the stretches of the imagination often called upon by Téophile Simar (...avec un peu d'adresse... pg 35) to his proper account, not emmulate them.

In preceding pages Théophile Simar had drawn the attention to the significance of Tacitus "Germania" in reference to M.E.Picot's "Le Pangermanisme au XVIe sciècle" the detail of which lay beyond the scope of his own paper. Students of history may already be aware of the pages relating to the "Germania", and Conrad Celtes edition of it in 1500, by the brilliant Simon Schama in "Landscape and Memory" London: HarperCollins, 1995. They do have a bearing on the invention of the "discourse on the nordic races" but they do not involve Henry de Boulainviller.

Neither does Richard H.Popkin in "Medicine, Racism, Anti-Semitism: A Dimension of Enlightenment Culture" in "The Languages of Psyche:Mind and Body in Enlightenment Thought" Clark Library Lectures 1985-1986 G.S.Rosseau ed. Berkeley: University of California Press 1990 take de Boulainviller for reference.(pages that will make the aficionado of first racial theories water from the mouth)

The conclusion may be that many wikiarticles on racism suffer from a flagrant misconception if not ignorance of relevant sources. miscegenation,state racism for example are a case in point. If not ignorance then intelectual dishonesty.(Lunarian 11:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

for reply see "Boulainvilliers" on Talk:Lunarian

• Feel free to correct any mistakes & approximations you see. Now, concerning the most important point, the claim that he is one of the inventor of "race theory", we surely don't share the same references here. I sincerely hope you will improve the article, since it needs it. Have a look before at fr:Henri de Boulainvilliers if you will, and maybe, if you are interested in discussing the "racism" question, at Michel Foucault's book, Il faut défendre la société (although most of the book deals with the "discours historico-politique de la guerre des races", I think there is a chapter dedicated in particular to Boulainvilliers. You will surely find it most interesting, concerning, for example, your assimilation of Boulainvilliers to Hobbes.

Foucault (of course, no one is forced to agree with him!) explicitly argues against this identification: Hobbes is a theoretician of sovereignty, he is part of what Foucault calls the "discours juridico-philosophique de la souveraineté, whereas Boulainvilliers pertains to the historical and political discourse of "race struggle". Main point of difference: the sovereign's discourse has the classical conception of an universal subject, transcendantal & out of history, which is a neutral judge; on the other hand, the historical and political discourse insists on past wars, and states that current law is only the "dried blood of past battles", that under the apparent neutrality of law one can find historical struggles. In this second discourse, the subject openly takes part in this battle, and the making of history is one way to take part in it (see p.50-51). Actually, what Foucault points out here is that Boulainvilliers is part (he's not the only one) of the inventor of a true historical discourse (which wasn't limited any more to counting the deeds of the lords in hagiographies and epics), based on this racial distinction. For all my respect towards Boulainvilliers, I doubt that you can totally pass over his conception of race. In my opinion, there is nothing malicious in stating that Boulainvilliers was one of the inventor of the racist discourse, and it is true! The main problem may be the construction of the article (maybe the discussion on influence on racist discourse can be separated in another section — right now the article was so short it hadn't much sense to divide it; but I understand that you feel it fails balance and explanation; the French Wikipedia article may be better). Now, concerning Simar's comments that it is a "theory of classes", it must be stressed again that Boulainvilliers' conception of race has not much to do with biological racism: Simar may have spoken of a theory of classes to stress the non-essential nature of this hierarchy, which is in fact both a racial and a class hierarchy (since the aristocrats are Franks and the Third Estate Gallo-Romans; there is a difference of "race" between "Franks" & "Gallo-Romans", although of course the term hasn't got the same sense than today — but what does it exactly means today, especially in English where it seems to become a complete synonym of "ethnic"? — thus leading to a racialization of ethnicity...). That doesn't mean that it is not "racist", nor that it didn't have an important influence (reason to speak about Boulainvilliers first of all) on latter discourses. Others important authors concerning this "historical & political discourse of race struggle", according to Foucault, are Edward Coke and John Lilburne in Britain; Boulainvilliers, Fréret, Sieyès, Augustin Thierry and Cournot in France (around p.40). Foucault assigns a "double birth" to this "race struggle" discourse: around 1630 with the Levellers, and latter in France with Boulainvilliers (both are against absolute monarchy, one on behalf of the people, the other on behalf of the aristocracy). One of the main difference between this ancient "race struggle" discourse and modern "biological racism" according to Foucault, is that while the ancient discourse opposed two exterior races (the Franks & the Gallo-Romans in this case), modern racism actually "doubles" a race into two: one race always become two:

« l’autre race , au fond, ce n’est pas celle qui est venue d’ailleurs, ce n’est pas celle qui, pour un temps, a triomphé et dominé, mais c’est celle qui, en permanence et sans cesse, s’infiltre dans le corps social, ou plutôt se recrée en permanence dans le tissu social et à partir de lui. Autrement dit : ce que nous voyons comme polarité, comme cassure binaire dans la société, ce n’est pas l’affrontement de deux races extérieures l’une à l’autre ; c’est le dédoublement d’une seule et même race en une sur-race et une sous-race. Ou encore : la réapparition, à partir d’une race, de son propre passé. Bref, l’envers et l’en-dessous de la race qui apparaît en elle. » (p.52).

Finally, on the January 28, 1976 course, Foucault clearly writes: you may have thought that I was doing the apology of the racist discourse (!). In fact, one must distinguish the "racist discourse" from the "race struggle discourse". Until the 17th century, history was the history of the sovereign; the "discourse of race struggle" subverted this history. The "racist discourse" appeared in the 19th century. This distinction might possibly be the principal point you are lifting. In this sense, I agree with you that Boulainvilliers may have been "caricatured": the distinction between both discourses should be stressed a bit more. However, there is no doubt that he was one of the main inventor of such a "race struggle discourse", which, as you know, became very common in France in the 19th century (the foreign origin of the aristocrats, etc.) and played quite an important role during the Revolution... Well, that's not really what I'm supposed to do on a sunny day like this one, so I quit it here & hope you improve the article while also taking into account these comments... Regards, Lapaz 14:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand the issue much better now. (Lunarian 11:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Henri versus Henry

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Henry III of France#Why the anglicized "Henry"?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)