POLITICS MARCH 7, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
There is one book that says it all.
An old book, nearly a classic. Oddly, it is rarely mentioned in France.
This book, published in 1957, is titled The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology.
Its author is Ernst H. Kantorowicz, a Jewish historian and medievalist from Germany who immigrated to the United States in 1939.
If I could give only one piece of advice to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and to those around him who are concerned about his image, and in particular the perception of his presidency--which has been greatly damaged not only by an economic downturn, but also by his autocratic style, his recent divorce, his whirlwind romance with ex-model Carla Bruni--it would be to drop everything and consult this great book, this masterpiece about the history of the Middle Ages and contemporary political science.
What exactly is Kantorowicz's thesis? Broadly speaking, it is that a sovereign or ruler does not have one body but two.
More precisely, it is that at the exact moment a man attains political office, his person, his being, literally splits in two.
He has an ordinary body, which Kantorowicz calls "profane." It has all the desires of the human body, its aggravations and passions.
And then he also has a sacred body, quite detached from the scheming of the profane body, as impassive as the other is passionate, as silent as the other is loquacious and temperamental. If not mystical, it is at least mysterious, immaterial, invisible.
The theory suggests that the exercise of power and prestige is related to the struggle between the "vulgar" and the "ethereal" bodies, between the perishable and the sublime. The proportions may vary, but there must be balance; coexistence is a non-negotiable principle.
When Sarkozy's situation is examined through this prism, his case is quite simple: Too much of the profane body and not enough of the sacred. The profane body is in fact dominant, taking over, swallowing up the sacred one.
Somehow, in his romance, his penchant for jogging, his displays of impatience, there is too much flesh, an overexposure of ordinary passions and pleasures, something never before seen in other presidential administrations: an unexpected eclipsing of the sacred body, which does not experience pleasure or passion, and demands both distance and respect.
Unlike some of his other adversaries, I look upon the president with a fair amount of sympathy.
The problem is not his private life--Francois Mitterrand certainly had his secrets, which he later revealed rather ostentatiously.
It is also not the coarseness of his recent imbroglio at the agricultural fair in Paris when he shot back, "Get lost, you jerk," to a man who had insulted him. Is that really more shocking than Jacques Chirac's outburst at Israeli security during his visit to Jerusalem's Old City in 1996, or the rather inappropriate "chienlit" expression used by Charles de Gaulle in May 1968?
It isn't even that he's too present, too directly involved in day-to-day policy--is it not for this, and for his boundless energy, that the French electorate chose him?
No. The real problem--which the public perceives and does not excuse--is that he has seemingly tossed aside the sacred body and the modern doctrines of the Machiavellian prince. The real problem, which is chipping away at Sarkozy's popularity in the polls, and which will soon hamper his ability to effect change, is that this man, so attentive, perhaps too attentive, to France's "Christian roots," has in this matter crossed the line toward full and complete secularity.
The presence of the sacred body was palpable with Chirac, Mitterrand, de Gaulle, Bill Clinton, and now, even with poor, hopeless George W. Bush; its aura could be felt despite the vulgarities they committed. But we don't see any trace of it in the young French president, and that is tragic.
Perhaps he thinks he can bring it all back with a clear, lucid strategy.
Perhaps he thinks he is breaking with tradition, generating a new image of the sovereign.
And perhaps he thinks that in so doing, he is way ahead of the commentators he scorns, who are stuck in the past. Does he think "he who laughs last, laughs best"?
If this is the case, Sarkozy is making a mistake.
Even if he tries to re-create the presidency, wipe the slate clean and begin again, he is governed by the same rules as all politicians. The theory of Kantorowicz is not a hypothesis but a theorem, and theorems, by definition, have no exceptions.
French philosopher and writer Bernard-Henri Lévy is the author, most recently, of American Vertigo: Traveling America in the Footsteps of Tocqueville and Ce Grand Cadavre a la Renverse. Translated from the French by Sara Sugihara.
18 comments
Theorem?! Hilarious! I like BHL but that inane conclusion shows he has no clue about math. What did Kantorowicz prove?!
- sleepyavl
March 10, 2008 at 2:30am
Why is TNR publishing this joker? What is the point of this article? Does Lévy actually think there is merit to the two-bodies thesis he describes? That the ruler's personality literally splits in two? What? Does he think it a worthwhile metaphor for something? If so, what? I read these prose poems and I honestly don't know what anyone is supposed to say in response because there is just no thesis here to grapple with.
- Christopher M
March 10, 2008 at 2:59am
Sleepy, I think that Levy uses the terms theory and hypothesis in a philosophical and not in a scientific sense certainly not in Karl Popper’s sense. In philosophy, briefly stated a theory is a hypothetical universal aspect of phenomena. For Kant, for example, theoretical knowledge looks for an explanatory completeness that transcends (goes beyond) what is given in experience. In any case since antiquity philosophy has distinguished between “pure knowledge” and practical knowledge. Hypothesis in philosophy are suppositions. They may be verifiable but not verified. In the sciences, of course, these terms take on radically different meanings. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Levy’s main thrust of the article, one needs to make allowance for his use of the terms in question.
- jdyer
March 10, 2008 at 11:04am
I also am very critical of Sarkozy, and in general, France. Their policy of total dependence on Nuclear Energy, their approach to their immigrant problem which has created enormous problems, and I guess their entire mindset of "France for the French." However, in a somewhat sympathetic tone, as far as the European Nation States are concerned, France is not alone in this mindset. This entire debate of the future of the European Nation States is probably the most politically charged of all issues in Europe. With the advent of the Euro and Germany more or less serving as an ultimate arbiter, I heard a comment by an Englishman concerning their involvement in the European Common Market, " My God, we have lost our freedom." I think that a great majority of the British are very resentful toward that politician that caved in and joined the ECM. Was it Blair or Brown? Tensions have always been strained between the UK and the Continent but I think they are more so today. Anyway, about the split personality of Presidents. I agree that this must be an important aspect of consideration, and the American people and press are very much on top of this issue. Have you noticed in the current election how much religion and politics and economics have all become intertwined and subject to dissection and analysis? George Bush and the rise of the Religious Right may have been beginning of what may be the future of the American Political System.
- robert therriault
March 10, 2008 at 11:05am
Christopher M “Why is TNR publishing this joker? What is the point of this article?” Chris have you read Ernst H. Kantorowicz’ book “The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology?” I suggest you do so before you call the authors of the book and the article “jokers.” The book which I read many years ago tries to make sense of the theory of Kingship as a political system in Christian Europe. It offers a theory of Kingship which is still considered important in its field of studies. Kantorowicz’ view is that the idea of a monarch (as opposed to the actual monarch) was the consequence of a Christian belief system and a tradition steeped in law which saw the king as both a person as well as the embodiment of the community. For example when people said ‘the king is dead, long live the king,’ the alluded to such a belief system: the actual king can die but the idea of the king (kingship, or in our terms the sovereign can never die). “Does Lévy actually think there is merit to the two-bodies thesis he describes? That the ruler's personality literally splits in two? What? Does he think it a worthwhile metaphor for something? If so, what? I read these prose poems and I honestly don't know what anyone is supposed to say in response because there is just no thesis here to grapple with.” Again, Chris you can disagree with Levy’s views, but you need to have read and understood Kantorowicz’ book in order to be able to say anything intelligent about his article.
- jdyer
March 10, 2008 at 11:24am
Although I am a Medievalist who has worked on the development of the notion of sovereignty, Levy's summoning of Kantorowicz at first reminded me of controversy. Ernst Kantorowicz was a Jew who later became a follower of Stephan George, who although embraced by the Nazis left Germany when they came to power. Kantorowicz himself emigrated to the US to teach at the University of California, a post he left after refusing to sign a loyalty oath, a prerequisite for employment, during the McCarthy Era. Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies gave him shelter and here he produced not an obscure volume (as Levy describes it) but a book described in several quarters as his masterpiece, The King's Two Bodies. This book brings to mind Henri Pirennes' work, insofar as it seems to have stimulated a body of scholarship, although Pirenne and Kantorowicz seem to have had markedly different politics and personalities. This past year, Harvard Professor Stephen Greenblatt, author of a widely-read book on Shakespeare, chaired a discussion of The King's Two Bodies at an academic conference. The King's Two Bodies continues to be used in the study of the rise of the state as well as in the study of kingship in Shakespeare. Kantorowicz remains controversial because he is seen by some as a proponent of absolutism. That said, I can't help but wonder why Levy would want a modern politician like Sarkozy to read this book. If Levy had argued that Sarkozy lacks knowledge of the nature of the state, it could have followed that this would be a book to begin his education. Perhaps. Kantorowicz is a person intellectually linked to mysticism and poetry and authoritarianism, who, in his own life, elected to follow his conscience against the rules not of the state but of his employer, the University system of the State of California, a body chartered and funded by a state. Were Sarkozy -- or even George Bush (how does Levy describe him? Did he use the word hapless or hopeless?) -- to read The King's Two Bodies, would he then say to Levy, "See? I can do whatever I want!"
- swozniak
March 10, 2008 at 12:06pm
where are my posts, people?
- jdyer
March 10, 2008 at 12:33pm
Sleepy, I think that Levy uses the terms theory and hypothesis in a philosophical and not in a scientific sense certainly not in Karl Popper’s sense. In philosophy, briefly stated a theory is a hypothetical universal aspect of phenomena. For Kant, for example, theoretical knowledge looks for an explanatory completeness that transcends (goes beyond) what is given in experience. In any case since antiquity philosophy has distinguished between “pure knowledge” and practical knowledge. Hypothesis in philosophy are suppositions. They may be verifiable but not verified. In the sciences, of course, these terms take on radically different meanings. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Levy’s main thrust of the article, one needs to make allowance for his use of the terms in question.
- jdyer
March 10, 2008 at 1:01pm
Christopher M “Why is TNR publishing this joker? What is the point of this article?” Chris have you read Ernst H. Kantorowicz’ book “The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology?” I suggest you do so before you call the authors of the book and the article “jokers.” The book which I read many years ago tries to make sense of the theory of Kingship as a political system in Christian Europe. It offers a theory of Kingship which is still considered important in its field of studies. Kantorowicz’ view is that the idea of a monarch (as opposed to the actual monarch) was the consequence of a Christian belief system and a tradition steeped in law which saw the king as both a person as well as the embodiment of the community. For example when people said ‘the king is dead, long live the king,’ the alluded to such a belief system: the actual king can die but the idea of the king (kingship, or in our terms the sovereign can never die). “Does Lévy actually think there is merit to the two-bodies thesis he describes? That the ruler's personality literally splits in two? What? Does he think it a worthwhile metaphor for something? If so, what? I read these prose poems and I honestly don't know what anyone is supposed to say in response because there is just no thesis here to grapple with.” Again, Chris you can disagree with Levy’s views, but you need to have read and understood Kantorowicz’ book in order to be able to say anything intelligent about his article.
- jdyer
March 10, 2008 at 1:02pm
Geez. In modern words, a leader must look professional and not lose his or her cool in public. This as Levy is trying to say has a strong historical basis and is more important than many think. Protecting this image is critical. It is not easily regained, if lost. To put it differently, the leader must be elevated, above us, sacred for leadership that isn't just balancing interests, but headed somewhere.
- Dennis Ashendorf
March 10, 2008 at 1:09pm
Come now! There's always room for a little jeu d'esprit. Took me two minutes to read. J'ai ri.
-
March 10, 2008 at 1:16pm
I had to look up Bernard, whom I assumed was a man in his 80s, based on his writing style. At 59, he is a slightly younger age peer! Had a great deal of fun, following "BHL," thanks to the internet. To those who wonder why TNR publishes him, take the same journey I did and read the response of others to him and you will understand why BHL supports the two bodies of the king, president or prime minister. "God is dead but my hair is perfect!' said while wearing specially constructed shirts.
- swozniak
March 10, 2008 at 2:20pm
robert therriault writes "I think that a great majority of the British are very resentful toward that politician that caved in and joined the ECM. Was it Blair or Brown?" In fact, Britain joined the Common Market in 1973 under the Conservative Administration of Edward Heath. In the subsequent 1975 referendum more than 67% of the voters voted that Britain should remain in the Common Market.
- some corner of a foreign field
March 10, 2008 at 4:47pm
the reason even poor old bush seems to have this other body is bec the american press is so useless that they have not made clear to the poor uninformed people how really pathetic bush ('s body)is. the french press might be a little bit better and therefore sarkozy is left without the second body. of course tnr is part of this voodoo of giving bush a second body
- notsubsrber
March 10, 2008 at 6:36pm
For a great example of the metaphor see Elliot Spitzer of New York.
- Jack
March 10, 2008 at 9:49pm
Bernard-Henri Levy is absolutely right. Remember François Mitterand, whose persona before he was elected president was that of a wily, dexterous, power hungry leader of the socialist party; as president he increasingly appeared as a latter day incarnation of Napoleon. He was the very emblem of dignity and tradition.
- margalith
March 11, 2008 at 6:14am
yo America, get with the program: Just because it's "produit de France" doesn't mean it's worth ingesting. No one in Europe takes Lévy seriously, and I don't mean we don't take him seriously the way America doesn't take Michael Moore seriously, I mean we don't take him seriously the way we don't take George W. Bush seriously. A post above found the perfect title for BHL: "joker." TNR publishing him is silly. What's next in the interest of promoting the Atlantic Alliance--will Libération start publishing political opinion pieces written by Simon from American Idol?
- Chris
March 12, 2008 at 1:26pm
A question here surely has to be raised about the applicability of a theory of medieval kingship to modern democratic politics. To simply conflate it together with Machiavelli's The Prince - as Mr. Henri-Levy does here - is really not intellectually adequate. What, precisely, do they have to do with each other? The answer cannot be simple. And Henry-Levy doesn't even pose the question. It seems to me relevant that a large part of George Bush's electoral appeal turned on his ability to present himself as "just a regular joe" - through his love of pretzels, his own jogging habits, his distinctly unstately speech patterns... Professor Hyde-Jekyll Miskatonic University
- Professor Hyde-Jekyll
March 13, 2008 at 6:28pm