“The art of quotation is the art of those who do not know how to think for themselves,” according to Voltaire.
The formula is appealing and would make a great starting point for this article. The problem is that it is supposed to be in its Philosophical Dictionary. However, after having scoured numerous editions, including the most complete to date, combing through their text by keywords, this sentence remains nowhere to be found.
Speaking of Voltaire, how many defenders of freedom of expression invoke the famous sally “I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the end so that you may say it”? Far too many, since he never said or wrote it. In fact, it comes from the British writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who, by her own admission, wanted to condense the philosopher’s thought into it… but by clumsily adding quotation marks, demonstrates an article in New Obs.
Read the article from New Obs
Another case: in 2021, a reader filed a complaint with the Press Council against Richard Martineau, accusing him of having falsely attributed a quote to Karl Marx. The columnist was cleared, but the fact remains that the authorship of the formulation in question remains unresolved.
So who said what? How reliable are these shock phrases? Vincent Guillin, director of the philosophy department at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), asks this straight away: “Apocryphal quotes, that is, quotes attributed to a person who never said the things they are supposed to say, or who expressed them in a different form, are a real problem.” He specifies that historians of philosophy are particularly concerned by this concern for authenticity, but not only, since these quotes often constitute a path of connection between the discipline and the general public, which opens the door to erroneous representations of certain philosophical thoughts.
It is clear that these attractive formulas have taken social networks by storm, or are taken up by personal growth programs, which sometimes distort their true nature. However, Mr. Guillin insists on this point.
When a philosophical quote is taken out of context, it is very likely that its meaning will be mistaken or that it will be made to say something other than what it really means, even subtly.
Vincent Guillin, director of the philosophy department at UQAM
These fragments of thought, whose synthetic form certainly promotes their memorization and marks milestones in a reflection, can thus become trees… not necessarily representative of the forest. “The thought of philosophers is organized into systems. They reflect on the world as a whole and will say many things about it. The whole difficulty is to be able to articulate the different striking formulations of a philosopher so that they do not contradict each other,” points out the academic, illustrating this principle with two apparently contradictory quotes from Descartes.
In fact, in The discourse of the methodhe gives himself the maxim of “changing [ses] desires [plutôt] than the order of the world”, before writing further that practical knowledge could help us to become “masters and possessors of nature”. Nevertheless, Vincent Guillin explains that a more global analysis allows us to understand that the “world” in question first relates to human morals and customs, while “nature” refers to the external world, the latter being malleable to make it compatible with our aspirations.
Hydra-like attributes
Who said, “He who does not know History is condemned to relive it”? Dig a little, and several names will come up: Primo Levi, Hegel, Marx, Churchill, Santayana… All with different versions. For historian Marc-André Éthier, this confusion in attribution is far from being an isolated case. “It happens often. In this case, we go to the sources, we look at what we know about it, the first time this reference appeared, what circumstances can explain why it would be attributed more to one person than another,” explains the professor at the Université de Montréal (UdeM), drawing a parallel with certain myths found in various societies and eras, such as that of the Flood.
Are there any probabilities of borrowing between authors? Mr. Éthier considers them significant if the formulation is repeated word for word. “But if it is an idea, it is somewhat normal that different people, at the same time, have more or less the same one, since they have experienced the same things.”
The critical tool
How do researchers ensure the authenticity of a quote? Guillin and Éthier have the same answer: by going back to the sources, for example by referring directly to the text from which it is supposed to come, or by cross-referencing. But the historian points out that “there is no miracle recipe” or universal research tool for collecting evidence. “It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack. And if there is no evidence… well, we simply say we don’t know,” he says. However, the general public does not necessarily have the time or resources for such investigations. In addition to searching in texts, they can turn to the Internet, advises Vincent Guillin, provided they consult reliable sources – the site Quote Investigator, for example, methodically dissects the legitimacy of known quotes.
The best tool to ensure that you use these famous quotes wisely remains critical thinking.
History students are trained to doubt and track down evidence, says Marc-André Éthier. “In all cases, it’s really a question of seeking out information with a critical mind,” he insists. As for their meaning, Vincent Guillin calls for great caution, since they can be misinterpreted, or even cause misinterpretations – he thus denounces the abusive and often erroneous use of Nietzsche’s words “What does not kill me makes me stronger.”
“A philosophical quote only has value from the moment we have appropriated it, trying to find out what the person who said it meant, and making sure that it is true. It is never an absolutely valid truth, it must always be brought back to reality and to the use we want to make of it, concludes Vincent Guillin. It is not a miracle cure.”