In Eloge du théâtre Badiou offers the following definition of theatre: ‘true theatre is the incarnation of an idea,’ “theater, when it takes place, is the representation of the idea”. This definition does not emerge, however, from the careful philosophical reading of a play, a sequence of plays, a performance, a series of performances, or the delimitation of a specific ‘theatrical configuration.’ Of course, Badiou speaks of particular plays – of Corneille’s Le Cid, and Koltès’ Dans les champs de coton and he mentions Antoine Vitez’ productions at the Théâtre Chaillot, but there is no sustained, detailed investigation of a theatrical work of art. Given the long and detailed analyses devoted to poetry (Mallarmé, Rimbaud, Pessoa, Celan) or to novels by Rousseau and Julien Gracq in Logics of Worlds, this absence is significant, the dissymmetry is flagrant. At this point, one could resort to a biographical answer: Badiou does not analyze plays because he writes them, because he is a playwright – Ahmed se fâche, Les Citrouilles. I suspect, however, that something more complicated is at stake behind this dissymmetry in the inaesthetic treatment of theatre. Our first clue is that the incarnation of an idea, the bodily presentation of an idea, is also Badiou’s term in Logics of Worlds for the generic truth procedure. In the preface he speaks at length about the existence of ideas, in Plato’s language, or ‘eternal truths’ in Descartes’ language, and about their presentation in a body of truth. A ‘body,’ in Badiou’s phenomenology, is the ‘appearing of a truth.’ It has to render possible the thinking of truth; it has to manifest “the visibility of the True within the existence of a world. And, to produce that visibility, it needs the characteristics of separation, cohesion, synthetic unity, in short, of organicity”. At the level of appearing, thus, a generic truth procedure presents itself as separate, cohesive, synthetically unified and organic. Does this remind you of anything in classical aesthetics? Are these not the ontological characteristics of an authentic work of art? Note that this is a far cry from Being and Event’s conception of a generic truth procedure as an infinite, indiscernible and unpredictable sequence of local investigations. Theatre and the appearing of a generic truth procedure are thus undifferentiated at the level of aesthesis, at the level of appearing. The doctrine of conditions – apparently for lack of a detailed application – has not succeeded in differentiating theatre from any other truth procedure. Why is this the case?