Leibniz and geography

Despite my Shakespearean distractions at the weekend, I had some time late last week and today to return to the ‘Another Leibniz’ paper I last worked on properly in September. The paper is something of a survey of Leibniz’s non-standard interests as they relate to geography, broadly construed – it discusses his geological and palaeontological work, more briefly his discussions of biology and his histories, and then in more detail his work both as a political and ‘geopolitical’ theorist.

It is fairly wide-ranging, the bibliography is fast growing and I still have quite a few references to follow up. The two key parts of the paper are the discussion of the Protogaea and the political material. The first is in the category of ‘a book review that went wrong’ – that is, it got far too long. In the second, I quickly survey the territory arguments, but the bit I’m developing looks at his writings on Egypt (the Consilium Aegyptiacum) and the remarks on China in the preface to the Novissima Sinica. The idea at the moment is that the stuff on biology and history fit around these two parts to round out the analysis, but without becoming major aspects of the paper – in part this is because the biological has been so well done recently by Justin Smith (see my comments here); and because the historical is both utterly forbidding and not especially exciting. On the latter I have Louis Davillé’s 800 page Leibniz Historien sitting on mydesk. The overall point of the paper – this is destined for a geography journal, I think, as well as being an AAG paper for this session – is that Leibniz had a strong interest in topics across the range of what we today call Geography, without my trying to suggest he was a geographer.

Apart from discussions of the relative space idea that comes from the Leibniz-Clarke debate or of Deleuze’s strange little book, which are not my focus here, I can’t find any literature by geographers on Leibniz. But I did discover there is a Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography (Länderkundeand a Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, both in Leipzig, where he was born and studied. Good to see his contributions being recognised in some way, at least.

This entry was posted in Fossils, Gilles Deleuze, Gottfried Leibniz, William Shakespeare. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Leibniz and geography

  1. Manuel says:

    I’m sorry, but I have to destroy your idea of dedicated institutes to Leibniz. Both, the Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography an the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, are just 2 out of 87 non-university research institutes. It’s just a contingency … further explanations about the Leibniz Association here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz_Scientific_Community

    It’s a real pitty, because it would be nice if It would be otherwise.

    • stuartelden says:

      Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t realise there were so many Leibniz institutes, or that there was the Association, but I did of course know there were many things named after him that had a tangential relation such as schools.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s