Anyone who’s been reading this blog recently knows that I’ve been working on Leibniz, and little else, for the past few weeks. I can’t stress enough the difficulties I’m encountering in this work.
Part of the problem is that – as with (just about) everything I reference in this book – I’m checking all translations back to the original language. The number of things I’ve discovered and changed as a result of this makes it worth the work. Leibniz presents unusual challenges, as I’ve mentioned before.
There is a useful list of the different editions and translations here. Because the Akademie edition (the Sämliche Schriften und Briefe) is incomplete I’ve ended up referencing all of the editions mentioned here, with the exceptions of Klopp and Pertz, although I’ve consulted both of them in the course of this work. It’s worth noting that some of the ‘translations’ listed here are actually collections – for example, the Deutsche Schriften is not a translation, but includes texts Leibniz originally wrote in German. So I’ve ended up referencing a few of them too. As much as possible I’ve tried to use the Akademie edition, and minimise the number of editions (both original language and English), but it’s not been easy.
Of course, there are loads of writings that are not in English at all. (I should note Lloyd Strickland’s helpful site of translations, some of them unpublished here). Particularly important for me is a text written in 1677 entitled ‘De Jure Suprematus ac Legationis Principum Germaniae’. Some excerpts of this are in Riley (ed.), Political Writings. He then wrote a briefer French dialogue presenting the same argument, entitled ‘Entrétiens de Philarete et d’Eugène’. This text, because of its length, style, and language, is quite often cited as more accessible version of these arguments. While the Entrétiens and ‘De Jure Suprematus’ are both in the sixth series of the Akademie edition, the Entrétiens is also an earlier collected works – Œuvres de Leibniz, edited by Louis Alexandre Foucher de Careil, from the mid 19th century, and reprinted since. Foucher de Careil does not encumber the text with the same apparatus as the Akademie edition, so it’s much more readable. Several of the texts I’ve read discussing the Entrétiens reference the Œuvres – and not just those written before the Akademie edition volume was published.
I spent ages trying to locate a text that I’d read and referenced in the Œuvres in the Akademie. This has been used a few times in various secondary texts. It’s not surprising – it’s a very clear text that is extremely quotable. There are some really good summary statements that are nicely precise, in a way that the Entrétiens often are not – in part because of the dialogue form. At one point I was thinking that it was actually an editorial summary by Foucher de Careil – there were good reasons for this, because of layout and the way the text refers to ‘the author’, but this makes sense because Leibniz published these anonymously and in letters about them referred to himself in that detached way. I eventually discovered that the Akademie had treated it as a variant of a text it did publish, and some of the most quotable bits are buried in notes encumbered by philological apparatus. There are a couple of bits I can’t locate at all.
It’s also worth noting that I’m only working on Leibniz in relation to two main concerns – his thinking of space, extension and related issues in the wake of Descartes; and his theorisation of sovereignty. Even so there is a lot to say. The challenges for anyone working on Leibniz more generally are enormous. I can’t think of anyone else in the Western philosophical tradition who presents such a challenge in terms of the breadth of their engagement, the volume of writings, and the difficulties of access. I’m hoping that one more day in the Warburg Institute, and one in the British Library will provide the last few references (though I have also agreed to write a review of Protogaea).
There’s an ongoing conversation on some blogs, begun by Graham Harman here, about the most underrated philosopher. Leibniz obviously isn’t that, since his status as a philosopher in general terms is very high (though he doesn’t even make the ‘top ten’ in this ridiculous BBC list). But I would say the difficulties of working on him are underappreciated, and he is certainly undervalued as a political thinker.
