Leibniz' Discourse on the Natural Theology of the Chinese and the Leibniz-Clarke controversy

Philosophy East and West

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 64-86

  Ribas, Albert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT OBERTA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60950710406     PISSN: 00318221     EISSN: 15291898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/pew.2003.0008     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. The first edition of the controversy was made by Samuel Clarke himself in 1717; see Samuel Clarke, A Collection of Papers which Passed between the Late Learned Mr. Leibnitz and Dr. Clarke (London, 1717)
2. Of the more recent editions the following can be cited: H. G. Alexander, The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, together with Extracts of Newton's 'Principia' and 'Opticks' (New York: Philosophical Library, 1956)
3. André Robinet, Correspondance Leibniz-Clarke pré sentée d'après les manuscrits originaux des bibliothèques de Hanovre et de Londres (Paris: PUF, 1957)
4. Eloy Rada, La polémica Leibniz-Clarke (Madrid: Taurus, 1980)
5. Volkmar Schüller, Der Leibniz-Clarke-Briefwechsel (Berlin: Akademie, 1991)
6. One of the most complete studies on this correspondence is Ezio Vailati, Leibniz and Clarke: A Study of Their Correspondence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); see especially chap. 1, "God," and chap. 6, "Matter and Force."
7. see C. I. Gerhardt, ed., Die Philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, 7 vols. (Berlin, 1875-1890; reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1978), III: 675. The title Lettre de Mons. de Leibniz sur la philosophie chinoise à Mons. de Rémond is that which appears in the first edition of 1735
8. see C. Kortholt, ed., Epistolae ad diversos (Leipzig, 1 735), II: 413-494
9. It is the same as in the following one of 1768: Ludovicus Dutens, ed., Gothofredi Guillelmi Leibnitii Opera omnia, 7 vols. (Geneva: Tournes, 1768; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1989), IV: 169-210
10. For the modern editions it is necessary to refer to the following: R. Loosen and F. Vonesen, Zwei Briefe über das binäre Zahlensystem und die Chinesische Philosophie (Stuttgart: Belser, 1968)
11. Christiane Frémont, Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, plus quelques écrits (Paris: L'Herne, 1987)
12. Antonio Caiazza et al., eds., Leibniz: La Cina (Milano: Spirali, 1987)
13. Adelino Cardoso, Discurso sobre a Teologia natural dos Chineses (Lisboa: Colibri, 1991)
14. Julia Ching and Williard G. Oxtoby, Moral Enlightenment: Leibniz and Wolff on China (Nettetal: Steyler, 1992)
15. Daniel J. Cook and Henry Rosemont, Jr., eds., Leibniz: Writings on China (Chicago: Open Court, 1994)
16. Lourdes Rensoli, ed., Discurso sobre la teología natural de los chinos (Buenos Aires: Biblioteca Internacional Martin Heidegger, 2000)
17. See also Leroy E. Loemker, ed., Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1976). Here I follow the text of Frémont's edition, but with the paragraph numbering of the Cook and Rosemont edition (and also their English translation)
18. The Discours is the fruit of Rémond's request to Leibniz for his opinion on Chinese Philosophy. In his letter of 4 September 1715 (Gerhardt, Die Philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, III: 649-651), Rémond encloses the treatises of Longobardi and of Antoine de Sainte-Marie, which will be the critical references on which the Discours is built
19. Besides the studies that accompany the editions cited of the Discours, see also David E. Mungello, Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1985)
20. René Etiemble, L'Europe chinoise (Paris: Gallimard, 1988-1989)
21. The Princess of Wales had characterized it like this, for example in a letter to Leibniz of 4/15 May 1716 (Robinet, Correspondance Leibniz-Clarke, p. 67)
22. The treatises are: Nicolò Longobardi, Traité sur quelques points de la religion des Chinois, and Antoine de Sainte-Marie [Antonio Caballero or Antonio de Santa María], Traité sur quelques points importants de la mission de la Chine. Both were reedited in a single volume in 1701 in Paris. Rémond sent these works to Leibniz in September 1715. Longobardi's Traité is also included in the edition of Dutens (Dutens, Gothofredi Guillelmi Leibnitii Opera omnia, IV.1: 89-144), together with Leibniz' critical notes
23. the English translation is by A. Dominick lorio, Dialogue between a Christian Philosopher and a Chinese Philosopher on the Existence and Nature of God (Washington: University Press of America, 1980)
24. Apparently, Leibniz already knew Malebranche's treatise of 1708, before Rémond's dispatch. With regard to this, see Robinet's introduction in the cited edition of the Entretien; also André Robinet, Malebranche et Leibniz: Relations personelles (Paris: Vrin, 1955), pp. 486-493
25. On Malebranche's interpretation, see David E. Mungello, "Malebranche and Chinese Philosophy," Journal of the History of Ideas 41 (1980): 551-578
26. This attention spans fifty years (1666-1716); Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), II: 497, summarizes the main landmarks
27. However, Leibniz' intense interest begins in 1696. One year later, as well as editing Novissima Sinica, he also wrote a Preface to this work. See also the following monographs: Olivier Roy, Leibniz et Ia Chine (Paris: Vrin, 1972)
28. and David E. Mungello, Leibniz and Confucianism (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1977)
29. See Mungello, Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology
30. H. J. Zacher, Die Hauptschriften zur Dyadik von G. W. Leibniz (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1973)
31. and particularly Rita Widmaier, Leibniz korrespondiert mit China: Der Briefwechsel mit den Jesuitenmissionaren (1689-1714) (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1990)
32. Mungello, Leibniz and Confucianism)
33. see Virgile Pinot, La Chine et la formation de l'esprit philosophique en France (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1932)
34. Etiemble, Les jésuites en Chine (1552-1773): La querelle des rites (Paris: Julliard, 1966)
35. David E. Mungello, ed., The Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning (Nettetal: Steyler, 1994)
36. J. Brucker, "Chinois (rites)," in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, II :2376, reproducing the Papal condemnation of 1704. The complete account (cols. 2376-2378) includes seven articles: the first deals with the terminology question, in the second until the sixth the participation in the rites is condemned, and in the seventh the atheism or idolatry of the Chinese is taken for granted. The condemnation of 1715 is expressed in almost exactly the same way; see text at col. 2382
37. On the Sorbonne condemnations, see J. Davy, "La condamnation en Sorbonne des nouveaux Mémoires sur la Chine," Recherches de Science Religieuse 37 (1950): 366-397
38. and in E. Préclin and E. Jarry, eds., "Le lotte politiche e dottrinali nei secoli XVII e XVIII," Storia della Chiesa (Torino: SAIE) 19(1) (1973): 377-401
39. and Leibniz' reply in April 1703 (see Zacher, Die Hauptschriften zur Dyadik von G. W. Leibniz, pp. 275-286)
40. Leibniz establishes a correspondence between the hexagrams of the Yijing (or Book of Changes) and the binary system of his invention. This correspondence endorses a cosmogonic and metaphysical interpretation that wanted to demonstrate, among other considerations, that the Chinese had the idea of the Creation on their own. On this subject see, for example, James A. Ryan, "Leibniz' Binary System and Shao Yong's Yijing," Philosophy East and West 46 (1996): 59-90
41. Needham surmises that Leibniz' thought is formed under the direct influence of his reading and contacts on China. See Needham, Science and Civilization in China, II: 496-505 (section titled "Chu Hsi, Leibniz, and the Philosophy of Organism"), and particularly p. 504 n. g
42. This conjecture has been rejected by the most recent scholars, as in D. Cook and H. Rosemont, "The Pre-Established Harmony between Leibniz and Chinese Thought," Journal of the History of Ideas 42 (1981): 146-148
43. A similar diagnosis is formulated by Frémont, Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, pp. 28-30
44. and by Cook and Rosemont, Leibniz: Writings on China, pp. 2-3
45. The concept of Qi (which should be translated as "breath," "energy," "ether," rather than as "matter") is more universal in Chinese tradition as a whole than the concept of Li (which has been translated as "form," "model," "reason," "principle of organization," "norm") and in any case Qi preceded Li. The Li is a more specific concept. It particularly belongs to the philosophic codification of Confucian origin that, driven by Zhu Xi, was to dominate Chinese thought from the thirteenth to the eighteenth centuries. Initially Li referred to the streaks in stones, to the ducts of the human body, to rivers, to mountain ranges, and also to the activity of sculpting or polishing, that is to say, to the idea of lines, axes, and finally the abstract concept of norm and main corrector - a very characteristic concept of the Confucian tradition. On this base Zhu Xi builds his dialectic of Li and Qi, this being the latent reference in the Discours. The first problem for Longobardi and Leibniz, among others, would be the interpretation of Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucianism; the second problem would be that they took this particular school as a representative of "Chinese philosophy" as a whole. On Zhu Xi, consult Fung Yu-lan, A History of Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983
46. reprint Delhi: Motilal Barnarsidass, 1994), vol. II, chap. 13
47. On Longobardi's and Leibniz' interpretations, see the aforementioned Mungello, Leibniz and Confucianism. On the impact of the concepts of Li and Qi, see Etiemble, "Les concepts de LI et de K'I dans la pensée européenne au XVIIIe siècle," Mélanges Alexandre Koyré 2 (1964): 144-159
48. This expression from Koyré can be found in Alexandre Koyré, De la mystique à la science (Paris: EEHESS, 1986), pp. 152-155. The discussion on the "quantity of matter" in the Leibniz-Clarke controversy can be found particularly in the following passages: Leibniz, III, § 9; IV, § 21; V, § 32, § 34, § 35, and § 74; and in Clarke, III, § 9; IV, § 7, and § 21; V, § 26-32, § 33-35, and § 36-48. I have analyzed this discussion about quantity of matter, pointing out the weakness of Leibniz' position on this point, in my book; see Albert Ribas, Biografia del vacío: Su historia filosófica y cientifica desde la Antigüedad a la Edad Moderna (Barcelona: Destino, 1997), pp. 338-360
49. See Cook and Rosemont, Leibniz: Writings on China, p. 76 n. 4
50. Fung Yu-lan, A History of Chinese Philosophy, II: 534-558, in the chapter on the Neo-Confucian philosophy of Zhu Xi, assumes these equivalences: LI = idea, norm; QI = matter. Particularly, the identification of QI with matter is the most criticized point, as Fung himself recognizes, because in the tradition of Chinese thought there is no exact equivalent of "matter."
51. Leibniz, Concepts of Force: A Study in the Foundations of Dynamics, trans. Max Jammer (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957), p. 160, from Leibniz, De primae philosophiae emendatione et de notione substantiae
52. see Dutens, Gothofredi Guillelmi Leibnitii Opera omnia, III: 19-20: Cujus rei ut aliquem gustum dem, dicam interim, notionem virium seu virtutis (quam Germani vocant 'Kraft', Galli 'la force') cui ego explicandae peculiarem Dynamices scientiam destinavi, plurimum lucis afferre ad veram notionem substantiae intelligendam. Differt enim vis adiva a potentia nuda vulgo scholis cognita, quod potentia activa Scholasticorum, seu facultas, nihil aliud est quam propinqua agendi possibilitas, quae tamen aliena excitatione, et velut stimulo indigest, ut in actum transferatur. Sed vis activa actum quendam sive entelecheian continet, atque inter facultatem agendi actionemque ipsam media est, et conatum involvit; atque ita per se ipsam in operationemque fertur; nec auxiliis indiget, sed sola sublatione impedimenti
53. See Leibniz' letter to Bouvet on 2 December 1697, and Bouvet's reply to Leibniz on 28 February 1698. They are reproduced in E. J. Aiton and E. Shimao, "Gorai Kinzo's Study of Leibniz and the I Ching Hexagrams," Annals of Science 38 (1981): 71-92
54. and are extensively abstracted in Jean Baruzi, Leibniz, avec de nombreux textes inédits (Paris: Bloud, 1909), pp. 161 -164
55. This is, for example, Frémont's opinion: the reflection on China enlightens Leibnizian thought and method (Fremont, Discours sur la théologie naturelle des Chinois, p. 29). Cook and Rosemont in a certain way agree: "Nevertheless, in finding views approximating his own in a culture 3,000 years and 8,000 miles distant from him, Leibniz could not but be interested in, stimulated by, and sympathetic to early Chinese thought as he had come to understand"
56. See Needham, Science and Civilization in China, II: 504
57. Remember Clarke's definition of matter: "Lifeless, Void of Motivity, Unactive and Inert" (Clarke, V, § 100-102)