[Marxism-Thaxis] Political Biography of the Young Leibniz (2)
I found two emails from the author of this book, William Drischler. I reproduce them below. I would like to follow up on this abandoned thread. To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 23:52:16 + Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Adorno & Leibniz June 3, 2006 Comrade Dumain - Have I got the article for you! This is "Das Invividuelle denken. Der vollstaendige Individuenbegriff bei Leibniz u. seine Wieder- aufnahme bei Adorno" (Guido Kreis, Bonn). It's slated to appear in the Conference Bulletin of the World Leibniz Congress in Hanover this July. I'm trying to make it to the Congress to obtain a copy, but the world Leibniz Society also sells them outright. Horkheimer discussed monads too, but not as extensively as Adorno. I'm trying to order the big, new, fat edition of Adorno's lectures from 1962-1963. You're right that the new Leibniz/Spinoza bio is usefull. The author (I don't know how he figured this out) quite appropriately contends Leibniz enjoyed a more or less unilinear increase in political influence, especially after he curried favor with Czar Peter. The biographical legends [A.W. Ward] have it that the philosopher's influence declined after the expiry of the Electoress Sophie in 1714, but Leibniz was already well integrated (to put it mildly) in the secret diplomacy network. The Marxist work on Leibniz leaves plenty of room for improvement. The much-vaunted works of Hans Heinz Holz and Jon Elster say nothing about Russia and secret diplomacy. As I'm sure you know, Marx ran a private Leibniz museum out of his own home in his last years. Some quite intriguing Leibniz memorablia were assembled. WILLIAM FR. DRISCHLER Subject: Adorno & Leibniz Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:57:38 + 11 June 2006 Comrade Dumain - My apology for not replying to your June 4 e-mail earlier. Quite a breakthough has occured so far as the Marxist critique of Leibniz goes, this with the publication of a new volume by Heinz Duchhardt, 'Europa am Vorabend der Moderne, 1650-1800', and I have been drafting a reply to the author, who was kind enough to provide me a copy of his book after I sent him mine. Duchhardt is the leading academic historian of 17th-century Germany, has criticized the most influential Marxist treatment of early modern state formation (Benno Teschke's 'The Myth of 1648' [2003] and is quite interested in Leibniz biography. In fact p. 134 of 'Europa am Abend' has an ingenious map of Leibniz' major correspondents in Europe and Asia. I'll cc you my letter to Duchhardt as soon as I finish it. But we can review the "breakthrough" passage now. You'll recall in my 'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the Age of Secret Diplomacy' I wrote that (pp. 21-22): The upshot of Leibniz' political activities - Russification - did not alter the inexhorable sequence of early modern (i.e., modern) state formation: particularization/Protestantization/oppression of Germans first, Eurasianizaton later. Construction of the sluice gate of particularism had to be completed before the effluent of extra-Occidental influence could be channeled into the heartland of Western civilization. This inexhorability of state formation sequence [21] helps explain why Leibniz had to earn his spurs as a split sovereignty theorist before he could move up the secret network, this despite the fact that by 1677 pro-Muscovite factions has already surfaced - after decades of sub rosa activity - in both Amsterdam (Calvinist businessman Nicolaes Witsen's circle) and the City (proto-Whigs around Shaftesbury and Locke such as Shaftesbury's legal counsel John Somers). Adherence to the fractured sovereignty doctrine was the entre billet to the Tatarization game. When I wrote these lines, my surmise was that no one had an inkling that 17th-century Russians and their sub rosa allies were diligently studying the legal structure of German princely particularism with an eye to setting up a "sluice gate" for Russian despotism to enter Europe. Imagine my surprise when I read the following passage from Duchhardt (p. 334): The diplomatic contacts [of 17th-century Muscovites with Europeans - WFD] clearly significantly strengthened knowledge of "Western" societies. Thus it was highly notable that the Moscow Foreign Office by the middle of the 17th century already possessed a highly developed conceptual grasp of the complicated constitutional structure of the German Reich. These findings tend to confirm my assertions that the Muscovites a
[Marxism-Thaxis] Political Biography of the Young Leibniz
This appears to be a Marxist work. It also appears that the author
himself made an appearance on marxism-thaxis in 2006. I'll have to
check into the archive and see what became of this thread. I also
have to put this book on my want list.
The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the Age of Secret Diplomacy
By William Drischler
BookSurge, LLC, 2005
ISBN141961844X, 9781419618444
Length 84 pages
http://www.amazon.com/Political-Biography-Leibniz-Secret-Diplomacy/dp/141961844X
A political biography of the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz. Covers the Young Leibniz (1667-1676), the middle of Hanover
Leibniz (1676-1694)and the late or Russo-Leibniz (1694-1716).
The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in
The Age of Secret Diplomacy
Early Modern State Formation, 17th-Century Political
Discourse and Modern Political Biography Reconsidered
William Fr. Drischler
ISBN No. 1-4196-1844-X
CONTENTS
Praefatio
ABSTRACT
Part I. Introduction. Topicality of Leibniz Biography as a Whole
Revolution A: The Old Political Biography
Leibniz as de facto Head of State: Pinnacle-Level
Diplomatic Interventionism in the Sir Roland Gwynne
Affair in London
Leibniz as East-West Influence Broker: The Net Inflow/
Net Outflow Problem in the Relation of Russo-Asia
to the West
Leibniz as Unsullied Revolutionary Modernist:
The Destruction of European Cultural Autonomy
as a Revolutionary Act
Revolution B: Early Modern State Formation
Revolution C: The Denouement of
17th-CenturyPolitical Theory. Leibniz' Dethronement of Hobbes
Part II. An Overview of the Three Stages
of Leibniz' Political Biography
Stage III - The Russo-Leibniz: Russification of Europe,
Eurasianization of the World. The Consolidation of the
Ango-Russian Secret Diplomacy State, 1694-1716
Stage II - The Middle Leibniz: Constructing the Hanover
Pivot, 1676-1694
Stage I - The Young Leibniz. The Intrepid Rheinbundler
Slowly Wise, 1667-1676
Part III. Some Conclusions on the Political Biography
of the Young Leibniz, 1667-1676
Appendix: Schema of Leibniz' Political Biography
Appendix: Early Modern State Formation without Witsen
and Secret Diplomacy? A Comment on Phillip S. Gorski's
'The Disciplinary Revolution'
=
BACK COVER COPY
William Fr. Drischler's 'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the
Age of Secret Diplomacy' attempts significant revisions in three areas of
political analysis at once. In political biography the conventional wisdom
(common to Leibniz specialists and diplomatic historians alike) that the
gout-ridden philosopher was strictly subordinate to heads of state such
as George I of Hanover comes in for criticism; the little-known G.W. v.
Schuetz affair of 1714 - wherein Leibniz went over the head of the
incoming King of England and entered into an alliance with the
Electoress Mother of Hanover and "Junto Whig" Lords Somers and
Wharton to intervene in succession deliberations at the London
Court of Queen Anne - reveals Leibniz interacting with heads of
state as a virtual peer.
Also ripe for revolution is the field of Early Modern State Formation,
dominated by the "French paradigm" of a culturally autonomous
West, the indivisibly sovereign nation-state, and the balance of
power concept of international relations. Building on the recent
path-breaking work of Benno Teschke ('The Myth of 1648: Class,
Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations'),
Drischler argues that Leibniz & Co. finished off the French paradigm
by 1715 and that the actual foundation of modern international
relations was the "Anglo-Russian secret diplomacy state" based on
Eurasian cultural melding with Muscovy, promiscuous federalism and
secret hegemony of the federated nation of Russo-England. Not
merely is the claim made that the concept of the sovereign Western
state is a myth; 'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the
Age of Secret Diplomacy' contends the concept is an ideological
concoction of the Anglo-Russian victors in the Great Northern War,
1700-1721, expressly designed to disguise their deoccidentalizing
regime. However - and appropriately for a work based largely on
Marx's 'Revelations of the Diplomatic History of the 18th Century' -
'The Political Biography of the Young Leibniz in the Age of Secret
Diplomacy' provides no comfort for contemporary neo-conservative
federalist thought either, since the core assertion of contemporary
federalists - namely that federalism represents a novel and real
alternativ
