Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T03:17:36.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leibniz on Hobbes, Locke's Two Treatises and Sherlock's Case of Allegiance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Nicholas Jolley
Nicholas Jolley
Affiliation:
Christ's College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Writers on Leibniz have frequently stressed the marked contrast in character between his metaphysics and his political theory. As a metaphysician Leibniz appears as a thinker of daring originality whose views have sometimes seemed to set up certain tensions with orthodox Christian teaching. In the field of political theory, however, we encounter a much more traditional and conservative figure. Writing in a post-Hobbesian period Leibniz is a determined opponent of any trend towards a secular analysis of political questions; yet, within a framework of conventional theological assumptions, he is quite as insistent as Hobbes that obligation is co-extensive with the ruler's ability to provide protection. In a large measure the conservatism of Leibniz's political views can be explained by reference to die external facts of his position. Occupying a semi-official post at the court of Hanover, Leibniz was dependent on the favour of his electoral patrons; his political writings tended to be occasional pieces composed with a view to promoting specific Hanoverian interests. Leibniz's experience of politics was thus confined to the world of a minor German court, and die narrowness of diis background placed him at a severe disadvantage for understanding the political debates of a country like England with quite different traditions.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1975 , pp. 21 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for instance, Friedrich, C. J., ‘Philosophical Reflections of Leibniz on Law, Politics, and the State,’ in Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Frankfurt, H. G. (New York, 1972).Google Scholar I am much indebted to Mr Peter Laslett for his criticisms of an earlier draft of this paper. I also wish to thank the staff of the Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek, Hanover, for their cooperation.

2 See Russell, B., A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz (London, 1937, 2nd edn.)Google Scholar. For an opposing view cf. Rescher, N., The Philosophy of Leibniz (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1967).Google Scholar

3 P. Riley, ‘An Unpublished MS of Leibniz on the Allegiance Due to the Sovereign Powers’, Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. XI (1973), pp. 319–336. The original MS in the Niedersächisische Landesbibliothek, Hanover (LBr 132, Bl. 8–9) is a copy corrected by Leibniz and bearing the heading, also in his hand: ‘Envoyé à M. Burnet de Kemney Avril 1695.’ Translations from this text and from Leibniz MSS are my own. See also Leibniz to Burnett, 7/17 March 1696, Die Philosophischen Schriften von G. W. Leibniz, ed. Gerhardt, C. I. (Berlin, 1875–1890), III, p. 176.Google Scholar This edition is cited below as ‘Gerhardt’.

4 On the origin of Leibniz's contact with Locke and his attempts to draw him into correspondence on philosophical questions, see Leibniz, G. W., Sämtliche Schriften und Brieje, ed. German, Academy of Sciences (Darmstadt, 1923—)Google Scholar, vi, 6, Introduction, pp. XVII-XIX. This edition is cited below as ‘Academy’. See also my Ph.D. dissertation: ‘Leibniz's Critique of Locke’, in the Cambridge University Library. For a full discussion of Locke's actual relationship to Newton, see Axtell, J. L., ‘Locke, Newton and the Two Cultures’, in John Locke: Problems and Perspectives, ed. Yolton, J. W. (Cambridge, 1969).Google Scholar

5 Burnett to Leibniz, 30 Nov. 1606, Gerhardt III, p. 186. See Laslett, P., ‘John Locke, the Great Recoinage and the Board of Trade’, in John Locke: Problems and Perspectives, ed. Yolton, J. W. (Cambridge, 1969).Google Scholar

6 Reply to the Bishop of Worcester's Second Answer (London, 1699), p. 408.Google Scholar Leibniz made an extract from this passage: see Academy VI, 6, p. 36.

7 Burnett to Leibniz, 4/14 June 1695, Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek, Hanover, LBr 132, Bl. 70; and 2 Jan. 1696, ibid., Bl. 33.

8 Leibniz to Burnett, 20/30 Jan. 1699, Gerhardt III, p. 251.

9 Leibniz to Brousseau, 16/26 Mar. 1691, Academy I, 6, p. 422. Cf. Leibniz to Sophie, Apr. 1689, Academy I, 5, p. 411.

10 See Sophie to Leibniz, 7/17 June 1689, Academy I, 5, p. 423.

11 Leibniz to Stepney, 18 Jan. 1701, Die Werke von Leibniz, ed. Klopp, O., Reihe, Erste (Hanover, 1864–1884), VIII, p. 244.Google Scholar

12 Leibniz to Caroline, 3 Oct. 1714. Quoted in Fricke, W., Leibniz und die Englische Sukzession des Houses Hannover (Hildesheim, 1957), p. 13.Google Scholar

13 Riley, P. (ed.), The Political Writings of Leibniz (Cambridge, 1972), Introduction, pp. 37–8.Google Scholar

14 Fricke, , op. cit., p. 115.Google Scholar Cf. Haase, C., ‘Leibniz als Politiker und Diplomat’, in Leibniz: Sein Leben, Sein Wirken, Seine Welt, ed. Totok, W. and Haase, C. (Hanover, 1966).Google Scholar

15 Leibniz to Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels, 23 Feb./15 Mar. 1691, Academy I, 6, p. 182.

16 The Case of the Allegiance Due to the Sovereign Powers (London, 1691).Google Scholar On Sherlock and providential thought, see Straka, G. M., ‘The Final Phase of Divine Right Theory in England, 1688–1702’, English Historical Review, Vol. LXXVII (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Dunn, J., ‘Consent in the Political Theory of John Locke’, Historical Journal, Vol. x (1967), p. 176.Google Scholar

18 Sherlock, , op. cit., p. 24.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., p. 23.

20 MSS Locke c. 28, fol. 83–96, Lovelace Collection in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

21 ‘And does not God's authority which the Usurper has as much obleige the deposed Prince as the people?’ Ibid., fol. 93.

22 ‘How long a month a year. 7 or an hundred years & by what rule what law of God. Long & short in such cases unlesse defined have noe meaning.’ Ibid., fol. 96.

23 Riley, ‘Unpublished Leibniz MS’, p. 334.

24 Dunn, , op. cit., p. 175.Google Scholar

25 Riley, ‘Unpublished Leibniz MS’, p. 323, observes that even this partial granting of the validity of social contract theory is unusually Hobbesian for Leibniz.

26 See Pocock, J. G. A., The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (Cambridge, 1957),Google Scholar

27 Ch. xvi.

28 Wallace, J., Destiny his Choice: The Loyalism of Andrew Marvell (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 21 ff.Google Scholar

29 Riley, ‘Unpublished Leibniz MS’, p. 333.

30 On Leibniz's relationship to Hobbes generally and the presence of Hobbesian elements in the paper on Sherlock in particular, see Riley, ‘Unpublished Leibniz MS’, pp. 32iff. It is interesting to note that on one occasion Leibniz explicitly rated Hobbes above Locke as a thinker. With reference to Locke, Leibniz tells a correspondent: ‘Longe profundiore, Plato, Aristoteles, Cartesius, Hobbius, alicubi et Malebranchius dedere.’ Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek, Hanover, LBr 67, Bl. 49. This is the first draft of the letter to Bierling of 24 Oct. 1709, printed by Gerhardt, VII, p. 485.

31 ‘Analyse de Sherlock’, 1691(?), Leibniz, G. W.: Textes Inédits, ed. Grua, G. (Paris, 1948), II, p. 888.Google Scholar Cf. Riley, ‘Unpublished Leibniz MS’, p. 323.

32 In 1692, the licenser Edmund Bohun was arraigned before the House of Commons for approving a book which justified William and Mary as conquerors. Diary and Autobiography of Edmund Bohun (Beccles, 1853), p. 109.Google Scholar

33 Sherlock, , op. cit., p. 30.Google Scholar

34 MSS Locke c. 28, fol. 92.

35 Ibid.

36 Riley, ‘Unpublished Leibniz MS’, p. 336.

37 Burnett to Leibniz, 15 Oct. 1698, Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek, Hanover, LBr 132, Bl. 75–6.

38 Ibid.

39 Burnett to Leibniz, 15 Oct. 1698, Gerhardt III, p. 243. Curiously, Burnett confused the title of Locke's work with James Tyrrell's Patriarcha non Monarcha. However, Leibniz did not surfer from this unhelpful identification, since he cites the Two Treatises by name in reply.

40 Laslett, P. (ed.), Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge, 1960), Introduction, Ch. IV.Google Scholar

41 Leibniz to Burnett, 2/13 Feb. 1700, Gerhardt HI, p. 271.

42 Riley (ed.), The Political Writings of Leibniz, p. 192.

43 Nouveaux Essais sur l'Entendement, Preface, Academy VI, 6, p. 57.

44 Ibid., p. 110.

45 See, for instance, Strauss, L., Natural Right and History (Chicago, 1952), pp. 231ff.Google Scholar

46 For characteristic statements see Leibniz to Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels, 2/12 Sept. 1691, Academy I, 7, p. 137; and Leibniz to Smith, 20/30 Dec. 1695, Grua, , op. cit., II, p. 888.Google Scholar

47 Riley (ed.), The Political Writings of Leibniz, p. 192.

48 Leibniz to Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels, Aug. 1683, Academy I, 3, p. 313. Cf. Leibniz to the same correspondent, 20/30 July 1691, Academy I, 6, p. 239.

49 ‘Meditation on the Common Concept of Justice’, Riley (ed.), The Political Writings of Leibniz, p. 61. The phrase in the original is: ‘des persuasions’.

50 Leibniz to Kettwig, 6/7 Nov. 1695, Grua, , op. cit., II, p. 654.Google Scholar

51 Strauss, , op. cit., p. 203.Google Scholar

52 Yolton, J. W., ‘Locke on the Law of Nature’, Philosophical Review, Vol. LXVII (1958), p. 491.Google Scholar

53 See, for instance, Leibniz to Kortholt, 18 Aug. 1707, Leibnitii, G. G.…Opera Omnia, ed. Dutens, L. (Geneva, 1768), v, p. 305.Google Scholar

54 Leibniz to Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels, 23 Feb./5 Mar. 1691, Academy I, 6, p. 182.

35 Leibniz to Sophie, Apr. 1689, Academy I, 5 p. 411. To Thomas Smith, who was a nonjuror, Leibniz writes in a cautious vein: ‘Quod publicarum rerum faciem attinet, quam tangis, dolendum est, ad eas angustias redactam fuisse Europam ut saluti eius magno exemplo opus esse videretur, quod solet aliquid trahcre ex iniquo.’ 20/30 Dec. 1695, Grua, op. cit., 11, p. 888. Cf. Grua, , La Justice Humaine Selon Leibniz (Paris, 1956), p. 397.Google Scholar