Rita Widmaier and Malte-Ludolf Babin have done a valuable scholarly service for studies of the early modern European reception of China in collecting letters from Leibniz's extensive correspondence concerning China and translating them from the original Latin and French into German. This multi-lingual and chronologically organized edition gathers letters to and from Leibniz as well as supplementary texts composed between the years 1694 and 1716. It incorporates helpful clarificatory notes as well as an informative and lucid introduction.This edition focuses on the exchanges between Leibniz and the Jesuit theologian and philosopher Barthélemy Des Bosses S.J. and other Jesuits in Europe who were in..

Nelson, Eric S.

English

PhilPapers

Philosophy	East	&	West	Volume	68,	Number	4	October	2018	©	2018	by	University	of	Hawai’i	Press	1	BOOK	REVIEW		Gottfried	Wilhelm	Leibniz,	Briefe	über	China	(1694-1716):	Die	Korrespondenz	mit	Barthélemy	Des	Bosses	S.J.	und	anderen	Mitgliedern	des	Ordens.	Edited	by	Rita	Widmaier	and	Malte-Ludolf	Babin.	Hamburg:	Meiner,	2017.	Pp.	660.	Hardback	EUR	148.00,	ISBN	978-3-7873-3102-4.		Reviewed	by	Eric	S.	Nelson	The	Hong	Kong	University	of	Science	and	Technology	hmericsn@ust.hk					1.	Introduction	Rita	Widmaier	and	Malte-Ludolf	Babin	have	done	a	valuable	scholarly	service	for	studies	 of	 the	 early	modern	 European	 reception	 of	 China	 in	 collecting	 letters	from	Leibniz’s	extensive	correspondence	concerning	China	and	translating	them	from	 the	 original	 Latin	 and	 French	 into	 German.	 This	 multi-lingual	 and	chronologically	organized	edition	gathers	 letters	to	and	from	Leibniz	as	well	as	supplementary	 texts	 composed	 between	 the	 years	 1694	 and	 1716.	 It	incorporates	 helpful	 clarificatory	 notes	 as	 well	 as	 an	 informative	 and	 lucid	introduction.		This	 edition	 focuses	 on	 the	 exchanges	 between	 Leibniz	 and	 the	 Jesuit	theologian	and	philosopher	Barthélemy	Des	Bosses	S.J.	 (1668-1738)	and	other	Jesuits	 in	 Europe	who	were	 in	 contact	with	 their	 colleagues	 in	 Asia.1	 Leibniz’s	two	primary	interlocutors	in	this	volume	are	Des	Bosses	(selections	from	forty-seven	 documents	 are	 included)	 and	 the	 Bavarian	 Jesuit	 philosopher	 and	theologian	Ferdinand	Orban	S.J.	(1655-1732)	(twenty-seven	letters).	Des	Bosses	and	 Orban	 function	 as	 significant	 figures	 in	 the	 European	 transmission	 of	information	about	China.	Leibniz’s	less	frequent	direct	correspondents	included	here	are	Theobald	Isensehe	S.J.,	Giovanni	Battista	Tolomei	S.J.,	and	René-Joseph	de	Tournemine	S.J.	This	 volume	 should	 be	 considered	 a	 second	 in	 a	 series.	 It	 expands	 on	Rita	Widmaier’s	 previous	 2006	 volume	 of	 Leibniz’s	 correspondence	 regarding	China,	Der	 Briefwechsel	 mit	 den	 Jesuiten	 in	 China	 (1689-1714),	 that	 primarily	concerns	 the	 period	 until	 1707.2	 It	 testifies	 to	 the	 continuing	 importance	 of	China	 in	 Leibniz’s	 thought	 that	 in	 this	 new	 volume	 only	 the	 first	 nine	 letters	were	 composed	 prior	 to	 1708.	 The	 subsequent	 ninety-nine	 documents	 are	dated	between	1708	and,	the	year	of	Leibniz’s	death,	1716.	These	two	volumes	together	 provide	 the	 core	 of	 Leibniz’s	 exchanges	 concerning	 Chinese	philosophy,	 politics,	 religion,	 science,	 technology	 as	 well	 as	 reports	 on	 and	controversies	over	Christian	missionary	activities	 in	China.	They	are	not	limited	to	 letters	 to	 and	 from	 Leibniz.	 There	 are,	 in	 addition,	 useful	 supplementary	Philosophy	East	&	West	Volume	68,	Number	4	October	2018	©	2018	by	University	of	Hawai’i	Press	2	materials	 such	 as	 missionary	 reports	 and	 reports	 on	 the	 Chinese	 rites	controversy	 that	 were	 discussed	 in	 the	 original	 correspondence.	 Copies	 of	letters	 and	 reports	 from	 China	 as	 well	 as	 Leibniz’s	 own	 writings	 about	 China	were	 circulated	 among	 European	 intellectual	 networks	 through	 which	 the	development	of	the	early	modern	European	reception	of	China	can	be	traced.		It	 is	 challenging	 to	 encapsulate	 the	 entire	 correspondence	 in	 a	 book	review.	This	review	will	consequently	outline	a	few	of	its	major	threads.		2.	Leibniz	and	Intercultural	Philosophy	There	is	an	on-going	intensification	of	interest	in	non-Western	philosophy	in	the	West	 and	 an	 intercultural	 turn	 in	 how—at	 least	 some—philosophers	 are	practicing	philosophy.	There	 is	 furthermore	a	reevaluation	of	ethnocentric	and	anti-ethnocentric	tendencies	within	the	history	of	modern	Western	philosophy	that	offers	 an	alternative	understanding	of	 its	movements	and	 figures.	 Leibniz	has	been	seen	as	a	crucial	figure	in	this	history	not	only	due	to	his	prestige	as	a	philosopher	 and	 his	 evident	 enthusiasm	 for	 China	 but	 due	 to	 his	 sustained	endeavors	 during	 the	 last	 decades	 of	 his	 life	 to	 sincerely	 engage	 with	 and	interpret	Chinese	discourses	and	practices.	The	extent	of	Leibniz’s	 interest	and	engagement	is	remarkable	given	that	he	never	left	Europe	and	did	not	know	the	Chinese	 language:	 one	 thread	 in	 the	 correspondence	 concerns	 his	 efforts	 to	figure	out	the	titles	and	contents	of	sixteen	Chinese	books	that	Joachim	Bouvet	(1656-1730),	his	 earlier	 and	most	 significant	 interlocutor	 in	China,	had	 sent	 to	him.3	 Leibniz	 articulated	 the	 need	 for	 an	 “exchange	 of	 light”	 between	 Europe	and	China.	 Leibniz’s	 efforts	 in	 this	 regard	might	 appear	 to	 offer	 an	 exemplary	instance	of	East-West	philosophical	interaction	given	the	subsequent	history	of	indifference	 and	 outright	 hostility	 that	 characterizes	 modern	 Western	philosophy’s	relations	with	non-Western	intellectual	discourses.	There	are,	however,	difficulties,	and	two	potential	conflicting	extremes	in	 interpreting	 Leibniz’s	 discourse	 on	 China:	 one	 extreme	 would	 be	 to	 overly	idealize	 this	 engagement	 according	 to	 recent	 aspirations	 and	 norms.	 The	correspondence	discloses	how	noteworthy	Leibniz’s	engagement	is	as	well	as	its	limitations	 and	 problems.	 Despite	 the	 openness	 and	 tolerance	 of	 Leibniz’s	interpretive	practice,	it	would	be	anachronistic	to	construe	Leibniz’s	reflections	on	 China	 from	 the	 perspective	 of	 contemporary	 secular	multiculturalism.	 The	other	extreme	would	be	to	deny	that	it	is	a	genuine	encounter	at	all,	pointing	to	Leibniz’s	 reliance	 on	 the	 Christian	 missionary	 context	 that	 informs	 his	correspondence	 and	 writings,	 and	 what	 has	 been	 argued	 is	 a	 proto-capitalist	and	 proto-colonial	 model	 of	 exchange	 between	 East	 and	 West.4	 The	 former	point	would	place	Leibniz’s	uses	of	Christianity	in	question	and	the	latter	would	emphasize	 the	 practical	 interests	 evident	 in	 his	 attention	 to	 learning	 Chinese	techniques	and	technologies.	This	practical	 interest	 is	manifest	 throughout	the	correspondence.	 A	 list	 of	 fifty	 practical	 and	 technical	 questions	 for	 Leibniz	 on	how	 Europe	 could	 gain	 useful	 practices	 and	 technologies	 from	 China,	Philosophy	East	&	West	Volume	68,	Number	4	October	2018	©	2018	by	University	of	Hawai’i	Press	3	encompassing	Chinese	practical	knowledge	of	medicine,	chemistry,	production,	and	trade,	is	included	as	an	appendix.5	In	addition,	there	is	the	anxiety	reflected	in	a	number	of	letters	concerning	the	rites	controversy	that	the	Chinese	will	find	nothing	 of	 value	 in	 exchange	 with	 Europe	 and,	 if	 Jesuit	 strategies	 of	accommodation	are	forsaken,	China	would	exclude	Europeans.	As	a	result,	they	would	have	accessed	European	science	and	technology	without	Europe	gaining	access	to	Chinese	science	and	technology.	Leibniz’s	correspondence	reveals	a	more	complex	picture.	First,	Leibniz	interprets	Christianity	as	natural	theology	and	as	the	ethics	of	charity,	which	as	“natural”	the	Chinese	have	more	greatly	perfected	than	the	Europeans.	Second,	his	 interest	 in	exchange	between	Europe	and	China	and	 learning	from	Chinese	morality	and	practical	knowledge,	and	the	anxiety	about	 losing	 this	possibility,	indicate	how	Europe	is	not	yet	asymmetrically	positioned	above	China	as	would	increasingly	be	done	 in	Western	discourses.	 Indeed,	Leibniz	advocated	 inviting	Chinese	missionaries	to	Europe	to	teach	practical	philosophy	and	hiring	Chinese	intellectuals	 to	 open	 schools	 in	 Europe	 to	 teach	 Chinese	 language	 and	intellectual	 culture.	 If	we	compare	Leibniz’s	discussions	of	China	with	 those	of	Kant	or	Hegel	a	century	 later,	 it	 is	clear	that	the	European	perception	of	China	had	been	radically	altered	for	the	worse.	Reason	and	philosophy	are	exclusively	part	of	 the	history	of	 the	West	as	Chinese	civilization	 is	 judged	to	be	primitive	and	inferior.			3.	Leibniz’s	Interpretation	of	China	Leibniz	 published	 the	Novissima	 Sinica	 (The	 Latest	 from	China)	 in	 1697.	 It	 is	 a	collection	 of	 documents	 from	 Christian	 missionaries	 in	 China	 with	 his	 own	preface	 that	 praised	 Chinese	 moral	 and	 political	 thought,	 practice,	 and	institutions	 (pp.	 3-35).	 Leibniz	 recurrently	 expresses	 admiration	 for	 a	 great	empire	at	the	other	end	of	the	Euro-Asian	continent	that	is	superior	to	Europe	in	 a	 number	 of	 ways,	 including	 ethical-political	 organization,	 pedagogy	 for	ethical-political	 life,	natural	 theology,	and	practical	philosophy.6	Chinese	 forms	of	 life	 and	 thought	 indicate	 models	 from	 which	 Europeans	 should	 learn	 and	adopt	 in	order	 to	 improve	and	reform	their	practices	and	 institutions.	China	 is	not	deemed	an	inferior	land	to	be	exploited	and	dominated	by	the	West	and	its	intellectual	 traditions	 are	not	 categorized	as	merely	proto-philosophical	 in	 the	writings	and	correspondence	of	Leibniz.	China	surpasses	Europe	in	a	number	of	areas	(natural	theology,	practical	philosophy,	and	the	organization	of	moral	and	political	 life)	 just	as	Europe	surpasses	China	 in	other	areas	 (revealed	 theology,	theoretical	philosophy,	and	mathematics	and	science).	Leibniz	identifies	in	particular	the	legendary	cultural	hero	Emperor	Fuxi	伏羲	 and	 Confucius	 (Kongzi	孔子)	 as	 the	 founders	 of	 philosophy	 in	 China.	 He	attributed	 to	 Fuxi	 a	mathematical	wisdom	because	of	 his	 association	with	 the	development	 of	 the	 trigrams	 (gua	卦)	 of	 the	Classic	 of	 Changes	 (Yijing	易經).	Leibniz	 went	 beyond	 Bouvet	 and	 figurist	 speculations	 about	 the	 Yijing.	 He	Philosophy	East	&	West	Volume	68,	Number	4	October	2018	©	2018	by	University	of	Hawai’i	Press	4	contends	 in	 letters	 from	 1703	 and	 1705	 (pp.	 48-61),	 and	 in	 his	 remarks	 from	August	1709	(pp.	120-123),	that	the	Yijing’s	broken	and	unbroken	lines	indicate	a	 binary	 mathematics	 of	 0	 and	 1.	 In	 addition	 to	 its	 theoretical	 mathematical	nature,	it	also	expresses	a	monotheistic	natural	theology	as	the	broken	(-	-)	and	unbroken	 (—)	 lines	 represent	 the	 nothing	 (0),	 God	 (1),	 and	 their	 combination	the	creation	of	the	myriad	things	out	of	nothingness.	The	three	great	law-givers	(Legislatores)	 recognized	 by	 the	 Chinese	 are	 Confucius,	 Fo	 (the	 Buddha),	 and	Laozi	 (pp.	 112-113).	Of	 these	 three,	 he	only	 addresses	 Confucian	 teachings	 as	promoting	 a	 high	 noble	 ethics	 and	 a	 natural	 theology	 that	 parallel	 ancient	Hebrew	religious	and	Greco-Roman	philosophical	teachings	(pp.	116-119).		Natural	 theology	 is	 religious	 truth	demonstrated	by	 the	natural	 use	of	reason	in	contrast	to	revealed	theology	based	on	scripture	and	faith.	 It	plays	a	crucial	 role	 in	 Leibniz’s	 ethics	 and	 his	 efforts	 at	 reconciling	 divergent	 and	opposing	 teachings,	 allowing	 him	 to	 simultaneously	 liberalize	 Christianity,	separating	 its	 fundamental	 ethics	 of	 charity	 from	 a	 determinate	 form	 of	revealed	 faith	 with	 specific	 religious	 practices,	 and	 recognize	 truth	 in	 other	Western	and	non-Western	forms	of	religious	and	philosophical	discourse.	It	is	in	this	 sense	 of	 natural	 theology	 that	 he	 claims	 the	 following	 two	 points:	 the	ancient	Chinese	are	closer	to	the	truth	than	the	ancient	Greeks	(pp.	372-373),	a	statement	 that	 presupposes	 his	 projective	 interpretation	 of	 creation	 from	nothing	 in	 Fuxi;	 and	 the	 Chinese	 practice	 the	 highest	 ethical	 teachings	 of	Christianity	and	are	more	Christian	than	Christian	Europe	in	the	Novissima	(pp.	6-7)	 and	 his	 unfinished	 late	 work	 Discourse	 on	 the	 Natural	 Theology	 of	 the	Chinese	(Discours	sur	la	théologie	naturelle	des	Chinois,	1715-1716).7	Leibniz	 did	 not	 carefully	 distinguish	 between	 ancient	 Confucian	 and	Neo-Confucian	 philosophies,	 construing	 the	 supreme	 ultimate	 (taiji	 太極),	patterning	principle	(li	理),	and	material	force	(qi	氣)	as	fundamental	Confucian	notions	of	great	antiquity	that	signify—in	his	Platonic	Trinitarian	 interpretation	adopted	 from	 the	 Jesuit	 missionary	 Nicolò	 Longobardo	 (1559-1654)—the	original	 potency,	wisdom,	 and	will/love.	 The	Chinese	 engaged	 in	 philosophical	reasoning	about	nature	and	ethics	although	not	 in	a	 fixed	systematic	scientific	form	 (pp.	 118-119).	 Leibniz’s	 interpretation	 of	 neo-Confucian	 metaphysics	would	 be	 more	 systematically	 developed	 in	 the	 Discourse	 on	 the	 Natural	Theology	of	the	Chinese.	The	concept	of	the	scientific	systematic	nature	of	philosophy	would	be	employed	 by	 the	 time	 of	 Kant	 and	 Hegel	 to	 exclude	 non-Western	 intellectual	discourses	from	philosophy.	It	is	not	yet	the	case	that	the	West	is	identified	with	modernity	in	a	way	that	separates	it	from	the	other	cultures	of	the	world.	Nor	is	it	 conceived	 at	 this	 point	 as	 a	 one-way	 street	 in	 which	 the	 West	 exclusively	developed	it	and	imposed	it	on	the	world.	Returning	to	Leibniz	challenges	such	interpretations.	 China	 offers	 for	 Leibniz	 (as	 for	 other	 early	 Enlightenment	thinkers	 such	 as	 Christian	Wolff,	 the	 French	 physiocrats,	 and	Voltaire)	models	for	 furthering	 European	 Enlightenment	 and	 accordingly	 modernization,	 if	 we	Philosophy	East	&	West	Volume	68,	Number	4	October	2018	©	2018	by	University	of	Hawai’i	Press	5	adopt	the	idea	that	there	is	an	inherent	connection	between	Enlightenment	and	modernity.8		4.	Leibniz	and	the	Chinese	Rites	Controversy	Leibniz’s	correspondence	with	the	Jesuits	occurs	within	the	context	of	what	was	perceived	as	 the	greatest	Christian	mission	 since	 the	 time	of	 the	apostles	 and	the	 so-called	 “Chinese	 Rites	 Controversy”	 between	 the	 Jesuits	who	 upheld	 an	“accommodationist”	 strategy	 between	 Christianity	 and	 Chinese	 culture	 and	other	missionary	orders	who	opposed	adapting	Christianity	to	the	Chinese	way	of	 life	 that	 they	 considered	 pagan	 and	 barbaric.9	 The	 principal	 areas	 of	contention	 centered	 on	 questions	 of	 whether:	 (1)	 converted	 Chinese	 could	continue	 to	 practice	 honoring	 their	 ancestors	 or	 if	 this	 was	 a	 form	 of	superstitious	 pagan	 worship,	 (2)	 the	 cult	 of	 Confucius	 was	 a	 religious	 or	 civil	one,	and	(3)	Chinese	expressions	such	as	Shangdi	上帝	 (God	on	high)	and	tian	天	 (heaven)	 were	 adequate	 to	 express	 the	 monotheistic	 Judeo-Christian	conception	of	God.	The	correspondence	centers	on	the	challenges	to	and	prohibition	of	the	Jesuit	 position	 of	 accommodation	 by	 Pope	 Clement	 XI,	 a	 prohibition	 that	was	only	lifted	by	the	Roman	Catholic	Church	in	1939.	Important	supplemental	texts	are	 included	 that	 were	 discussed	 by	 Leibniz	 and	 his	 interlocutors:	 (1)	 a	document	clarifying	Pope	Clement	XI’s	decree	against	 the	Chinese	 rites	on	20.	November	1704	that	was	forwarded	to	the	Chinese	mission	(pp.	88-89),	(2)	the	responding	proclamation	of	the	Kangxi	Emperor	(康熙,	1654-1722)	that	banned	Christian	missionary	activities	in	China	(pp.	128-131),	(3)	the	papal	decree	issued	by	 Pope	 Clement	 XI	 on	 25.	 September	 1710	 that	 forbade	 the	 practice	 and	toleration	of	 the	“Chinese	rites”	as	well	as	 forbidding	 further	discussion	of	 the	issue	(pp.	190-197).	Leibniz	 intervened	 as	 an	 advocate	 of	 tolerance	 and	 the	 principle	 of	charity	 in	 these	 disputed	 questions	 throughout	 his	 correspondence	 and	 in	writings	 such	 as	 “Circa	 Sinensium	 cultum	 religionemque”	 (“On	 the	 Cult	 and	Religion	of	the	Chinese”)	(pp.	110-123),	an	essay	from	August	1709	shared	with	Des	Bosses,	and	later	in	the	Discourse	on	the	Natural	Theology	of	the	Chinese.10	Leibniz,	relying	on	Jesuit	and	their	Neo-Confucian	sources,	could	argue:	(1)	 honoring	 one’s	 ancestors	 was	 understood	 in	 Confucianism	 as	 ethically	formative	 rather	 than	 a	 superstitious	 worship	 of	 spirits	 involving	 rewards;	 (2)	the	cult	of	Confucius	was	primarily	a	civil	and	philosophical	one	aimed	at	moral	education;	and	(3)	different	uses	of	words	such	as	Shangdi	and	tian	need	to	be	distinguished,	just	as	this	is	the	case	in	Europe	where	heaven	can	refer	to	either	the	physical	sky	or	the	divine.	There	was	nothing	intrinsically	wrong	in	Chinese	ethics	 and	 religion	 that	 could	 not	 be	 brought	 in	 accord	with	 true	 Christianity,	which	 is	 in	 essence	 the	 practice	 of	 justice	 as	 “the	 charity	 of	 the	wise,	 that	 is,	universal	 benevolence”	 (iustitia	 est	 caritas	 sapientis	 seu	 benevolentia	universalis).11	Philosophy	East	&	West	Volume	68,	Number	4	October	2018	©	2018	by	University	of	Hawai’i	Press	6		5.	Conclusion	Contemporary	readers	can	engage	Widmaier’s	and	Babin’s	edition	of	Briefe	über	China	 (1694-1716)	 in	 a	 number	 of	 ways.	 Leibniz’s	 interpretation	 of	 China	 is	 a	significant	example	and	test	case	for	his	hermeneutics,	ethics,	and	philosophy	of	religion.	It	is	also	a	noteworthy	historical	exemplar	of	East-West	philosophizing.	It	is	also	of	interest	to	trace	the	early	modern	transfer	of	knowledge	from	China	and	the	formation	of	imaginaries	of	China	and	the	Orient	in	the	Western	mind.		In	Leibniz’s	correspondence,	we	can	recognize	the	historical	limitations	of	 Leibniz’s	 understanding	 of	 the	 Chinese	world	 as	well	 as	 how	 extraordinary	this	episode	in	the	entangled	history	of	East-West	intellectual	history	continues	to	 be	 as	 an	 attempt	 of	 a	 philosopher	 to	 grasp	 with	 curiosity	 and	 open-mindedness	a	distant	and	unfamiliar	philosophical	culture.																																										 																				1	-	The	correspondence	between	Leibniz	and	Des	Bosses	is	available	in	English	translation	in	Gottfried	Wilhelm	Leibniz,	The	Leibniz-Des	Bosses	Correspondence	(New	Haven:	Yale	University	Press,	2007).	2	-	Rita	Widmaier,	Der	Briefwechsel	mit	den	Jesuiten	in	China	(1689-1714)	(Hamburg:	Meiner,	2006).	3	-	Leibniz	to	Des	Bosses,	4.	August	1710,	pp.	184-185.	4	-	A	Marxist	critique	of	Leibniz	along	such	lines	can	be	found	in	Jon	Elster,	Leibniz	et	la	formation	de	l'esprit	capitaliste	(Paris:	AubierMontaigne,	1975.	5	-	See	Heinrich	Christian	Kortholt	für	Leibniz:	Fünfzig	Fragen	und	Hinweise,	wie	Europa	aus	Asien	Nutzen	ziehen	kann	(Heinrich	Christian	Kortholt	for	Leibniz:	fifty	questions	and	indications	on	how	Europe	can	benefit	from	Asia),	pp.	398-409.	6	-	For	an	overview	and	analysis	of	Leibniz’s	interpretation	of	China,	see	Franklin	Perkins,	Leibniz	and	China:	A	Commerce	of	Light	(Cambridge:	Cambridge	University	Press,	2004)	7	-	Available	in	English	in	Gottfried	Wilhelm	Leibniz,	Writings	on	China	(Chicago:	Open	Court,	1994).	8	-	On	Leibniz	and	the	Enlightenment	debate	over	China,	see	Simon	Kow,	China	in	Early	Enlightenment	Political	Thought	(Abingdon:	Routledge,	2017);	Eric	S.	Nelson,	“Leibniz	and	China:	Religion,	Hermeneutics,	and	Enlightenment,”		Religion	in	the	Age	of	Enlightenment	(RAE)	1	(2009):	277-300;	Dawid	Rogacz,	“The	Birth	of	Enlightenment	Secularism	from	the	Spirit	of	Confucianism,”	Asian	Philosophy	28,1	(2018):	68-83.	9	-	See	“Vorrede	zu	den	Novissima	Sinica	[1697/99),”	pp.	34-35.	On	the	Jesuits	in	China	and	the	Chinese	Rites	Controversy,	see	David	E.	Mungello,	Curious	Land:	Jesuit	Accommodation	and	the	Origins	of	Sinology	(Honolulu:	University	of	Hawaii	Press,	1989)	10	-	Both	texts	are	available	in	English	in	Leibniz,	Writings	on	China.	Philosophy	East	&	West	Volume	68,	Number	4	October	2018	©	2018	by	University	of	Hawai’i	Press	7																																									 																																							 																																							 																														11	-	Gottfried	Wilhelm	Leibniz,	Political	Writings,	edited	by	Patrick	Riley	(Cambridge:	Cambridge	University	Press,	1998),	p.	164.	Compare	Leibniz,	Writings	on	China,	p.	104.	

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Briefe über China (1694-1716): Die Korrespondenz mit Barthélemy Des Bosses S.J. und anderen Mitgliedern des Ordens

https://philpapers.org/archive/NELGWL.pdf

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Briefe über China (1694-1716): Die Korrespondenz mit Barthélemy Des Bosses S.J. und anderen Mitgliedern des Ordens

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PhilPapers