“Inner Light” of Mystics and Reason Leibniz’S Engagement with Jacob Böhme
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Aries – Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism 18 (2018) 75–95 ARIES brill.com/arie Compatibility of the “Inner Light” of Mystics and Reason Leibniz’s Engagement with Jacob Böhme Susanne Edel Independent Researcher, Frankfurt am Main, Germany [email protected] Abstract Following his conviction that the truth, in principle, could only be one truth, Leib- niz wanted to prove that the “inner Light” of “true mysticism” was compatible with philosophers’ insights into reason. He placed his own doctrine of the individual sub- stances (“Monadology”) in the tradition of philosophia perennis, and in his opinion “true” mysticism belonged to this same tradition. Through representatives of the so- called Christian Kabbala, which made Jewish and Christian mysticism part of the same lineage, Leibniz became aware of the controversial writings of Böhme. He discussed the theosopher’s thought with his correspondence partner, the Böhme adherent André Morell, and after a critical investigation, Leibniz placed Böhme in a tradition of “true mysticism” which could be measured against reason. The author posits that the result of this engagement was Leibniz’s treatise “True Mystical Theology”, a translation of his doctrine of monads in mystical terminology. Keywords Jacob Böhme – Leibniz – Cambridge Platonists – Philosophia perennis – theosophy – Christian Kabbala An Ambivalent Reception History In the 1690s Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) composed a short text that historians of philosophy have cited up to the present day to argue that the great rationalist was attracted to mysticism, or even that he may have © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/15700593-01801003Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 05:32:26AM via free access 76 edel been, deep within his heart, an unrecognized mystic. In the text, entitled Von der wahren Theologia Mystica—“On True Mystical Theology”—Leibniz clearly tries to translate his doctrine of monads into mystical language by using the term “inward Light” as a synonym for reason. For Leibniz, Böhme’s thought was ultimately in harmony with the tradition of “true mysticism”. Indeed, I will go a step further and argue that it is actually Böhme that Leibniz had in mind when he wrote his “True Mystical Theology”, thus hoping to rehabilitate Böhme’s (falsified) teachings.1 To make this clear, it will be necessary to take a closer look at the history of Leibniz’s engagement with Böhme, before turning to some observations about Leibniz’s text, “On True Mystical Theology”. First, however, a look ahead: The peculiar connection between theosophy and rationalism that this essay highlights drew the attention of a later-born commentator: ‘I found … amongst the most imaginative expressions some- thing reasonable, and thought, along with Malebranche and Leibniz, that one must correct this layman’s terminology. […] Finally I saw that Jacob Böhme’s dark words had to be measured against clear ones’, wrote Friedrich Christoph Oetinger (1702–1782) in a letter following his first reading of Böhme.2 A promi- nent theologian and representative of Lutheran Pietism in Swabia, Oetinger held Böhme to be a perspicacious interpreter of Christian doctrine in the wake of the Kabbalists. Oetinger saw no contradiction between his own adherence to Böhme’s teachings and his position as practicing theologian in the official state church. Oetinger’s conviction did not correspond to the prevailing opinion of his time regarding Böhme and theosophy. In 1745, Johann Heinrich Zedler’s Univer- sal-Lexicon condemned theosophers as a “sect”—with Böhme at their head and alongside him, Paracelsus, Weigel and Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont as the most prominent leaders.3 According to Zedler, theosophers not only disdained reason, but also secretly the Scriptures. Zedler thus concluded that their systems did not deserve to be considered “philosophy”. He asserts that they have not sought philosophy in the ‘use of the acquired, purified light of 1 I have discussed the relationship between Böhme and Leibniz in detail in Edel: Die individu- elle Substanz. An article on this subject in German is published in Edel, ‘Anmerkungen’. 2 ‘Ich fand […] unter den imaginativsten Ausdrücken etwas Räsonables und dachte, mit Male- branche und Leibniz müsste man dieses Laien Terminos korrigieren. […] Endlich sah ich, daß Jakob Böhmes dunkle Worte nach den deutlichen müssen gemessen werden’. See Ehmann (ed.), Oetingers Leben und Briefe, 36. Unless otherwise stated, all translations into English in this article were made by Lucinda Martin. 3 Zedler, ‘Theosophici’, 1116–1121. Aries – Journal for the Study of Western EsotericismDownloaded from 18Brill.com09/29/2021 (2018) 75–95 05:32:26AM via free access compatibility of the “inner light” of mystics and reason 77 reason, but instead in an innate supernatural Divine Light and its illumination’, and, in Zedler’s words, they: looked to the fantasies of their overheated imaginations and made these into the measure of reason and revelation, and also for this reason praised a secret Divine insight, granted only to certain illuminated persons, into the deepest mysteries of nature and have allowed themselves to dream of recognizing their extraordinary effects, and also because of this, they have made a lot of noise about magic, chemistry, astrology and similar sciences, which unlock the secret access to nature, und beyond this they have (unjustifiably) subsumed such secret and Divine philosophy under the ancient secret tradition of Wisdom and the name of Kabbalah.4 The lengthy lexicon article on the Theosophici reads like an indictment, in which the dangers inherent in the “theosophical system” are methodically enumerated, including the threat to the values and accomplishments of the Enlightenment, chief among them the role of reason. In Zedler’s opinion, theosophers execute their most serious attack on reason by misusing, or even claiming the same term for themselves: Indeed, they use the word reason themselves, but understand it not as the recognition of truth derived from natural principles or the power to discern these, but instead as the inward principle, which they seek as an outflowing and spark of Divine being in the human soul, which they oppose to that which is taken to be reason in normal understanding.5 4 Zedler, ‘Theosophici’, 1116. That is: nicht ‘in Gebrauch des anerschaffenen gereinigten Ver- nunft-Lichtes, als vielmehr in einem angeborenen übernatürlichen Göttlichen Lichte und dessen Erleuchtung’. Sie haben ‘die Vorstellungen ihrer erhitzten Einbildungs-Kraft dafür angesehen, und selbige zur Richtschnur von Vernunft und Offenbarung gesetzt, auch aus diesem Grunde sich einer geheimen Göttlichen, allein gewissen erleuchteten Personen mit- geteilten Einsicht der tiefsten Geheimnisse der Natur gerühmt, und deren außerordentliche Wirkungen erkannt zu haben sich träumen lassen, auch deswegen von der Magie, Chemie, Astrologie und dergleichen Wissenschaften, welche die geheimen Zugänge der Natur auf- schließen, viel Rühmens gemacht, und noch überdies (ungerechtfertigterweise) solche ge- heime und Göttliche Philosophie für die uralte geheime Tradition der Weisheit unter dem Namen der Cabbala ausgegeben’. 5 ‘Es bedienen sich zwar dieselben auch des Wortes Vernunft, sie verstehen aber dadurch nicht die Erkenntnis derWahrheit aus natürlichen Principiis, oder die Kraft dieselbige zu erkennen, sondern das inwendige Principium, das sie als einen Ausfluss und Funken des Göttlichen Aries – Journal for the Study of Western EsotericismDownloaded 18 from (2018) Brill.com09/29/2021 75–95 05:32:26AM via free access 78 edel Finally the article cites Gottfried Arnold’s “History of Church and Heresy” (Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie, 1699–1700) to demonstrate that the “heretics” and “enthusiasts” that Arnold rehabilitates not only discredit reason and the sciences, but also, through their sectarian ways, “true Christianity” (das wahre Christentum) itself, since such sects ‘proceed with such pride at their virulence and contemptuously bully and scorn all that does not accord with them’.6 This discourse in the middle of the eighteenth century serves above all to underscore the ambivalence of reception history. Today historians often cite Arnold’s History of Church and Heresy as a harbinger of, and source of ideas for, the deist historical view of the Enlightenment, since the work made ‘openness and tolerance into determining principles of historiography’.7 Yet, at the end of 1699—a half century before the publication of Zedler’s Universal- Lexicon, Leibniz criticized the polemical basis and the methodological failings of Arnold’s work, although he admitted that he had not read it. In keeping with his irenic position, Leibniz emphasized the commonalities of the parties and the basis of a universal truth (philosophia perennis) in pursuing a union of the churches. He saw the sharp tones that Arnold had voiced against the official church as sectarian and not helpful for real moral improvement. In this context, Leibniz saw the “mildness” and “moderation” of Jacob Böh- me, Thomas á Kempis and Philipp Jacob Spener as exemplary and lauded the bonne intention of these authors.8 Leibniz was already familiar at this time with the controversial and divisive image of Böhme that circulated, but it appears that after some hesitation he arrived at a position of appreciation for him. At the same time, Leibniz sensed that a challenge to Böhme’s opponents would only increase their bias against the theosopher and provoke further prejudice. Wesens in der