Die Philosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts. Band 5: Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nation, Schweiz, Nord- und Osteuropa. 2 Teilbände. Hrsg. von Helmut Holzhey und Vilem Mudroch. Basel: Schwabe, 2014. XLV, 1677 S. = Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 5/1

Die Philosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts. Band 5: Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nation, Schweiz, Nord- und Osteuropa. 2 Teilbände. Hrsg. von Helmut Holzhey und Vilem Mudroch. Basel: Schwabe, 2014. XVIII, 1677 S. = Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 5/1–2. ISBN: 978-3-7965-2631-2.

Inhaltsverzeichnis:

https://d-nb.info/1062557700/04

Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, roughly translatable as an “outline of the history of philosophy”, is a monumental undertaking that aims to cover the whole of the history of philosophy as comprehensively, correctly, and objectively as humanly possible. For English-speaking readers, it may be comparable to a mixture of a biographical encyclopedia and a handbook or companion. In addition, most chapters contain detailed doxographical overviews of philosophical works. Comprehensive bibliographies both of sources and the secondary literature are contained in the volume as well. So this is a reference work that only a few people – like this reviewer – will indeed read cover to cover. It should be mentioned, though, that the “Überweg” has a second, so to speak ‘unofficial’ function, namely as a showcase for the achievements of German scholarship in the historiography of philosophy. In the volume under review here, the bibliographical references show a clear preponderance of German research literature. Those who are no experts in the field may therefore gain a somewhat one-sided picture of scholarship on the German Enlightenment. I will first discuss those parts of the work that might be of particular relevance for the audience of this journal, and then provide some pointers to parts of the book that might be of interest to historians in general.

The contribution on the history of Polish philosophy in the 18th century (Zbigniew Kuderowicz) clarifies first that the periodisation of philosophy in Poland during the Enlightenment is a difficult and controversial topic. Traditionally, scholarship identified an important transition in the middle of the century when the influence of French and Italian authors grew significantly. But more recent investigations have demonstrated that philosophy in the first half of the century was less monolithic than previously assumed. Jesuits assimilated aspects of the Scientific Revolution, Protestant philosophers started to read Christian Wolff, the importance of the Piarist order increased significantly. Still, it can be conceded that in the second half of the 18th century a ‘laizist turn’ took shape, influenced by an increase in interest in theories of natural law. In this context, the dissolution of the Jesuit order in 1773 and the concomitant formation of the Komisja Edukacji Narodowej (Commission for National Education) changed the philosophical landscape again significantly.

In the beginning of the century, though, heliocentrist worldviews and the Cartesian reform of natural philosophy provoked significant critique in Jesuit circles. However, Gassendi’s project of a reconciliation between atomism and Christian doctrine met with a certain degree of approval. Jesuit metaphysics still remained true to Francisco Suárez’s doctrine. Suárezian. Epistemological topics were to some extent integrated into teaching, mostly in the logic part of the cursus philosophicus. This concerned e. g. the problem of invention, i. e. how to identify truths, or the question of truth criteria.

Protestant school philosophy was studied in Toruń and Gdańsk. Here the attitude towards Copernicus and heliocentrism was less rigid than in the Catholic context. Kuderowicz also mentions followers of Wolff (Kühn, Schultz). Wolffianism even made its way to Warsaw. Here, the first Polish translation of Gottsched’s textbook was published in 1760.

Piarist education was characterised by a thoroughgoing eclecticism. Kuderowicz describes the overarching philosophical project as an attempt to synthesise the results of the “new science” and its experimental method with the ethical thought of the Roman Stoa, most notably Cicero and Seneca. A center of activity of the order was the Collegium Nobilium in Warsaw. Here, philosophers studied Locke and Bacon, developed atomist criticisms of Leibnizian methodologies and promoted theories of natural law.

The last third of the 18th century is then covered through short biographies of the politician and political philosopher Stanisław Leszczyński, the “first Polish positivist” Jan Śniadecki, Hugo Kołłątaj, one of the important contributors to the Polish constitution of 1791, and the scientist Stanisław Staszic.

Ferenc L. Lendvai and Judit Hell have contributed the chapter on Hungarian philosophy of the period. Like in Poland, the dissolution of the Jesuit order can be regarded as a key event. It necessitated the formulation of new educational ideals in the spirit of “enlightened absolutism”. As far as Jesuit philosophy is concerned, another parallel to the Northern neighbour can be noted: a slow evolution from banning new philosophical developments like Cartesianism wholesale – teaching Descartes was disallowed in the Hungarian Society of Jesus in 1706 – towards a careful adoption of new ideas in natural philosophy. The contribution names Ferenc Boriga Kéri and András Jaszlinszky as important representatives of this trend. When Boscovich’s philosophy offered new strategies for the integration of contemporary scientific advances into a broadly Christian outlook, this trend accelerated.

The Piarist order filled the vacuum left by the dissolution of Jesuit institutions. The contribution provides a short biography of its most prominent educational reformer, Elec Cörver. It then turns to the reception of Western ideas in the Hungarian context. It discusses the reception of the French enlightenment in János Carlovszky, taken by some of his contemporaries to be a Spinozist, the educational thought of György Bessenyei and the influence of Voltaire, d’Holbach, and Rousseau on his oeuvre. The most radical proponent of French enlightenment ideas among those mentioned is Ignác József Martinovics, a follower of d’Holbach who developed a materialist and atheist world view.

The contribution closes with a brief account of Hungarian Kantianism that was particularly relevant in moral philosophy and philosophy of religion. It mentions István Mándi Márton, Pál Sárvari, Anton Kreil, and György Fejér, but also introduces the reader to criticism of Kant from an empiricist or religiously inspired point of view.

The philosophical developments in Russia were more disparate than in Poland or Hungary. Daniela Rippl therefore chooses to tell its history through biographies of major figures of the period. She starts with Lomonosov, the pioneer of science in Russia, analysing his views on logic and scientific method as well as his attempt at a “physical monadology” and its implications for the investigation of natural phenomena. She then turns to Skorovoda’s imaginative continuation of Renaissance hermetic traditions. Alexander Radishchev is presented as a student of Platner and Garve and a reader of Rousseau and Helvétius. He also worked in political philosophy and philosophy of law. His turn to vitalist views later in life is a disputed topic in scholarship on the period. Rippl also discusses Prokopovich, the advisor of Peter the Great, and his disciple Teplov who counts as the most prominent representative of Wolffianism in Russia and authored the first philosophical textbook in Russian. The contribution closes with overviews on the work of Michail Shcherbatov who tried to reconcile Enlightenment ideas with conservative viewpoints, and Alexander Beloselskii-Belozerskii and his interesting contributions to philosophical anthropology.

As mentioned above, the main goal of the Überweg series is to provide a reliable account of existing scholarship on a subject and major historical trends of the respective period. But since comparative studies of the history of philosophical thought east of Germany are comparatively rare, the mere existence of these three historical overviews is a major achievement in itself. This is particularly true, because it allows to identify directions for further research and may stimulate more comparative studies. These should concern e. g. the role of the Piarists and their philosophical outlook that is still completely uncharted territory. It would also be interesting to know more about the role of the aristocracy in the promotion of the ideals of the Enlightenment. Finally, it might be worthwhile to integrate the developments in the Catholic parts of Eastern Europe described here into broader scholarship on the evolution of the “Catholic enlightenment”.

Besides these, some chapters concerning the history of German philosophy should be of interest for historians of the 18th century in general: the very first chapter discusses “institutional conditions of philosophy and forms of its communication” with very useful contributions: Notker Hammerstein writes on the history of institutions of higher learning. Helmut Reinalter explains the role of societies and associations that formed outside the university. Hanspeter Marti discusses means of scholarly communication. Ulrich Gaier addresses the role of vernacular languages and translation. Wolfgang Rother provides a comprehensive overview of natural law theories and politics before the French Revolution and, together with Barbara Dölemeyer and Helmut Reinalter, of the situation afterwards, towards the end of the century. Walter Sparn delivers a thorough account of the relation between philosophy and theology as well as biographies of major figures like Semler, Spalding, and Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten. Henrik Lagerlund addresses 18th century philosophy in Sweden, Carl Henrik Koch in Denmark and Norway.

The volume is a worthy contribution to the series as a whole and a valuable instrument for any historian of ideas in the 18th century.

Stefan Heßbrüggen-Walter, Moscow