On page 17 of THE QUADRUPLE OBJECT Harman complains about Deleuze’s treatment of Leibniz in his effort to recontextualise his philosophy away from the Aristotelian essence-accident schema and into the Stoic basis-manners schema. Harman finds that the Aristotelian schema gives due « stature and dignity » to « specific entities » and praises Aristotle’s « magnificent heir Leibniz, whose Aristotelianism is rudely airbrushed by Deleuze » (p17-18). In support of this claim he cites a remark on page 61 of THE FOLD:
« The Stoics and Leibniz invent a mannerism that is opposed to the essentialism first of Aristotle and then of Descartes ».
Now what is « rudely airbrushed » here is not Leibniz’s Aristotelianism, as Deleuze goes through some painstaking argumentation to justify his claim. What is airbrushed, though not by Harman so much as by Deleuze’s translator, is his arguments, due to an unfortunate inconsistency in the translation of two key words (« fond » and « manieres ») that are translated in the body of the text on page 61 as « basis » and « manners », this is a perfectly valid interpretative choice, all the more so as it maintains the link with Deleuze’s attribution of « Mannerism » to Leibniz’s philosophy. The unfortunate part comes with the footnote where Deleuze justifies his analysis with a quotation from Leibniz’s NEW ESSAYS that gives a major conceptual place to the couple base-manners. Here the translator resorts to a perfectly good English translation by Remnant and Bennett, but does not seem to worry that they translate the same two words by « foundation » and « kinds ». Here the connection with the terms of Deleuze’s argument is, as Harman so nicely puts it, « rudely airbrushed »:
27. « The kinds and degrees of perfection vary up to infinity, but as regards the foundation of things. The foundations are everywhere the same; this is a fundamental maxim for me, which governs my whole philosophy. But if this philosophy is the simplest in resources it is also the richest in kinds [of effects], » Nouveaux Essais, IV, chap. 17, paragraph 16 [Remnant/Bennett, 490] (THE FOLD, p173).
I must add that I can see no reason why the translators (Bennett and Remnant) should add the qualification « of effects » in square brackets, as there is no trace of it in Leibniz’s French text consulted by Deleuze. Even if it is a justified option, its use here detracts even further from Deleuze’s argument.
AGENT SWARM 