therein. And suppose the qiiestion therein concerns some fine precept of morals, some stratagem of war, some invention use ful in the arts which serve the conveniences of life or the health of men, this same history will be related to some purpose in the science or art it concerns, and indeed it can be mentioned in two parts of this science, viz., — in the history of the discipline in order to recount its efficient growth, and also in the precepts to confirm them or illuminate them by examples. For example, what is very properly told in the life of Cardinal Ximenes, that a Moorish woman cured him by rubbings only of a hectic almost desperate, deserves also place in a system of medicine, as well in the chapter on hectic fever, as when the question concerns a 1 The phrase " as many sciences as truths " — " tot esse scientias quot veri- tates"— is, as Schaarschmidt says, "the sharpest expression of nominalist ic individualism." " According to Nominalism, we have a knowledge of partic ulars only, all universals being merely figment a mentis, products of abstrac tion. Hence true and genuine science always relates to particulars only, and thus there are as many sciences as (particular) truths."
On Leibnitz's studies of Nominalism, cf. Guhrauer, Leibnit. Disscrtatio de princ. Individ., pp. o9 sq., Leibnitz, De stilo philos. Nizolii, § 28, Gerhardt, 624 LEIBNITZ'S CRITIQUE OF LOCKE [UK. TV medicinal diet comprising these exercises; and this observation will serve also the better to discover the causes of this disease. But we might further speak of this in medicinal logic, where the question is about the art of discovering remedies, and in. the history of medicine, in order to show how remedies have come to the knowledge of men, and that it is often by the aid of sim ple empirics and even charlatans. Beverovicius,1 in a remark able book on ancient medicine, drawn wholly from authors not physicians, would have rendered his work still more useful, if he had passed down to modern authors. We see by this that one and the same truth may have many places according to the different relations it can have. Those who arrange a library very often do not know where to place certain books, being in suspense between two or three places equally suitable. But let us now speak only of general doctrines and put aside partic ular facts, history and languages. I find two principal dispo sitions of all doctrinal truths, each of which should have its deserts and which it would be well to unite. The one would be synthetic and theoretic, ranking truths according to the order of proofs, as the mathematicians do, so that each proposition would come after those on which it depends. The other dispo sition would be (Analytic and practical, commencing with the end of men, i.e. with the goods whose consummation is happiness, and seeking in order the means available for acquiring these goods or avoiding the contrary evils. These two methods have place in general encyclopedia, while some have practised them in particular sciences; for geometry itself, treated synthetically by Euclid as a science, has been treated by some others as an art, and might nevertheless be treated demonstratively under this form, which would show indeed some invention; as if some 1 Jan van Beverwyck, — Latin Beverovicius, — 1594— 1<>47, a noted Dutch physician, who studied at Leyden, Caen, Paris, Montpelier and Padua, where he received his M. D., and on his return hecame Professor of Medicine at Dor drecht and physician to the city, in which also he held several civil offices, among them that of burgomaster. He labored to simplify the methods of pre scribing for disease. He published a number of books distinguished for purity of style and relation of facts, and which, adorned with copper-plates and with the verses of Jakob Cats, 1577-1660, one of the oldest and most popular Dutch poets, " made in his time much sensation and met with much approbation." Among them was the Idea medicinfe veterum, Lugd. Bat., 1637, 12mo, here mentioned by Leibnitz. His entire works were published at Amsterdam, en. xxi] ON HUMAN UNDERSTANDING 025 one proposed to measure all kinds of plane figures, and begin ning with rectilinears, reflected that they may be divided into triangles and that each triangle is half of a parallelogram, and that parallelograms can be reduced to rectangles whose measure is easy. But in writing the encyclopedia, following both these two dispositions together, we might take measures for references in order to avoid repetitions. To these two dispositions the third according to the terms should be joined, which in reality would be only a kind of index, either systematic, arranging the terms according to certain predicaments which would be common to all the notions, or alphabetical according to the languages received among scholars. ISTow this index would be necessary in order to find together all the propositions into which the term enters in a sufficiently remarkable manner; for according to the two preceding ways, where the truths are arranged accord ing to their origin or use, truths concerning one and the same term cannot be found together. For example, it was not per mitted Euclid, when he was teaching how to find the half of an angle, to add the means of finding its third, because he would have been obliged to speak of the conic sections, knowledge of which he could not yet assume in this place. But the index may and should indicate the places where are found the impor tant propositions which concern one and the same subject. And we still lack such an index in geometry, which would be of great use in facilitating indeed invention and in pushing the science, for it would relieve the memory and often spare us the trouble of seeking again that which has already been found. And these indices would further be of use for a much stronger reason in the other sciences, where the art of reasoning has less power, and would be above all extremely necessary in Medicine. But the art of making such indices would be no slight one. Now considering these three dispositions, I find it remarkable that they correspond to the ancient division, which you have renewed, which divides science or philosophy into theoretic, practical and discmrsive, or rather into Physics, Ethics, and Logic. For the synthetic disposition corresponds to the theoretic, the analytical to the practical, and that of the index according to the terms to logic: so that this ancient division does very well, provided we understand these dispositions as I have just explained, i.e. not as distinct sciences, but as different arrangements of the same 626 LEIBNITZ'S CRITIQUE OF LOCKE [UK. iv truths as far as we judge it advisable to repeat them. There is also a civil division of the sciences according to the faculties and professions. We make use of it in the universities, and in the arrangements of libraries;J and Draudius,2 with his continuer Lipenius,3 who have left us the amplest, but not the best cata logue of books, instead of following the method of the Pandects of Gesner,4 which is wholly systematic, have contented them selves with the use of the great division of the materials (much 1 For Leibnitz's sketch of a library classification and catalogue, cf. his Idea Leibnitiana BibliothecaB PubllcsB secundum classes scientiariim ordit/andse, Dutens, 5, 209-214. Of. also his Representation a S. A. S. le l>uc de Wolfen- buttel,pourl'encourager a I'entretien de saBibliotheque, ibid., 5, 207-208; the same, in German, Gnhrauer, Leibnitz's Deutsche Schrift., 2, 470-472. — TK.
2 Georg Draud, 1573-1630 or 1635, a student at Marburg University and afterwards a proof-reader at Frankfort, Basle, and at the famous typography at Feyerabend, and minister of the gospel at Gros-Carbeu, Ortenberg and Dauernheim, was the first to attempt an extended systematic bibliography. His Bibliotheca classica fsive catalogue officinalis, in quo singuli singularum facultatum ac professionum libri — secundum artes et ordine alphabetico recensentur, Frankfort, 1611, was the most complete bibliography of printed books that had then appeared. A 2d ed., increased by all the books printed from 1611-1625 of which the editor had knowledge, appeared in 1625. — Tit.
3 Martin Lipeuius, 1630-1692, a learned German bibliographer, who studied at Wittemberg, and was co-rector of the gymnasium at Halle, and of the acad emy at Lubeck, and rector and professor in the gymnasium at Stettin. He published Bibliotheca realis juridica, 1679, the most valuable of his series, edited with additions by F. W. Struve, in 1720, by G. A. Jeuichen, 1709-1759, a jurist, philologian and historian, with corrections in 1736, and a supplement in two parts, 1742; also several subsequent editions with corrections and addi tions; Bibliotheca realis medica, 1679, philosophica, 1682, theologica, 1685. They were called realis because the books were listed in the alphabetical order of subjects and not under the names of their authors. — -Tn.
4 Conrad Gesner, 1516-1565, called the " German Pliny," because of his vast erudition, was Professor of Greek, 1537, at Lausanne, and of Physics and Natural History, 1541, at Zurich. He made " the first comprehensive attempt at a general encyclopedia of literature, constructed in the form of a catalogue " in his Bibliotheca universalis. The work contained the titles of all then known books, existent or lost, published or announced, in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, giving under each important name a vast amount of bibliographical informa tion and criticism, original and selected, and often some specimens of their style. The first vol., Ziirich, 1545, is arranged alphabetically according to the authors' names; the second, entitled Pandectse sive partitionum univer- salhun, lib. XXI., — totius philosophise et omnium bonarum artium atque stu- diorum locos communes et ordines universales simul et particulars, — Ziirich, 1548, is arranged according to subjects and divided into 19 books, book 21, a theological encyclopedia, not being published till 1549, and book 20, the medical writings, never appearing because in the author's view too imperfect for publication. It was reprinted and greatly enlarged by Siniler in 1574, and by J. J. Fries, Zurich, 1583. — TK.
CH. xxi] ON HUMAN UNDERSTANDING 627 the same as the libraries) following the four faculties (as they are called) of theology, jurisprudence, medicine and philosophy, and have afterwards arranged the titles of each faculty accord ing to the alphabetical order of the principal terms entering into the inscription of the books: this lightened the task of these authors, because they had no need to see the book or to understand the matter which the book treats, but it does not sufficiently serve others, at least it does not make references in the titles to others of parallel signification; for not to speak of a number of mistakes they have made, we see that often one and the same thing is called by different names, as, for example, observationes juris, miscellanea, conjectanea, electa, semestria, probabilia, benedicta, and a multitude of similar inscriptions; such books of the jurisconsults signify only the miscellanies of the lloman Law. This is why the systematic disposition of the materials is without doubt the best, and we may join with it alphabetical indices very full according to the terms and the authors. The civil and received division, according to the four faculties, is not to be despised. Theology treats of eternal felicity and all that relates thereto, so far as it depends on the soul and the conscience; it is like a jurisprudence which regards what is said to exist deforo interno and employs invisible sub stances and intelligences: Jurisprudence has for its object gov ernment and the laws, whose end is the happiness of men so far as the external and sensible can contribute thereto; but it regards principally only that which depends upon the nature of the spirit, and does not enter much farther into the detail of material things whose nature it assumes in order to employ them as means. Thus is it relieved at once of an important point which concerns the health, strength and perfection of the human body, the care of which is given to the faculty of Medi cine. Some have believed with some reason that we might add to the others the Economic Faculty, which would contain the Mathematical and Mechanical Arts, and all that concerns the detail of the subsistence of men and of the conveniences of life, in which Agriculture and Architecture would be included. But we abandon to the faculty of Pliilosophy all which is not included in the three faculties which we call superior. We do this quite badly, for we do it without giving means to those \vho are of this fourth faculty for perfecting themselves by 628 LEIBNITZ'S CRITIQUE OF LOCKE [UK. iv practice as those can do who teach the other faculties. Thus the mathematics perhaps excepted, we consider the faculty of philosophy only as an introduction to the others.1 This is why we wish the youth to learn history, and the arts of speaking and some rudiments of theology and natural jurisprudence, independent of divine and human laws, under the title of meta physics or psychology, ethics and politics with a little of physics also, in order to serve as young physicians. This, then, is the civil division of the sciences following the bodies and profes sions of the scholars who teach them, without speaking of the profession of those who work for the public otherwise than by their discourses and who ought to be directed by true scholars, if the limits of knowledge were well understood. And even in the more noble manual arts, knowledge has been very much bound up with performance, and might be more so. As in fact they are joined together in medicine, not only formerly among the ancients (where physicians were also surgeons and apothe caries), but also to-day especially among the chemists. This alliance also of practice and theory finds itself at variance both among those who teach what are called exercises, as also among the painters, or sculptors and musicians, and among some other kinds of virtuosi. And if the principles of all these professions and arts, and even of the trades, were taught practically among the philosophers, or in some other faculty of scholars as they might be, these scholars would be truly the teachers of the human race.2 But it would be necessary to change much of 1 I.e. in the broader sense of the term in which it is equivalent to the Humanities, — artes liberalc.t, — the liberal education, disciplinary, stimulative and cultural of the student's entire powers, which was considered until very recently, and is regarded even now by many of the deepest and farthest-sighted thinkers on education, as an essential precedent and preparation for all later special professional study. The custom of regarding the Faculty of Arts or Philosophy as introductory to that of Theology, Medicine and Jurispru dence, goes back to the university curricula of the Middle Age, the Trivium and the Quadrivium, with their respective degrees of A.B. and A.M., which in their essential character and principles, with the necessary changes incident to an advancing civilization, have been, till within a short time at least, the controlling influence in shaping the curricula and methods of all modern col legiate and university education. — TR.
2 On this, as on every subject he touched, Leibnitz utters a suggestive and stimulating thought, which has in recent times brought forth much fruit in the establishment and maintenance of technical and art schools of every kind.
OH. xxi] ON HUMAN UNDERSTANDING 629 the present state of things in literature and the education of the youth, and consequently of the government. And when I con sider how much men have advanced in knowledge in the last century or two, and how easy it would be for them to go incom parably farther in order to render themselves happier, I do not despair that a considerable improvement will come in a more tranquil period under some great prince whom God will be able to raise up for the good of the human race.1 1 Leibnitz constantly labored to secure the sympathy and active co-opera tion of the " great princes " in the initiation and furtherance of learning, sci ence, and the higher ideal interests of mankind in general, a conspicuous example of his success being that of the great reformatory genius of his time, Peter the Great of Russia. Their correspondence is found in Foucher de Careil, (Euvres de Leibniz, 1, 395-598. Cf. also W. Guerrier, Leibniz in semen Beziehungcn zu Russland und Peter dem Grossen, St. Petersburg and Leip zig, 1873; Foucher de Careil, Leibniz et Pierre le Grand, Paris, 1873. For a general account of his various efforts in this direction, cf. Fischer, Gesch. d. u. Philos., Vol. 2, Leibniz, 3d ed., 1889, pp. 211-24'J; and for a brief account, Merz, Leibniz (Blackwood's Philos. Class.), pp. 74-8o. — TR.
APPENDIX LEIBNITZ TO JACOB THOMASIUS1 [From the Latin] How much that yev/Aa of philosophical history of yours has made the mouths of all water cannot be told; for it is apparent how much difference there is between mere enumerations of names and those profound views concerning the connections of opinions. And cer tainly all acquainted with the subject that I hear speak of your essay (you know that I never natter), unanimously affirm that from no one man can a complete body of philosophical history preferably be expected. Very many skilled in antiquity rather than in art have given us lives rather than opinions. You will give the history not of philosophers but of philosophy. They say in England that Joseph Glanvill's History of the growth of the sciences since Aristotle is in press.2 But I think he will pursue for the most part the mathemati cal, mechanical, and physical periods of this inquiry only, so I think 1 Gerhardt, Leibniz, philos. Schrift. 1, 15-27; Erdmann, 48-54; Dutens, 4, Pt. I. 7-19; Kortholt, Leibnit. epist. ad diversos, Lipsisu, 1734-42, 2, 121-142. Kortholt's text gives the piece as printed by Leibnitz in his edition of Nizo- lius, and differs considerably from that given by Gerhardt, which is the text followed in this translation. Cf. also, Gerhardt, Leibniz, philos. Schrift., 4, 162-174. In this " impression," says Gerhardt, Einleitung, ibid., p. 9, note **, " the copy of the Royal Library at Hanover has been used, in which are found MS. notes of Leibnitz." — TR.
2, Joseph Glanvill, 1636-1680, Court Chaplain to Charles II., published his defence of the Royal Society of London, entitled Phis Ultra, or the Progress and Advancement of Knowledge since the days of Aristotle, in 16(58. In his idea of causation Glanvill was a predecessor of Hume. His Scepsis xcientifica, or Vanity of Dogmatising, London, 1665, edited by John Owen, 1885, and his DC incrementis scientiarutn, London, 1670, attacked the Aristotelian and Car tesian dogmatism. Though a thorough-going sceptic in the direction of the scholastic philosophy, he was opposed to the materialism of Hobbes. Some account of Glanvill's views will be found in Lecky, Rationalism in Europe, 1, 129 sq. D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1876. — TR.
632 LEIBNITZ'S CRITIQUE OF LOCKE lie lias forestalled you in nothing. But I wish that you would pro duce a style and form for this more modern age and admonish our inconsiderate youth that, neither everything nor nothing is to be attrib uted to the restorers. Bagheminus1 is not the only critic to whom you are indebted; there are the Patricii, Telesii, Campanellae, Bodini, Nizolii, Fracastorii, Cardanii, Galilaei, Verulamii, Gassendi, Hobbii, Cartesii, Bassones, Digbaei, Sennerti, Sperlingii, Derodones, Deusingii, and many other names among whom the cloak of philosophy is divided.2 To remind the world of these will be a diversion for you, a profit to the public.
Who does not assent to your estimate of Bagheminus? There is no skilful adjustment in hypotheses,3 no logical sequence of reasons, but in a word strange notions; certainly unless he has something to observe useful in special physics, he will better be silent. But Scaliger, Sennert, and Sperling, — for he acknowledged himself a pupil of this one also, — seem to me to be the parents of the opinion of that one concerning God, the primary matter of things, who think that forms are produced not from the passive power of matter, but from the active power of the efficient one. Wherefore the conclu sion is that they believe that God produces creatures rather from his own active power, than from nothing by objective and as it were passive power. God therefore in their opinion produces things out of himself, and so will be the primary matter of things. But as to this you will more properly judge.
As to Descartes and Clauberg, I think in brief with you that the disciple is clearer than the master. Xevertheless, I should venture again to affirm that hardly any one of the Cartesians have added any thing to the discoveries of the master. Certainly Clauberg, Rfeus,4 1 Cf. the letter of Jacob Thomasius to Leibnitz, October 2, Ki68, Gerhardt, Leibniz, philos. Schrift., 1, 14; Kortholt, Leibnit. Epistolse ad diversos, 3, 35: " Bagheminus ille, cujus negotium geritur, Scabinus est Stetinensis, et a nostra turn theologica, turn philosophica facilitate petiit philosophia; suse IIOVSB censuram. Theologi respomlerunt. A nobis nihil aliud repositum illi est, quam disputatio mea, qu;e si in manus hominis pervenit, facile judicabit, quo in hanc novitatem animo simus." — TB.
2 For some account of the lives and philosophy of the persons whose names are here mentioned, cf. Lasswitz, Gesch. d. Atnmistik; Stockl, Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelaltsrs, III. [Vol. 4]. — Anton Deusing, ir>12-l(>(>6 (not referred to in the works cited), was a German physician and Professor of Medicine at Groningen. He had an extended knowledge of philosophy, mathematics, and oriental languages, and published many works, among them, De vero si/ste- rnate mundi, dissertatio mathematica, qua Copernici sy sterna mundi reforma- tur, etc., Amsterdam, Elzevir, 1(543, 4to. — TR.
3 Erdmann reads: " hypothesibus ejus," i.e. his hypotheses. — TR.
4 Jean de Raey, date of birth unknown, died 1702, was Professor of Philoso phy in the University of Leyden lf»52-lf>(>8, and entered upon his Professorship at Amsterdam in January, 1(JG9, with an Oratio de sapientia veterum. In his APPENDIX 633 Spinoza,1 Clerselier,2 Heerbord,3 Tobias Andrea?,4 Henry Regius,5 have published nothing but paraphrases of their master. But I call those Cartesians only who follow the principles of Descartes, from which number those great men Bacon, Gassendi, Ilobbes, Digby, Cornelius of Ilogheland,6 etc., whom the common people confound with the Claris philosophise naturalis sen introductio ad natures conternplationem Aristotelico-Cartesianam, 1654, 2d ed., 1677, he sought to improve and com plete the doctrine of Aristotle through that of Descartes. He explained Erkenntnisslehre wholly after the manner of Aristotle; hut contested his assumption of the eternity of the world or the divine nature of the stars. He discussed mainly the nature of matter and the origin of motion, wholly on a Cartesian basis. — TR.
1 In the impression of this letter given by Gerhardt, Leibniz, philos. Schrift., 4, 162 sq., Leibnitz has erased the names of Spinoza and Cornelius van Hooghelande, and added after Bacon that of Galileo. This impression omits also the names of Ranis and Clerselier. For the other textual changes, cf. the impression itself. — TR.
2 Claude Clerselier, 1614-1684, the father-in-law of Rohault (cf. ante, p. 233, n. 2), was a zealous disciple of Descartes and edited some of his works: Le monde, ou trait 4 tie la lumiere, Paris, 1677; Traitd de I'homme, Paris, 16(34; Les lettres de Rene Descartes, 3 vols., Paris, 1657-1667. — TR.
3 Adrian Heereboord, 1614-1659, Professor of Philosophy in the University of Leyden, was one of the first and most zealous advocates of the new ten dency of thought introduced by the philosophy of Descartes. He united to a certain extent Cartesianism with the traditional authority of Aristotle, evi dence of which appears in his Parallelismus Aristotelicse et Cartesianss phi losophise naturalis, 1643. Other writings of Heereboord are: Meletemata philosophica, 1654; Philosophia rationalis, moralis, et naturalis, 1654, 2d ed., 1660; Philosophia pn"umatica, 1659. — TR.