4 Tobias Andrea;, 1604-1674, Professor of History and Greek Language at Groningen, successfully cultivated philosophy and became known as a zealous partisan of the philosophy of Descartes. He wrote, in 1653, against Jacob Revius, Assertio methodi Cartesi.an.se, and was also author of Brevis expli- catio, brevi explicatione mentis huinanss Henr. Regii reposita. — TR.
5 Hendrik van Roy, 1598-1679, usually called Regius, was a Dutch physician, who in 1638 became Professor of Botany and Theoretical Medicine at Utrecht. He was a zealous disciple and advocate of the ideas of Descartes, until the Voet-Schoock-Descartes controversy and Descartes' rejection of him as a true representative of his views resulted in their falling out. Regius regarded the soul as a mode of the bodily substance, and in physics, while resting through out on Cartesian principles, differed from Descartes in his conception of motion and rest. On this doctrine of Regius, significant for the problem of body, cf. Lasswitz, Gesch. d. Atomistik, 2, 405-408. Regius published, among other works, Fundamenta physioe, Leyden, 1646; Philosophia naturalis, Amsterdam, 1661. Dr. James Martineau, A Study of Spinoza, London, Macmillan & Co., 1882, page 75, line 7, and foot-note 1, in translating "Regis" instead of "Regius" has misunderstood Leibnitz's reference and wrongly attributed to him a " lapsus memorise." — TR.
6 Cornelius Van Hooghelande, a Catholic nobleman who lived at Leyden, was a friend and disciple of Descartes. In his Cogitationes, 1646, Hooghelaude " so developed the f uudaineiital doctrines of Descartes that the only Cartesian- 634 LEIBNITZ'S CRITIQUE OF LOCKE Cartesians, must in a word be left out, since however they were either the equals or even the superiors of Descartes in age and natural capacities; I acknowledge that I am anything but a Cartesian. That rule I hold common to all these renovators of philosophy, that nothing is to be explained in bodies except by magnitude, figure, and motion. In respect to Descartes I hold the argument only of his method, for when we come to the present matter, he relaxed utterly from that severity, and descended abruptly to certain extraordinary hypotheses, a course which in his case Vossius rightly indeed repre hended in his book on Light.
Wherefore T do not hesitate to say that I approve more things in the books of Aristotle Trept ^vcn/djs d/cpocicrEws, than in the Medi tations of Descartes; so far am I from being a Cartesian. Nay more, I would venture to add that all those eight books can be received with out violation of the reformed philosophy. By which very method those difficulties will ipso facto be met which you, most distinguished man, are investigating in regard to the irreconcilable Aristotle. For the conclusions of Aristotle concerning matter, form, privation, nature, place, infinity, time, motion, are for the most part certain and demonstrated, this one thing generally excepted, what he asserted about the impossibility of a vacuum and motion in a vacuum. For to me neither vacuum nor plenum is necessary, and the nature of things seems capable of explanation by either method. In behalf of the vacuum contend Gilbert, Gassendi, Gericke; for the plenum, Descartes, Digby, Thomas Anglus,1 Clerk2 in his book " De plenitu- dine mundi." For the possibility of each, Thomas Hobbes and Robert Boyle. And I confess that, with difficulty indeed, yet without a vacuum, the rarefactions of things can be explained. I saw recently the book of John Baptist du Ilamel,3 a French scholar, on the ism of his work was the dedication." Descartes regarded him, says Kuno Fischer, Descartes and his School, translated by Gordy, p. 503, " as a well- disposed man without a calling to philosophy, and without understanding his doctrine." Cousin, CEuvres de Descartes, 6, 279-281, gives a letter, with a foot-note of an unknown editor stating his belief that Descartes wrote this letter to Van Hooghelande in March, 16:56, at Amsterdam. — TK.
1 Thomas White, 1582-1671!, called Anglus, Albius, Candidus, etc., published his Institutionum Peripateticarum ad mentem summi clari.ssimiquc Philoso- phi Kenelmi Equitis Digbsei at Lyons, 1646. Leibnitz refers to him briefly in the Theoria motus concreti, § 55 (Gerhardt, Leibniz, philos. Schrift., 4, 207; Math. Schrift., II., 2 [Vol. G], 47), and in the Theoria motus abstracti (ibid., 4, 228; II., 2 [Vol. 6], 67), as " subtilissimus " and " acutissimus." — TB.
2 Gilbert Clerke, 1026-1697?, a mathematician and theological writer, in his first work, De Plenitudine Mundi, etc., 16(50, reviewed Descartes and attacked Bacon and Hobbes, and published in 1662 his Tractatus de' Restitutions Cor- porum, results of studies following Torricelli and Boyle. — TR.
8 Jean Baptiste du Ham el, 1(524-1706, was a French experimental philoso pher and astronomer, who lectured on physics and experimented so far as his APPENDIX G35 harmony of ancient and modern philosophy, published not long since at Paris, in which he elegantly expounds and often acutely estimates the hypotheses of some of the most celebrated ancients and moderns. He also has not a few words concerning the con flicting views about the vacuum. As to the rest, scarcely any sane man will call in question all the remaining things discussed by Aristotle in Bk. VIII. Phys. and the entire Metaphysics, Logic, and Ethics. Who does not admit the substantial form also; namely, that by which the substance of one body differs from the substance of another body? Nothing is truer than primary matter. This one thing is in question, whether the abstract discussions of Aristotle con cerning matter, form, and change, are to be explained by magnitude, figure, and motion. The Scholastics deny, the Reformers affirm, it. The opinion of the Reformers seems to me not only the truer, but the more in harmony with that of Aristotle; I will speak briefly of each. And first of Aristotle. For that the Scholastics strangely pre- verted his meaning, to whom is it better known than to you, most distinguished man, who have been the first to bring forth into the light a good many of this class of errors? Since with you in metaphysics Soner l and Dreier,'2 in logic Viotttis, Zabarella,3 position and the instruments then existing allowed. He published, among other works, Astronomia physica, and De meteoribus ft fossilibus, Paris, lf>(JO; DC consensu veteris et none philosophise, Paris, 16(i3 and later editions, the work here referred to by Leibnitz; De corporum aff'ectionibus, 1(>70; his Opera, Norimberga, 1081. Cf. Lasswitz, Gesch. d. Atomistik, 2, 493, 494. — TR.
1 Ernst Soner, 1572-1G12, was Professor of Philosophy and Medicine at Altdorf, and in philosophy an Aristotelian. He was the author of many Disputationes, the greater part of which appeared in Felwinger's Philosophia Altdorfiana, Norimberga, 1644; also of Commentaries on Aristotle's Meta physics and Physics, 1007; he also wrote against eternal punishment in his Demonstrations quid asterna impiorum supplicia non arguant Dei justitiam sed injustitiam, and some medical works. Cf. Magn. Dan. Omeisius, Gloria Academies, Altdorfianse, etc., Altdorf, 1<>83. Leibnitz in his Preliminary Dissertation to his edition of Nizolius (Gerhardt, 4, 155: Erdmann, (>8 a; Dutens, 4, Pt. I., 57) speaks of his contribution, together with that of Dreier, to the understanding of Aristotle's Metaphysics; and in the Theodicee, Pt. III., § 2(>t>, of his argument against eternal punishment. — TR.
2 Christian, or Peter, Dreier, KilO-1688, was Professor of Theology at K«'m- igsberg, and published his Sapientia sen Philosophia priina, ex Aristotele ej usque optimis comment atoribus, co»scnpta, Konigsberg, ]<>44, 4to. Leibnitz refers to him in his Preliminary Dissertation to Nizolius (Gerhardt, 4, 155; Erdmann, (i8 a; Dutens, 4, Pt. I. 57) and also in the Theodicee, Pt. II.. § 1«4: " M. Dreier de Konigsberg a bien remarque" que la vraie metaphysique qu'Aristote cherehait, et qu'il appelait iV l^Tov^evrii', son desideratum, c'tait la theologie." — TR.
3 Jacopo Zabarolla, 1533-1589, was a teacher of Logic at Padua. His De rebus naturaiibux, lib. XXX., appeared at Col., 1590, fo'l.: his Opera loyica, Col., 1597, fol.: both also in several later editions. An account of Zabarella will be found in Stockl, Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalters, III. [Vol. 4], 2(53-272.— TR.
636 LEIBNITZ'S CRITIQUE OF LOCKE Jung,1 in civics Jason Denores,2 Piccart,3 Conring, Felden,4 Durrius,5 and many others, acknowledge this, why, I pray, shall we not suspect the same or worse in physics, aids in the knowledge of which must be sought from sense and experiment, of which means the Scholastics confined for the most part in closed monasteries were absolutely deprived? It is probable enough, therefore, that in physics they were deceived; how if I shall show more than this, that it is altogether certain? In which thing I may be engaged again in a twofold way. For either it is shown that the Reformed Philosophy can be recon ciled with the Aristotelian and is not contrary to it, or further, it is shown that the one not only can, but also must, be explained by the other; nay, rather, that the very things which are discussed with so much pomp by the moderns flow from the Aristotelian principles. By the former way the possibility, by the latter the necessity, of the reconciliation is accomplished, although in this very instance if a possible reconciliation is shown, the thing is accomplished. For 1 Joachim Jung, 1587-1657, an eminent mathematician and physicist, and an earnest advocate of the corpuscular theory, published Logica Hamburg- ensis, Hamburg, 1638, 8vo; et recensente Joh. Vegetio, 1G81, 8vo; and various disputations. Leibnitz refers to his Gcometria empirica, Hamburg, 1681, Svo, in the Theodicee, Pt. II., § 214. For an account of him and his corpuscular the ory, cf. Lasswitz, Gesch. d. Atomistik, 2, 245-261; E. Wohlwill, J. Jungius und die Erneunuig atomistischer Lehren im 17 Jahrhundert, Hamburg, 1887; G. E. Guhrauer, J. Jungundsein Zeitaltcr, Stuttgart u. Tubingen, 1859. — TB.
2 Jason Denores, died lf>!K), was well acquainted with the peripatetic phi losophy, and published Dell' ottima republica, Venice, 1578, 4to; and De con- stitittione phtlos. Aristotelis, Patavii, 1584, 4to. — TR.
3 Michael Piccart, 1574-1620, Professor of Philosophy and Poetry at Altdorf, was one of the most learned men of his times, and especially distinguished as an interpreter of Aristotle. Among his works were Isagoge in lectionem Aristotelis, Nuremberg, 1605, Svo, reprinted with the notes of J. C. Durrius, Altdorf, 1660, 1666, Svo; Organum Aristotelicum in qusest. et respons. redac- tum, Leipzig, 1613, Svo; Inpoliticos libros.Arixtotelis, Leipzig, 1615, Svo, Jena, 1659, 8vo, a highly esteemed work, which was reprinted with the title: Argu- menta librorum politicorum Aristotelis, cum prsefatione de nsevis istius operis Aristotelici, Helmstadt, 1715, 4to. Cf. Morhof, Polyhistoria, 2, 63. —TR.
4 Johannes Feldeu, a jurisconsult, lived during the seventeenth century. Leibnitz refers to him in his Prelim. Dissert, to Nizolius (Gerhardt, 4, 155- 156: Erdmann, 67 b, 68 a; Dutens, 4, Pt. I., 57, 58), as the author of eruditis- simsc...meditationes on the Topics and Analytics of Aristotle, "not yet published," of notes on Grotius, of Elementu Juris univer salts, and Analysis Politimrum Aristotelis. Cf., also, Morhof, Polyhistoria, 2, 559. — TR.
5 Joliann Conrad Durrius, 1625-1677, was Professor of Theology and Moral Philosophy at Altdorf. Among his writings were Compendium theologise moralis, iu several editions, one of the best being that of 1698, 4to; Oratio adversus Spinozam, Jena, 1672; Notse in Isagogen Piccarti, perhaps the work Leibnitz here had in mind in referring to Durrius. Morhof, Polyhistoria, 2, 63, gives some account of an edition of Piccart's Isagoge in lectionem Aristo telis, by Durrius, which appeared at Altdorf, 1(565, Svo. — TR.
APPENDIX 637 APPENDIX 637 although eacli explanation, both of the Scholastics and of the moderns, were possible, nevertheless from two possible hypotheses must always be chosen the clearer and more intelligible, such as indisputably is the hypothesis of the moderns, which makes for itself no incorporeal entities in the midst of bodies, but besides magnitude, figure, and motion assumes nothing. What possibility there is of reconciliation I cannot better show than by asking that some principle of Aristotle be given me which cannot be explained by magnitude, figure, and motion.
Primary matter is the mass itself, in which there is nothing else than extension and avrirvma or impenetrability; it has extension from the space which it fills; the nature itself of matter consists in this, that it is something crass and impenetrable, and consequently movable when another meets it (while the second must yield). Now this continuous mass filling the world, while all its parts are at rest, is primary matter, from which all things are produced through motion, and into which they are resolved through rest. For there is in it no diversity, mere homogeneity, except through motion. Hence already all the difficulties of the Scholastics are solved. First, they inquire concerning its entitative character previous to all form. And the reply must be that it is an entity previous to all form, since it has its own existence. For all that exists, which is in any space, a fact which cannot be denied of that entire mass although without motion and discontinuity. But the essence of matter or the form itself of corporeity consists in avTirvrria. or impenetrability; matter also has quantity, but interminate, as the Averroists say, or indefinite; for while it is continuous, it is not cut into parts, and therefore no termini are actually given in it: yet extension or quantity is given. All things not concerning the extrinsic termini of the world, or the entire mass, but concerning the intrinsic termini of the parts, harmonize in a wonderful manner.
From matter let us pass to form through the dispositions. Here again, if we assume form to be nothing else than figure, all things wonderfully accord. For since figure is the terminus of body, to introduce figures into matter there will be need of a terminus. In order, therefore, that various termini may arise in matter, there is need of a discontinuity of parts. For while for this very reason the parts are discontinuous, any one you please has separate termini (for Aristotle defines continua <Lv TO. ecr^ara ev); but discontinuity can be induced in that mass before continuous in two ways; in one way so that at the same time contiguity is destroyed, which happens when they are so violently separated from one another that a vacuum is left, or so that contiguity remains, which happens when those which are immediate to themselves remain, yet are moved in different directions; for example, two spheres, one of which includes 638 LEIBNITZ'S CRITIQUE OF LOCKE the other, can be moved in different directions, and yet remain con tiguous, although they cease to be continuous. From these con siderations it is evident that, if indeed from the beginning a mass discontinuous or broken up by vacuities was created, some forms of matter are at once concrete; but if, indeed, it is continuous from the beginning, forms must of necessity arise through motion (for concerning the annihilation of certain parts in order to obtain vacui ties in matter, because it is beyond nature I do not speak, because from motion division, from division termini of parts, from termini of parts their figures, from figure forms, therefore from motion forms arise). From which it is evident that all disposition to form is motion, evident also the solution of the vexed question concern ing the origin of forms. Which question the distinguished man Herm. Conring could satisfactorily answer by his special disserta tion only by asserting that forms arise from nothing.1 We shall say they arise from the power of matter, not by producing any thing new, but only by destroying the old, and causing termini by division of the parts, as he who makes a column does nothing else than 2 remove the useless parts, the residuum after the other parts are removed by this very means receiving that figure which we call a column; that is to say, all the figures or forms which are contained in the mass itself need only determination and actual separation from the others adhering to them. If this explication is admitted, whatever arguments are produced against the origin of forms from the power of matter are mere trifles.
It now remains for us to come to changes. Changes are enum erated commonly and rightly: generation, corruption, increase, diminution, alteration, and local change or motion. The moderns think all these can be explained through local motion alone. And first, From increase and diminution the thing is manifest; for a change of quantity in the whole takes place when a part changes its place, and either approaches or departs. It remains for us to explain generation and corruption and alteration through motion, and I note beforehand that the same numerical change is a gen eration and alteration of different things, for example, since it is evident that putrefaction consists in those worms imperceptible to 1 Gerhardt reads: "Conringius peculiar! dissertatioue non aliter satisfacere potuit, quam formas ex nihilo oriri." Erdmann reads: " Couringius peculiar! dissertatione non aliter occurrit, quam concedendo formas ex nihilo oriri, sed meditationes istae compendiosiorem viam monstrant, ut illucconfugere Tiecesse non sit. Discimus enim formas oriri," etc.; i.e., Conring met in his special dissertation not otherwise than by admitting that forms spring from nothing, but these very meditations show a more advantageous way, so that it is not necessary to flee thither. For we say that forms arise, etc.
2 Erdmann and Dutens read: " quam quod iiiutilia tollit," i.e., than that which removes the useless parts. — TR.
APPENDIX 639 the naked eye, any putrid infection will be an alteration of the man, a generation of the worm. In a similar way Hooke l shows in his " Micrographia," that rust in iron is a minute little forest (sylvulam) which has sprung up; to rust therefore will be an alter ation of the iron, a generation of little shrubs. But both genera tion and corruption, as well as alteration, can be explained by a minute motion of parts; for example, since white is that which reflects the most light, black that which reflects little, those things will be white whose surface contains the largest number of little specula; this is the reason why foaming water is white, because it consists of innumerable little bubbles; moreover as many bubbles, so many specula, since before well-nigh the entire water was nothing but one speculum, as in a broken glass mirror (speculum), so many parts become so many mirrors (specula): which, indeed, is the reason why ground glass is whiter than that which is whole. In a simi lar manner, therefore, when water is broken by bubbles into separate specula, whiteness arises, which is the reason also why snow is whiter than ice, and ice than water. For it is false that snow is condensed water, since it is rarefied rather, whence also it is lighter than water and occupies more space. By which reasoning the sophism of Anaxagoras concerning black snow is explained (diluitur). From these considerations it is evident that colors arise from change alone of figure and position in the surface; the same explanation as regards light, heat, and all qualities, if occasion should allow, could easily be given. But now, if qualities are changed through motion alone, by the same process also substance will be changed: for if all, nay even if some, of the necessary qualities are changed, the thing itself is destroyed; for example, if you destroy either the light or heat, you will destroy the fire. And if the motion is set in operation (inhibito), you will produce each. And this is the reason why a closed fire dies for want of the nourishing air, so that I may pass over in silence the fact that the essence differs 1 Robert Hooke, 1635-1703, Professor of Geometry in Greshani College, Ox ford, and Secretary of the Royal Society, published his Micrographia, or some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies in 16(>5. This book "con tained the earliest investigation of the ' fantastical colours of ' thin plates, with a quasi-explanation by interference, the first notice of the ' black spot' in soap-bubbles, and a theory of light, as ' a very short vibrative motion ' transverse to straight lines of propagation through a ' homogeneous medium.' Heat was defined as ' a property of a body arising from the motion or agita tion of its parts.' " From his paper (May, 1GGO) on curvilinear motion, illus trated with the aid of the " circular pendulum," showing experimentally that the centre of gravity of the earth and moon is the point describing an ellipse around the sun, dates "the clear statement of the planetary movements as a problem in mechanics." For an account of his Vibration-theory, cf. Lasswitz, Gesch. d. Atomistik, 2, 329-338. An abridgment of his Microyraphia appeared at London, 1780. — TB.
640 LEIBNITZ'S CKITIQUE OF LOCKE from its own qualities only in relation to the sense. For as the same city presents another aspect of itself, if you look down from a tower in the midst of the city (in Grund gelegt), which is just the same as if you beheld its essence; it appears otherwise if you approach from without, which is just the same as if you per ceive the qualities of the body; and as the external aspect of the city varies, according as you depart from the eastern or the west ern side, so in a similar way the qualities vary in proportion to the variety of the organs. From these considerations now it is easily manifest that all changes can be explained through motion. It is no objection that generation takes place in an instant, that motion is successive, for generation is not motion but the end of motion; therefore the end of motion is in an instant, for some figure is produced or generated by the very last instant of motion, as the circle is produced by the very last moment of the circumgyration. From these considerations it is evident why the substantial form consists in the indivisible, and does not receive more or less. For figure also does not receive more or less. For although one circle may be greater than another, yet the one circle is not more a circle than the other, for the essence of the circle consists in the equality of the lines drawn from the centre to the circumference; now equality consists in the indivisible and does not receive more or less. Nor, indeed, must the figure or the magnitude of the object be accidents, nor in fact are they always accidents; for although, for example, flowing is an accident of lead, for it flows not unless in the fire, it is nevertheless of the essence of mercury. Now the cause of flowing is without doubt the free curvilineity of the parts, whether it consists of globes or cylinders or ovals or other spheroids: the curvilineity therefore of the subtile parts is an accident of the lead, but essential to the mercury. The reason is, because all metals arise from fixed mercury by means of the salts, and the nature of the salts consists in rectilinear figures fitted for rest; hence, if we allow salts dissolved in water to crystallize freely, some forms known to the chemists as tetraedric, others as hexaedric, octaedric, etc., but none round or curvilinear, appear.
Hence salts are the cause of fixity; therefore those acid salts mixed with the mercury in the bowels of the earth, as it were, through the smallest parts impede the freedom of the curvilinear parts by their interposition and constitute the metal. But in the fire the metal returns to the nature of mercury, for the fire interposing itself in the subtile parts, frees the curvilinear hydrargyrate parts from the plane-sided salts; hence the flowing in the fire. Thus it is evident that there is scarcely anything in the Aristotelian physics which cannot be properly explained and illustrated by the reformed.
APPENDIX 641 These examples, indeed, have occurred to me spontaneously (de meo), while writing; very many more are collected by others through all natural philosophy. Nor do I fear that in what I have hitherto said, you will think that I have followed too much the descriptions of R;GUS or his authority. I was acquainted with such things some time before I even heard of Rseus. I read Ranis, to be sure, but in such a way that I now scarcely remember what subjects he discussed. Xor, indeed, was Rseus the first and only one of those promoting a union between Aristotle and the moderns. Scaliger seems to me to have been the first to pave the way; in our times Kenelrn Digby and his follower, Thomas Anglus, the latter in his book on the immortality of the soul, the former in his " Peripatetic Institutions," treated ex professo the same subject long before Rrcus. Nor do both Abdias Trew J and especially Erhard AVeigel differ from them. Hitherto we have shown the possibility only of recon ciliation; it remains for us to show the necessity also. Of what else, namely, does Aristotle in the eight books of the " Phys. Auditus " treat than figure, magnitude, motion, place, time? If therefore the nature of body in general is completed (absolvitur) by these, the