This page intentionally left blank

Leibniz’s Metaphysics
Its Origins and Development

This is the first systematic study of the development of Leibniz’s philoso-

phy. By placing his vast writings in their proper intellectual context and by
analyzing unnoticed early works, Christia Mercer shows that Leibniz de-
veloped his philosophy much earlier than previously believed and for rea-
sons that have not been recognized. Leibniz’s Metaphysics: Its Origins and
Development offers a major reassessment of Leibniz’s thought. It will en-
gage philosophers, historians, and scholars of religious studies.
For too long, the history of early modern philosophy has been a tale of
tidy progress according to which Leibniz developed his metaphysics pri-
marily in reaction to the old scholasticism and the new Cartesianism. Leib-
niz’s Metaphysics: Its Origins and Development shows that this story is in-
accurate. By uncovering a German school of conciliatory eclectics who
trained the young Leibniz, Mercer places his early texts in an entirely new
light. By excavating Leibniz’s long-hidden views about substance, God, and
method, Mercer exposes for the first time the underlying assumptions and
ultimate goals of his philosophy. It becomes clear that Leibniz’s relation to
Descartes, Spinoza, and other major seventeenth-century thinkers is sig-
nificantly different than previously thought. This study will compel schol-
ars to reconsider many of their assumptions about early modern science,
theology, and philosophy.

Christia Mercer is an associate professor of philosophy at Columbia Uni-

versity.
Leibniz’s Metaphysics
Its Origins and Development

CHRISTIA MERCER
Columbia University
         
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

  

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa

http://www.cambridge.org

© Cambridge University Press 2004

First published in printed format 2002

ISBN 0-511-03937-9 eBook (netLibrary)

ISBN 0-521-40301-4 hardback
For Tommy George and Wanda Jo:
Yippie-ki-yo-ki-yey
 Contents

Acknowledgments page xi
References to Leibniz’s works xiii

Introduction: first truths and half truths 

. Half truths 
. First problems 
. A different approach to first truths 

PART ONE: METAPHYSICS OF METHOD

 Eclecticism and conciliation, – 

. A walk in the woods 
. Method and metaphysics in the seventeenth century 
. The woods revisited 
. Leibniz’s two-part method 

PART TWO: METAPHYSICS OF SUBSTANCE

 Aristotelian assumptions, – 

. Metaphysical and religious harmony 
. The theological writings and Leibniz’s Metaphysics
of Substance 
Confession of nature against the atheists 
On transubstantiation 
Conspectus 
Demonstration of the possibility of the mysteries of
the Eucharist 
. Leibniz’s Aristotelian assumptions 

 Original conception of substance,  

. Reformed philosophy 
. Letter to Thomasius 
Goal and strategy 
Reformed philosophy 
Theory of substance 
. Conciliation and the Metaphysics of Substance 

vii
 

 Second conception of substance, –early  

. Substantial difficulties 
. Letter to Thomasius revised 
. Development of a perfect union 
. Development of a conception of mind and activity 
. Second conception of substance 

PART THREE: METAPHYSICS OF DIVINITY

 Platonist Assumptions 

. Leibniz and Platonism 
. The Supreme Being: its unity, self-sufficiency, perfection 
. Plenitude 
. The Supreme Being as transcendent and immanent,
as unity and multiplicity 
. Reflective harmony and sympathy 
. Ideas and knowledge 
. Matter and the hierarchy of being 
. Platonism in Leipzig 

 Metaphysics of Divinity, –early  

. Universal harmony 
Emanative Harmony 
Reflective Harmony 
. Mind 
. Creation stories, –early  
Speculative Creation Story 
Emanative Creation Story 
. Platonist epistemology 
Ideas as objects of knowledge 
Intellect and the material world 
Divine light 
. Leibniz’s original Platonism 

PART FOUR: METAPHYSICS

 Matter, passivity, and panorganic vitalism, – 

. Material difficulties 
. Material progress 
. From passivity to vitality 
Panorganic vitalism 
Panorganic vitalism and the Passivity Problem 
. Other evidence 

 Phenomenalism and Preestablished Harmony,  

. Gap between the apparent and the real 

viii
 

. Thinking about Preestablished Harmony 

Sixth note from the Elements of natural law 
On perceiving and thinking 
. Metaphysical cohesion and Preestablished Harmony 
Resurrection, core of substance, and Prearranged
Diffusion 
Eucharist, core of substance, and Prearranged
Diffusion 
. Preestablished Harmony and the Principle of Sufficient
Reason 

 Preestablished Harmony, late –early  

. Studies on the universal characteristic 
. Metaphysics of Studies on the universal characteristic 
Purity of mind and changeability of substance 
Activity and passivity in the passive principle 
Emanation, instantiation, and clarity 
Perception and unity; sympathy and difference 
Unity, diversity, and Preestablished Harmony 
. Method and metaphysics, – 

 Final steps toward the mature philosophy, – 

. Early Paris years, – 
The Philosopher’s confession 
Physical papers of  
On the true method in philosophy and theology 
. Substance and plenitude,  
Theory of corporeal substance 
Plenitude and minds: On the secrets of the sublime
or on the greatest of things 
Plenitude and traces 
Plenitude and distinctness: Meditation on the principle
of the individual 
. Substance and divinity,  
Emanative Harmony 
Preestablished Harmony 
. Completeness and truth, – 
Substances, aggregates, and completeness 
Substances, subjects, and truth 
. Matters of interpretation 

Conclusion: the truth behind the First truths 

. Metaphysics of Method 
. Metaphysics of Substance and Metaphysics of Divinity 
. Leibniz and seventeenth-century philosophy and science 

ix
 

Appendix I (Not exactly) First truths 

Appendix II Leibniz’s original assumptions 

Bibliography 
Index Locorum 
Index 

x
 Acknowledgments

This book is really two books in one, each of which comes with its own set
of intellectual debts. The first, which is my PhD thesis and for which Cam-
bridge University Press originally gave me a contract, was conceived at
Princeton University, researched at the Leibniz Archives at the University
of Münster (Germany), and completed at the University of Notre Dame.
As a graduate student at Princeton, I had the opportunity to meet and work
with Margaret Wilson, Dan Garber, and Bob Sleigh, whose philosophical
acumen, scholarly skills, and personal generosity have inspired me over the
years. My research in Germany was funded by the Fulbright Commission
and encouraged by the editors of Leibniz’s philosophical writings at the
Leibniz Forschungsstelle. Gerhard Biller, Martin Schneider, and especially
Professor Heinrich Schepers helped me to find my way through the
labyrinth of Leibniz’s papers. During the time I spent at the University of
Notre Dame, Ernan McMullin, Dick Foley, Howie Wettstein, and Phil
Quinn encouraged the completion of my thesis. I also benefited from the
support of the intellectual community at the University of California,
Irvine, and from a grant awarded by the American Council for Learned
Studies. Among the people who made helpful comments on the original
manuscript, from which major parts of chapters , , and  of the present
book are taken, I would like particularly to thank Don Rutherford, Bernard
Reginster, unnamed readers for Cambridge University Press, Phil Quinn,
Alan Nelson, Stuart Brown, Ohad Nachtomy, Mark Kulstad, and Stephen
Menn.
The second book was conceived during a second lengthy research trip to
Germany, this time supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Founda-
tion. Although I had returned to the Leibniz Archives to prepare the thesis
for publication, in my attempt to answer some questions that remained from
my earlier research, I discovered Leibniz’s youthful Platonism and the Pla-
tonism of his teachers. With this recognition, I was forced to rethink every-
thing but the core of my original interpretation. Chapters  through  of
the book are based on the research funded by the Humboldt Foundation,
some of which took place in Oxford. My colleague at the University of Oslo,
Eyfi Emilsson, has greatly helped me grasp the rudiments of Plotinian
metaphysics, while Sarah Hutton has enlightened me on matters concern-
ing early modern Platonism more generally.
Terence Moore, my editor at Cambridge University Press, and my col-
leagues at Columbia University (especially Isaac Levi) have been patient

xi
 

and supportive while I extended my original manuscript nearly four-fold.

During the completion of this second project, the understanding and sym-
pathy of my partner, Stephen Grover, and our children Harris and Josiah
Mercer have been constant and unending, not unlike the One itself. Among
the people who have made helpful comments on the final manuscript, I
would like particularly to thank Eyfi Emilsson, Dan Garber, Mark Kulstad,
Alan Gabbey, Ed Curley, Justin Smith, Ric Arthur, Sean Greenburg, Char-
lotte Methuen, Joseph McAlhany, Tom Collins, and especially Stephen
Grover.
In the tedious process of finishing this book, I have benefited greatly
from the women in my life. Among philosophers, I would like to thank
Penelope Maddy, Sue Weinberg, Lisa Lloyd, Eileen O’Neill, and especially
Margaret Wilson; among the non-philosophers, there are Linda Nagle,
Lucy Perrotta, Margaret Harris Grover, Janet Rodriguez, Sharon Ullman,
and especially Jo Mercer. Each, in her own way, has been a source of
strength and inspiration.

xii
 References to Leibniz’s works
My primary source is Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Sämtliche Schriften und
Briefe, ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, . I
abbreviate my references as follows: capital roman numerals = series num-
ber; lower case roman numerals = volume number; arabic numerals = page
number. Because the fourth volume of series six is itself three volumes (A,
B, C) and because the pagination is consecutive, there will be some citations
in which the page number is more than three digits. For example, VI iv [B]
 = series six, volume four (part B), page one thousand four hundred and
forty four. Each text in each volume of the Academy edition is numbered.
When I refer to a whole text as opposed to only part of it, I sometimes re-
fer to it by its number. For example, Leibniz’s thesis, Metaphysical Dispu-
tation on the Principle of Individuation = VI i N..
Leibniz published very little during his lifetime. To distinguish between
published and unpublished works, I capitalize all the words in the title of
the published ones and only the first word in the title of unpublished ones.

Abbreviations
AG: G. W. Leibniz: Philosophical Essays, eds. Roger Ariew, Daniel Garber,
Indianapolis: Hackett, .
AT: Oeuvres de Descartes, eds. C. Adam, P. Tannery,  vols., Paris: Vrin,
.
CSM: The Philosophical Writings of Descartes,  vols., eds. J. Cottingham,
R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, .
Dutens: Leibniz, Opera Omnia, ed. L. Dutens,  vols., Geneva: De Tournes,
; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, .
G: Die philosophischen Schriften von Leibniz, ed. C.I. Gerhardt,  vols.,
Berlin: Wiedmann, –; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, .
GM: Mathematische Schriften, ed. C.I. Gerhardt,  vols., Berlin: A. Asher,
–; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, .
L: G.W. Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters, ed. Leroy E. Loemker,
nd ed., Dordrecht: Reidel, .
Pk: G.W. Leibniz: De Summa Rerum, Metaphysical Papers –, ed.
G.H.R. Parkinson, New Haven: Yale University Press, .
W: Leibniz: Selections, ed. P.P. Wiener, New York: Scribner’s, .

Translations
My policy is to cite the primary source and, in those cases when there is a
translated version of the passage, to cite the translation after a colon. As a
translator, my goal has been to stay close to the original text and to include
Leibniz’s capitalization of key terms. Therefore, I have often deviated from
the translation cited. In cases where the original language is very unclear, I
have attached an original language quotation to the citation in the note. Bib-
lical quotations are from the Revised Standard Version.

xiii
 Introduction: First truths and half truths

In October , Leibniz set out from his home in Hanover for an extended
tour of Germany, Austria, and Italy. His official duty was to research the
history of the House of Brunswick; his personal desire was to effect reli-
gious and political peace in Europe. He visited public archives and personal
libraries; he conversed with politicians, monks, and cardinals. Besides his-
torical research and peace proposals, he was engaged in other projects as
well. During his residence in Vienna, for example, he met with the Austrian
emperor to whom he recommended, among other things, the reorganization
of the economy, the formation of a general research library, and the estab-
lishment of an insurance fund; he worked on proposals for instituting an
Imperial College of History, for reforming the coinage of Austria,
Brunswick, and Saxony, and for lighting the streets of the city; and he wrote
a paper on motion, which he later published in one of the leading journals
of the time.1 Leibniz liked to keep busy. It was in the midst of such a star-
tling array of activities that he produced one of his most famous texts, a
short paper entitled First truths.2 Composed on Italian paper, First truths
was written during the months following his year-long stay in Italy (March
 to March ).3 That Leibniz would find time during his research
and travels for a concise summary of his metaphysical principles is note-
worthy, as is the fact that the text makes no reference to any of the other
prominent activities in his intellectual life. It stands, in its four-page en-
tirety, as a brief presentation of his most basic philosophical principles.
In this book, I offer the first systematic account of Leibniz’s philosoph-
ical development. Some of my conclusions are historically startling. For ex-

. Leibniz’s proposal for lighting the streets of Vienna was implemented. I iv f: E. J. Aiton,
Leibniz: A Biography, .
. The majority of Leibniz’s most important writings were not published during his lifetime,
and there remains a good deal of confusion about the history of the publication of his works.
For example, Anthony Kenny claims in the Oxford Illustrated History of Western Philoso-
phy that the Discourse on metaphysics was Leibniz’s “earliest” publication (). In fact, the
Discourse was not published during Leibniz’s lifetime and, if it had been, it would not have
been among the earliest. To distinguish between published and unpublished texts, I capi-
talize all the words in the title of published works and only the first word in the title of un-
published ones.
. The Academy editors give the piece the date of . See VI iv [B]–. Although the
editors have entitled the work Principia logico–metaphysica, I will retain its standard title,
First truths (Primae veritates) here.


 

ample, I claim that original versions of both the complete concept theory of
substance and the doctrine of Preestablished Harmony were in place when
Leibniz went to Paris in  (that is, fourteen years before the composition
of the Discourse on metaphysics and at least seventeen years before his First
truths); that many of Leibniz’s most basic philosophical views evolved in an
attempt to solve specific theological problems (e.g., those of incarnation and
resurrection); and that the source for some of the most important of these
doctrines (e.g., Preestablished Harmony) was a version of Platonism which,
though not recognized by scholars, was extant in seventeenth-century Ger-
many. Other conclusions are philosophically surprising. For example, I ar-
gue that underlying Leibniz’s metaphysics is the belief that each substance
contains the essence of God which means, among other things, that God is
both the unity and the diversity in the world.
Nor is that all. One of the basic assumptions behind my interpretation is
that we will not discern key aspects of Leibniz’s philosophical system un-
less we acknowledge that it was constructed to effect intellectual peace. Sev-
enteenth-century philosophers often had grand ambitions. In ,
Descartes announced that one of the goals of his Meditations on First Phi-
losophy was to construct a new and firm foundation for the sciences. As he
put it in the first Meditation, he intended “to demolish everything com-
pletely and start again right from the foundations” in order “to establish
something in the sciences that was stable and likely to last.”4 When Leibniz
wrote the First truths in , his goals were even more far-reaching. His
first truths were supposed to effect a new world order. That Leibniz in-
tended his metaphysics to constitute the foundations for philosophical, the-
ological, and political peace seems odd from our twenty-first-century per-
spective, but Leibniz was entirely sincere in his conciliatory effort. The
metaphysics of the First truths is the result of a brilliant melding of ideas
from a stunningly diverse group of sources. Leibniz’s goal was to bring
about intellectual peace by constructing a true metaphysics built out of the
materials of the noblest philosophical traditions. His elaborate attempt to
combine doctrines from philosophers as diverse as Plato, Aristotle, and
Descartes while solving the great theological and philosophical problems
constitutes an unnoticed aspect of his brilliance.
Given the importance of Leibniz to the history of philosophy and given
the cherished position that he has held among analytic historians of philos-
ophy throughout this century, it is remarkable that there could be so much
to learn both about the basic features of his system and about the underly-
ing motivation behind his thought. Before turning to a summary of this
book, it will be helpful to reflect briefly on why we have remained so igno-
rant about some of the fundamental aspects of Leibniz’s thought.

. AT VII : CSM II .


     

. Half truths
Not only did the philosophy of Leibniz’s First truths not effect universal
peace in the seventeenth century, it did not bring peace to the twentieth-
century commentator. For decades, core features of the philosophy pre-
sented in the essay have baffled scholars. Even the date of the First truths
has been a source of confusion. Before considering some of these interpre-
tive problems, it will be worthwhile to review the contents of the text.
Leibniz begins the paper by presenting as his first truths the law of iden-
tity, the law of non-contradiction, and his own definition of truth. About
the latter, he writes:
the predicate or consequent is always in the subject or antecedent, and the nature
of truth in general or the connection between the terms of a statement, consists in
this very thing, as Aristotle also observed. The connection and inclusion of the
predicate in the subject is explicit in identities, but in all other propositions it is im-
plicit and must be shown through the analysis of notions; a priori demonstration
rests on this.
Leibniz then asserts: “Many things of great importance follow from these
considerations, considerations insufficiently attended to because of their
obviousness. For the received axiom that nothing is without reason, or there
is no effect without a cause, directly follows from these considerations.”5
In the remainder of the essay, Leibniz unpacks the other implications of
“these considerations” which include his fundamental metaphysical doc-
trines: “that in nature there cannot be two individual things that differ in num-
ber alone;” that “there are no purely extrinsic denominations;” that the “com-
plete or perfect notion of an individual substance contains all of its predicates,
past, present, and future;” that “[e]very individual substance contains in its
perfect notion the entire universe;” that “all individual created substances are
different expressions of the same universe and different expressions of the
same universal cause, namely, God;” that “strictly speaking no created sub-
stance exerts a metaphysical action or influx on any other thing;” that the
mind-body union and the relation among all created substances is one of
“concomitance;” that “[t]here is no vacuum;” that “[t]here is no atom;” that
“every particle of the universe contains a world of an infinity of creatures;” and
that “corporeal substance can neither arise nor perish except through creation or
annihilation.”6 Such apparently are Leibniz’s first truths.7
Independently of one another, at the turn of the century, Bertrand Rus-
sell and Louis Couturat developed strikingly similar interpretations of
Leibniz’s metaphysics and its foundations. Oversimplifying somewhat, ac-
cording to each, the key to Leibniz’s thought is his logic, his concept of sub-

. VI iv [B] –: AG  \L .

. VI iv [B] –: AG –\ L –; Leibniz’s emphasis.
. For a brief summary of these doctrines, see Appendix, Part I.


 

stance proceeds from his logic, most particularly from his theory of truth,
and the Discourse on metaphysics of , which is supposed to be the first
full expression of his philosophy, offers the necessary background to the
Monadology of .8 Russell’s arguments were impressive, but the case
made by Couturat was even more so. As Russell wrote about his original
thesis in the preface to the second edition of his book, its “principal thesis –
namely, that Leibniz’s philosophy was almost entirely derived from his
logic – received overwhelming confirmation from the work of Louis Coutu-
rat.” According to Russell, although his own work had relied “almost ex-
clusively” on the Discourse on metaphysics and the letters to Arnauld, Coutu-
rat drew on “innumerable writings expressing the same point of view, which
had remained buried among the mass of documents at [the archives in]
Hanover for over two centuries.”9 Among the writings discovered by
Couturat, the most important, according to Russell, was the First truths to
which Couturat had given the date of  and in which:
all the main doctrines of the ‘Monadology’ are deduced, with terse logical rigour
from the premiss: ‘Always therefore the predicate or consequent is in the subject or
antecedent, and the nature of truth in general or the connection between the terms
of a statement, consists in this very thing. . . . Moreover this is true for every affir-
mative truth, universal or particular, necessary or contingent.’10
Russell claims that on the basis of such texts, “[n]o candid reader . . . can
doubt that Leibniz’s metaphysics was derived by him from the subject-
predicate logic.” For Russell, “Couturat’s work afforded conclusive confir-
mation” of his own interpretation, and went beyond his account to prove,
for example, that the identity of indiscernibles is “expressly deduced by
Leibniz from the analytic character of all true propositions.”11
The Russell–Couturat account of Leibniz’s philosophy and its develop-
ment was enormously attractive: it offered a brilliant interpretation of some
very baffling aspects of Leibniz’s metaphysics and it told an engaging story
about how a mathematician of Leibniz’s caliber could produce such an ap-
parently bizarre metaphysics. Russell’s vivid description of the revelatory
experience that motivated his book, although well-known, is worth quoting
at length. Besides the insight the passage affords into Russell’s approach, it
is amusing to think of the co-author of the Principia Mathematica fretting
about how to make Leibniz’s thought sensible to his Cambridge under-
graduates. About his first thorough study of Leibniz’s texts, Russell wrote:
In the Lent Term of  I delivered a course of lectures on the Philosophy of Leib-
niz at Trinity College, Cambridge. In preparing these lectures, I found myself, af-

. Couturat originally published First truths and his interpretation of Leibniz’s thought in
La logique de Leibniz d’après des documents inédits of . He then summarized his posi-
tion in “Sur la métaphysique de Leibniz” of . For Russell’s interpretation, see A Crit-
ical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz, esp. – and the preface, nd ed.
. Russell, Critical Exposition, v.
. Ibid. In Russell’s text, the premise was left untranslated. I have translated it here.
. Ibid.


     
ter reading most of the standard commentators and most of Leibniz’s connected
treatises, still completely in the dark as to the grounds which had led him to many
of his opinions. Why he thought that monads cannot interact; how he became per-
suaded of the Identity of Indiscernibles; what he meant by the law of Sufficient
Reason – these and many other questions seemed to demand an answer, but to find
none. I felt – as many others have felt – that the Monadology was a kind of fantastic
fairy tale, coherent perhaps, but wholly arbitrary.
Russell’s puzzlement about the philosophical motivations behind the Mon-
adology encouraged him to further his researches.
At this point I read the Discours de Métaphysique and the letters to Arnauld. Sud-
denly a flood of light was thrown on all the inmost recesses of Leibniz’s edifice. I
saw how its foundations were laid, and how its superstructure rose out of them. It
appeared that this seemingly fantastic system could be deduced from a few simple
premisses, which, but for the conclusions which Leibniz had drawn from them,
many, if not most philosophers would have been willing to admit. . . . I have . . . en-
deavoured as far as possible to exhibit the theory of monads as a rigid deduction
from a small number of premisses. The monad thus appears, not at the beginning
of the exposition, but after a long preliminary chain of reasoning. And it must, I
think, be allowed that, if this account be correct, Leibniz’s value as a philosopher is
very much greater than that which would result from the customary exposition.12
The Russell–Couturat story gained enormous prestige. Its elegance in-
clined scholars to look closely at Leibniz’s logical papers and try to discern
the precise interrelations among his first truths. Russell was especially out-
spoken about the superiority of the part of the metaphysics that interested
him and the inferiority of the remainder of the system. He insisted, for ex-
ample, that there was nothing either original or worthwhile about Leibniz’s
conception of God: “Leibniz, whenever he treats God at all seriously, falls
involuntarily into Spinozistic pantheism.”13 Indeed, it was Russell’s con-
tention that the main components of the system did not fit together: “the
relation of Leibniz’s Dynamics to his Metaphysics is hopelessly confused,
. . . the one cannot stand while the other is maintained. . . . As a matter of
fact, the want of connection is, I think, quite one of the weakest points in
his system.” Moreover, as Russell continues, the dynamics is “a mass of con-
fusions.”14 Following Russell’s lead, many subsequent scholars felt justified
in treating the logical notion of a substance in isolation from the other parts
of Leibniz’s thought and even from his other descriptions of substance. The
article on Leibniz in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography offers a striking
example of the authority and longevity of the Russell–Couturat approach.
At the outset of the section on Leibniz’s metaphysics, entitled “Logical
Atomism,” we find the following, published in : “Since the investiga-
tions of Russell and Couturat, it has become clear that Leibniz’s theory of
monads is characterized by an attempt to discuss metaphysical questions
within a framework of logical distinctions.”15 Furthermore, because Rus-

. Ibid., xiii–xiv. . Ibid., –. . Ibid., –.

. Joseph Hofmann, “Leibniz,” Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. , .


 

sell claimed that Leibniz had “a good philosophy which (after Arnauld’s
criticisms) he kept to himself, and a bad philosophy which he published
with a view to fame and money,” it was easy for students of Leibniz’s phi-
losophy to ignore “the vulgarized version” of his thought that he wrote “for
cheap popularity” and for “the admiration of Princes and (even more) of
Princesses.”16
In recent years the influence of the Russell–Couturat interpretation has
waned. Despite its interpretive elegance, it failed to deliver the goods. Af-
ter decades of debating the interrelations among the first principles, much
of the metaphysics of the First truths in particular and the mature philoso-
phy in general has remained mysterious. Although commentators have
struggled nobly to decipher the exact interrelations among the first truths,
no coherent story has been told that included them all. In short, after years
of analysis, scholars have found no subset of first truths that strictly implies
the others. But matters are worse than that. Not only has the Russell–
Couturat approach failed to account for the precise interrelations among the
doctrines, it has left many of them unmotivated and unexplained. For ex-
ample, scholars have not found in the other “first truths” a plausible moti-
vation behind Leibniz’s claims that “every substance expresses every other”
and that every substance “contains” the world; nor have they been able to
explain satisfactorily either the unity, indestructibility, or indivisibility of
substance. Such features of substance remain as the unmotivated givens of
Leibniz’s system. The failure of the approach has seemed all the more se-
vere because Leibniz himself suggests that the elements of his system are
tightly interwoven. As he writes in : “My principles are such that they
can hardly be torn apart from each other. Whoever knows one well knows
them all.”17
With the publication of more of Leibniz’s papers and with a shift in
methodology among historians of philosophy, recent scholars have widened
their textual and historical scope and proposed an account of his thought
that is based on a broader range of texts and a more thorough understand-
ing of his philosophical interests. By piecing together recent studies of his
philosophy, we arrive at the following story: Leibniz rejected the scholasti-
cism of his youth around  and accepted the new mechanical philoso-
phy according to which all corporeal features are reducible to and explain-
able in terms of the movement of material parts. He remained a mechanist
and toyed with atomism while retaining an interest in some aspects of the
philosophy of Aristotle during the s. He presented his first attempt at
original (as opposed to derivative) metaphysics in his first major publica-
tion, the two-part Theory of Abstract Motion and New Physical Hypothesis
of . A few scholars have proposed that he was an occasionalist during
this time and others have argued that during his years in Paris (–) he
fell under the influence of Spinoza and was a pantheist, if only for a short
while. Some commentators have ignored the obscure details of the early

. Russell, A Critical Exposition, vi. . G II : L .


     

years and discerned elements of the mature philosophy; others have taken
those details as evidence of indecision and immaturity. It is often claimed
that during a burst of energy either in the late s or early s (he had
invented the calculus and in general worked on mathematical matters in the
mid-s), Leibniz developed his theory of truth and some of the other
first principles of his metaphysics. He is said to have presented these ideas
in the Discourse on metaphysics () and First truths, tinkered with the de-
tails of the system in the s, and eventually summarized his mature
metaphysics in the Monadology (). There has been a raging debate
about his conception of body in general, about the real extension of body
in particular, and about whether he was already an idealist in the s. A
few scholars have noted Leibniz’s youthful interest in Platonism and eclec-
ticism, but there has been little doubt about the fact that his early years
(roughly through his Paris period) represent a period of “confusion and in-
decisiveness” and that it was during the s that the core features of his
metaphysics were put in place.18
What is perhaps most striking about this story is the fickleness attributed
to Leibniz’s philosophical personality. It implies that for nearly twenty
years the brilliant young man cast about for solutions to the great philo-
sophical problems of his day before arriving at his own response and that,
in the meantime, he tried on scholasticism, mechanism, atomism, occasion-
alism, and Spinozistic pantheism before making up his own philosophical
mind. The basic idea is that at some point between the late s and the
mid-s he “worked out the details of his philosophical system . . . in a
concentrated period of thought” and gave birth to his philosophy full-
grown.19 The result was an elaborate set of logical and metaphysical prin-
ciples. Part of the Russell–Couturat influence lingers here: there has been
a tendency to focus on the logical side of Leibniz’s thought and to assume
that the development of the logic and the conception of truth must stand at
the core of the metaphysics and signal its birth. Despite its greater compli-
cation and wider textual base, this developmental story sheds virtually no
light on the motivations behind Leibniz’s metaphysics. By such means, we
have returned to Russell’s position before his revelation: we are again “com-
pletely in the dark as to the grounds which had led [Leibniz] to many of
his opinions.” Neither the decades of analysis nor the more thoroughly
researched developmental story reveal the deep interconnections among
Leibniz’s first truths. Some recent scholars have embraced the implied con-

. The quotation here is from Catherine Wilson, Leibniz’s Metaphysics: A Historical and
Comparative Study, . Full citations to the authors who have contributed to this story will
appear in the course of the book, esp. chs. , , , and .
. Nicholas Rescher, Leibniz: An Introduction to his Philosophy, . Although Rescher and
other commentators make statements such as “the rudiments of monadism were conceived
by ” (), they seldom explain what they mean. Instead of an account of Leibniz’s de-
velopment, they offer a list of the claims contained in the Paris notes that seem like Leib-
niz’s later doctrines. See, e.g., Rescher’s “Contributions of the Paris Period (–) to
Leibniz’s Metaphysics,” and some of the other articles in Leibniz à Paris.


 

clusion. André Robinet and Catherine Wilson eloquently argue that Leib-
niz developed (at least) two separate and fundamentally inconsistent sys-
tems.20
Recently, however, some commentators have tried to motivate the system.
For those scholars who see Leibniz as fundamentally rooted in the Baroque
intellectual complexity of his time, he was motivated to construct an “ar-
chitectonic” and synthetic system whose internal complexities and “folds”
he found intellectually satisfying.21 As one scholar puts it, Leibniz “was a
baroque philosopher in a baroque world.”22 For those who approach Leib-
niz through the maze of seventeenth-century science and mathematics, it is
the set of problems that cluster around physics and the continuum that mo-
tivates much of the philosophy.23 According to those interpreters who are
willing to take seriously Leibniz’s genuine interest in theological issues, it is
the latter that seem to explain the system. For example, Donald Rutherford
has recently presented a lengthy and elegant argument showing the central
place that theodicy had in Leibniz’s thought.24 The remarkable thing about
these stories is that while they are inconsistent with one another, each of
them has the ring of truth. That is, every one of these accounts resolves a
number of tensions in Leibniz’s texts and makes sense of a part of his sys-
tem. According to Lewis White Beck, this is not surprising:
Leibniz never succeeded in giving a comprehensive and coherent presentation of his
entire philosophy. . . . Nor has any historian of philosophy written a wholly system-
atic presentation that satisfies others who, with most of the same documents before
them, present quite different but perhaps equally comprehensive and consistent ac-
counts. . . . A being of so many dimensions cannot be pictured without a choice of
perspectives, and no man has presented as many faces to the historian of philosophy
as Leibniz did. It is not to be wondered that historians do not agree about ‘the real
Leibniz.’ Leibniz, more than any other philosopher, was all things to all men.25
The interpretation that I offer of Leibniz’s philosophical development
borrows from all of these approaches. It endorses the suspicion of many of
these scholars that in order to understand “the fantastic fairy tale” we need
to know as much as possible about what motivated it. It agrees with the Rus-
sell–Couturat assumption that there is a sublime elegance among the first

. For a good introduction to the difficulties and tensions in the philosophy of the mature
Leibniz, and for a survey of some of the literature about them, see Wilson, Leibniz’s Meta-
physics, ch. .
. See André Robinet’s Architectonique Disjonctive, automates systémiques et idéalité transcen-
dantale dans l’oeuvre de G. W. Leibniz, and Gilles Deleuze’s The Fold: Leibniz and the
Baroque.
. Lewis White Beck, Early German Philosophy: Kant and His Predecessors, .
. Independently of one another, two scholars have recently argued that an attempt to solve
the problem of the continuum lies behind much of Leibniz’s thought. See Richard
Arthur’s introduction to his The Labyrinth of the Continuum and Philip Beeley’s Kontinu-
ität und Mechanismus.
. Donald Rutherford, Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature.
. Beck, Early German Philosophy, .


     

truths, but it insists that we will not grasp the elaborate metaphysics of
which those truths are a part without a good deal of historical and textual
work. It embraces the assumption that Leibniz intended to solve the press-
ing problems of his day and to build an elaborate and thoroughly Baroque
system, but it refuses to consider one problem or influence to the exclusion
of others. It acknowledges that Leibniz presented many different faces, but
it proposes that each of these draws upon an underlying set of intercon-
nected assumptions. Among other things, we need to take seriously Leib-
niz’s call for intellectual peace and religious insight; we need to recognize
his conciliatory eclecticism and to discern the Platonism at its core; and we
need to see that the driving force behind much of his work is the belief that
God is the transcendent source of everything. According to Leibniz, each
creature is divine; the object of human life is to discover this divinity within
the world and to perceive our place in universal harmony. The goal of the
knowledge that Leibniz would have us seek requires that we understand our
place in and relationship to the whole of God’s creation. Leibniz was naive
enough to believe that once the true metaphysics was accurately presented,
it would lead the enlightened soul to personal, religious, and even political
peace. Whether or not these assumptions strike us as strange from our
twenty-first-century perspective, Leibniz warmly embraced them.

. First problems
Readers may reasonably balk at this point. For most, the claims just pre-
sented will not sound familar. Since Leibniz is one of our philosophical he-
roes, it certainly seems odd that there remains so much to learn about his
philosophy. I would like to address this difficulty briefly and to offer an ex-
planation as to why so much of Leibniz’s thought has escaped us for so long.
I take it to be obviously true that in order to understand the proposals of
a major philosopher in the seventeenth century, one needs to read the main
writings of the figure and to situate those texts within their proper intellec-
tual context. To do this, however, is not as easy as it sounds. Not only is it
sometimes difficult to identify what the main texts are, it is frequently im-
possible to know which of the abundant intellectual currents of the period
will prove relevant to them. Let’s consider briefly the related problems of
textual and contextual identification.
For many seventeenth-century authors, in order to discern the details of
their system, it is unwise to restrict one’s attention only to published works.
Given the importance of letters in the period as a means of promulgating
philosophical views, a consideration of the relevant correspondence can be
extremely illuminating. Moreover, in those cases where there are extant
drafts of texts, a careful comparison between the draft and the published
version of a text can reveal a great deal about underlying worries and as-
sumptions. But a problem arises: once the consideration of drafts of texts
and related letters has begun, it is unclear how to stop the textual survey.
Every scrap of writing becomes relevant, and the main texts become lost in


 

a mass of unedited papers. Nor is that all. The relevance of some texts will
not be evident until the context is set. But the difficulty of setting the right
context makes the textual problems seem small by comparison. Because of
the enormous complexity of the seventeenth-century intellectual debate, it
is often extremely difficult to identify the intellectual currents relevant to a
particular author. The writings of Descartes afford a good example of an
early modern thinker whose letters are revealing and whose philosophical
context is both relevant to the evaluation of his thought and difficult to re-
construct. For example, despite his energetic attacks on scholasticism,
Descartes often relies on scholastic notions in his published works, and
sometimes proclaims the virtues of the scholastics in his letters;26 despite
his proclamations of complete originality, many of his ideas have an ancient
pedigree.27 But the student of Descartes need not despair. Because histori-
ans of philosophy have begun to chart some of the previously unexplored
regions of seventeenth-century thought, real progress has been made in re-
cent years in more properly situating and therefore in better understanding
the texts of philosophical giants like Descartes.
Unfortunately for the student of Leibniz’s thought, both the textual and
contextual problems are much more severe. As scholars have often noted,
there is no single exposition of Leibniz’s metaphysics replete with extended
arguments and details. He published very little during his lifetime and none
of the published texts (e.g., A New System of Nature, the Theodicy) is a thor-
ough-going account of his philosophy. Although there are a number of iden-
tifiable main texts, it remains unclear how to treat their interrelations since
they contain noticeable differences and were often written over many years.
Except perhaps for the Monadology, one has to piece together Leibniz’s sys-
tem out of letters and a vast number of short essays and notes. This is a for-
midable chore since our energetic German wrote hundreds and hundreds of
letters and thousands of pages of notes, of which only a relatively small pro-
portion has yet been published. As courageously as the Academy editors in
Germany confront the daunting task of preparing these vast materials for
publication, it will be decades before all the philosophical papers and letters
are in print. This enormous body of work and the problem of gaining ac-
cess to it create a genuine obstacle to the would-be scholar. It is surely a dif-
ficult assignment to acquire a broad understanding of Leibniz’s thought
and to attend to all of its aspects when a major part of it remains unavail-
able for easy inspection.

. For the best recent treatment of Descartes’ complicated relation to scholastic physics and
for citations to other literature, see Dennis Des Chene, Physiologia: Natural Philosophy in
Late Aristotelian and Cartesian Thought. For Descartes’ positive attitude to some scholas-
tic philosophers, see Roger Ariew, “Descartes and Scholasticism: The Intellectual Back-
ground to Descartes’ Thought.”
. It is striking that Descartes’ contemporaries recognized the debt he owes to philosophers
like Augustine. See, e.g., Johann Christoph Sturm, Philosophia Eclectica, –, and Her-
mann Conring in correspondence with Leibniz, II i f. For a recent study of Descartes’
Augustinianism, see Stephen Menn, Descartes and Augustine.


     

But there is another difficulty posed by Leibniz’s works: many of them

are hastily written personal notes that are sometimes incomplete and often
undated. As Leibniz himself wrote about his papers: “instead of treas-
ure . . . , you will only find ashes; instead of elaborate works, a few sheets of
paper and some poorly expressed vestiges of hasty reflections, which were
only saved for the sake of my memory.”28 These sheets – which contain
deletions, additions, an enormous number of reformulations, and which are
definitely not few in number – reveal an impatient intellect hurrying to ex-
press its ideas as quickly as possible. Because Leibniz wrote these for him-
self, it is often difficult to grasp his reasoning and decipher his underlying
philosophical motivation: he typically neither states his most basic assump-
tions nor articulates how the piece he is presently writing fits into a general
plan or project. Part of the problem here is that there is often not one sin-
gle project but several overlapping ones.
One might expect more from both the publications and the letters that
Leibniz sent to the great philosophers of Europe, often with the expressed
goal of revealing his ideas. But there is a problem even here. He character-
istically neither states his most fundamental assumptions nor explains how
he arrived at his conclusions. As I argue in chapter , Leibniz had specific
methodological reasons for not being forthright about his views: his goal was
to avoid preaching in an attempt to engage his reader. By such means, Leib-
niz hoped to nudge the wayward soul toward the truth. In a uniquely frank
moment, he writes in :
A metaphysics should be written with accurate definitions and demonstrations, but
nothing should be demonstrated in it apart from that which does not clash too much
with received opinions. For in that way this metaphysics can be accepted; and once
it has been approved then, if people examine it more deeply later, they themselves
will draw the necessary consequences. Besides this, one can, as a separate undertak-
ing, show these people later the way of reasoning about these things. In this meta-
physics, it will be useful for there to be added here and there the authoritative ut-
terances of great men, who have reasoned in a similar way; especially when these
utterances contain something that seems to have some possible relevance to the il-
lustration of a view.29
But as important as it may be to recognize Leibniz’s rhetorical goals, this
recognition itself does not make it very much easier to discern the implicit
assumptions and suppressed premises that constitute the core of his
thought. It is left to the dutiful student to excavate these basic assumptions,
scattered as they are among Leibniz’s notes and letters.
To make matters worse, Leibniz often plays with formulations and tries
out the terminology of other philosophers. Benson Mates describes one as-
pect of this problem well:
Contrary to what many commentators seem to have supposed, [Leibniz] does not
treat his philosophical principles as a deductive system within which certain propo-

. VI iii . . VI iii f: Pk .


 
sitions are to be accepted without proof and the rest are to be deduced from these. . . .
He deduces the various principles from one another in different orders and combi-
nations. Often he gives alternative definitions of the same concept, sometimes even
showing how to derive these from one another. It is obvious that he has no particu-
lar order of theorems and definitions in mind.30
The terrifying thing about working on Leibniz is that no single work or
small group of scattered comments can be trusted as hard evidence for an
interpretive point. It is rarely the case that a few passages can be trusted by
themselves to tell the whole story about a doctrine. In order to understand
Leibniz’s position on a topic, one needs to take the widest possible textual
perspective. A striking example of the dangers that befall the student who
focuses on one group of texts in a period and ignores the others is offered
by the writings of . In that year, Leibniz published a two-part work that
has generally been considered his most important early publication and that
has been analyzed by a number of qualifed scholars. Notwithstanding sev-
eral competent analyses of the New Physical Hypothesis and Theory of Ab-
stract Motion, historians continue to disagree about the basic facts (e.g.,
about whether or not Leibniz was an atomist, about whether he was a dual-
ist or a monist). But in , Leibniz also sent some philosophical propos-
als to a German duke, and wrote a number of letters to important European
intellectuals. As obscure as these writings at first appear, careful study of
them yields considerable help in grasping the philosophy that underlies the
published texts. Because Leibniz is so often reluctant to set the stage for a
philosophical proposal or to acknowledge its various implications, one often
has to go well beyond the text in order to understand how the proposal at
hand relates to other parts of his thought. Moreover, Leibniz encourages
confusion by using one terminology (say, scholastic) in one text and an en-
tirely different one (say, mechanical) in another. For instance, in the Theory
of Abstract Motion, he presents his basic ontology in terms of momentary
minds and bodies; in some letters written in the same year, he talks about a
World Soul, a core of substance, and the active and passive principles in na-
ture. Although at first glance the difference between these formulations im-
plies a radical difference in ontology, a more thorough analysis reveals that
these are different formulations of the same underlying theory of substance.
The moral to the story is clear: one cannot depend either on a single essay
or on a small group of passages taken in isolation from others in the same
period. When it comes to Leibniz’s writings, it is necessary to take the
widest possible textual perspective.
Nor is this all. There is another severe and unusual problem that faces the
interpreter of Leibniz’s thought. I suggested at the outset of this section
that, because of the enormous intellectual complications of the seventeenth
century, it is often difficult to situate the texts of our philosophical heroes
in their proper intellectual context. Not only did Leibniz and his contem-
poraries inherit the whole history of philosophical discussions about all the
. Benson Mates, The Philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and Language, .


     

traditional philosophical topics, they interpreted these discussions through

their own very definite prejudices, and also generated a number of their own
grave philosophical difficulties. Since seventeenth-century authors rarely
felt the need either to explain the subtleties of the problem at hand or ar-
ticulate the precise proposals against which they were responding, the in-
terpreter of their writings often has to go outside the text to discover both
the exact nature of the problem and the details of the rejected solutions. Be-
cause of Leibniz’s astonishing erudition and his conciliatory methodology,
it is particularly difficult to construct the conceptual framework of his writ-
ings. With his texts, the first place to turn – both for a thorough under-
standing of the problem and for a proper evaluation of his solution – is to
the entire history of philosophy. That Leibniz was thoroughly familiar with
that history is clear; that he mined it constantly for inspiration and argu-
ments is less clear, though no less true. An important case in point is Leib-
niz’s use of the Platonist doctrines of emanation and sympathy. Although
his mature writings contain accounts of the emanation of God and the sym-
pathy among creatures, he nowhere informs the reader about the funda-
mental status of these ideas in his thought. Moreover, because the standard
treatments of seventeenth-century German philosophy have not noticed the
Platonism available to Leibniz as a student in Leipzig, his original concep-
tion of the relation between God and creatures has not been recognized; and
because his early conception of God has not been discerned, the close rela-
tion between these Platonist doctrines and his doctrine of Preestablished
Harmony has not been understood. Not only did Leibniz use major parts
of the history of philosophy without citation or explanation, he thought that
it was a good thing to combine ideas taken from the great philosophical sys-
tems. Because many of his contemporaries shared a similar conception of
philosophical history, they could grasp what he meant when he used terms
like ‘World Soul’ and ‘seminal causes.’ One of the main reasons that it is so
difficult for the twentieth-century scholar to recognize the borrowed doc-
trines and transformed assumptions in Leibniz’s writings is that he made
such abundant use of the entire history of philosophy as it was understood
in the seventeenth century.
The First truths serves as an excellent example of some of the problems
that face the student of Leibniz’s thought. In , when Couturat made
such a convincing case for his account of Leibniz’s philosophy, his key wit-
ness was the First truths. As Couturat writes: “This fragment is unfortu-
nately not dated. But by comparing it to short works and letters of known
date, we can conjecture with high probability that it was written about 
when Leibniz completed the principles and the essential theses of his sys-
tem.”31 Most subsequent scholars have agreed with Couturat, although
some have given the essay an even earlier date. For example, Loemker de-
scribes First truths as a “forestudy” of the Discourse on metaphysics and

. For a summary of Couturat’s interpretation, translated into English, see Couturat, “On
Leibniz’s Metaphysics.” The quotation here is from that translation, .


 

places the essay within the years –. Rescher concurs: despite the fact
that he finds elements of Leibniz’s mature thought scattered throughout the
early texts, he insists that it was not until the s “when [the] mature phi-
losophy took form.”32 However, the Academy editors have shown that the
fragment was written between May and December . Although this in-
formation has been available to a small group of scholars for several years,
the case for the later date has only just been published.33
The First truths also offers a case study in the dangers of considering any
of Leibniz’s essays in isolation. The text itself encourages at least two seri-
ous interpretative mistakes. First, the only account of substance contained
among the first truths is the complete concept theory. Leibniz’s other char-
acterizations of substance during the period are not present. In the Discourse
on metaphysics and the related correspondence with Arnauld, for example,
Leibniz emphasizes the fact that a substance is a unity per se, though he nei-
ther motivates this notion nor indicates exactly how it is related to the com-
plete concept theory. Because the main texts of the period offer no clues
about how to connect these accounts either with one another or with some
of the other prominent claims about substance (e.g., that each substance
mirrors all the others), many scholars have concluded that there is little or
no relation among them and hence that there is no underlying theory of sub-
stance. According to Mates, for example, Leibniz’s “definitions of ‘sub-
stance’ seem to have little connection with one another.” Mates writes:
we are left to wonder what reason he could possible [sic] have had for holding that
those and only those entities that ‘have with them active force’ also have ‘concepts
that contain every quality of whatever falls under them’. . . . At any rate, it clear [sic]
enough that for Leibniz the only substances are the monads, even though it is un-
clear how he reached this conclusion.34
The second interpretative mistake encouraged by the First truths is its
bald assertion that the central doctrines of Leibniz’s metaphysics follow
from the definition of truth. Couturat deemed the essay his most important
piece of evidence, and Russell happily used it in the preface to the second
edition of his book (in ) as proof of his original interpretation of .
But Couturat and Russell were wrong, and Leibniz was misleading: the the-
ory of truth neither precedes the other first truths logically nor, as I show,

. E.g., Ariew and Garber accept the Couturat date; see AG . For the views of Loemker
and Rescher, see L  and Rescher, “The Contribution of the Paris Period (–) to
Leibniz’s Metaphysics,” ,  n. .
. In the spring of , the Academy editors published the scholarly edition of First truths,
along with  pages of other philosophical papers, of which the vast majority were writ-
ten in the period – and were previously unpublished. According to the Academy
editors, the essay was written in response to discussions that Leibniz had had with Italian
philosophers during his travels. The date they give is based on the fact that the fragment
was written on Italian paper that Leibniz used between May and December . See VI
iv [B].
. Mates, The Philosophy of Leibniz, –.


     

does it precede them historically. But the fact that the theory of truth is nei-
ther logically nor developmentally prior did not prevent Leibniz from try-
ing out this presentation of his tenets. Even a quick survey of some of his
better-known texts of the s and s discloses other very different for-
mulations. For example, in the Discourse on metaphysics, he suggests that the
complete concept account of substance is the fundamental truth from which
his other first principles follow. The point to emphasize is that Leibniz is
not being disingenuous in either the Discourse on metaphysics or the First
truths: an understanding of the deep motivation behind the theory of truth
and the complete concept account of substance would in fact motivate the
other doctrines. But the problem remains: how are we to glimpse the deep
motivations, if Leibniz never tells us what they are?

. A different approach to first truths

Given the scant help Leibniz gives his reader about the core elements and
consequences of his thought and given his extraordinary erudition and the
near impenetrability of his texts, it is no wonder that it has been so difficult
to make out his most fundamental views. It is in an attempt to beat Leibniz
at his own game that this book attempts to take the widest possible textual
and contextual scope. My goal is two-fold: to offer a coherent account of
Leibniz’s basic metaphysics and to present the first systematic study of the
development of his thought. As it turns out, the second goal is a means to
the first. Because of the textual and contextual difficulties articulated above,
Leibniz’s first truths are most easily approached through a study of their
development. In an attempt to excavate the assumptions beneath the first
truths, I turn to Leibniz’s early texts, where his most basic beliefs are clos-
est to the surface and easiest to discern. But it is not sufficient just to make
a thorough survey of the writings. In order to uncover Leibniz’s philoso-
phy, we must dig through several layers of historical material. As suggested
earlier, this is particularly hard work since Leibniz’s philosophy is built out
of elements borrowed from nearly all the dominant philosophical schools.
As I argue in chapter , Leibniz intended to bring about intellectual peace
by means of a true philosophy forged out of the vast philosophical materi-
als extant in the seventeenth century. Because many of the raw materials for
his project were forgotten in the post-Newtonian age, a significant amount
of historical work has to be done to unearth them. Many of the chapters of
this book contain historical material. Because a presentation of all the his-
torical material that is relevant to Leibniz could easily fill several volumes,
I have restricted my presentation to the historical doctrines that directly in-
fluenced the development of his thought. In chapter , I discuss Renais-
sance syncreticism and early modern conciliatory eclecticism; in chapter ,
I describe some of the theological problems that most concerned the young
Leibniz; in chapter , I summarize the seventeenth-century tradition of
reformed philosophy, and display the role of the new mechanical physics
within it; and the whole of chapter  is given over to an account of the


 

Platonist doctrines that Leibniz absorbed at the university. Each one of

these historical surveys allows us to discern a layer of Leibniz’s thought. If
the interpretation offered here is successful at unveiling some of the deep
motivations behind his first truths, then that success is very much due to
this historical material. As Leibniz wrote in :
it is good to study the discoveries of others in such a way that allows us to detect the
source of their inventions, and [thereby] to make them in some sense our own. I wish
Authors would give us the History of their discoveries and the process by which they
arrive at them. When they do not do this, it is necessary to try to guess in order to
profit better from their work.35
Although I have tried to keep the guesswork to a minimum, I have taken
Leibniz’s advice to heart. If I have made some headway in understanding
the deep motivations and subtle interrelations among his first truths, it is
because I have attempted “to detect the sources of [his] inventions.”
Throughout his career, Leibniz was concerned to present careful defini-
tions and thorough-going arguments for his first truths, but they were
themselves the result of a complicated methodology. As a student in Leipzig
in the early s, Leibniz learned from his humanist professors that the
true metaphysics was to be created from the materials of the prominent
philosophical schools. He learned to turn primarily to the Aristotelian phi-
losophy for inspiration about concrete individual substances and to the Pla-
tonist tradition for help on matters concerning God and the interrelations
among creatures. In other words, during his student days in Leipzig
(–), Leibniz became thoroughly acquainted with three closely related
intellectual traditions, each of which had an enormous influence on him:
Renaissance humanism constituted the intellectual source for his concilia-
tory eclecticism and what I call his Metaphysics of Method, Aristotelianism
formed the basis for his Metaphysics of Substance, and Platonism offered
the materials for what I refer to as his Metaphysics of Divinity. These
three philosophical legacies offered the raw materials from which he drew
throughout his life and which he used to construct the foundations of his
own philosophical edifice.
After leaving the university in , and during the course of his early
development, the young Leibniz confronted the startling array of intellec-
tual problems of his day. It is well known that in the mid-s he became
greatly impressed with the new mechanical physics promulgated by philoso-
phers like Galileo, Descartes, and Gassendi. What is less well known is the
fact that at the same time, Leibniz confronted three problems that pro-
foundly influenced the development of his thought and that were all directly
related to his goal of personal, religious, and political peace: he believed that
the political climate in central Europe called for legal reform, that the philo-
sophical sectarianism of his contemporaries demanded methodological re-
form, and that the continued religious strife among the Roman Catholics

. G III .


     

and the various Protestant sects called for greater rhetorical, theological, and
philosophical finesse. Armed with the humanism, Aristotelianism, and Pla-
tonism that he had acquired at the university, Leibniz attacked these (and
other) problems with enormous energy and insight. The fundamental fea-
tures of his metaphysics developed as a result of this intellectual con-
frontation.
This book has ten chapters and is divided into four parts. In Part I, I ar-
gue that Leibniz responded to the political, religious, and philosophical
chaos that he perceived around him by developing a conciliatory methodol-
ogy. According to his Metaphysics of Method, there is a truth that exists be-
neath the prominent philosophical schools, that can be reached through a
careful examination of the fundamental ideas of those schools, and that will
convert all careful thinkers when properly presented. As I argue in chapter
, once we place Leibniz’s early works in the context of his conciliatory goal,
it is possible to discern for the first time a number of significant philo-
sophical proposals. Whereas previously these early writings have smacked
of juvenile indecision, once put in their rightful context they can be seen to
contain the foundations of an elaborate philosophy. In Part II, which con-
tains chapters , , and , I turn to Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance. In
chapter , through a detailed analysis of a series of theological essays com-
posed in –, I expose a set of underlying assumptions, which, though
not previously noticed, constitute some of Leibniz’s most fundamental be-
liefs about substance, which he took to be thoroughly Aristotelian, and
which he continued to believe for the rest of his career. With these Aris-
totelian assumptions as tools, in chapter , I excavate his original concep-
tion of substance. I show that this theory is a brilliant melding of an Aris-
totelian approach to substance and a mechanical physics. The moral to this
interpretative story is important: by taking Leibniz’s conciliatory method
seriously, his original conception of substance and related elements of his
thought become evident for the first time. In chapter , I uncover a prob-
lem that Leibniz found in late  with this original account of substance
and explicate the means by which he solved it. The result of these revisions,
which he articulated in , is a conception of substance and a set of meta-
physical commitments that bear a striking similarity to many of the under-
lying doctrines of the First truths.
Having traced the evolution of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance, I
turn in Part III to his Metaphysics of Divinity. Where the Metaphysics of
Substance treats substance as an active, self-sufficient thing, the Meta-
physics of Divinity sees it as a created thing into which God constantly em-
anates the divine essence. Where the former has its roots in the Aristotelian
philosophy, the latter reaches back to the Platonist tradition.36 In recent dis-

. In his book, Descartes and Augustine, Stephen Menn distinguishes between a Platonic doc-
trine, which is one that is found in Plato’s dialogues, and a Platonist doctrine, which is one
extracted from the texts of the Platonists (xii–xiii). Menn’s distinction seems exactly right
and I follow it in the present study.


 

cussions of Leibniz, there has been a good deal of speculation about the
Platonism in Leibniz’s philosophy, and especially about its source. In chap-
ter , I show that Leibniz became thoroughly acquainted with ancient and
modern Platonism as a student in Leipzig, many years earlier than has gen-
erally been thought. Throughout his career he felt it necessary to explain
his “rehabilitation” of Aristotelian elements because so many other con-
temporaries had rejected that tradition. He was not similarly motivated to
justify his use of the Platonist tradition because it had not fallen into such
disrepute: both the professors at Leipzig and many of Leibniz’s German
contemporaries turned to the Platonist tradition for inspiration concerning
their own metaphysics. In chapter , I survey those Platonist doctrines that
Leibniz’s teachers bequeathed to him and that he used to construct his own
Metaphysics of Divinity. With these Platonist tools in hand, I dig through
the texts of – and excavate the origins of Leibniz’s conception of har-
mony, the general features of his epistemology, and the core of his mature
metaphysics. The results of this process of recovery are dramatic. In chap-
ter , I show that once we place Leibniz’s original comments about harmony
in the context of the Platonist assumptions of emanation and reflection, it
becomes clear that God is both the unity and the diversity in the created
world. Moreover, once we see some of these early essays in this light, it is
obvious that Leibniz’s epistemology is Platonic and that by  he had de-
veloped the complete concept account of substance.
In Part IV, which includes chapters , , , and , I describe the laying
of the foundations of Leibniz’s mature metaphysics. In chapter , I turn to
his notions of matter and passivity. I argue that although prior to  Leib-
niz accepted the existence of passive extended (primary) matter, he became
increasingly troubled by the idea of material passivity, and finally rejected
it in the winter of –. From that point forward, Leibniz accepted an
ontology of mind-like substances and a version of what is sometimes called
panorganism. In chapters  and , I present an elaborate argument based on
a number of unnoticed texts to the conclusion that prior to his departure for
Paris in March , Leibniz proposed the doctrine of Preestablished Har-
mony. If I am correct in my analysis of the writings of this period, then
Leibniz developed the core features of his metaphysics a full fourteen years
earlier than generally thought, independently of his conception of truth,
and for reasons that have not been previously understood. In chapter , I
show how the other tenets of Leibniz’s mature thought, including the the-
ory of truth, grew naturally out of Leibniz’s early metaphysics. Despite the
evolution of important details between  and , he does not waver
from his basic metaphysical commitments of late . This analysis dis-
proves the Russell–Couturat interpretation once and for all: the account of
truth, which is nowhere to be found among the papers of – and which
developed after the metaphysics was firmly in place, is not the key to Leib-
niz’s thought but itself the result of his metaphysics. The analysis also shows
that Leibniz was never a whole-hearted mechanist or atomist or occasion-


     

alist, and moreover that the metaphysics of Spinoza could not have had a
major influence on the development of his thought.
Finally, in the conclusion, I consider the truth behind the first truths. The
developmental story of chapters – is more than just an account of Leib-
niz’s philosophical evolution: it is also an excavation of the motivations be-
hind these truths. Once we recognize that many of Leibniz’s most charac-
teristic doctrines (e.g., the principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles, the
complete concept theory of substance) follow from some of the core as-
sumptions of his Metaphysics of Method, Substance, and Divinity, we will
have reached the real foundations of the philosophy of the First truths. Once
we see these truths as the concluding chapter of this developmental narra-
tive, some of the problems that have persistently plagued the interpreter of
Leibniz’s mature thought are easily solved. While a good deal more work
needs to be done before the various implications of my interpretation are
fully unraveled, I offer a preface to that project in the conclusion. No doubt
many questions will remain about Leibniz’s mature philosophy, but I hope
both to have diminished some of the mystery that surrounds his first truths
and to have made some headway in grasping their interrelations.
Before I begin the developmental story of chapters –, I would like to
call attention to the Appendix. Because many of the chapters in the book
contain summaries of assumptions uncovered in the textual analysis of the
chapter and because, throughout the book, frequent reference is made to
these assumptions, it will be convenient to list them in Part II of the Ap-
pendix and to summarize some of the mature doctrines to which I refer in
Part I. That is, for the sake of easy reference, I have summarized both the
assumptions presented in the book, chapter by chapter, and the relevant
tenets of the later philosophy in the Appendix. It will be especially impor-
tant to keep Leibniz’s assumptions close at hand. When Russell had his
revelatory experience about “the inmost recesses of Leibniz’s edifice” in the
Lent term of , he saw “how its foundations were laid, and how its
superstructure rose out of them.”37 The developmental story of this book
implies a radically different interpretation of both the foundations and its
superstructure. According to my account, the assumptions summarized
in Appendix II constitute the materials with which Leibniz laid his meta-
physical foundations and out of which he built his elaborate and brilliant
philosophical edifice. Let’s now turn to the story behind this construction.

. Russell, A Critical Exposition, v.


 Part one
Metaphysics of Method
 1
Eclecticism and conciliation, –

In the spring of , at the age of fourteen, Leibniz began his university
studies in Leipzig, where he came under the influence of the well-known
German humanist, Jakob Thomasius. At the end of the decade, in the
spring of , he composed a long letter to Thomasius in which he pre-
sented for the first time in detail his most basic methodological and meta-
physical assumptions. Between the years  and , Thomasius acted
as the single greatest influence on Leibniz’s philosophical development. It
was from Thomasius that the brilliant young student acquired a commit-
ment to a historically based conciliatory eclecticism, a belief in the sound-
ness of the Aristotelian philosophy, and a familiarity with Platonism. Leib-
niz differed from his mentor on many points and went well beyond him on
others, but throughout his life he remained convinced of the main philo-
sophical lessons learned in Leipzig.
One of the central theses of this book is that the methodological and
metaphysical commitments that Leibniz developed during his youth form
the bedrock of his philosophy. There are two distinct parts to his method.
The key to understanding Leibniz’s thought in the s (and much of what
he did later) is to recognize that he practised a form of conciliatory eclecti-
cism that fostered the accumulation and consideration of a wide variety of
diverse ideas, that assumed an underlying truth beneath the various con-
flicting schools, and whose only stipulation was that the resulting collection
be made consistent with Christian doctrine.1 However, once his eclecticism
had delivered the truth (or a significant part of it), Leibniz intended to make
that truth available to others. Although he was naive enough to believe that
the true philosophy could effect individual, religious, and political peace, he
was sufficiently realistic to know that its dissemination should be ap-
proached with extreme care. Recent events had provided Leibniz and his
contemporaries with ample evidence of intellectual sectarianism, religious
hatred, and political instability. For the sake of humanity, the young Leib-

. In his recent groundbreaking study of Leibniz’s ethical and political thought, Patrick Ri-
ley approaches these areas of Leibniz’s philosophy from a perspective very similar to my
own. Riley recognizes that Leibniz was concerned “to reconcile apparently conflicting ideas,
to take from each kind of thought that which was soundest and to synthesize it with the
seemingly incommensurable truths of other systems” (). See his Leibniz’ Universal Ju-
risprudence: Justice as the Charity of the Wise. It is a relief that scholars are finally recog-
nizing both the inadequacy of the Russell-Couturat approach to Leibniz’s thought and the
inaccuracy of Russell’s sketch of Leibniz’s personality.


   

niz strove to develop a means to present his discoveries with the right de-
gree of rhetorical subtlety. In this chapter, I excavate and articulate Leib-
niz’s early methodological assumptions, both the conciliatory method that
he used to reach the truth and the rhetorical means that he developed to
present it. In the remainder of the book, we will have the opportunity to see
Leibniz’s two-part method in action.

. A walk in the woods

There is a well-known passage in which Leibniz describes a critical point
in his early philosophical development. He writes to Nicolas Remond in
:
After finishing the Ecoles Triviales I fell upon the moderns, and I recall walking in
a grove on the outskirts of Leipzig called the Rosental, at the age of fifteen, and de-
liberating whether I should keep the substantial forms [si je garderois les Formes
Substantielles]. Mechanism finally prevailed and led me to apply myself to mathe-
matics.2
Leibniz scholars have made much of this passage. They use it as evidence
of his youthful conversion from scholasticism to mechanism. They also
sometimes attribute a memory lapse to him, and insist that the walk must
have occurred at least two or three years later than Leibniz says (that is, in
– and not in –).
The two claims are related in an interesting way. According to Willy Kab-
itz in his influential book, Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz, Leibniz’s de-
cision could not have taken place before . Kabitz’s argument for the
later date is based on the assumption that when Leibniz completed his walk,
he had converted from the scholasticism of his youth to mechanism. Kab-
itz maintains that Leibniz’s university thesis, the Metaphysical Disputation
on the Principle of Individuation, which is an exemplary piece of scholastic
philosophy written in , could not have been composed after Leibniz’s
transforming stroll, and therefore that the walk must have occurred after its
composition. Moreover, because Leibniz’s next work, the Specimen of Col-
lected Philosophical Questions Concerning Law of , includes Aristotelian
elements and hence is not a complete break with Aristotelian principles,
and because his letter to Thomasius of February  has no Aristotelian

. G III : L . Leibniz was born on July , . When he strolled through the Rosen-
tal woods in the early s, many of his contemporaries were still very much in competi-
tion with one another to create a “new philosophy” – that is, a replacement for Aris-
totelianism. Although by the end of the century the new mechanical philosophy had won
the competition, it was not at all clear in the s how the contest would turn out. In brief,
there was a dramatic shift in perspective between the time of Leibniz’s youthful stroll and
his description of it in . In the s, there were many different ways of being both
new and modern. For a recent discussion of some of the complications concerning ‘the new
philosophy,’ see Stephen Menn, “The Intellectual Setting,” esp. –, –; also see
Daniel Garber and Michael Ayers, The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philoso-
phy, passim.


   , –

elements and so is such a break, we should postpone the walk and “his de-
cision for the mechanical hypotheses until sometime in .” Therefore,
Kabitz concludes, Leibniz was mistaken in saying his decision occurred
when he was : he was in fact at least three years older.3 Since its pub-
lication in , Kabitz’s book has remained the most complete account
of the s and subsequent commentators have on the whole accepted
Kabitz’s conclusions.4 While the exact date of Leibniz’s decision is not so
important, the assumptions made by Kabitz and his followers are: that one
cannot be an Aristotelian and a mechanist at the same time and that, in the
words of one commentator, these philosophies “confronted him as stark
alternatives.”5
Nor is this assumption unreasonable. Aristotle’s philosophy is funda-
mentally opposed to that of standard mechanists like Gassendi and
Descartes. As Descartes himself well understood, the core of his meta-
physics is incompatible with that of the ancient; he writes to Mersenne: “for
I see that it [the Aristotelian philosophy] is so absolutely and so clearly
destroyed by means of the establishment of my philosophy alone, that no
other refutation is needed.”6 It is therefore perfectly sensible to interpret
Leibniz’s Rosental decision as a rejection of the Aristotelian philosophy. In
another much quoted passage, Leibniz writes: “I had penetrated far into the
territory of the scholastics, when Mathematics and the modern authors [les
Auteurs modernes] made me withdraw from it, while I was still young. I
was charmed by their beautiful ways of explaining nature mechanically, and
I rightly depised the method of those who use only forms or faculties, from
which one can learn nothing.”7 Such passages, and the fact that Leibniz re-
mains committed to mechanical physics throughout the period, have been
taken to provide ample evidence of his youthful rejection of the Aristotelian
philosophy. For most interpreters of the s, the only remaining question
is one of influence: Leibniz presents the views of several modern authors
as though they were his own, so that it has been very difficult to discern
whether it was Bacon, Gassendi, Hobbes, or Weigel who was the major
source of his philosophy. Some commentators have presented plausible

. Willy Kabitz, Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz, –. For the Specimen of Collected Philo-
sophical Questions Concerning Law, see VI i –; for the letter to Thomasius, see II i –.
. In the fifty years before the publication of Kabitz’s book, several works were written on
Leibniz in Germany, some of which consider the influence of Aristotle. For the two most
interesting of these, see J. Jasper, “Leibniz und die Scholastik” and Fritz Rintelen, “Leib-
nizens Beziehungen zur Scholastik,” –; for the entire list, see Kurt Müller and Al-
bert Heinekamp, Leibniz-Bibliographie. During the same period, G.E. Guhrauer wrote his
two volume biography of Leibniz which remains helpful: Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von
Leibnitz: Eine Biographie. Since the publication of Kabitz’s book in , there have only
been three relatively systematic studies of the period, and none of these takes into account
the range of Leibniz’s early interest. They are Konrad Moll, Der junge Leibniz, ( vols.);
Arthur Hannequin, “La première philosophie de Leibnitz”; and Philip Beeley, Kontinuität
und Mechanismus. There has been no work in English, although E.J. Aiton’s biography of
Leibniz contains a good summary of the period; see Leibniz: A Biography, chs.  & .
. Stuart Brown, Leibniz, . . AT III . . G IV : AG  \ L .


   

stories for the primary influence of one of these authors,8 while others have
taken the sheer number of views expounded and the long list of references
as proof that Leibniz is merely an enthusiastic convert to the new philoso-
phy without any clear ideas of his own. In one commentator’s words, Leib-
niz’s early philosophy is “characterized by uncertainties and reversals.”9
Scholars have often noted that Leibniz’s early texts are strewn with refer-
ences to Aristotle, but because of Leibniz’s obvious abuse of key features of
the ancient philosophy, these references have been considered mostly
rhetorical and his rejection of that philosophy sincere.10
From a survey of the youthful writings, then, it would appear that around
 Leibniz rejected the Aristotelianism of his youth and accepted the me-
chanical philosophy; that he was undecided about the details of that phi-
losophy and hence had no coherent philosophical offering of his own until
he produced the two-part New Physical Hypothesis and Theory of Abstract
Motion of , his first significant publication on topics concerning meta-
physics and physics. This is the story that Kabitz first proposes and that
most subsequent commentators accept.11 It is a plausible story, based on
reasonable assumptions and careful scholarship.
But it is false. Once we put aside our own prejudices about the incom-
patibility of the Aristotelian and the mechanical philosophies and begin to
take seriously Leibniz’s methodological prescriptions during the period, the
philosophical richness of his early texts becomes apparent. When Leibniz

. Concerning Hobbes’ influence on the young Leibniz, see Howard Bernstein, “Conatus,
Hobbes, and the Young Leibniz;” Daniel Garber, “Motion and Metaphysics in the Young
Leibniz”; Beeley, Kontinuität, passim; Richard Arthur, The Labyrinth of the Continuum,
Introduction; and François Duchesneau, La Dynamique de Liebniz. Concerning Bacon, see
especially Belaval, Leibniz: Initiation à sa philosophie, ch. . For the influence of Gassendi
and Weigel, see Kabitz, Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz, –; Peter Petersen,
Geschichte der aristotelischen Philosophie im protestantischen Deutschland, f; and espe-
cially Moll, Der junge Leibniz, passim. Brown credits Leibniz with Gassendian atomism
between – in his Leibniz, f, as does Milic Capek in “Leibniz on Matter and Mem-
ory,” (–), and Hannequin, “La première philosophie,” ch. .
. Wilson, Leibniz’s Metaphysics, .
. See e.g. Capek, “Leibniz on Matter and Memory,” f; Hannequin, “La première philoso-
phie,” .
. The vast majority of commentators who discuss the s and who mention the decision
in the Rosental woods after the publication of Kabitz’s book agree with him both on the
date of the walk and the nature of Leibniz’s decision. See Robinet, Architectonique dis-
jonctive, automates systémiques et idéalité transcendantale dans l’oeuvre de G.W. Leibniz, f;
Brown, Leibniz, ch. ; L , , n. ; Kurt Müller and Gisela Krönert, Leben und Werk
von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Eine Chronik, ; G. Stieler, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: ein
Leben, f; Dietrich Mahnke, Leibnizens Synthese von Universalmathematik und Individ-
ualmetaphysik, f; Kuno Fischer, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Leben, Werke, und Lehre,
ff, and Beck, Early German Philosophy, . There are some exceptions: e.g., Petersen
accepts Kabitz’s dating of the walk in his Geschichte der aristotelischen Philosophie im protes-
tantischen Deutschland, ff, but takes the conversion to be less dramatic; while Wilson,
Leibniz’s Metaphysics, , AG (vii), and H.W.B. Joseph, Lectures on the Philosophy of Leib-
niz, f, see Leibniz’s decision as a rejection of Aristotelianism, but nonetheless accept that
the decision occurs when he was fifteen. The most important exception is Belaval, who ac-
cepts neither the date nor the conversion: Initiation, ch. .


   , –

emerged from the Rosental grove, he was following in the footsteps of

Thomasius. He was not a mechanist but a conciliatory eclectic, and he was
engaged in a very definite enterprise: to construct a coherent philosophy out
of ancient and new materials, something he managed to do in a brilliant way
by the end of the decade.12 In this chapter, I will argue that Leibniz did not
turn from the Aristotelian philosophy to mechanism in the early s, but
rather from scholastic to mechanical physics, and that his intense (and ap-
parently haphazard) study of the mechanical options during the mid-s
was motivated by a desire to discover the common denominator of the new
mechanical program so that he could intelligently combine it with the phi-
losophy of Aristotle. In chapter , we will see that it was not until –
that Leibniz finally achieved the conciliatory goal to which he committed
himself during his walk in .13 In chapter , I will show that Leibniz’s
first published presentation of his original metaphysics and physics is not
the two-part work of , but rather his letter to Thomasius of , which
he published in  and which contains a presentation of his original the-
ory of substance, one whose details have previously gone unnoticed and one
that Leibniz considered to be thoroughly Aristotelian.14
In order to grasp the real significance of Leibniz’s peripatetic decision,
we must see it and his subsequent writings against the background set by
his contemporaries. In the next section, I present that background. In sec-
tion , I reevaluate Leibniz’s decision and his early writings and show that
the vast number of references, the wide range of proffered ideas, and the ap-
parent shift in views in the texts of the s have acted as a camouflage of
his real intentions. In section , I describe his two-part method.

. Method and metaphysics in the seventeenth century

However foreign the landscape may appear to us, when Leibniz emerged
from the Rosental grove he was on ground well trodden by his contempo-

. Other scholars have noted Leibniz’s comments about reconciling the Aristotelian and
modern philosophies and have credited him with a youthful eclecticism according to which
he is collecting ideas. However, none of these studies has attempted an analysis of the s
in this light nor has any articulated in any detail the result of Leibniz’s eclecticism. See
Moll, Der junge Leibniz, passim; Loemker, “Leibniz’s Conception of Philosophical
Method;” Erich Hochstetter, “Leibniz-Interpretation”; Belaval, Initiation, ch. ; Alexan-
dre Foucher de Careil, Mémoire sur la philosophie de Leibniz, ch. ; Ulrich G. Leinsle, Re-
formversuche protestantischer Metaphysik im Zeitalter des Rationalismus, f.
. Other scholars have recognized that when Leibniz rejects the substantial forms, he has not
thereby cast aside the Aristotelian philosophy, but none has articulated in any detail how
he goes on to use the ancient thought. See, e.g., Belaval, Leibniz: Initiation, Philosophie,
Hochstetter, “Leibniz-Interpretation,” and Leinsle, Reformversuche.
. Garber, Moll, and Beeley have presented the outlines of a system in the period of –,
but their interpretations differ significantly from the one I argue for here. Garber, “Mo-
tion and Metaphysics,” –, takes Leibniz to be a Cartesian; Moll, Der junge Leibniz,
vol. , passim, sees him as a Gassendian atomist; while Beeley, Kontinuität, chs. –, sees
him roughly as a materialist. I will argue in chapters  and  that the original theory of
substance is an Aristotelian one; it is this theory that has gone unnoticed.


   

raries. In order to follow the path that he took through the s, we need
a map of the philosophical terrain. I offer a sketch of one here.
The nature and scope of Renaissance humanism has been much dis-
cussed.15 We will bypass these complications and move directly to the hu-
manist assumptions particularly relevant to our discussion of Leibniz. First
and foremost, many humanists believed that the ancient texts were a treas-
ure trove of truths that could be combined into a single unified philoso-
phy.16 Because the philosophies of even the mightiest of ancients (e.g., Plato
and Aristotle) did not obviously cohere, many humanists engaged in elabo-
rate interpretative schemes. Most practised and preached conciliatory eclec-
ticism among the ancient schools, and some extended their eclectic net to
include more recent authors.17 For such philosophers, the assumption was
that the diverse philosophical traditions were not as incompatible as they
at first appeared; the goal was to forge a reconciliation among the worthy
schools; the result was a mixture of ancient and modern ideas; and the hope
was that the proper synthesis would effect peace among contemporary
philosophers.
The early Renaissance philosopher, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
(–), formulates one of the defining statements of Renaissance eclec-
ticism in his On the Dignity of Man of . Pico demands that we not de-
vote ourselves “to any one of the schools of philosophy,” and notes that “it
was a practice of the ancients to study every school of writers, and if possi-
ble, not to pass over any treatise.” He declares: “I have resolved not to ac-
cept anyone’s words, but to roam through all the masters of philosophy, to

. Humanism has traditionally been taken to be the movement to recover and assimilate the
wisdom of ancient Greece and Rome. But there is more to early modern humanism than
this. For example, as Anthony Grafton has recently noted in Defenders of the Text, “a cen-
tral feature of the humanists’ new sensibility” was “the ability to distinguish between the
spurious and the genuine, the modern and the antique” (). As we will see, for Leibniz
and his predecessors, it was important to distinguish properly between the counterfeit and
the real. For an account of some of the confusion about the term ‘humanism,’ see Paul O.
Kristeller, Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains, ch. .
Among the standard accounts of Renaissance humanism are Paul O. Kristeller’s The Clas-
sics and Renaissance Thought and Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters; Étienne
Gilson, “Humanisme médiéval et renaissance”; and Eugenio Garin’s Ritratti di umanisti.
For the most important recent discussions and for references to the vast intervening liter-
ature on the topic, see the articles in the Cambridge Companion to Humanism, ed. Jill Kraye.
For a lengthy discussion of the humanist background to Leibniz, see Loemker, Struggle
for Synthesis, Part II.
. It is important to remember that direct knowledge of Plato during the medieval period
was extremely limited. Only the Meno, the Phaedo, some of the Timaeus, and a piece of the
Parmenides were available in Latin translation and, of these, only the Timaeus was widely
available. Dialogues as important as the Republic, Symposium, and Theaetetus were not
available until the fifteenth century. For a brief summary of these and related matters, see
Brian P. Copenhaver and Charles B. Schmitt, Renaissance Philosophy, –.
. I use the somewhat vague designation ‘conciliatory eclecticism’ to refer to any eclecticism
that attempts to combine the views of some group of apparently incompatible philoso-
phies into a coherent system. It is not terminology used by Renaissance and early modern
thinkers and so it is free of complicating connotations.


   , –

investigate every opinion and to know all the schools.”18 According to Pico,
each philosophical tradition had a share of the truth, so that once the truths
in each were discovered, they could be combined into one comprehensive
and true philosophy. One of the main points of his project was to show that
“the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle should be reconciled” and “a con-
cord” between the two systems effected.19 In fact, Pico’s texts are more
steeped in Platonism than in Aristotelianism, but it is important that unlike
many of his contemporary humanists, he speaks favorably of Aristotle and
the scholastics. He was prepared to add Aquinas, Scotus, Avicenna, and
Averroës to his eclectic mixture. Pico was also the most prominent human-
ist to include Jewish and kabbalistic teachings in his syncretist vision.20
For most Renaissance conciliatory eclectics, the philosophy that they pro-
claimed had a religious goal: because they assumed that one truth “flowed
through” all philosophical schools and that this truth was Christian, they
firmly believed that the ancient pagan texts contained Christian truths. Two
obvious questions faced the conciliatory humanist: first, if there is a single
truth to be discovered within the ancient philosophical schools, then why
had it not been previously discovered?; second, if the truth is fundamen-
tally Christian, then how did the philosophies of pagans like Plato and Aris-
totle come to contain so many truths? Although the details of their expla-
nations differ, most Renaissance and seventeenth-century humanists agreed
that it was the development of new philosophical, theological, and/or intel-
lectual tools that made it possible for them, in a way that it had never been
before, to excavate the buried truth. In this chapter and in chapter , we will
see some of the details of these explanations. As for the second question,
humanists offered two distinct answers. Many accepted an account of his-
tory that allowed them to sanctify pagan learning. This historiography, usu-
ally called the prisca theologia or ancient theology, was a brilliant melding of
religion and philosophy. The story runs roughly as follows: Moses did not
write down all the wisdom bestowed on him by God, but transmitted it in
an oral tradition that continued until it found its way into the writings of
Plato, Pythagoras, and others; moreover, Plato and other ancient authors in-
tentionally obscured these divine truths because they were not appropriate

. For the Latin text, see Pico, De Hominis Dignitate, ed. Eugenio Garin, –; for an Eng-
lish translation, see Pico, On the Dignity of Man, trs. Charles G. Wallis, Paul Miller, and
Douglas Carmichael, ff. For a brief account of the history of the text, see Copenhaver
and Schmitt, Renaissance Philosophy, –.
. Pico, De Hominis Dignitate, , : On the Dignity of Man, , .
. For a summary of Pico’s interest in the kabbalah and citations to the vast literature on the
topic, see Copenhaver and Schmitt, Renaissance Philosophy, –. The young Leibniz
was familiar with Giovanni Pico (see, e.g., II i ) and with another widely known Re-
naissance syncretist, Agostino Steuco (/–), whose most important syncretic
work, Perennis Philosophia, Leibniz cites (see VI ii  and also II.i.). The mature Leib-
niz had books by each in his private library; see Gerda Utermöhlen, “Die Literatur der
Renaissance und das Humanismus in Leibniz’ Privater Büchesammlung.” For an inter-
esting discussion of the similarities between the methodological assumptions of Leibniz
and Steuco, see Schmitt, “Perennial Philosophy: From Agostino Steuco to Leibniz.”


   

for the uninitiated.21 In the Renaissance, with the help of the newly dis-
covered texts and the proper scholarly and philological tools, humanists like
Pico believed that the wisdom in the ancient theology could be recovered
and the single, unifying philosophy forged. This philosophy would of
course be firmly rooted in Christianity, so that the unique truth of the
Judeo-Christian tradition would coincide with philosophical truth. Ac-
cording to Pico, for example, the Jewish kabbalah was an important source
of knowledge that was ultimately about Christian truths. On this reading of
history, a Christian thinker could see pagan and Jewish philosophers as a
source of divine wisdom. Pico and many other humanists insisted that with
“the divine light” of Christian revelation, the wisdom of the ancients could
be fully discerned.22
The ancient theology was wildly popular. But it would not do for all.
Jakob Thomasius was a conciliatory eclectic who was wedded to the ancient
texts but who rejected this philosophical genealogy. Humanists like Thoma-
sius offered another explanation for how the one truth could “flow through”
all philosophical schools so that even pagan philosophers like Aristotle and
Plato could contain Christian truths. For these philosophers, the divine
truths could be read in the “Book of Nature.” That the ancient, pagan texts
were a proper source of some divine truths was a tradition with a long, re-
spectable history. For example, in Romans, Paul writes about the Greek
philosophers in a much quoted passage: “For what can be known about God
is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation
of the world his invisible nature . . . has been clearly perceived in the things
that have been made.”23 The philosophical profundity of the texts of Plato
and Aristotle gave dramatic support to this thesis.

. The standard text on the ancient theology remains D.P. Walker’s The Ancient Theology:
Studies in Christian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century. Copenhaver and
Schmitt, Renaissance Philosophy, also neatly summarize the tradition and cite more recent
studies; see esp. –. As they note, the theory that Plato was heir to an esoteric theol-
ogy existed before the Renaissance, but it became “a major element in Western historiog-
raphy only in the later fifteenth century,” when Marsilio Ficino and Pico made it famous
(). There were various elaborations on the story just given. For example, some hu-
manists maintained that Plato had acquired his wisdom during travels to Egypt, where he
met and conversed with Jewish wise men. One of the more amusing variations on the theme
developed in France, where some French humanists argued that the ancient (French)
Druids were the original source of this wisdom and where most of the major players in the
genealogy were French. See Walker, The Ancient Theology, –.
. I have left out many important details in this brief account of the ancient theology, but
one of these is worth noting because it bears on our topic. An important part of the apolo-
getics of the proponents of the ancient theology was the texts entitled the Hermetica or
Corpus Hermeticum, which were supposed to be extremely ancient and yet to contain many
Christian truths. When Isaac Casaubon argued persuasively in the early years of the sev-
enteenth century that these texts were post-Christian forgeries, the defenders of the an-
cient theology lost ground that was never regained. See Walker, The Ancient Theology, ff.
and Grafton, Defenders of the Text, ch. . It is significant that Leibniz’s mentor, Jakob
Thomasius, took Casaubon’s argument to undermine the theory. See his Schediasma His-
toricum, –.
. Romans : –. Although medieval, Renaissance, and early modern thinkers tended to


   , –

That the ancient pagan philosophers were capable of profound knowl-

edge was a pre-Renaissance idea. Dante Alighieri (–) offers a
striking example. In his Divine Comedy, Dante traverses hell with his guide,
Virgil, before finding his way to paradise and God. In limbo he meets the
great pagan thinkers: first the poets and then the philosophers. He writes
about the latter:

When I had raised my eyes a little higher,

I saw the master of the men who know,
seated in philosophic family.
There all look up to him, all do him honor:
there I beheld both Socrates and Plato,
closest to him, in front of all the rest;
Democritus, who ascribes the world to chance,
Diogenes, Empedocles, and Zeno,
and Thales, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus;
I saw the good collector of medicinals,
I mean Dioscorides; and I saw Orpheus,
and Tully, Linus, moral Seneca;
and Euclid the geometer, and Ptolemy,
Hippocrates and Galen, Avicenna,
Averroës, of the great Commentary.24

Renaissance and early modern humanists happily embraced the idea of a

“philosophic family”, though many disagreed with Dante’s placement of
Aristotle at its head.25 It was therefore common for thinkers, whether they
accepted the genealogy of ancient wisdom or not, to endorse ancient pagan
texts.26 The assumption on the part of many humanists was that superior
intellects, whether pagan or not, were able to glimpse God. Pico nicely ex-
presses this point when he writes: “In every age there have been a few
predominant thinkers, supreme both in judgment and knowledge . . . who
all agreeing together, not only believed these things, but also powerfully
proclaimed them . . . undoubtedly the whole of ancient theology, being
like-minded, asserts one and the same thing.”27 For Pico and subsequent
conciliatory eclectics, two doctrines that at first seem incompatible may of-

interpret this biblical passage in the way suggested here, it is probable that it has no such
meaning.
. Canto IV, lines –: The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri: Inferno, a Verse Transla-
tion, tr. Allen Mandelbaum, .
. In Raphael’s grand painting, “The School of Athens,” of –, Plato and Aristotle
share center stage.
. Renaissance and early modern skeptics constitute an important exception to this. One of
the most articulate and energetic proponents of early skepticism was Gianfrancesco Pico,
the nephew and biographer of Giovanni Pico. For a summary of Renaissance skepticism
and references, see Copenhaver and Schmitt, Renaissance Philosophy, –.
. Quoted in Walker, The Ancient Theology, .


   

ten, after careful study and full analysis, be made to cohere.28 To twenty-
first-century sensibilities, the resulting coherence may seem a perversion of
the original tenets; to the sincere Renaissance conciliator, the coherence was
a step toward philosophical truth and intellectual peace. There were concil-
iators who proclaimed coherence where none is now recognizable. For
thoughtful eclectics like Pico, however, the proper analysis would involve a
comparison of the tenet of one philosopher, its assumptions and implica-
tions, with the views of other great philosophers. If one doctrine seemed to
conflict with another, then it was appropriate to reexamine the interpreta-
tion given to each. After thorough reexamination, the ingenious eclectic
could often forge an agreement.
The conciliatory eclecticism of Renaissance humanism evolved in com-
plicated ways that cannot be fully discussed here. What is important for our
purposes is that Renaissance syncreticism and various forms of concilia-
tory eclecticism persisted into the seventeenth century, and that in the
post-Reformation period it became common for philosophers to distin-
guish between heretical and non-heretical ancient authors. Many Protes-
tant thinkers rejected the genealogy of the ancient theology and believed
that the new theology offered a key with which they could open the ancient
texts.
Jakob Thomasius was such a thinker. I claimed earlier that Thomasius
played a major role in the development of Leibniz’s philosophical ideas
throughout the s. Now that the Renaissance background has been set,
we can turn to one aspect of the complicated character of Thomasius’
thought. That Leibniz’s acclaimed teacher was a serious student of Aristo-
tle has been noted by other scholars. What has not been properly under-
stood, however, is that Thomasius’ philosophical project was not merely
Aristotelian; it was motivated by a commitment to a conciliatory eclecti-
cism, and borrowed heavily from Platonism and other ancient sources. We
will have the opportunity to discuss Thomasius’ Platonism in chapter .
Our concern here is with his intention to construct a philosophy out of ap-
parently diverse philosophical sources. As we will see, Thomasius bestowed
both his methodology and the role assigned to the Aristotelian philosophy
on the young Leibniz.
Jakob Thomasius (–) was Professor of Rhetoric, Dialectic, and
Moral Philosophy in Leipzig.29 His contemporaries considered him an
“erudite” historian of philosophy, an important conciliator and “a most rec-

. For a brief introduction to Giovanni Pico and other Renaissance electics and for the stan-
dard literature on these topics, see Copenhaver and Schmitt, Renaissance Philosophy, ch. .
. Max Wundt, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des . Jahrhunderts, . Leinsle offers the best
general account of Thomasius’ life and work. See Leinsle, Reformversuche protestantischer
Metaphysik, –. Although Detlef Döring does not describe the rich philosophical
proposals made by Thomasius and his colleagues, he suggests that the university in
Leipzig was not exactly a center of “sterile traditionalism.” See his helpful Der junge Leib-
niz und Leipzig: Ausstellung zum . Geburtstag von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz im Leipziger
Alten Rathaus, passim. I thank Ursula Goldenbaum for acquiring this book for me.


   , –
ognized” philosopher;30 Leibniz describes him as “the most celebrated
German Peripatetic,”31 and often refers to him as “our most famous
Thomasius.”32 We can glean from Thomasius’ many publications the philo-
sophical and methodological lessons that he taught his students.33 First and
foremost, Thomasius was a conciliatory eclectic who rejected both syn-
creticism and the ancient theology. He believed that the true philosophy
could be constructed from the raw materials of apparently diverse philo-
sophical schools, but he insisted that those raw materials be chosen with
great care. As a discriminating eclectic, both his method and goal were dif-
ferent in their details from Pico and many other humanists. Thomasius
complained bitterly about the propensity among his predecessors and col-
leagues to collect ideas without thorough analysis, to assume that all philo-
sophical schools could be made to cohere, and then to force a synthesis
among doctrines where there was none. It is important to grasp the subtlety
of Thomasius’ approach to history. He believed that ancient philosophers
offered the primary raw materials for the proper conciliatory philosophy,
but he was prepared neither to force their ideas into Christian doctrine nor
to accept the mistaken interpretations of their ideas promulgated by the less
discriminating humanists. He saw the need to take the texts of Aristotle and
other historical figures on their own terms.34 The result of this historically
informed analysis of ancient philosophy was to make the “true” views of the
ancients available for careful scrutiny. Once the ancient doctrines were prop-
erly interpreted, they could be thoroughly evaluated. The evaluative proce-
dure involved two separate steps: first, the Christian orthodoxy of the doc-
trine had to be noted, then both its philosophical merit and potential for
reconciliation among philosophers had to be appraised. For example,
Thomasius’ Exercitatio de Stoica Mundi Exustione of  is an extended
unveiling of the heresies of the Stoics.35 He makes a thorough analysis of
Stoic philosophy, compares its tenets to those of the Platonists, Aris-
totelians, and Epicureans, and then identifies its “many errors.” In the

. Sturm, Philosophia Eclectica, f. . VI ii .

. VI i ; see also VI i . Although Guhrauer claimed in  that Thomasius began the
“scientific study of the history of philosophy in Germany,” there has been no thorough
treatment of Thomasius’ thought. For example, Beck’s enormous Early German Philoso-
phy offers no discussion of him; and Robinet, in his grand study of Leibniz’s philosophy,
does not mention Thomasius’ philosophy except to suggest briefly that Leibniz inherited
certain concerns about Aristotelian thought from his teacher. The little scholarly work that
has been done has categorized Thomasius merely as one of the more interesting “protes-
tant Aristotelians.” See Guhrauer, Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von Leibnitz, Vol. I, f;
Robinet, Architectonique disjonctive, , f; Wundt, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik
–; Petersen, Geschichte, –; and Leinsle, Reformversuche, –. Leinsle places
Thomasius among the German “anti-scholastic Aristotelians,” but does offer a helpful
overview of that part of Thomasius’ philosophical interests.
. For a sense of Thomasius’ wide-ranging publications, see the Bibliography.
. See, e.g., Thomasius, Dissertationes LXIII & Varii Argumenti Magnem Partem ad Histo-
riam Philosophicam & Ecclesiasticam Pertinentes, , f.
. The full title of the work is Exercitatio de Stoica Mundi Exustione: Cui Accesserunt Argu-
menti Varii, sed inprimis ad Historiam Stoicae Philosophiae Facientes, Dissertationes XXI.


   

process of identifying the heretical views of the Stoics, he clarifies those

Platonist and Aristotelian doctrines that conform to Christian teachings.
Only through the careful analysis of the views of the ancients could we rec-
ognize the difference between “the light of true doctrine” and “the shadows
of the pagans.”36
Thomasius had no doubt about the superiority of Aristotelian philoso-
phy, but he subjected that philosophy to the same scrutiny that he applied
to other ancient sources. He was fond of reminding his students that how-
ever brilliant Aristotle might have been, he was a pagan whose philosophi-
cal insights lacked the full aid of “divine light.”37 Thomasius writes in his
Exercitatio, for example: “those people who repeat the same old song that
the ancient Aristotle can be reconciled with sacred scripture . . . should be
met with derision.”38 For Thomasius, it was an important though arduous
task to uncover Aristotle’s real views. As many humanists had done before
him, he argued that the bad translations of Averroës and the misinterpreta-
tions of the scholastics had made the excavation of the real Aristotelian phi-
losophy especially difficult.39 But he also insisted that the philosophy of
Aristotle, once properly understood, had enormous merit. According to
Thomasius, for example, the true importance of the Nicomachean Ethics had
long been hidden behind the misinterpretations of the scholastics. By of-
fering his own translation and edition of the Greek text, he hoped that Aris-
totle’s position might “bring some agreement” about ethical matters.40 He
maintains that Aristotle’s ethical proposals offer nothing less than the basis
for the perfection of humanity.41 In a book on physics of , he begs his
contemporary natural philosophers to discover the truths that underlie
Aristotle’s conception of nature and that have been ignored for too long.42
The favoritism that Thomasius showed to Aristotelian thought did not
prevent him from making good use of other philosophies. His eclectic mix-
ture contained large parts of Platonism and, to a lesser degree, other ancient
ideas. It did not, however, make significant use of contemporary philoso-
phy: the major raw materials for Thomasius’ conciliatory concoction were
almost exclusively ancient. This conservatism was coupled with an impres-
sive erudition. Thomasius’ texts display a familiarity with a wide range of
philosophical schools and doctrines, both Renaissance (e.g., Luther, Steuco)
and ancient (e.g., Parmenides, Democritus), Christian (e.g., Augustine, Ori-
gen) and Jewish (e.g., Philo, Maimonides). Although Thomasius clearly has
some knowledge of mechanical philosophers like Descartes, Gassendi, and
Hobbes, he does not take seriously their physical proposals. He writes to

. Thomasius, Exercitatio, –, –. . Thomasius, Schediasma, –.

. Thomasius, Exercitatio, .
. Thomasius, Breviarium Ethicorum Aristotelis ad Nicomachum, .
. Ibid., f. . Ibid., .
. Thomasius, Physica, Perpetuo Dialogo, Praefatio. Leibniz thought very well of this book,
which was first published in  but went through other editions. For Leibniz’s response
to the text, see the introduction of ch. .


   , –

Leibniz at one point that he “despises” their thought.43 His strongest dis-
approbation, however, is saved for the promoters of the ancient theology
who “have wrapped that [Platonist] philosophy in mystery and obscurity.”44
In his Schediasma, he insists that “it is a fiction that Platonism is the clos-
est of ancient philosophies to Christianity.”45 According to Thomasius, the
central position assigned to Plato by so many humanists is based on a mis-
taken interpretation of his thought:46 once we take Plato on his own terms,
we discover that he was mistaken about a number of important points. It
will be important to our discussion of Leibniz’s Platonism in chapters  and
 that in Thomasius’ view, it is Plotinus who reveals the real significance of
Platonist teaching. Although Thomasius insists that Aristotle has more to
offer in most areas of philosophy than does Plato,47 he admits that the Pla-
tonist tradition is an important source of truths, especially about God’s re-
lation to the created world.48 For example, in his Exercitatio, Thomasius
agrees with the Platonists against the Stoics in their account of “the flow-
ing of creatures from God.”49 We will say more about the details of Thoma-
sius’ Platonism in chapter . For now, the point to emphasize is that despite
the favor he displays for the philosophy of Aristotle, Thomasius happily ac-
cepts Platonist tenets.
For Thomasius, the goal of his conciliatory eclecticism is the construc-
tion of the true philosophy firmly rooted in Christianity. In his Schediasma,
he congratulates Luther for having understood that the ultimate sources of
truth are the Bible and the doctrines of the church.50 But Thomasius also
maintains that as long as we carefully distinguish between sacred and pro-
fane doctrine and remain alert to the heretical teachings of both Christian
and pagan authors, we can construct a philosophy out of Christian and pa-
gan texts. However misguided some humanists might have been in their ac-
count of philosophical history and historical texts, their fundamental belief
in the wisdom of the ancients was sound. Thomasius insists in his Schedi-
asma that “there has been abundant pouring forth of divine wisdom” in an-
cient philosophy, and that the profundity of the Aristotelian philosophy is
due to the fact that Aristotle, more than any other philosopher, understood
that “God speaks through the book of nature.”51 For Thomasius the wis-
dom of Aristotle, Plato, and the other ancient philosophers is primarily due
to their capacity to use their intellect to discern God in nature. He asserts

. II i . For Thomasius’ familiarity with recent philosophy, see Thomasius, Physica, ()
–; Origines Historiae Philosophicae & Ecclesiasticae, ; and Dissertationes, “De statu
naturali adversus Hobbesium,” of .
. Thomasius, Dissertationes, . Leibniz echoes the view of his teacher when he writes
many years later: “Ficino speaks everywhere of ideas, the Soul of the world, Mystical
Numbers, and similar things, but does not give precise definitions in the way that Plato
did concerning these notions” (G I ).
. Thomasius, Schediasma, . . Ibid., .
. Thomasius, Dissertationes, –.
. Thomasius, Schediasma, –; Exercitatio, –, .
. Thomasius, Exercitatio, –. . Thomasius, Schediasma, .
. Thomasius, Dissertationes, .


   

in the preface to his dialogue on physics (which is thoroughly Aristotelian)

that “God himself” may be revealed through “the study of nature.” He ex-
plains that “there is the most elegant nexus among things and the finest or-
der [which acts] as a ladder for us with which to ascend to God.” Because
this order “reveals the most sacred light . . . and the glory of the supreme
Craftsman, it can be used to dispel atheism. Indeed, whoever spies the sin-
gle harmony and beauty of ends will therefore glimpse . . . the Wisdom of
the most Benevolent Architect.”52 For Thomasius, the wisdom of the an-
cients was based on the fact that they had been able to ascend that ladder, or
at least part of it. Therefore, the true conciliatory eclecticism would be built
out of Christian doctrine and ancient insights so acquired.
Thomasius’ conciliatory proposals are a disappointment. In his letter of
April  to Thomasius, Leibniz congratulates his teacher on his Origines
Historiae Philosophicae et Ecclesiasticae and insists that, unlike many other
(humanist) authors who are skilled “more in antiquity than in theory and
have given us lives rather than doctrines,” Thomasius has given us a “his-
tory of philosophy and not of philosophers.” According to Leibniz, his
teacher presents “profound reasons” for the “interconnections among doc-
trines” and has not given “a mere enumeration” of ideas.53 Thomasius’
book is an extremely concise discussion of the origins of certain philosoph-
ical and ecclesiastical doctrines in which he attempts to trace present opin-
ions back to their ancient origins. He typically explains how an ancient au-
thor solves a particular problem, and then lists the solutions proposed by
more recent thinkers. His sources range from the Manichees and Apostles
to the church fathers and Luther. One of the longest discussions concerns
the question of whether the subject of metaphysics is Ens or prima substan-
tia. In this case, Thomasius offers a variety of opinions (the majority of
which are presented in one sentence summaries) and then accepts the opin-
ion he attributes to Aristotle.54 Despite Leibniz’s compliments, Thomasius
does not give a thorough analysis of any of his topics and does not offer con-
vincing arguments for his conclusions. In this and other books, Thomasius
considers a doctrine plausible when it is both consistent with Christian
teaching and has been proposed by a great philosopher; he considers it prob-
able when it is a position of compromise or one on which a majority of
philosophers will agree. A crucial part of Thomasius’ peace-making strat-
egy is clarity of expression. He insists that the relevant historical doctrine
be accurately rendered and that the philosophical terminology be manifestly
clear. The demand for accuracy is a motif that runs throughout German
texts of the period. Like many of his contemporaries, Thomasius believed
that the intellectual and religious chaos would only be resolved when phi-
losophy acquired a high degree of clarity.
Leibniz learned important philosophical lessons from Thomasius. But
before we investigate exactly what the young man took from his teacher, it
will be helpful to document the other prominent methodological proposals

. Thomasius, Physica, Praefatio. . VI ii : L . . Thomasius, Origines, f.


   , –

that Leibniz faced. It is noteworthy that Johann Adam Scherzer (–),

one of Thomasius’ colleagues at the University of Leipzig, was much more
inclusive in his eclecticism. Although Scherzer drew from the esoteric
sources used by Renaissance syncretists, he strongly protested against “the
Mystery of the most wicked Syncretism.”55 As Professor of Philosophy,
Hebrew, and Theology, Scherzer was a leading figure at the University of
Leipzig in the early s.56 The frontispiece of one of his textbooks speaks
a thousand words about his methodological views. In an elaborate engrav-
ing at the beginning of his Vade Mecum sive Manuale Philosophicum Quadri-
partitum, we find two robed figures – one marked Aristotle, the other Plato –
who jointly hold a sphere on which a triangle is inscribed. The triangle, a
symbol of the trinity, emits rays of light that fall on a lone stag, a symbol of
the faithful Christian. In the textbook, Scherzer offers his readers a sketch
of a metaphysical system that is supposed to lead to philosophical agree-
ment, Christian faith, and religious harmony. Scherzer describes both the
crisis of his time and his proposed remedy. He bemoans the fact that there
is so much disagreement among the faithful and so many “pernicious theo-
logical controversies.” The only way out of this state of intellectual chaos
is to forge an agreement among thinkers by means of careful definitions and
proper methodology. For Scherzer, the key to reconciliation is the careful
“[d]efinitions of Things, so that we philosophize with one voice and one
mind.”57 With sources ranging from Aristotle, Aquinas, and Suárez to
Plato, Porphyry, and Augustine, he attempts to give a thorough analysis of
the basic elements of philosophy. In his eclectic concoction, Scherzer relies
most heavily on Aristotelian tenets in the areas of metaphysics and physics,
but turns to Platonist notions as soon as the discussion shifts to God and the
relation between the divine and mundane.58 For our purposes here, it is im-
portant to emphasize that, according to Scherzer, the objects of knowledge
are the attributes of God, which are like Platonic Ideas. According to

. Scherzer, Collegii Anti-Sociniani, Praefatio d (v).

. Almost no work has been done on Scherzer. For the few scholars who do mention him, he
is merely a conservative “protestant Aristotelian.” See Wundt, Die deutsche Schulmeta-
physik, f; Petersen, Geschichte der aristotelischen Philosophie im protestantischen Deutsch-
land, –; and Leinsle, Reformversuche protestantischer Metaphysik, –. Leibniz
studied with Scherzer and refers approvingly to him. See II i . According to Döring,
Leibniz acquired a copy of Scherzer’s textbook, Vade Mecum. See Döring, Der junge Leib-
niz und Leipzig, . In fact, Scherzer is generally more interested in kabbalistic and Pla-
tonist thought than in the philosophy of Aristotle. Although Leinsle notes that Scherzer
borrows ideas from Plato, he does not explore the conciliatory aspect of his philosophy.
For a summary of Scherzer’s methodological concerns, see my “Humanist Platonism in
Seventeenth-Century Germany.”
. Scherzer, Vade Mecum, Dedicatio [iv]. The frontispiece is reproduced in my “Humanist
Platonism in Seventeenth-Century Germany.”
. In chapter , I will discuss the Platonist sources of some of Leibniz’s ideas about God’s
relation to the world, and it will be more appropriate in that context to discuss some of the
details of Scherzer’s Platonism. The division of labor between Aristotelian and Platonist
philosophies is standard among seventeenth-century eclectics and, as I will document in
chapters –, was promulgated by Leibniz.


   

Scherzer, the mind of God contains the Platonic Ideas or archetypes, the
creatures of the world are instantiations of these Ideas; and the human in-
tellect is capable of acquiring knowledge of these Ideas.59 Moreover, these
Ideas form the basis for true definitions and accurate demonstrations. Ac-
cording to Scherzer, the correct method is one that orders these truths prop-
erly so that “knowledge of the whole” is acquired.60 In sum, one of the most
prominent professors in Leipzig in the early s was a well-known and
popular supporter of conciliatory eclecticism who demanded clarity in def-
initions and care in argumentation.
In the summer semester of , Leibniz went to Jena to study with
Erhard Weigel (–), Professor of Mathematics in Jena. Besides
Thomasius, Weigel was Leibniz’s most influential teacher and, unlike
Thomasius, embraced the mechanical philosophy. The degree to which
Weigel influenced the young Leibniz’s ideas about logic has been much dis-
cussed.61 In chapter  (section ), I will present some of Weigel’s specific
metaphysical proposals as part of the background to Leibniz’s early meta-
physics. What concerns me here is the methodology of Weigel’s most im-
portant book, Analysis Aristotelica ex Euclide Restituta, of . Rejecting
the sectarianism of both scholastic and contemporary philosophers, he
chooses a conciliatory approach. According to Weigel, the present unfortu-
nate state of philosophy is due to ignorance on the part of the scholastics
about the proper mathematical method. As he explains in his Dedicatio,
with the rediscovery of the thought of Euclid and the perfected mathemat-
ical method that it engendered, we now possess the key with which to enter
“the most valuable Palace of that very ancient philosophy.”62 By applying
the mathematical method to all the parts of philosophy, Weigel proposes to
remove philosophy from its present “ruins” and to construct a single co-
herent and true system. In his Preface, he explains that his ultimate goal is
“first and foremost” to present what is “true, real, and most accurately
demonstrated.” But he insists that “the most accurate way and method” to
the truth is that “of the ancient philosophers.”63 According to Weigel, “to-

. Scherzer, Vade Mecum, Part I, . . Ibid., Part I, –.
. It is noteworthy that () Thomasius and Scherzer do not condone the mechanical philos-
ophy, while Weigel does; () although scholars have not taken seriously the thought of
Thomasius and Scherzer, they have studied the philosophy of Weigel; and () the analy-
ses that have been made of Weigel’s influence on Leibniz have focused on the former’s
“modern” aspects. For those scholars who have hypothesized about the influence of Weigel
on Leibniz, see Petersen, Geschichte, –; Mahnke, Leibnizens Synthese, f; Belaval,
Initiation, ; Hannequin, “La première philosophie,” ; Fischer, Gottfried Wilhelm Leib-
niz, ; Moll, Der junge Leibniz, passim; and Leinsle, Reformversuche, –. Moll accu-
rately describes Weigel as a “Platonized Aristotelian” within “a mechanical wrapping”
(f), while Leisle recognizes Weigel’s program of “mathematical pansophy” () and of-
fers a good general summary of a part of his thought. Although it is true that Leibniz was
interested in Weigel’s mathematical and physical proposals, he was equally interested in
Weigel’s methodological proposals, which were very similar to those of his professors in
Leipzig. For a summary of Weigel’s method and a comparison of it to Scherzer’s, see my
“Humanist Platonism in Seventeenth-Century Germany.”
. Weigel, Analysis, Dedicatio (iv). . Ibid., .


   , –

day it is possible to abandon the ignorance of the former [scholastic]

philosophers” and “to complete” the work begun “by the ancients.” It is to
this end that his book “is chiefly directed.”64 Two of Weigel’s proposals are
especially relevant here. First, his conciliatory system is a complicated mix-
ture of Platonist, scholastic, and mechanical ideas placed squarely on Aris-
totelian foundations. He explains that it was Aristotle who first “laid down
the mathematical steps to human knowledge,”65 and that some of the in-
sights of the new philosophers (e.g., Descartes) are merely extensions of
Aristotelian ideas. Second, Weigel is even more insistent than were Thoma-
sius and Scherzer that clarity in both definition and argumentation is the
bedrock of the true philosophy. Weigel asserts: “Our intellect” is able to
know these truths “which are favors of the extraordinary Divine Power”;
once the intellect “knows them in a very direct way” – that is, “as they are
in themselves” – it will see that they are the beginning of all knowledge.66

. The woods revisited

Against this historical background, we are now in a position to reevaluate
Leibniz’s youthful philosophical development. The precocious young man
matriculated at the University of Leipzig in April , three months be-
fore his fifteenth birthday and two years before he wrote the Metaphysical
Disputation on the Principle of Individuation. Accordingly, the recollection
of his walk as he describes it to Remond in  places his decision within
weeks of the commencement of his university study. Leibniz was of sound
mind in . This was the year he composed the Monadology and wrote
many other letters and notes. It is unlikely that he would forget whether
something so noteworthy as the commencement of his university studies
had happened at about the same time as the Rosental decision, or three years
before. Moreover, there is at least one other text in which Leibniz describes
his meditative walk. He writes in : “for I began very young to meditate
and I was not quite fifteen years old when I wandered for whole days in a
grove to choose between Aristotle and Democritus.”67 Even on the basis of
this fairly limited evidence, it seems likely that Leibniz made his trans-
forming stroll in the spring or summer of , at least two years before he
wrote his scholastic thesis, the Metaphysical Disputation on the Principle of
Individuation.
After his peripatetic decision, Leibniz did begin to apply himself to the
mechanical philosophy. Previous commentators have attended almost ex-
clusively to the fact that by the middle of the decade Leibniz accepts a me-
chanical account of bodies and that in articulating his views about bodies
he relies more heavily on ideas out of Gassendi and Hobbes than on other
modern authors. It has been noticed that Leibniz does not settle on one ac-
count, and the assumption has been that the young man is undecided about

. Ibid., f. . Ibid., . . Ibid., –.

. G III . I thank Donald Rutherford for first bringing this text to my attention.


   

his metaphysical goals. While it is perfectly obvious that in the mid-s

Leibniz does not yet have a fully formulated metaphysics, he nonetheless
has very definite philosophical objectives. Before delineating those goals
and finally describing the full significance of the Rosental decision, it will
be helpful to identify four features of the texts of the period that offer clues
to Leibniz’s philosophical intentions.
First, Leibniz almost always combines his mechanical proposals with
ideas from a variety of other sources, especially from Aristotle. The only ex-
ception to this is a letter to Thomasius of February  in which he refers
to Hobbes and gives a Gassendian account of perception.68 We need not,
however, take this absence of Aristotelian elements as proof of Leibniz’s
whole-hearted mechanism, or of much else. The letter reads very much like
an exercise that the student prepared for his illustrious teacher. It consists,
in its twenty-six line entirety, of a solution to a paradox first proposed by
Anaxagoras about the possibility of black snow. Leibniz begins with the hy-
pothesis that color is only an idea and not a quality in things. He then uses
this hypothesis, along with some Gassendian principles, to solve the para-
dox.69 There would be reason to take this position as somehow representa-
tive if Leibniz continued to make important use of these same principles.
He does not; and there is little reason to believe that Leibniz was particu-
larly wedded to Gassendi’s views on perception, or to Gassendi’s philoso-
phy for that matter. Another reason for not generalizing from this one in-
stance is that Leibniz was soon to publish On the Combinatorial Art. Because
this work uses the Aristotelian account of cause, analyzes Aristotelian pri-
mary qualities in mechanical terms, and presents Aristotle’s notion of the
mean, there is little justification for thinking that Leibniz had given up com-
bining ancient ideas with mechanical ones.
The second significant feature of the texts of the s is that Aristotle
is the single most important source of the young man’s ideas. In his notes,
writings, and letters between  and , Leibniz refers to Aristotle
some  times compared with  references to Hobbes and  to Gassendi.
But what is more important than just numbers is the kind of references these
are. To show the certainty of a principle or the truth of an opinion, Leib-
niz often considers it sufficient simply to note that it was accepted by the
“most profound Aristotle.”70 A reference to Aristotle seems to constitute its

. Scholars have made much of this letter. Kabitz used it as evidence that by  Leibniz
had finally rejected his youthful Aristotelianism; Kabitz and many others have taken it as
proof of his commitment to Gassendi. See e.g. Capek, “Leibniz’s Thought prior to the
Year ;” Belaval, Initiation, ; Kabitz, Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz, f; Han-
nequin, “La première philosophie,” ff.
. II i –. For Gassendi’s treatment of the paradox, see Syntagma Philosophicum in Opera
omnia, I, ff. For a summary of the problem as Gassendi understood it, and for an ex-
cellent account of Gassendi’s eclectic concoction of Christian theology, Epicurean atom-
ism, and “modern” physics, see Margaret Osler, “Ancients, Moderns, and the History of
Philosophy: Gassendi’s Epicurean Project.”
. See, for instance, VI i , ; VI ii , .


   , –

own kind of rhetorical argument. The vast majority of these concern ethi-
cal and legal topics, but many pertain to issues in natural philosophy, the
area where the new mechanical physics would naturally have its strongest
influence. When Leibniz disagrees with an Aristotelian doctrine, it is often
because it clashes with Christian orthodoxy.71 The most damaging criticism
Leibniz can muster against the Philosopher during this time appears in his
letter to Thomasius of April : “For the most part Aristotle’s reasoning
about matter, form, privation, nature, place, infinity, time, and motion is
certain and demonstrated, almost the only exception being what he said
about the impossibility of a vacuum and of motion in a vacuum.”72 If Leib-
niz could not bring himself to criticize Aristotle seriously, he had no such
problem in disagreeing with philosophers like Hobbes.73 Even Leibniz’s
letter of July  to Hobbes reveals his greater regard for Aristotle. After
noting some problems that he thinks Hobbes’ conception of body may face,
he defers to Aristotle on a topic concerning body.74 Both here and in the
other  references to Aristotle, Leibniz takes the ancient to be the final
word on most topics, even those concerning physical matters.
The final two features of the texts are interestingly related. Although each
of these was mentioned in section , they take on new significance against
the historical background presented in section . Throughout the s,
Leibniz refers to a startling array of ancient, medieval, Renaissance, and
early modern thinkers. His works often include paragraph-long lists of ref-
erences to philosophical doctrines, schools, and texts from a huge variety of
contemporary and historical sources. Leibniz puts his views succinctly
when he exclaims in a letter of : “Let us shed prejudices and support
geniuses of all ages.”75 He seems to have consumed books and ideas with a
ferocious appetite, and is happy to use them whenever possible. The sheer
number of references to philosophers whose fame did not survive the cen-
tury has acted as a deterrent to a thorough study of the period. Not sur-
prisingly, twentieth-century scholars have focused on the young Leibniz’s
references to philosophical heroes like Gassendi, Descartes, Bacon, and
Hobbes. But, in fact, the majority of Leibniz’s references to contemporary
sources fall into one recognizable group: conciliatory eclectics. The young
man saves his most flattering remarks for those intellectuals who promote
conciliation, and he criticizes those contemporaries like Descartes and
Hobbes who do not.76 His works make it abundantly clear that the young
Leibniz had a keen interest in conciliatory eclectics, both past and present.
The contemporary eclectics to whom Leibniz most frequently refers in-
clude: Johann Heinrich Alsted, Johann Althusius, Johann Heinrich Bister-
feld, Jean Bodin, Johann Amos Comenius, Hugo Grotius, and Athanasius
Kircher. Alsted, Althusius, Bisterfeld, and Comenius were all educated in

. E.g., VI i . . II i : L .

. See VI i : L , VI ii : L , VI ii : L . . II i : L .
. II i . Also see VI ii –, –, ; II i , , , , ; VI i , , , .
. E.g., VI ii , , , –; II i –, , –, –.


   

the German town of Herborn, where they acquired a syncretic commitment

and a millenarian hope.77 At the center of their thought was a concern for
education and the assumption that when properly educated, everyone would
come to see the truth. For these thinkers, the truth was firmly rooted in
Christian theology and a belief in universal harmony. The other philoso-
phers in this group – Bodin, Grotius, and Kircher – were also committed
conciliatory eclectics who thought that the proper approach to the wide
diversity of religious and philosophical alternatives was to transcend the
controversies, ignore the apparent differences, and to find the common de-
nominator among the disputants. Grotius agreed with the Herborn philoso-
phers that Christianity was the religion of truth and that the first step to-
ward true wisdom for the non-Christian was conversion.78 Bodin and
Kircher appear to have been more radical: each was sympathetic to other re-
ligions and each promulgated the idea that the non-Christian faiths had
glimpsed the truth. In Kircher’s words, “all peoples have an idea of the
Principle of all things.”79 Kircher’s sympathy for other religions, however,
did not lead him too far astray: throughout his many books he remains com-
mitted to the superiority of the Roman Catholic faith. Bodin’s proposals
were much more extreme. He not only criticized the sectarianism of organ-
ized religion, he was prepared to claim that none of the extant religions had
special access to knowledge of the divine. In his fascinating dialogue, Col-
loquium Heptaplomeres, on which Leibniz took copious notes in –, he
maintains that “the causes of things are difficult [to discover] and lie hid-
den in the mysteries of nature.”80 He proposes that the truth about mun-
dane and divine matters can be attained, but that none of the diverse reli-
gions has greater claim to them. According to Bodin, whatever one’s
religion, it was possible to discover the underlying truth in God’s world and
thereby to gain a harmony both with the universe and with its maker.
Given the enormous complexity of the philosophical debate during the
second half of the seventeenth century, it should not be surprising that
Leibniz’s texts are brimming with references. Not only did Leibniz and his

. For a general introduction to the Herborn school, see Loemker, “Leibniz and the Herborn
Encyclopedists.” In “Der Begriff der Harmonie als metaphysische Grundlage der Logik
und Kombinatorik bei Johann Heinrich Bisterfeld und Leibniz,” Massimo Mugnai has ar-
gued convincingly that Bisterfeld had a significant influence on the development of the
young Leibniz’s views about logical and epistemological issues. This is surely true. But
what has not been fully explored is the influence of the other Herborn philosophers. It is
likely that Alsted had at least as much influence on the evolution of Leibniz’s thought more
generally.
. Grotius’ De Veritate Religionis Christianae of  was very influential. Leibniz cites
Grotius’ writings throughout the s. See VI ii  for the whole list of citations.
. Kircher, Turris Babel, ; see also Oedipus Aegyptiacus, vol. II, . Kircher is especially
sympathetic to other faiths in the latter three-volume work, but he nonetheless believes in
the superiority of the Christian (for him, Roman Catholic) faith. For a recent scholarly
treatment of Kircher, see Thomas Leinkauf, Mundus Combinatus: Studien zur Struktur
der barocken Universalwissenschaft am Beispiel Athanasius Kirchers SF (–).
. Jean Bodin, Colloquium Heptaplomeres de Abditis Rerum Sublimium .


   , –

contemporaries inherit both Renaissance humanism and the variety of philo-

sophical sources promulgated by the humanists, they also had to contend with
the new natural science and the new religious controversies. There had
evolved a startling number of philosophical options, each with its ardent fol-
lowers, and a wide array of religious zealots who argued passionately against
one another. It was common for philosophers of the period to complain, as
did Scherzer: “there are as many definitions as definers . . . , as many philoso-
phies as philosophers.”81 In the face of such intellectual chaos, it is not sur-
prising that conciliatory eclecticism was the favorite methodological choice of
many. As much as these conciliatory eclectics differed in the details of their
proposals, their basic assumptions are strikingly similar: each is committed
both to the goal of intellectual harmony among the philosophical and reli-
gious sects and to the idea that the harmony evident in God’s world guaran-
tees intellectual concord. In Bodin’s words, “just as the different natures of
singular things combine for the harmony of the universe,” so can “the indi-
vidual citizens” combine “for the harmony of all peoples.”82
The final point to emphasize about Leibniz’s philosophical interests dur-
ing the period is the pivotal role that Jakob Thomasius played in their for-
mation. Not only was Leibniz greatly impressed by his illustrious teacher
from the beginning of his university studies, he articulated some of his most
important metaphysical and methodological ideas in their correspondence.
In a fascinating passage written in the s, Leibniz describes a crucial
phase in his early development and offers what is almost certainly his first
autobiographical sketch:
As soon as I arrived at the Academy, by a rare fortune I met, as a Master, the well-
known J. Thomasius who, although he did not accept my doubts and was very little dis-
posed to let me do such a reform of the substantial, incorporeal forms of bodies, engaged
me very strongly to read Aristotle, announcing to me that, when I would have read
this great philosopher, I would have a wholly different opinion than that offered by
his scholastic interpreters. I soon acknowledged the wisdom of this advice and saw
that between Aristotle and the scholastics, there was the same difference as between
a great man versed in the affairs of state and a monk dreaming in his cell. I there-
fore took of Aristotle’s philosophy another idea than the common one. . . . Aristotle
seemed to me to admit, more or less like Democritus or, in my time, like Descartes
and Gassendi, that there is no body which can be moved by itself.83

. Scherzer, Vade Mecum, Dedicatio [iii–iv].

. Colloquium Heptaplomeres, . Bodin’s work was not published during his lifetime, and
Leibniz, like many scholars, read it in manuscript form. For a general account of Bodin’s
views, see the introduction to the Colloquium of the Seven about the Secrets of the Sublime
by M.L.D. Kuntz. Leibniz refers to the Colloquium and other works by Bodin throughout
his youth (see VI i , ; II i , , ). While it is clear that Leibniz was impressed
with Bodin’s erudition, he was also frightened by his religious syncretism. In the letter of
April  to Thomasius, he says that Bodin’s dialogue is anti-Christian and should not
be published (II i ).
. Foucher de Careil, Mémoire sur la philosophie de Leibniz, f; my emphasis. This passage is
found among the notes that Foucher de Careil collected, published, and subsequently lost.
According to Foucher de Careil, the passage cited here was written during the s ().


   

Leibniz could not be clearer: soon after arriving at the university, he was
concerned to reform the scholastic notion of substantial form (he may also
have had other doubts about the Aristotelianism that he gleaned from his
early education); under the advice of Thomasius, he began a more serious
study of Aristotle than he had previously made, with the result that he went
beyond the teaching of his master and decided that Aristotelian metaphysics
could be reconciled with mechanism. It was under Thomasius’ tutelage that
Leibniz produced the Metaphysical Disputation on the Principle of Individ-
uation. The preface that the master wrote for the piece nicely represents his
approach to such topics: he presents a short history of the problem, gives a
brief summary of the standard solutions, and then sides with one of them.84
Thomasius’ conclusion is interesting: he rejects Scotus’ haecceitas in favor
of the nominalist position of Suárez. Leibniz’s dissertation shows the in-
fluence of his mentor in two important ways: it displays an impressive mas-
tery of scholastic philosophy, especially of those schoolmen whom Thoma-
sius deemed most valuable, and it accepts the nominalist solution of the
master himself.85 Leibniz’s Disputation is exactly the kind of work an ad-
miring student would produce for his illustrious adviser.
That Leibniz learned the conciliatory and humanist lessons of his teacher
is clear. In a fascinating note written in –, under a pseudonym that
announces his peaceful intentions (Wilhelmus Pacidius), Leibniz offers an-
other autobiographical statement. Speaking of himself in the third person,
he explains: “He first fell upon the Ancients, in whom at the beginning he
understood nothing, and then something, and at last as much as was
needed . . . ; he gained a sense not only of their language but of their
thoughts.” Unlike many of the modern humanists whose works are collec-
tions of “swollen words” and “borrowed opinions,” the thoughts of the an-
cients “stood out strong and commanding,” and “encompassed all of hu-
man life; their diction was clear, natural, fluid, and fitting to things.” Their
works made such an impression on the young man that “from that time for-
ward he committed himself to two principles: always to seek for clearness
in words . . . and usefulness in things.”86 There is no direct evidence as to

. VI i –.
. Like many humanists before him, Thomasius distinguished between the good scholastics
and the bad. See, e.g., Dissertationes, esp. “Adversus philosophos novantiquos;” Origines,
–. Leibniz’s Disputation was a first-class piece of work. Kabitz describes it as a “vir-
tuoso piece of scholastic philosophy” (), and Wundt maintains that its survey of scholas-
tic literature is well done, even for the time, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik (). For the
most complete account of Leibniz’s work, see Laurence B. McCollough, Leibniz on Indi-
viduals and Individuation, chs. –.
. VI ii . The remainder of this passage is interesting: Leibniz compares the ancients (Vet-
eres) to his contemporaries (recentiores), about whom he felt “disgust.” The picture he
paints is rather different from that found in the later accounts of his development or even
in the letter to Arnauld of  (II i –) which we will discuss in chs.  and . The
lesson here is important: we should not take any one of the various accounts he gives of
his philosophical development too seriously. When describing his intellectual history, as
he does in the letters to Remond and in A New System of Nature of , Leibniz often


   , –

the identity of these ancient thinkers, but on the basis of Leibniz’s refer-
ences and Thomasius’ texts, we can infer that Leibniz learned as much as
he could from his “brilliant” teacher about Aristotle, the “better” Aris-
totelians, Plato, and the Platonists.
These four features of Leibniz’s early works make one thing immediately
clear: Leibniz was not just a hard-working mechanist in the s. To iso-
late his reflections on the mechanical philosophy is to ignore what is most
important about the period. At the same time that Leibniz was studying the
mechanical philosophy, he was also applying himself both to ancient and
conciliatory philosophy. The fact that he could make his Rosental decision
in , write his Metaphysical Disputation on the Principle of Individuation
two years after that, and compose both the Thomasius letter of February
 (in which he discussed the possibility of black snow in Gassendian
terms) and the New Method for the Learning and Teaching of Jurisprudence
(in which he makes use of Baconian and Aristotelian doctrines) a year later
tells us a great deal about the complexity and variety of Leibniz’s interests
during this time.87
While Leibniz’s Rosental decision does constitute a major turning point
in the young man’s development, it should not be characterized as a con-
version from Aristotelianism to modernism. Although he rejected scholas-
tic physics, he did not reject Aristotelianism. When Leibniz emerged from
the Rosental woods, he had set himself a course on which he would remain
throughout his youth: to construct a comprehensive and true metaphysics
that would somehow be built out of the ultimate principles discovered be-
neath the various sects and within a generally Aristotelian framework. The
reason his works are brimming with such a variety of references and his
views on the nature of corporeality, for example, are constantly being re-
combined and reconsidered is that he was casting about for the key to his
conciliation. As a careful conciliatory eclectic, he must search through the
dominant philosophical options and attempt to find what is worthwhile in
each; as a philosopher interested in combining the mechanical physics with
Aristotelian metaphysics, he must discover the common denominator
among the mechanical options in an attempt to achieve the proper mix.
It is not surprising that the works of the early s are replete with a vast
variety of opinions. There are two especially striking examples of Leibniz’s
eclectic tendencies. In /, Leibniz took detailed notes on Daniel
Stahl’s Compendium Metaphysicae. Stahl (–) had been a well-re-
spected professor in Jena whose writings reveal philosophical acumen of a
sort often not found in the textbooks of the period.88 Leibniz’s notes on

paints in broad strokes. The point of these stories is not so much to present the actual steps
in his intellectual autobiography as to give his reasons for accepting some philosophical
doctrines and to engage his readers. It is a mistake, then, to base one’s history of Leibniz’s
philosophical development entirely on one or two accounts.
. In the preface of the latter work, he refers to Plato, Socrates, Galileo, William Harvey,
Descartes, Campanella, and a long list of lesser figures. See VI i f.
. For a brief discussion of Stahl, see Wundt, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des . Jahrhun-


   

Stahl’s text reflect the young man’s propensity to collect rather than reject
and indicate his indebtedness to Thomasius.89 Although Stahl’s book is a
commentary on Aristotle’s metaphysics, Leibniz brings an impressive array
of authors and doctrines to the text. He refers to Aquinas, Hobbes, and
Honoré Fabri regarding Stahl’s discussion of ens and essentia, and mentions
Hobbes in connection with the author’s account of words. The young Leib-
niz obviously has opinions about Aristotle’s views, and is prepared to criti-
cize both the completeness and the accuracy of Stahl’s account.90 He also
shows a real interest in Stahl’s discussion of the nature and use of meta-
physics.91 What is particularly revealing about Leibniz’s comments is his
propensity to compare ideas from a wide variety of sources.
Another important example of the young man’s early eclectic goal is the
Specimen of Collected Philosophical Questions Concerning Law of . As
the title suggests, Leibniz argues that students of jurisprudence cannot ig-
nore metaphysics because in order to answer questions fundamental to law
one must be acquainted with both divine and human matters. In the fash-
ion of Thomasius, the young man gives a brief history lesson about ju-
risprudence, noting that some philosophers have taken it to be a purely prac-
tical discipline, while others want to place it within the purview of theology.
Leibniz proposes a middle way.92 He then proceeds to discuss some of the
great philosophical “mysteries” that are relevant to issues in jurisprudence.
The seventeen questions discussed range from whether future contingen-
cies are true or false93 and whether the notions of justice and injustice ap-
ply to animals,94 to what constitutes the principle of identity.95 In his dis-
cussions, Leibniz collects ideas from the ancients (e.g., Protagoras, Plato,
Galen), the late scholastics (e.g., Soto, Sanchez, Zabarella), Renaissance
thinkers (e.g., Giovanni Pico), early modern conciliatory eclectics (e.g.,
Kircher, Alsted, Weigel, and epecially Grotius), and moderns (e.g., Hobbes,
Gassendi). Leibniz is especially happy to agree with the views of Aristo-
tle,96 but like Thomasius, he is prepared to criticize the ancient for his un-
christian tenets.97 Most often, Leibniz constructs his answers from the
views of as many reputable sources as possible and, through his example,
encourages the reader to seek a harmony beneath the intellectual discord
and build a firm metaphysical foundation for the study of jurisprudence.
Nor is the Specimen Leibniz’s only attempt during the period to speak
about questions of education. Following in the footsteps of the Herborn
philosophers noted in section , Leibniz proposes to reorganize the learn-
ing and teaching of jurisprudence. In his New Method for the Learning and
Teaching of Jurisprudence of , he develops a psychology and philoso-
phy of education that includes an analysis of the philosophical basis for law.
In this lengthy work, he refers to Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Hobbes, Bister-

derts, – and Leinsle, Reformversuche, –. Stahl’s Compendium Metaphysicae in

XXIV Tabellas redactum displays his scholarly Aristotelianism.
. VI i –. . See, e.g., VI i . . VI i f. . VI i f.
. VI i . . VI i . . VI i f. . E.g., VI i . . VI i .


   , –

feld, Alsted, Comenius, Grotius, Scherzer, Thomasius, and Weigel in an at-

tempt to contruct a “harmony” in educational theory.98 Echoing the claims
of some of his contemporary eclectics, Leibniz suggests that “true justice”
and intellectual harmony are merely parts of the “elegance and harmony of
the world.”99 Other works from the period, like the On the Combinatorial
Art of 100 and the notes on a text by Thomas White of ,101 also re-
veal his concern to find a common core within differing proposals and to
combine ideas from myriad sources into a coherent mixture.
The tendency to collect and to compromise continues through the end of
the decade and beyond. In his On transubstantiation of , Leibniz com-
pares his own account of substantial form with that of Zabarella, Averroës,
and others, and contends that his notion of God is like that of Plato.102 In
his On prime matter of –, he puts forward a theory of matter that he
says is consistent with the views of Aristotle, Descartes, and Hobbes.103
The key to understanding Leibniz’s thought in the s (and much of
what he did later) is to recognize that he practised a form of conciliatory
eclecticism. In , when Leibniz rejected the substantial forms in favor
of mechanism, he was doing no more than opting for the better of two ex-
planatory models in natural philosophy. He was by no means rejecting the
whole of the Aristotelian philosophy. He did go on to study the mechanical
philosophy, but he gave serious thought to other philosophical traditions as
well. That his early works are brimming with borrowings from a wide range
of sources, that most of his favorite authors are conciliatory eclectics, that
Aristotle is his favorite source of ideas in general, and that he seeks to forge
a compromise among the different schools should come as no surprise
against the historical context set in section : the young Leibniz had learned
the lessons of past and present conciliatory eclectics well.
Before I turn to the details of Leibniz’s methodology, it will be helpful to
consider the proposals of a conciliatory eclectic whose views bear a striking
resemblance to Leibniz’s own. Johann Christoph Sturm’s (–)
Philosophia Eclectica of  wonderfully represents what happens to the
conciliatory methodology when it is charged with the task of assimilating
the new natural philosophy. Like his conciliatory colleagues, Scherzer and
Thomasius, Sturm bemoans the sectarianism of his time.104 According to

. VI i –. . VI i . . VI i –. . VI i –.

. VI i . . VI ii –.
. Sturm, Philosophia Eclectica, esp. –, –. Sturm’s works were widely read. Leib-
niz refers to him (e.g., I i ) and his works (e.g., VI i , G IV , ) throughout his
life, but he does not specifically refer to Philosophia Eclectica. Because the latter was writ-
ten in the s, it could not have had any direct influence on Leibniz’s youthful devel-
opment. Its significance for us lies in the fact that Sturm’s proposals bear a striking re-
semblance to those of the young Leibniz, are based on the same sources (e.g., Weigel,
Thomasius, Digby, Kircher, Comenius, and De Raey), and thereby suggest the perva-
siveness of such ideas in Germany in the mid-seventeenth century. In a forthcoming proj-
ect, entitled ‘Divine Madness’: Metaphysics, Method, and Mind in Seventeenth-Century
Germany, I examine this unexplored part of seventeenth-century philosophy.


   

Sturm, his period has reached a dangerous state of “envy and malice” be-
cause his contemporaries have been both arrogant in their own views and
ignorant in their opinions of others. The Cartesians, who loudly proclaim
that only they possess the way to truth, are especially guilty.105 Sturm in-
tends “to pounce upon those who are hostile to one another” – whether to
the ancients, moderns, or skeptics – and to prove to such dogmatists that as
long as they “do not open their eyes” to what is valuable in the other sys-
tems, they will remain “cut off” from the truth.106 In the same way that a
person “who wants to comprehend the globe cannot focus only on one part,”
so a person who “wants to acquire real knowledge cannot be attached to one
authority.” According to Sturm, the only means to “true wisdom” is to open
ourselves to all sources and all methods.107
Sturm promises to show his readers how “to break through the fortress
of the concealed truth” so as to discover the “secret workings of Nature.”
To this end, he demands only that they put aside the authority of any one
thinker and take up the proper conciliatory method. This eclecticism does
not propose “to collect ideas indiscriminately,” but rather requires that its
practioners “avoid blindness, . . . seek a variety of opinions,” be willing to
use “any method,” and “extend” their minds “to the whole of Nature and
Reason” so as “to recognize the truth and to distinguish it from the un-
truth.”108 But how are we to know which philosophies are worth serious
study? Sturm explains that when intellectuals all over Europe recommend
a philosophy, it must be taken seriously: everyone is thereby obligated to get
to the “heart” of it.109 In his opinion, the most important authoritative lead-
ers are Descartes, Gassendi, Plato, and Aristotle, but he also maintains that
if we want to understand “the phenomena of Nature,” we must learn from
“other great Men,” like Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, William Harvey, Jo-
hannes De Raey, and Erhard Weigel.110 He applauds the advances of these
modern thinkers and their new discoveries (e.g., the circulation of the
blood), but insists that their contributions depend crucially on the work of
the ancients and especially of Aristotle.111 Although many of his contem-
poraries “have been taught” that Cartesianism “differs fundamentally from
the Peripatetic philosophy” and that it “can be demonstrated” in a way the
ancient system cannot, these are falsehoods promulgated by the “dictatorial
Cartesian philosophy.” If his fellow Cartesians will but “open their eyes”
and remove themselves from “this danger,” it will become clear that no sin-
gle philosopher is sufficient when it comes to understanding “the whole
wonderful immensity of Nature.” Rather, the “strength and power” of each
must be combined into a coherent system.112 The ancient wisdom must be
combined with the new philosophy and its new discoveries and the various

. Sturm, Philosophia Eclectica, –. . Ibid., –. . Ibid., –.
. Ibid., –. . Ibid., f.
. Ibid., esp. –, –. De Raey is a reformed philosopher who will be discussed in
chapter , sect. .
. Ibid., –. . Ibid., f.


   , –

philosophical sects combined into the “one true system.”113 Only the
proper eclectic philosophy can discover the truth among “the many and di-
verse” sources and then demonstrate “the one true and genuine philosoph-
ical foundation.”114 He also recommends that his contemporaries put aside
their “adversarial style” and take up a more modest means of presenting
their ideas.115
With his eclectic method clearly articulated, Sturm attempts to use it in
the remainder of his book. He proposes that many of the basic elements of
the Cartesian and Aristotelian systems are fundamentally similar, and he ex-
plains that this has not been obvious due to the bad translations and inade-
quate interpretations of the ancient texts.116 He argues, for example, that
Aristotle’s conception of matter, when properly understood, can be seen to
be the same as Descartes’.117 The point to emphasize is that Sturm, like
many other philosophers of his generation, is prepared to extend his eclec-
tic net to the new natural philosophies, to forge a synthesis of the ancient
and modern systems, and to assume that the use of a modest mode of ar-
gumentation will facilitate intellectual concord. I will now argue that Leib-
niz practised what Sturm preached.

. Leibniz’s two-part method

Leibniz was profoundly influenced by the methodological pronouncements
of Thomasius and as a young man embraced conciliatory eclecticism. Al-
though he disagreed with his teacher on important details, he never wavered
from a commitment to Thomasius’ most basic proposals. At the most gen-
eral level, Leibniz intended to forge a true metaphysics out of the materials
of the great philosophical systems and to nudge wayward souls to that one
unifying truth. To understand Leibniz’s thought, it is necessary to grasp
both the philosophical method that he used to obtain the truth and the
rhetorical means he used to present it.118
Concerning the construction of the true philosophy, Leibniz agreed with
Thomasius on many points. Like Thomasius, Leibniz demanded the care-
ful distinction between heretical and non-heretical tenets in any philosophy.
In this sense, he was a discriminating eclectic: he was prepared to accept for
his eclectic mixture only those philosophical ingredients that, in his opin-
ion, were strictly orthodox. Like his teacher, the young man was firmly com-
mitted to the wisdom of the ancients: the richness and profundity of their
thought amply justified the use of their philosophies. In this sense, Leibniz

. Ibid., . . Ibid., –. . Ibid., . . Ibid., f.
. Ibid., –. Sturm’s proposals closely follow those of Johannes de Raey, whose views
are discussed in ch. , sect. .
. There have been several recent studies of Leibniz’s method and his relation to the sci-
ence of his contemporaries. Some of these are very helpful, but none identifies the
crucial place that conciliatory eclecticism has in his early thought. See esp. François
Duchesneau, Leibniz et la méthode de la science; and Kurt Nowak and Hans Poser, Wis-
senschaft und Weltgestaltung, in which there are several articles on Leibniz’s early period.


   

was conservative: he thought more highly of past authors than present ones,
and never relied too heavily on any philosopher who could be considered ei-
ther modern or radical. While enormously impressed by Hobbes, Descartes,
Gassendi, and other moderns, he always “corrects” them with the help of
some ancient author. Finally, like his teacher, Leibniz’s favorite author was
Aristotle, except when it came to the details of his conception of the rela-
tion between God and creatures. On this topic, Leibniz was a Platonist, as
we will see in chapters  and .
In his methodological intentions, Leibniz differed from his mentor in two
ways. First, he was more optimistic in his conciliatory goals. He assumed
that regardless of historical period and religious commitment, people could
grasp the most fundamental (divine) truths. Although he fully agreed with
Thomasius that the underlying truths were consistent with Lutheranism,
he was more confident than his predecessor about the possibility that non-
Lutheran (and even the non-Christian) thinkers might attain knowledge of
those truths. In this ecumenical optimism, Leibniz had more in common
with German philosophers like Johann Heinrich Alsted and Athanasius
Kircher than Thomasius. Chapter  contains ample evidence of Leibniz’s
early conciliatory goals where his intention is to forge a harmony between
the Protestants and Catholics.
Nor did Leibniz’s ecumenical optimism decrease over the years. A strik-
ing example of his more inclusive conciliatory tendencies is the fascination
with Chinese thought he developed in the last two decades of his life.119 He
wrote a number of letters on topics related to Chinese philosophy, religion,
and mathematics, and he composed essays in which he argued that the an-
cient Chinese had grasped important (Christian) truths. In a fascinating and
important work, composed in – and entitled Discourse on the natural
theology of the Chinese, he congratulates “the ancient sages of China” for
their “quite excellent” philosophy, which “is pure Christianity, insofar as it
renews the natural law inscribed in our hearts – except for what revelation
and grace add to it to improve our nature.”120 In a letter of  to Joachim
Bouvet, one of the Jesuit missionaries in China, Leibniz makes evident the
scope of his ecumenical ambitions:

. For the importance of Chinese culture in seventeenth-century thought more generally,
see D.E. Mungello, “European Philosophical Responses to Non-European Culture:
China.”
. Daniel Cook and Henry Rosemont have done a great service in collecting, editing, and
translating Leibniz’s most important texts on Chinese topics. The Introduction to their
collection is an excellent account of some of the important philosophical issues sur-
rounding what I have been calling Leibniz’s conciliatory eclecticism. See their Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz: Writings on China, –. The quotation here is from the Discourse on
the natural theology of the Chinese, sects. –: Cook and Rosemont, –. There is no
standard edition of this text, which was originally written for Nicolas Remond in French
at the end of Leibniz’s life (–) and which has been given a number of different ti-
tles. For a brief history of the manuscript and citations to other editions, see Cook and
Rosemont, –.


   , –
What you tell me of the traces of the true revealed religion among the ancient Chi-
nese, which are to be found in their . . . classical books, seems to be considerable. I
have always been inclined to believe that the ancient Chinese, like the ancient Arabs
(witness the book of Job), and perhaps the ancient Celts (that is to say the Germans
and Gauls) were far from idolatry, and were rather worshippers of the sovereign
principle.121
Daniel Cook and Henry Rosemont have precisely identified the assump-
tions that motivate Leibniz’s expansive ecumenism. Concerning his work
on Chinese thought, they explain:
He wished to reconcile Catholics and Protestants, and to halt the internecine strife
plaguing the European states of his day. He believed that China could assist in
achieving this goal, his writings displaying the following pattern of reasoning: my
philosophy is fully compatible with those elements of Christian theology on which
there is a large measure of agreement between Catholics and Protestants; my phi-
losophy is fully compatible with (early) basic beliefs of the Chinese; therefore Chi-
nese basic beliefs are fully compatible with those basic beliefs shared by Catholics
and Protestants, and therefore in turn those Christian doctrines in dispute between
Catholics and Protestants should be seen as relatively unimportant in the larger
scheme of things, and can be abjudicated to the satisfaction of all on the basis of rea-
son – with a resultant international peace and harmony among and between all the
world’s peoples.122
There can be little doubt that at the end of his long life, Leibniz took him-
self to have grasped the truth on the basis of which universal peace could
be made. What I argue here is that his early desire to do this helps to explain
the steps that he took in his philosophical development.
But Leibniz was not a “wicked” syncretist, collecting ideas willy-nilly.123
Like Thomasius, he was keen to identify and reject heretical doctrines.
While he intended his philosophy to appeal to all, he firmly believed that
unorthodox positions were neither true nor ultimately attractive. He
therefore carefully selected only the soundest of materials from the great
philosophical systems. Once these were identified, he committed him-
self wholeheartedly to them, happily ignoring the rest. Leibniz’s selection
process is evident in his attitude toward the ancients: he embraces what he

. Quoted in Walker, The Ancient Theology, . The story of the Jesuit missionaries in
China is a fascinating one that I cannot summarize here. Suffice it to say that although
many of Leibniz’s contemporaries were outraged by claims made by Bouvet and others
about the similarity between Chinese beliefs and Christianity, Leibniz took their accounts
of Chinese thought as significant evidence of the profound wisdom of the ancient Chi-
nese. For more of the story about the Jesuits and about Leibniz’s reactions, see Walker,
The Ancient Theology, ch. ; Cook, “Understanding the ‘Other’ Leibniz;” and esp. Cook
and Rosemont: Writings on China, Introduction. For Leibniz’s correspondence on Chi-
nese topics, see Rita Widmaier, Leibniz Korrespondiert mit China.
. Cook and Rosemont, Writings on China, .
. For this colorful language, see Scherzer, Collegii Anti-Sociniani, Praefatio d (v). At the
same time that Leibniz was committing himself to the wisdom of the ancient Chinese,
he was explicitly rejecting the historiography of the ancient theology. See Dutens II f:
L f.


   

considers the orthodox parts and ignores the remainder. For example, he
accepts the wisdom of Aristotle on matters concerning substance, and the
truth of the Platonists on matters concerning the relation between God and
creatures. As he writes in , “to philosophize correctly, Plato must be
combined usefully with Aristotle and Democritus, though a number of the
principal doctrines must be stricken from each of them.”124 In chapters
–, I discuss Leibniz’s Aristotelianism and show that his conception of
substance is based on his interpretation of that philosophy. In chapters –,
I delineate his Platonism and show that core features of his Metaphysics
of Divinity developed out of that tradition. As we will see, Leibniz seems
never to have doubted that these two systems contained major portions of
the truth.
Leibniz also differed from Thomasius in his attitude toward the new me-
chanical philosophy. Although Thomasius was prepared to endorse a num-
ber of modern ideas, he was not impressed with the physical proposals of
the mechanical philosophers.125 The young Leibniz was like his mentor in
that he intended to construct a true metaphysics that would solve philo-
sophical problems about God, nature, being, and knowledge while remain-
ing consistent with Christian doctrine, the claims of revealed faith, and the
phenomena of nature. But Leibniz was unlike his teacher in that he em-
braced the new explanatory model in physics. Like Weigel and Sturm, Leib-
niz extended the scope of his eclecticism to the mechanical philosophy and
to the new experimental findings.126 It is well known that Leibniz himself
contributed significantly to seventeenth-century physics. The metaphor of
construction is appropriate here in that the metaphysics would mostly be
made out of preexisting elements. One of the overlooked aspects of Leib-

. Dutens II : L .

. An important point lurks here about the history of science and philosophy. As recent his-
torians of science are right to point out, the natural philosophers who have become our
intellectual heroes and whom we now call ‘modern’ occupied a relatively small area on
the seventeenth-century intellectual landscape. Thomasius and many other smart seven-
teenth-century thinkers rejected the mechanical philosophy and yet endorsed other
‘modern’ thinkers whom they considered innovative. The term ‘modern’ was generally
used to set philosophers apart from ancient authors, and there were lots of ways of being
modern. Several of the articles in Tom Sorell’s The Rise of Modern Philosophy discuss
this point. For German philosophers of roughly Thomasius’ generation, the new gener-
ation of philosophers seemed both ignorant and vain. As the German philosopher Her-
mann Conring complained to Leibniz about their contemporaries, the “new philoso-
phers” are “greedy for novelties” and imprisoned by “stupid haughtiness,” while others
“embrace old things alone” and “remain uninterested in recent discoveries.” Conring
proposes a “middle way” between “the old and the new” (II i f). For a provocative ar-
gument against the traditional account of early modern science and for citations to other
literature, see Steven Shapin’s The Scientific Revolution.
. Throughout his life, Leibniz applauds “the new experiments” of his contemporaries (e.g.
II i , –, , ; VI iv ); moreover it seems clear that he took seriously obser-
vations made possible by the microscope and that he molded some of the details of his
metaphysics to fit them. On this latter point, see Catherine Wilson, The Invisible World:
Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope, esp. –, –; and
Justin Smith, Leibniz, Microscopy, and the Metaphysics of Composite Substance, passim.


   , –

niz’s brilliance is his success in building such an original and sublime philo-
sophical edifice out of recycled materials.
I suggested earlier that there were two aspects to Leibniz’s conciliatory
method: his means to the truth and his presentation of it. Before turning to
the latter, let’s summarize the former.
The Metaphysics of Method assumes that the true metaphysics will be constructed
from the underlying truths in the great philosophical systems, will be consistent with
Christian doctrine and the claims of revelation, and will explain the phenomena (in-
cluding the new experimental findings).
Concerning the presentation of the truth, Leibniz agreed with Thoma-
sius that the goal was to produce intellectual peace. Like his teacher and
many other conciliatory eclectics, the young man assumed that the truth
would have a harmonizing influence. But Leibniz went far beyond his men-
tor in his rhetorical subtlety. He was not satisfied to assert a plausible
position and then hope for agreement. Nor was he content merely to preach
non-sectarianism. Leibniz intended to lead his contemporaries to his philo-
sophical insights by more subtle means. In an important letter to Thoma-
sius of , he calls for “a style and method for this new age” and warns
against the modern indulgence in intellectual pride.127 Throughout his life,
Leibniz believed that it was vanity and not truth that motivated those
philosophers who proclaimed the correctness of their “new” philosophies.
For example, in an essay of , he complains about “the ambition of the
new sects [novae sectae]”128 and, in the Specimen of Dynamics of , he
proclaims that we must curb “the passion of the sects, which is stimulated
by the vain lust for novelty.”129 Leibniz intended to control his own passion
and pride, and thereby to increase the chances of effecting intellectual peace
among his contemporaries.
One of the most striking examples of Leibniz’s two-part method occurs
in a letter to Hermann Conring (–), who was a well-respected Aris-
totelian in Helmstedt and who had both warned Leibniz about the dangers
of the new philosophy and begged him to reconsider the scholastics. Leib-
niz’s description of the Aristotelian philosophy and his relation to it is note-
worthy. Concerning the scholastics, he explains to Conring in March :
“I believe many excellent metaphysical demonstrations are to be found in
them which deserve to be purged of their barbarisms and confusion. . . .
when I began to study philosophy at the universities, I read them, more im-
moderately and eagerly than my teachers approved. They feared, indeed,
that I should cling too tightly to these rocks. . . . And I have never since re-
gretted having sampled these studies.”130 In fact, Leibniz tells Conring,
there is much of value in Aristotle’s texts, although a contemporary philoso-
pher cannot endorse the entirety of the ancient system. Leibniz proclaims:

. II i : L . . VI iv . . GM VI : L .

. II i : L . Compare this account of his intellectual development to those passages
quoted in sect.  and cited in notes  and .


   
I have always admired Aristotle’s Organon, Rhetoric, and Politics. I understand that
his zoology is esteemed by the experts and I think that there are many things which
we ought not to spurn in his eight books on physics, as well as in his books on the
soul and on metaphysics. But I cannot value his works on the heavens and on gen-
eration and corruption highly, and I do not believe that you disagree.131
Having carefully delineated his relation to the Aristotelian philosophy and
proven himself to be properly educated, Leibniz goes on to defend the me-
chanical philosophers against Conring’s attacks. His strategy is fascinating.
Not only does he note the advances that the new physics has made, he also
claims that the modern authors are themselves properly rooted in ancient
thought:
You need not wonder that Descartes should have so many disciples all at once. For
except for Galileo, you will find no one in our century who can be compared with
him, whether in genius for discovering the causes of things, in judgment in ex-
plaining the senses of the mind lucidly. . . . To these things was added the fame of
his profound mathematical knowledge. . . . For the rest, neither Galileo, Descartes,
nor Gassendi was ignorant of Aristotle’s doctrines. Gassendi had certainly read the
ancients more carefully than did many Aristotelians.132
In fact, according to Leibniz, one of the reasons that so many of their con-
temporaries have been “disgusted with the scholastic program of studies”
is that “the so-called Aristotelians” have been so “ignorant of Aristotle’s
teachings.” About Descartes in particular, Leibniz explains: “It is certain,
however, that most of his metaphysics is already found, partly in Plato and
Aristotle and partly in the scholastics.”133
After so describing the mechanical philosophers, Leibniz goes on to de-
fend his version of their philosophy against Conring’s criticisms. First, he
wonders: “Who would deny substantial forms, that is, essential differences
between bodies?” However, “[t]hat the whole of the new philosophy is soon
to be rejected by a learned posterity, as you say, is very unlikely.”134 Leib-
niz’s argument for the mechanical philosophy reveals a great deal about his
rhetorical subtlety and conciliatory position. He insists:
everything happens mechanically in nature, that is, according to certain Mathematical
laws, prescribed by God. I recognize nothing in the world but bodies and minds, nor
anything in bodies insofar as they are separated from mind but magnitude, figure,
situations, and changes in these. Suppose that some angel wishes to explain the na-
ture of color to me distinctly. He will accomplish nothing by chattering about forms
and faculties. But if he shows that a certain rectilinear pressure is exerted at every
sensible point and is propagated in a circuit . . . , and then teaches me exactly the
cause and the mode of this pressure, and deduces the laws of reflection and refrac-
tion from it, thus explaining everything in such a way that it is clear that it could not
even happen otherwise, then at last he will have increased my knowledge, since he
has treated physics mathematically. . . . I should like you to think of this one thing:
that unless physical things can be explained by mechanical laws, God cannot, even

. II i : L –. . II i –: L . . II i : L .

. II i : L .


   , –
if he chooses, reveal and explain nature to us. For what would he say, I ask you, about
vision and light.
Leibniz goes on to note that even if we were to present a scholastic-style
explanation of light in terms of potentiality, it would not “make us any
wiser.”135
Thus, in his letter to Conring, Leibniz presents a powerful argument for
his conciliatory eclecticism: in order to arrive at the truths about nature and
God, we must combine the best of the modern physics with the best of the
ancient metaphysics. But he also offers a wonderful example of his rhetor-
ical strategy: he praises both extremes of the philosophical options (here,
the scholastics and the moderns), points to problems with each, and drops
clues about his conciliatory position. In an unusually frank moment, Leib-
niz explains to Conring:
I am concerned, as are all who wish to hold a middle ground, not to seem too much
inclined toward either of the two opposed adversaries. Whenever I discuss matters
with the Cartesians, certainly, I extol Aristotle where he deserves it and undertake a
defense of the ancient philosophy, because I see that many Cartesians read their one
master only, . . . and thus unwisely impose limits on their own ability. . . . I think
that the two philosophies should be combined and that where the old leaves off, the
new should begin.136
That Leibniz was more sophisticated in his rhetorical strategy than
Thomasius and many of his conciliatory contemporaries is clear. In order
to grasp the full significance of many of Leibniz’s writings, it is important
to recognize that he intended to nudge and not push people in the direction
of the truth. Some of his most fundamental assumptions have not been rec-
ognized because he consciously hid them beneath the surface of the text. To
be precise, I propose that at least some of the obscurity of Leibniz’s texts
is due to the fact that he practised a kind of philosophical therapy whose
goal was to disengage the members of a philosophical sect from blind com-
mitment to their school and to call their attention to the interconnections
between their own true beliefs and those of other sects. In an essay of
– he writes: “The power of persuasion consists sometimes in ex-
hibiting reasons, sometimes in moving the affections; but at the heart of all
these [means of persuasion] is of course the art of obtaining attention.”137
Along similar lines, he explains in – that one of his theological
demonstrations “has a three-fold use – to confirm those who think rightly,
to attract the rest, and to prove philosophy to be a useful and necessary be-
ginning for theology.”138 The success of the true conciliatory philosophy to
promote the desired peace would depend entirely on its ability to attract
wayward students in a way that would lead them to see the interconnections
among the doctrines of their school and those of others. As Leibniz puts it
to Conring, he extols the philosophical virtues of Aristotle to the Cartesians

. II i –: L . . II i : L . . VI ii : L .

. VI i : L .


   

so as to release them from the limitations of their teacher which they “un-
wisely impose” on themselves.139 Or, as he writes in a letter to Duke Johann
Friedrich in the autumn of :
There are many sides to everything, and the way it [a philosophical proposal] is first
seen determines much. The most harmless proposals have often been rejected on
false suspicions, and the most scabby ones accepted through the ability of their sup-
porters. People often do not take pains to examine matters thoroughly, and however
acceptable views may be, they are sometimes rejected at once on a false presupposi-
tion.140
In the chapters that follow, there will be ample proof of Leibniz’s attempt
to attract a philosopher of one school to the ideas of another. His hope was
that once the wayward thinker was so engaged, careful reflection would pro-
duce deep analysis and right thinking. In a passage of , part of which
we have seen, Leibniz explains that once a certain part of “a metaphysics
. . . has been approved then, if people examine it more deeply later, they
themselves will draw the necessary consequences.”141
According to Leibniz, the successful presentation of the truth must have
the right mixture of philosophical insight and rhetoric. In proposing a con-
ciliatory position to an Aristotelian, the conciliator would use Aristotelian
terminology, ask the interlocutor to consider the underlying similarity be-
tween the proposed view and that of the ancient, and then suggest a rela-
tion between the proposal and the view of a very different author, say,
Descartes. The clever conciliator will be able to engage any sectarian in a
similar fashion. If the members of different schools are made to see a plau-
sible and interesting connection between their views, then they will be set
to thinking about the new proposal. By such means, some small peace will
be forged between the warring camps; at the very least, the intellectual dis-
tance between them, and their mutual mistrust will have been diminished.
The desired peace could not be forged if too many of the fundamental as-
sumptions are too obvious. They have to be obscure enough so that the
reader will discover them only after the right amount of deep thinking. As
the careful student of Leibniz’s philosophy well knows, his most basic
assumptions are often unavailable in his texts. One has to discover them
beneath the surface and piece them together from scattered suggestions.
Russell famously argued that Leibniz’s tendency to hide his real philosophy
and to change his terminology was due to his desire for “cheap popular-
ity.”142 One of the happy consequences of my interpretation is that it ren-
ders such behavior the second part of Leibniz’s conciliatory method. His
lack of intellectual forthrightness was due to virtue rather than vanity. Leib-
niz’s rhetorical strategy was nothing less than the means to save our souls.
We are now prepared to summarize the second part of Leibniz’s concil-
iatory method:

. II i : L . . II i : L . . VI iii f: Pk .
. Russell, A Critical Exposition, vi; cf. Rescher, The Philosophy of Leibniz, ; and L –.


   , –
The Rhetoric of Attraction attempts to engage the sectarian reader by using agree-
able philosophical terminology and by extolling the virtues of the reader’s sect while
attracting attention to the virtues of other philosophical schools; ultimately the goal
is to entice the reader to consider the underlying (and usually unstated) assumptions,
which Leibniz considers to be true and which he thinks will eventually lead the
reader to philosophical enlightenment and intellectual peace.
I said in the Introduction that many twentieth-century commentators
have focused on Leibniz’s rationalist and deductive tendencies and, as a con-
sequence, have been inclined to search for the logical interconnections
among his first truths.143 I also noted that the same commentators have
been frustrated in their attempts to find a neat deductive system. Many re-
cent scholars have given up hope of finding such a system, and some have
glimpsed the elaborate interconnected web of Leibniz’s beliefs. As Garber
nicely makes the point, “Leibniz’s philosophy doesn’t derive from his logic
because it doesn’t derive, strictly speaking, from any one source at all. Leib-
niz’s philosophy is not, I think, a linear argument, with a beginning, mid-
dle, and end, but a complex of interrelated and mutually reflecting posi-
tions, principles, and arguments.”144 Leibniz’s conciliatory strategy helps
to explain why the search for a deductive system was doomed to failure and
why, among other things, we find so many different versions of his philo-
sophical views. Like his teachers, Leibniz was concerned with clarity of def-
initions. He emphasizes the fact that in his attempt to define words clearly
and argue carefully, he stands in a long line of ancient and modern
thinkers.145 But also like his teachers, he was not a rationalist who believed
that one arrives at fundamental truths through armchair intuition and then
deduces from them other truths. Rather, for Leibniz and his predecessors,
the truths are borrowed from the great philosophical systems.
The notes that Leibniz took on the elements of natural law in – af-
ford a nice example of his eclectic tendencies. While the texts are replete
with definitions and demonstrations, many of the most important of these
are themselves the result of more fundamental conciliatory work. For ex-
ample, he brings to this ethical context the notion of endeavor (conatus)
which he had just developed in his physical work and which he here uses to
forge a compromise between ancient and modern ethical theories. Part of
the motivation behind many of the definitions listed in this ethical study is

. For recent examples of this approach to Leibniz’s thought, see Klaus E. Kaehler, Leib-
niz’s Position der Rationalität and Annette Marschlich, Die Substanz als Hypothese, Leib-
niz’ Metaphysik des Wissens.
. Garber, “The Middle Years,” . Cf. François Duchesneau, Leibniz et la méthode de la
science, passim. Donald Rutherford recognizes that Leibniz is concerned with reconcili-
ation in his public writings, but nevertheless claims that “[p]rivately,” Leibniz “remained
committed to the idea that philosophy could, and should, take the form of demonstra-
tions from a small number of definitions and axioms.” See Rutherford, “Demonstration
and Reconciliation: The Eclipse of the Geometrical Method in Leibniz’s Philosophy,”
; and Rational Order, ch. .
. His examples of the former include Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid, while an example of the
latter is Hobbes. See, e.g., II i .


   

an attempt to produce a reconciliation between ancient and modern notions

and to give an adequate account of the love of God. Also, we find in these
texts something typical of Leibniz: the order of the premises in his demon-
strations differs depending on the precise point he wants to emphasize.
In conclusion, there are five points to emphasize about Leibniz’s ap-
proach to the construction of the true philosophy. First, like Pico della
Mirandola, Thomasius, Scherzer, and Weigel, Leibniz thought that the
fundamental truths were (mostly) those offered by the illustrious ancient
thinkers and that one came to intuit these insights through a careful analy-
sis of the grand metaphysical systems. In other words, the road to knowl-
edge was paved with texts by the great thinkers. Second, like Sturm, Leib-
niz believed that the conciliatory eclectic constructs the true philosophy out
of all the best old and new philosophies and that the result is a collection of
true assumptions. I will argue in the following chapters that some of Leib-
niz’s most basic metaphysical beliefs were taken directly from the
Aristotelian, Platonist, and mechanical philosophies. Third, it will become
obvious that none of Leibniz’s basic doctrines is more fundamental than
the others. Rather, they are all part of a coherent web of beliefs that sup-
port one another and that together solve the great philosophical and theo-
logical problems. That a substance is something wholly self-sufficient, that
each creature is an emanation of God’s essence, and that all corporeal fea-
tures are to be explained mechanically are such truths. Leibniz’s system is
the result of the clever conciliation of these sorts of assumptions. Instead
of a set of doctrines that were deduced from first principles, his philosophy
is a brilliant blending of ancient and modern views. Fourth, it is important
to emphasize Leibniz’s commitment to Christian orthodoxy. In the chap-
ters that follow, there will be abundant evidence that he molded his ideas to
conform to traditional Christian doctrine.
Finally, we must acknowledge the role that Leibniz played as the archi-
tect of his system. While he proudly proclaims throughout his life that his
philosophical ingredients were taken from other thinkers, he is equally in-
sistent about his own contribution. For Leibniz, his philosophy was true be-
cause he had been able to fathom the truths within the other great systems
and to combine them in the appropriate way. As we will see, Leibniz bor-
rowed heavily from other philosophers, but he always made the ideas his
own. And he was surely cognizant of his own role as system-builder. In his
New essays on human understanding, written in –, Leibniz offers a
summary of the true philosophy and the method that produced it. He
writes:
This system appears to unite Plato with Democritus, Aristotle with Descartes, the
scholastics with the moderns, Theology and morality with reason. Apparently it
takes the best from all systems and then advances further than anyone has yet
done. . . . I now see what Plato had in mind when he talked about matter as an im-
perfect and transitory being; what Aristotle meant by his ‘Entelechy’; how far the
skeptics were right in decrying the senses. . . . How to make sense of those who put
life and perception into everything. . . . I see everything to be regular and rich be-


   , –
yond what anyone has previously conceived. . . . Well, sir, you will be surprised at
all I have to tell you, especially when you grasp how much it elevates our knowledge
of the greatness and perfection of God.146
And in the same letter to Nicolas Remond with which I began section  of
this chapter, Leibniz writes:
I have tried to uncover and unite the truth buried and scattered under the opinions
of all the different Philosophical Sects, and I believe that I have added something of
my own which takes a few steps forward. . . . I flatter myself to have penetrated into
the Harmony of these different realms.147
When Leibniz emerged from the Rosental woods in , he was on a path
that would lead to this harmony. Now that we have articulated his concilia-
tory method, it is time to trace that philosophical journey.

. VI vi –: New Essays On Human Understanding, trs. Peter Remnant and Jonathan Ben-
nett, –.
. G III –: L –.


 Part two
Metaphysics of Substance
 2
Aristotelian assumptions, –

In , Catholic dignitaries from all over Europe convened in the imperial
city of Trent to discuss the doctrinal and political problems produced by
Luther and his reformation followers. It would take the Council three ses-
sions and nearly twenty years to reach its conclusions. In the Papal bull an-
nouncing the Council, Pope Paul III asserted that two of its goals were to
heal the schism perpetrated by the Protestant rebels and to reform the
church. As much as its participants may have intended conciliation, their
conclusions contradicted the Protestants on several crucial points and
thereby guaranteed continued religious strife. Despite the failure in its task
of reconciliation, however, the Council did succeed in asserting policy that
would influence Christian Europe for centuries.1
In , Leibniz attempted to succeed where the sixteenth-century bish-
ops and cardinals had failed. Under the encouragement of his friend and
patron, Baron Johann Christian von Boineburg, Leibniz commenced work
on an ambitious theological project entitled Catholic demonstrations. One of
the explicit motivations behind the project was to effect a reconciliation be-
tween Roman Catholics and Lutherans. Leibniz hoped specifically to solve
certain theological problems in a way that would satisfy members of both
faiths and that would remain consistent with the doctrinal pronouncements
of the Council of Trent.2 As I have argued, Leibniz intended to construct
a true metaphysics that would answer the grand philosophical questions
while remaining consistent with Christian doctrine. Some of the first purely
philosophical problems faced by Leibniz were those related to theological
topics: each of the essays completed for his Catholic demonstrations attempts
to give a coherent account of a traditional Christian theological doctrine
(e.g., transubstantiation, incarnation). I will show in this chapter that the
foundation of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance was laid in his attempt
to solve the metaphysical problems posed by such theological doctrines. Al-
though the details of Leibniz’s system continued to evolve over the next few
years, the metaphysical assumptions that emerge in these theological essays
of – form the foundation of his thought for years to come. The phi-
losophy of the First truths is based on this foundation.

. For a summary of the history, goals, and controversies of the Council, see the Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Religion, eds. Paul Meagher, Thomas O’Brien, and Consuelo Aherne, vol. ,
–.
. II i –: L –.


   

That Leibniz has a metaphysics at this time will come as a surprise to

many. It has not been previously recognized and is discernible only if one
approaches the early works with a sufficiently broad textual and historical
perspective.3 In this chapter, I delineate the combined methodological and
theological goals of Leibniz’s project, present a systematic account of the
relevant theological essays, and summarize the Aristotelian assumptions
that I attribute to Leibniz and whose implications I briefly discuss. These
assumptions constitute the basis for Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance.

. Metaphysical and religious harmony

However odd it may seem to twenty-first-century philosophers that Leibniz’s
first attempt at systematic metaphysics was directed toward an ecumenical
goal, such a project was not at all unusual in the mid-seventeenth century.
Whether motivated by political, millenarian, or other religious concerns, the
period is full of intellectuals in search of peace among the faithful. I argued
in the last chapter that many of Leibniz’s contemporaries had accepted a
method of conciliatory eclecticism. With this historical context firmly in
place, we are more readily able to discern the role that such theological mat-
ters played in the development of Leibniz’s philosophy.
In an essay written a few years after the Catholic demonstrations, Leibniz
summarizes the close relationship between his metaphysical and theologi-
cal goals. In this essay of 1673–75, entitled On the true method in philosophy
and theology, he outlines his intellectual history and explains his interest in
theological matters. He “congratulates” himself for his “youthful days”
when he learned the scholastic philosophy, and bemoans the fact that
many young philosophers do not do the same. Because of the obscurity of
many scholastic texts, his contemporaries are often prepared to reject “the
entirety” of that useful philosophy. Echoing the words of Thomasius,
Scherzer, and Weigel, Leibniz declares: “the Scholastics labored under only
one vice, that is, with all the order they sufficiently showed for the most part,
. . . they left the use of their words in uncertainty. Whence instead of one
definition arose many.” According to Leibniz, “their often admirable re-
flections could easily be purged or clarified by a mathematically schooled
mind.” Having sampled the difficulties of certain aspects of scholastic
metaphysics and the pleasures of the new mathematical sciences, he has
been concerned to apply the new mathematical method to the topics of
scholastic theology. As he explains it, Leibniz intended to find a middle
ground between those new philosophers who would reject “the whole of

. None of the studies of Leibniz’s early thought either identify his original conception of sub-
stance or recognize the full importance of the theological issues that influenced its devel-
opment. For references to this literature, see the notes in ch. , sect. . Daniel Fouke is one
of the few scholars who has noted the importance of theological doctrines like that of the
Eucharist for early Leibniz. See his “Metaphysics and the Eucharist in the Early Leibniz.”


  , –

scholastic doctrine” and those scholastics whose “admirable reflections” are

in need of clarification.4 Concerning his earlier work he writes:
I saw how the most distinguished men, Saint Thomas and Saint Bonaventura and
William Durand and Gregory of Rimini and many other authors of former times,
have offered not a few theorems of marvelous subtlety to first philosophy which
might have been demonstrated with the utmost rigor. I recognized how Natural
Theology, which had been most gloriously created by these men, had been sub-
merged in a barbaric darkness, and through a confused use of words floundered be-
tween doubtful distinctions, and so I often played the mathematician in theol-
ogy . . . ; I set up definitions and tried to deduce from them certain Elements which
were not inferior to those of Euclid in clarity but far exceeded them in the magni-
tude of their consequences.5
According to Leibniz, his methodological strategy in his theological writ-
ings was to combine the rigor of the new philosophy with the subtlety of the
scholastic approach in an attempt to solve the most difficult problems in the-
ology. The result of this strategy, he goes on to claim, was to give an accu-
rate account of substance that would avoid both the mistakes of the scholas-
tics and those of moderns like Descartes. By such means, we will both
“explain the phenomena” and “illuminate Natural Theology and the mys-
teries of faith” – that is, “once the true and inevitable concept of substance
is understood,” even the most obscure theological difficulties (e.g., that of
transubstantiation) will be rendered perspicuous. The theorems that he of-
fers are “of great significance . . . for the firm foundation of religious faith
and for peace among the Churches.”6
Leibniz could not be clearer about either his philosophical ends or his
methodological means. His fundamental goal was to solve the most recalci-
trant theological problems. He has been “delighted by the thoroughly lu-
minous teachings” of the “mathematical sciences.” However, unlike most of
his sectarian contemporaries who had been similarly attracted by modern
methodology, he never lost sight of “the diviner science” practiced by the
scholastics.7 Because he was accomplished in both philosophical traditions,
he was prepared to combine the best in each so as to resolve the theological
disputes. As he writes, the “edifice of truth will be erected” only when the
materials of “many centuries” are collected.8

. VI iii : W .

. VI iii : W . This passage bears witness to two points made in chapter : first, when
Leibniz exited the Rosental wood, he had not abandoned the whole of the scholastic phi-
losophy; second, when Leibniz writes later in life about his early intellectual development,
he is often oversimplifying in a way that suits his mood and/or audience. The text quoted
here highlights a very different strand in his development than does the passage quoted at
the outset of ch. , sect. . Also, compare it to the passage cited in ch. , n. . A happy con-
sequence of my interpretation is that it is consistent with Leibniz’s various autobiographi-
cal comments despite the fact that, for example, one emphasizes his interest in the me-
chanical philosophy and another his interest in scholasticism.
. VI iii : W . . VI iii : W f. . VI iii : W .


   

There is another important text in which Leibniz summarizes the inter-

relationship between his metaphysical and his theological concerns. He
writes to Duke Johann Friedrich in a letter of 1679:9
I frequently examined in a fundamental way the controversies of theology with the
late Baron Boineburg where it was found finally that the Council of Trent can be
accepted in its entirety without difficulty, except for three or four passages that, it
seems to me, in order to avoid opinions involving a contradiction, must necessarily
be given an interpretation that is not contrary to the words, nor to the doctrines of
the Catholic church, I believe, but that is rather far removed from the common opin-
ions of certain Scholastic theologians and, especially, the monks. To speak candidly
and without reservation . . . , these interpretations, which seemed to me the true ones,
are at least tolerable [to the Catholics] and contain nothing heretical or contrary to
faith.10
Leibniz goes on to explain that Boineburg was “delighted” with this proj-
ect. It was Leibniz’s hope to put his interpretations of these theological mat-
ters “in such a clear light that perhaps [his] work could contribute some-
thing in time to reunion.” The theological project was to have three parts.
Leibniz continues:
The first was to deal with the demonstrations of the existence of God, of the im-
mortality of the soul, and of all natural theology; for I did in fact have some sur-
prising ones. The second part was to be about the Christian religion, or revealed the-
ology, where I sought to demonstrate the possibility of our mysteries and to meet all
the objections of those who claim to show the absurdity and the contradictions in
the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Eucharist, and the resurrection of the body. . . . We
must reply to objections in order to satisfy ourselves entirely, since a single impos-
sibility proved of our mysteries would destroy the whole structure. The third part
was to treat of the church; here I have convincing proofs that the church hierarchy
is of divine right.11
Beginning with the essays of 1668, many of Leibniz’s most important pa-
pers concern the topics listed here. As we will see, in the Catholic demon-
strations he is concerned to show that the mysteries of the faith are consis-
tent with the dominant philosophies of his time. In other words, one of
Leibniz’s primary philosophical interests in 1668 was to develop a coherent
metaphysics that would solve this diverse group of theological problems.
However, as Leibniz explains to the Duke, such a metaphysics would ac-
complish a good deal more than that. He writes:
in order to lay the basis for these demonstrations, I plan to preface them with the
demonstrated elements of the true philosophy to aid the understanding of the prin-
ciple work. . . . It is also necessary to push metaphysics further than has been done

. Some of the most important explications of Leibniz’s early views are found in his letters
to Johann Friedrich. Perhaps because of the obscurity of these writings, few scholars have
attended to them. I use these letters at crucial points in the argument for my interpreta-
tion. See esp. chs. , , and .
. II i : L . . II i : L .


  , –
so far, in order to have true notions of God and of the soul, of a person, substance,
and accidents. And, unless we have a more profound insight into physics, we cannot
answer the objections that are formed against the story of creation, the deluge, and
the resurrection of the body. Finally, true morality must be demonstrated in order
to learn what justice is, as well as justification, freedom, pleasure, happiness, and the
beatific vision. . . . It seems to me . . . that nothing is more useful for the general
good than the authority of a universal church which forms a body of all Christians,
united by bonds of charity, and which can hold in sacred respect the greatest pow-
ers on earth. Every good person should therefore desire that the luster of the church
everywhere be restored and that the spiritual power of its true ministers over the
faithful may be more fully recognized than is often done, even among those who pass
as the most Catholic.12
Leibniz is wonderfully explicit here about his grand philosophical concerns.
As we noted in chapter 1, his Metaphysics of Method was supposed to solve
all the significant philosophical problems and remain consistent with both
Christian doctrine and the phenomena of nature. It was during 1668 that
he began the construction of that metaphysics, which depends crucially on
his rehabilitation of the scholastic notion of substantial forms. Leibniz con-
tinues in his letter to the Duke:
There is another important thing in my philosophy which will give it access to the
Jesuits and other theologians. This is my restoration of substantial forms, which the
atomists and Cartesians claim to have exterminated. It is certain that, without these
forms and the distinction that exists between them and real accidents, it is impossi-
ble to explain our mysteries. For if the nature of body consists in extension, as
Descartes claims, it involves a contradiction, beyond all doubt, to maintain that a
body may exist in many places at once.13
Leibniz develops his first conception of substance in the years 1668 and
1669. During this period, he rejects the metaphysical foundations of mech-
anism, most particularly the conception of body as extension (res extensa),
and attempts to replace that foundation with his own, Aristotelian concep-
tion of substance. The result is a conception of substance that constitutes a
reconciliation of Aristotelian and mechanical notions, that depends cru-
cially on his (reformed) notion of substantial form, and that proposes solu-
tions to all the relevant theological problems. It is now time to explicate the
metaphysical assumptions that Leibniz first formulates in 1668–69 and that
form the foundations of his Metaphysics of Substance. It is important to
grasp the central role that the notion of substantial form has in Leibniz’s
theological essays. According to Robinet and many subsequent scholars, the
birth of Leibniz’s metaphysics is marked by the “restoration of substantial
forms,” which they date at 1679 or later.14 In fact, as we will see, this restora-
tion begins in 1668.

. II i : L f. . II i : L .

. See Robinet, Architectonique disjonctive; and more recently, Paul Lodge, “When Did Leib-
niz Adopt the Pre-established Harmony?”


   

. The theological writings and Leibniz’s

Metaphysics of Substance
In February 1667, the twenty-year-old Leibniz received his doctor’s degree
in law at the University of Altdorf. He then went to Mainz, where his rep-
utation as a brilliant young law student preceded him. Soon after his arrival
there, he was appointed judge in the High Court of Appeal. He also acted
as lawyer and adviser to a distinguished German statesmen, Baron Johann
Christian von Boineburg, who had become both a friend and patron of the
young man. During the next six years, Leibniz was involved in a variety of
official duties, including various diplomatic chores and the rather large task
of improving the Roman civil code. He maintained his philosophical inter-
ests and in 1668, under the encouragement of Boineburg, he began work on
the Catholic demonstrations. The project, as Leibniz conceived it in 1668,
was to consist of a series of philosophical prolegomena and four parts.15 The
prolegomena were to contain the “elements of philosophy” – that is, the
“first principles” of metaphysics, logic, mathematics, physics, and practical
philosophy, while the four parts were to be demonstrations of the existence
of God, the immortality of the soul, the Christian mysteries (e.g., transub-
stantiation), and the authority of the church and scripture. Although Leib-
niz continued to work on the project during and after his stay in Paris, he
composed most of it in the years –.
Before turning to the theological essays, it is important to be clear about
Leibniz’s philosophical commitments when he began the Catholic demon-
strations in . As the essays themselves will make evident, he is both an
Aristotelian and a mechanist. Concerning the former, he had learned his les-
sons well from the “most profound” Thomasius and from his own study of
the ancient texts. He often shows an intelligent understanding of the an-
cient thought, although he sometimes goes beyond anything that Aristotle
actually accepted. But we must not let Leibniz’s slight misinterpretations
hinder our pursuit of what he considered his Aristotelianism. In other
words, the accuracy of his interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy is less im-
portant than the fact that, when it came to matters concerning substance and
the metaphysical work that created substances are supposed to do, Leibniz
took himself to be a full-fledged follower of Aristotle.
Why did the Aristotelian conception of substance appeal to Leibniz so
completely? Some educated guesses are in order. First and foremost, fol-
lowing the revered Thomasius, Leibniz took nature to be an elaborately
arranged causal nexus that was harmoniously moving toward the good. At
the heart of the Aristotelianism that Thomasius bequeathed to his student
(and that I discuss briefly in chapter ) stands the idea that nature is con-
stituted of individual corporeal substances whose substantial forms act so

. The outline of the project that Leibniz drew up in – is different from that presented
to Johann Friedrich in . Compare VI i – with II i –: L –. I rely on
the former here, but quoted the latter in section .


  , –

as to contribute to a divinely arranged harmony. At the very beginning of

his long philosophical career, Leibniz embraced the two-part assumption
that everything in the world acts to instantiate the good, and in so doing
plays a role in a divinely arranged harmonious plan. For Leibniz, an Aris-
totelian account of substance formed a secure foundation for such a world.
But Leibniz also recognized very early that the Aristotelian theory of sub-
stance could easily accommodate the new mechanical physics and thereby
explain the phenomena. Although this was a common assumption among
Leibniz’s contemporaries, he differed from the others in the brilliance of the
synthesis that he forged. Moreover, from the perspective of war-ravaged
Germany, Aristotelianism also must have seemed the safest bet as a philos-
ophy of religious reconciliation. As will become plain, the doctrinal decla-
rations of his contemporary Catholics were framed in Aristotelian terms. In
other words, in the s, Leibniz appears to have had excellent metaphys-
ical, physical, and theological reasons to accept a major part of the Aris-
totelian philosophy.
Concerning his mechanist leanings, Leibniz’s conception of body is thor-
oughly based in the new mechanical physics. As I argued in chapter  (sec-
tion ), when Leibniz surveyed the physical proposals of philosophers like
Hobbes, Gassendi, and Descartes in the s, one of his primary goals was
to discover the common denominator among the mechanical options. By
, he has attained that goal so that, in the theological essays of –,
he can offer a summary of the mechanical physics. While his account un-
surprisingly ignores the differences among the individual mechanists, it
successfully identifies the core of the mechanical philosophy.16 For Leibniz,
the mechanical position reduces to the following: there is some sort of mat-
ter or extended stuff (res extensa) that is (somehow) moved and whose
arrangements both cause and explain the corporeal features of individual
bodies; therefore, a body is organized res extensa and all corporeal features17

. Although I use the designation ‘mechanical philosophy,’ the young Leibniz did not. As
Daniel Garber has pointed out to me, it was Robert Boyle who, in The Origin of Forms and
Qualities according to the Corpuscular Philosophy of , offered a kind of manifesto for
the mechanist program. According to Boyle, the corpuscular and mechanical philosophies
amount to the same thing and, at the core of each, are two claims, namely, that () there is
a “universal matter common to all bodies” and () the diversity that exists among bodies
“must necessarily arise from somewhat else than the matter they consist of.” That is, “to
discriminate the catholick matter into variety of natural bodies, it must have motion in
some or all its designable parts.” This is precisely the opinion of the young Leibniz. For
Boyle’s account, see The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, vol. , – and Selected
Philosophical Papers, –; in the latter collection, also see About the Excellency and
Grounds of the Mechanical Hypothesis (of ), . Although Leibniz refers to Boyle sev-
eral times during the s, he does not refer to The Origin of Forms and Qualities. For a
recent succinct account of the mechanical philosophy, see Steven Nadler, “Doctrines of
Explanation in Late Scholasticism and in the Mechanical Philosophy,” esp. –.
. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, I will use the neutral term ‘feature’ when talking
about the qualities, accidents, affections, or properties of corporeal things. There are two
good reasons for doing this: Leibniz himself does not use consistent terminology and
moreover the various Latin terms which he does use (e.g., qualitas, affectio, accidens) bring


   

are reducible to the arrangements of such extended stuff. Although Leib-

niz’s understanding in – of the views of some of the prominent
mechanists is incorrect in some details, such inaccuracies should not detract
from the fact that he is utterly committed to mechanical physics. The theo-
logical writings indicate exactly how his reconciliation of the Aristotelian
and mechanical philosophies evolved in the face of the noted theological
problems. I would now like to analyze the most important of these theo-
logical works in their probable chronological order.

Confession of nature against the atheists

Leibniz did not write the Confession of nature against the atheists in the best
of circumstances. As he explains to Thomasius, he composed it during a
journey “in the confusion of an inn.”18 But he was happy enough with the
work to send it to Boineburg for his consideration. Nor does the occasional
imprecision of the piece detract from its importance: it reveals Leibniz’s
original thinking about mind, body, explanation, and cause. The work has
two parts: a rather long argument for the existence of God and a short proof
of the immortality of the soul. The first, entitled “That a Ratio of Corpo-
real Phenomena Cannot be Presented without an Incorporeal Principle,
i.e., God,”19 is especially significant for what it reveals about Leibniz’s ver-
sion of mechanism and his original metaphysical assumptions.
Leibniz begins his essay with an account of how the mechanical philoso-
phy has led philosophers to atheism. According to Leibniz, while the ra-
tiones of the ancients had referred either “to the Creator alone or to some
kind of incorporeal forms,” the mechanists had discovered that “the rationes
of most things can be given in terms of the figure and motion of bodies, as
it were mechanically.” Leibniz explains that before adequately considering
the foundations and principles of their mechanism, these philosophers pro-
claimed that natural reason offered no evidence of anything incorporeal
(either of God or the soul), so that one had to find evidence for the incor-
poreal elsewhere. The result, he continues, is that the evidence for the in-
corporeal (for example, that supplied by the scriptures) is itself questioned
and atheism prevails. Leibniz maintains that his present investigation began
because of his own dissatisfaction with these conclusions. He became “im-

with them complicating scholastic implications. Therefore, except when quoting directly
or discussing the details of a quoted passage, I use the term ‘feature’ when discussing what
we would loosely call the ‘properties’ of corporeal objects.
. II i : L . I capitalize only the first word in the titles of unpublished texts. See xiii.
As Leibniz explains here, the piece was published though not under his supervision and
in a mangled form.
. “Quod ratio phaenomenorum Corporalium reddi non possit, sine incorporeo Principio, id
est Deo.” The Latin term, ‘ratio’ (plural: ‘rationes’) is ambiguous in a number of ways. In
order to bring attention to this fact and to remain uncommitted as to how it is to be inter-
preted, I have chosen not to translate the term when it is used in its causal or explanatory
sense. The reasons for this will become clear in what follows.


  , –

patient at being dispossessed” of an “eternity after death and the hope that
divine benevolence would sometime be made manifest toward the good and
the innocent.”20
If Leibniz’s motivation is theological, his method is “scientific.” He
writes: “Setting aside all prejudices, therefore, and suspending the credit of
scripture and history, I set my mind to the anatomy of bodies, to see whether
it is possible to give the ratio of sensory appearances without supposing an
incorporeal cause.”21 Leibniz intends to dissect the “anatomy of bodies” so
as to decide whether or not corporeal features can be explained without re-
course to God. According to Leibniz, he is in full agreement with philoso-
phers such as Galileo, Bacon, Gassendi, Descartes, Hobbes, and Digby on
two basic points: first, that in “giving the ratio of corporeal phenomena, one
must not unnecessarily resort to God or any other incorporeal thing, form,
or quality;”22 and second, that as far as can be done, “everything should be
derived [deducere] from the nature of body and its primary qualities – mag-
nitude, figure, and motion.” But, Leibniz asks: “what if I should demon-
strate that the origin of these very primary qualities themselves cannot be
found in the nature of body? Then, indeed, I hope that these naturalists will
admit that body is not self-sufficient [sibi non sufficere] and cannot subsist
without an incorporeal principle.”23 From this and related comments, it is
clear that Leibniz is wholly committed to the mechanical principles that
bodies are constituted of some sort of extended stuff (res extensa) and that
corporeal features ought to be explained in terms of the primary features of
such bodies, that is, in terms of their magnitude, figure, and motion.24
Where he thinks he differs from the mechanists is in his denial that the pri-
mary features themselves have their origin in the nature of body and in the
conclusion which he draws from this, namely, that we must admit an incor-
poreal principle in order to explain them.
In the rest of Part I of the Confession of nature against the atheists, Leib-
niz presents arguments to show that none of the primary features has its ori-
gin in the nature of body. Before explicating these arguments, I would like
to make some preliminary comments. First, Leibniz is hopelessly confused
about what the mechanists’ position actually is. While they do think that all
corporeal features are explicable in terms of the fundamental features of
body (they differ about what these are) without recourse to anything incor-

. VI i : L .

. The Latin of the latter clause is: “an eorum quae in corporibus sensu apparent, rationem
reddere possibile sit, sine suppositione causae incorporalis.” VI i : L .
. VI i –: L . Although the language here and in the long quotation immediately
preceding suggests that Leibniz is primarily interested in sensory phenomena, he is not.
As the remainder of the essay makes clear, his main concern is with the explanatory source
of the primary features of bodies.
. VI i : L .
. In fact, the proposals of the mechanical philosophers differ greatly and it is difficult to
summarize accurately their basic assumptions. Leibniz’s discussion here is based on an
oversimplification of their views, but it is one that I will follow in presenting his argument.


   

poreal, they do not believe that the fundamental features are themselves
wholly derivable from the nature of body (res extensa) taken by itself.
Gassendi and Descartes, for example, assume that God is required to ac-
count for the motion of body, and in this sense they deny that motion comes
from the nature of body itself. Descartes maintains that God “preserves mo-
tion in matter,” while Gassendi thinks that God infuses motion into atoms
at their creation.25 Descartes and Gassendi are perfectly happy to let God
be the cause of the motion of bodies and see no problem in the fact that the
full account of motion does not rest in the nature of body.
Leibniz’s mistaken interpretation of the mechanists seems to rest on two
closely related assumptions. Because the mechanists designate magnitude,
figure, and motion as the fundamental features of body and because they
take body to be some kind of extended stuff, Leibniz assumes that they must
also believe that the cause and explanation of these fundamental features lie
in the nature of body. He finds it unfathomable that someone would assign
to an object features that themselves do not follow from the nature of the
object. According to Leibniz, if the “origin of these very primary qualities
themselves cannot be found in the nature of body,” then “body is not self-
sufficient.”26 The intuition here, what I will call the Principle of Self-Suf-
ficiency, may be put as follows: a being S is self-sufficient if and only if the
full account of its features – that is, the cause and explanation of its fea-
tures – can be discovered in the nature of S.27
Nor does Leibniz stop here. He goes on to make an even stronger claim,
namely, that “if these [primary] qualities cannot be derived from the defi-
nition of body, they obviously cannot exist in bodies left to themselves [in
corporibus sibi relictis existere non posse].”28 As he puts it later in the Con-
fession of nature, left to their own natures, “bodies cannot have [habere non
posse] a definite figure, quantity or motion.”29 Here the claim, which I will
call the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, seems to be that a being S,
strictly speaking, cannot be said to have a feature f and f cannot be said to
exist in S unless the full account of f may be found in the nature of S.30 It
follows from the Principle of Self-Sufficiency and the Principle of Causal

. For Descartes’ views about motion, see esp. Principles of Philosophy Part II, sects., –.
Like his ancient predecessors, Democritus and Epicurus, Gassendi takes motion to be in-
trinsic to matter; but unlike them he thought God put motion into atoms. He writes: “It
may be supposed that individual atoms received from God . . . the requisite force for mov-
ing, and for imparting motions to others . . . , all this to the degree that he foresaw what
would be necessary for every purpose he had destined them for.” See Gassendi, The Se-
lected Works of Pierre Gassendi, –.
. VI i : L .
. In this and related essays, it is not clear whether or not the Principle of Self-Sufficiency
extends beyond primary features to those that are reducible to primary ones. I discuss this
important question at the end of the chapter.
. VI i : L . . VI i : L . My emphasis.
. For the sake of simplicity, I have dropped the phrase ‘left to itself’ from the formal pres-
entation of the principle, but the assumption of the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency
is that the nature of S must by itself constitute the full account of the feature.


  , –

Self-Sufficiency that if the full account of f cannot be found in the nature

of S, then S is not self-sufficient and f cannot exist in S (S cannot have f).
The strategy of Leibniz’s general argument in Part I of the Confession of
nature derives from his firm conviction that because his opponents will want
to make bodies self-sufficient, they will recognize the need for an incorpo-
real principle, namely, God. As we will see, although Leibniz becomes more
sophisticated over the years about the position of the mechanical philoso-
phers, he never doubts the truth of these original principles.
It is striking that Leibniz presents neither explanation nor argumentation
for these claims. But of course there was no reason to do so: these assump-
tions come part and parcel with his commitment to the philosophy of Aris-
totle. As Leibniz understood the ancient thought, substance is both onto-
logically and explanatorily basic. It is the primary created thing, that on
which all other created things depend, and it is that in terms of which every-
thing else is explained. For example, the explanation of the fact that Wanda
has both reason and blue suede shoes ultimately resides in her substance.
Despite the various conflicting interpretations and accounts of Aristotle’s
metaphysics (of which Leibniz was well aware), Aristotelians generally did
think of substance as that which causes and explains its essental features
and, in this sense, as what is self-sufficient. Although in the Confession of
nature against the atheists, Leibniz does not bring in the notion of substance,
he soon will. What he emphasizes here is that anything that is self-sufficient
is a thing that causes and explains its (primary) features. In his next essay,
he will make this self-sufficiency the basis for his definition of substance.
Finally, before I explicate Leibniz’s arguments in Part I of the Confession
of nature against the atheists, I would like to make one more preliminary
comment about Leibniz’s assumptions. This last point is especially impor-
tant, not only because it is crucial to a proper understanding of Leibniz’s
arguments, but also because it lays bare another of his fundamental meta-
physical beliefs. He assumes that for everything in the world, there is a rea-
son or ratio that () is in theory knowable and that () is so complete that it
constitutes an explanation of why that thing and no other came about. The
full significance of the arguments in the Confession of nature against the
atheists has not been previously recognized because the notion of ratio
around which the arguments turn has not been properly understood. It will
be important to clarify this notion before turning to an analysis of the text.
In the preceding chapter, I suggested that the philosophical debate in the
mid-seventeenth century is much more complicated than we tend to think
of it today. Among other things, I indicated that there is an unusual rich-
ness of philosophical alternatives during the century due to the fact that the
period not only saw the rise of the new mechanical natural philosophy, it
also inherited the variety of philosophical traditions rediscovered and re-
combined by Renaissance humanists. The century is replete with scholas-
tic, mechanical, and ancient doctrines as well as attempts to revise and amal-
gamate elements from these intellectual traditions. The sheer variety of
philosophical alternatives available at mid-century creates an especially


   

complicated situation because there are so many philosophers who (like

Leibniz) are interested in ancient philosophy as well as the new natural phi-
losophy and who sometimes make indiscriminate use of the various, in-
compatible notions. It is significant that the period’s confusion was evident
to philosophers at the time. It was common for writers to exclaim that “there
are as many philosophies as philosophers.” In order to remedy this dismal
state of affairs, thinkers like Johann Adam Scherzer insisted that their con-
temporaries agree on the definitions of key terms so that people might “phi-
losophize with one mind.”31 About the term ‘cause,’ for example, Leibniz
himself complains: “neither Aristotle nor any of the Scholastics nor anyone
since the beginning of the world has explained . . . the term ‘cause’.” Al-
though philosophers like Suárez have tried to define the term “as what
pours forth [fluere] being into another,” Leibniz wonders “but what is this
‘pouring forth [fluere] being into another’?” According to Leibniz, philoso-
phers “have never understood this term of theirs, though they have used it
so many times” and have resorted to “obscure terms and often metaphori-
cal ones.”32 Within this context, we should not be surprised to discover
either that Leibniz himself used different causal notions or that the most
important of these is firmly rooted in his Aristotelian background. Let’s
briefly consider the three distinct causal alternatives that we find in Leib-
niz’s early writings.
The two causal terms that Leibniz uses most frequently in s and that
are relevant to the present discussion are ‘ratio’ and ‘causa.’ The latter he
usually restricts to discussions about particular occurrences in nature. In the
vast majority of his uses of ‘causa,’ the term designates a natural event or
occurrence that brings something about.33 Although what Leibniz has to
say about causes in this sense is relevant to his account of the world, it is his
notion of ‘ratio’ that is crucial to an understanding of Leibniz’s theological
demonstrations and their metaphysical assumptions.
In its causal sense, ‘ratio’ is usually translated by the English ‘reason,’
where its causal meaning is as broad as that of the English term.34 That is,
‘ratio’, like ‘reason,’ is so general in its causal sense that it can comfortably
accommodate almost any kind of causal link, however weak or strong. In
this sense, it is also rather like the English preposition ‘because of’ in that it
may apply to a very large variety of explanatory relations. The point I want

. Vade Mecum, Dedicatio [iii–iv]. Also see, e.g., Weigel, Analysis Aristotelica ex Euclide resti-
tuta, ; and Sturm, Philosophia Eclectica, , –, .
. VI i .
. See, for example, II i ,, , , , , , , , , , , .
. The Latin term ‘ratio’ is ambiguous among a variety of senses, many of which Leibniz
employs. He frequently uses the term, for example, as a relation between two quantities
(see, e.g., VI i , , ), as the reasoning or reckoning faculty (see, e.g., VI i , ,
, , ), as a proof or demonstration (e.g., VI i , ), and as the reason, motive,
or ground for something (see, e.g., VI i , , ). In fact, there are times when Leib-
niz uses all of these senses in one passage (see II i ). What interests me here is the ‘rea-
son’ or ‘ground’ sense of the term.


  , –

to emphasize here is that things that count as a ratio may vary greatly in their
relation to the thing being explained. In Leibniz’s works, both early and late,
we find two very different kinds of rationes, those that count as a complete
or sufficient reason for a thing and those that count as only a partial or in-
complete reason. An incomplete ratio r may contribute to a thing S in the
barest or most indirect way.35 As long as r contributes in some way or other
to S, it is appropriate to consider r a reason for S. An incomplete ratio need
only have a minimal connection to S; the complete kind of ratio, what Leib-
niz sometimes calls a “plena ratio [complete reason],” constitutes the com-
plete ground and source of S. A complete ratio is the sufficient condition
for S. The notion of a complete ratio is closely linked to that of a complete
explanation or account: if r is the complete ratio of S, then a complete ac-
count of r will constitute a complete explanation of S. In fact, according to
Leibniz, r is a ratio for S in the strong sense if and only if an account of r
constitutes a complete explanation of it.
Having distinguished between these two kinds of rationes, I would now
like to turn to three passages written in the months just preceding the Con-
fession of nature against the atheists in which Leibniz makes instructive use
of the notion of complete ratio. These provide an appropriate introduction
to Leibniz’s use of the notion in that essay. Leibniz’s On the Combinatorial
Art of  includes a section entitled “Problemata” in which he presents
solutions to certain permutation problems. He introduces this section by ex-
plaining: “Three things should be considered: problems, theorems, and ap-
plications. We have added the application to individual problems wherever
it seemed worth while, and the theorems also. To some of the problems,
however, we have added the ratio of the solution.”36 Leibniz’s discussion of
the first problem consists of a statement of the problem, the presentation
of its solution, and a demonstration of the success of the solution (that is, a
demonstration of the fact that the procedure described in the solution suc-
cessfully solves the permutation problem).37 The importance of the demon-

. See, e.g., VI i , , .

. VI i : L . Loemker’s translation of ‘ratio’ here as ‘demonstration’ bears witness to
the fact that twentieth-century scholars have not paid sufficient attention to the subtleties
of the use of the term in the period in general and in Leibniz’s works in particular. Trans-
lators will sometimes render ‘ratio,’ when used in the sense of a complete reason or full ac-
count, as ‘reason,’ sometimes as ‘ground,’ and sometimes as ‘demonstration.’ Loemker was
no doubt inclined toward his translation both because the ratio of the first solution includes
a demonstration and because, among its common English meanings, ‘demonstration’
seems more appropriate than ‘reason.’ In fact, neither English term is quite right; it is clear
that Leibniz has something else in mind here.
. I will not give any details concerning these permutation problems because they are both
very complicated and mostly irrelevant to the general point I want to make here about
Leibniz’s use of ‘ratio.’ However, it may be helpful to give some idea of them. For exam-
ple, where the problem is “To Discover the Complexions for a Given Number and Expo-
nent,” Leibniz describes the solution to the problem as follows: “Add the complexions of
the number preceding the given number, by the given exponent and by the exponent pre-
ceding it; the sum will be the desired complexions” (VI i : L ). The demonstration
shows that the procedure described in the solution does solve the problem. But the demon-


   

stration is not so much that it displays the success of the solution as that it
allows the reader to grasp the solution’s ratio: it constitutes a presentation
of the reason for the success of the solution. Leibniz writes: “The ratio of
the solution and the basis [fundamentum] of the table [included in the solu-
tion] will be exposed if we demonstrate that the complexions for a given num-
ber and exponent arise from the sum of the complexions of the preceding num-
ber, for both the given and the preceding exponents.”38 This passage implies
that the demonstration is a vehicle to the ratio in that it shows that the so-
lution actually does solve the problem and, hence, reveals something about
the reason for the solution’s doing so. The solution solves the problem be-
cause of the ratio; the demonstration is what allows us to see that this is the
case. That is, r is the reason for S where r includes all the factors that con-
tribute to S’s actually solving the problem, and hence being the solution; the
demonstration merely discloses this reason.
A similar conception of ratio occurs in the solution to the next problem.
Leibniz writes about the solution that: “the ratio or to dioti [the because] is
difficult to understand or, if understood, to explain. To hoti [the that] is ev-
ident from the table. . . . But, if anyone is interested in seeking the ratio for
this, it will have to be discovered in the process of resolving used in the Prac-
tica Italica.”39 Here again the ratio is the “complete reason” of the solution,
and the process of resolving acts as the demonstration did above: it is the
means by which one is able to comprehend the reason behind the solution.
Leibniz is more explicit here about the relation between the solution and the
ratio: the latter is “the because” of the solution, the that because of which
the solution is a solution. So, again it follows that r is the ground for S where
r includes all the factors that contribute to S’s solving the problem and hence
being the solution. However, unlike the previous example, it is not so easy
to comprehend the ratio in this case. The problem, as Leibniz notes, is that
the complete reason or “the because” of the solution is difficult to grasp.
Whereas the demonstration fairly straightforwardly presented the ratio of
the preceding solution, here one has to work through a process of resolving
in order to discover it. The ratio is comprehensible, but in this case requires
more work and insight. Two points are worth emphasizing here: the ratio of
the solution, although difficult to grasp, is nonetheless the complete reason
of the solution; moreover, if it were possible to give a complete account of
the ratio, then that account would be a complete explanation of the solution.
The close link between explanation and ratio is unaffected by the fact that
in this case it happens to be difficult to articulate the ratio.
There may be cause to wonder at this point whether or not the notion of
ratio just explicated is restricted to mathematical solutions. Since the Con-
fession of nature against the atheists seeks a ratio for corporeal features, we
need to make sure that it is appropriate to apply the sense of ratio in these

stration also exposes the ratio of the solution, i.e., the reason behind the fact that the pro-
cedure is so successful.
. VI i : L –; Leibniz’s emphasis. . VI i : L .


  , –

mathematical examples to the cases of corporeal features. Let’s consider

some other examples. It may be helpful to turn to the other explicit use of
the term in the months prior to the Confession of nature against the atheists.
In , Leibniz published (anonymously) his New Method for the Learn-
ing and Teaching of Jurisprudence. The first part of this, entitled “Concern-
ing a Ratio for Studies in General,” develops an Aristotelian psychology and
presents a general account of how to learn. Leibniz begins the essay by writ-
ing: “The ratio of studies is a certain kind of rational condition, that is, the
rational condition that is itself a way of arriving at a condition of perfect ac-
tions. . . . This condition is called a ‘Habit’ which I define as a permanent
but acquired readiness to act.”40 Leibniz is here able to describe the ratio
rather straightforwardly; there is no need for a demonstration or process of
resolving as a means to understand it. The ratio, Leibniz asserts, is a rational
condition or habit, the that toward which the studies are directed. Although
in this case the ratio is a kind of final cause, it functions exactly as it did
above: it is “the because” or the complete reason of the studies. Leibniz goes
on to develop a process of learning which he maintains will produce the
right sort of rational condition. In this case, the organization of the studies
follows from the ratio in the sense that the studies are organized in order to
produce or promote the desired rational condition; the fact that the studies
are so organized is a necessary and sufficient condition for the rational con-
dition. Any student who satisfactorily completes the studies will acquire the
rational condition. Once again, the ratio of the state of affairs or object f
(here the studies so organized) is such that it includes all the factors that con-
tribute to the existence of f.
At this point, it may be helpful to present a different sort of case as an ex-
ample of what Leibniz seems to have in mind here. Let’s suppose that a
cooking instructor wants to explain to her class how to improve on their pas-
try dough. She may explain that one has to knead the dough in a specified
way, paying attention all the while to a variety of seemingly irrelevant de-
tails (say, the precise stickiness of the dough, the temperature and texture
of the working surface, etc.). Where the problem is how to make better pas-
try dough, each student may understand the instructor’s proposed solution
(to knead the dough in such a way, etc.,) without full conviction that it will
work. If the instructor goes on to demonstrate that treating the dough in the
specified way really does produce better dough, the students may then be
convinced that the solution actually solves the problem without having the
slightest idea as to why. In short, the students may understand the solution
to the problem and agree that it is a solution, without an inkling as to why
treating the dough in the specified way yields better results. If, however,
they go on to experiment with the method themselves, study chemistry and
the relevant parts of physics so that they can explain in detail why precisely
this set of circumstances leads to this result in a way that different circum-
stances do not, then they will have understood the full reason or ratio be-

. VI i : L .


   

hind the solution. In this case, they will have come to understand that the
solution solves the problem because of the ratio.
Before attempting to summarize Leibniz’s notion, let’s consider briefly
how some of his contemporaries understand the term. While it is true both
that scholastic philosophers distinguish among several senses of ratio and
that most of the prominent seventeenth-century philosophical lexicons do
so as well, nonetheless there is a discernible underlying sense that is rele-
vant here. Of the seventeenth-century lexicographers, Rudolph Goclenius
offers in  one of the most elaborate accounts of the term. He lists some
of its uses in logic, philosophy, mathematics, and physics, and he notes what
a variety of philosophers have had to say about it (e.g., Zabarella, Scaliger).
But underlying all of these applications is the basic idea that a ratio is what
“represents” the “nature” of the thing or is “the cause of the thing” and “is
something that can be understood” by the intellect. Other philosophical lex-
icographers agree: H.L. Castanaeus explains in  that most basically a
ratio is “the nature and essence of the thing,” the “cause of the thing,” or
what makes a thing what it is; and Johann Micraelius suggests in  that
the basic metaphysical notion is “the essence itself in respect to our under-
standing.”41 In short, the two-part idea seems to be that the ratio is “the be-
cause” or nature of the thing (sometimes the lexicographer identifies it with
the four Aristotelian causes) in the sense that it makes the thing what it is,
and moreover that the ratio is such that if it can be understood, it is an ob-
ject of thought that represents or captures that nature.
In conclusion, let’s summarize both Leibniz’s early use of the term ratio
and the account given by some of his contemporaries as follows: for some
feature or state of affairs f, a complete ratio for f has the following features:
() it constitutes the necessary and sufficient condition for f; () it is per-
spicuous in that when one understands or apprehends it, one sees exactly
how it is “the because” of the f, that is, why f follows; () it is such that in
those cases when a full account of it can be given, that account constitutes
a complete explanation of f; and () the ratio itself does not require a ratio
of the same type.42 In this sense, to present the ratio of f is to explain it
fully.43
With this said, let’s return to the analysis of Part I of the Confession of
nature against the atheists. Leibniz presents three arguments, each of which

. See Rudolph Goclenius, Lexicon Philosophicum, ; H. L. Castanaeus, Celebriorum Dis-
tinctionum Philosophicarum Synopsis, ; Johann Micraelius, Lexicon Philosophicum Ter-
minorum Philosophis Usitatorum, .
. I owe this last condition to Robert C. Sleigh, Jr.
. As Michael Frede points out, the ancients distinguished among different kinds of causes
or different ways of bringing about or producing an effect. The perfect or complete cause
is the one that does not depend for its causal efficacy on the agency of some other cause
outside of it. For an account of the other sorts of causes and how these fit into a general
theory of causation, see Frede, “The Original Notion of Cause.” The important point here
is that Leibniz is not alone in preferring causal completeness over incompleteness. While
this preference is now anachronistic, there are ancient precedents, versions of which sur-
vived into the seventeenth century.


  , –

shows for some primary feature of body that the ratio of that feature is not
discoverable in corporeal nature. The first argument concerns the features of
magnitude and figure and runs as follows. () “The ratio of every affection
[affectio] is derivable either from the thing itself [of which it is an affection]
or from something extrinsic.” () A body is essentially that which exists in
space and the space of a body is its magnitude and figure. () However, the
ratio for some particular body with a particular shape (say, a square shape)
cannot be found in its own nature since “the same matter is indeterminate as
to any definite figure” (that is, the matter of a particular body does not con-
stitute the ratio of its shape). () Nor can the ratio of a particular square body
be found in any body outside of it. For, “if you say it was made square by the
motion of another body, then you must explain the motion of the latter and
so on” in which case “no complete ratio [plena ratio] for the figure will ever
be given.” () “Therefore, it appears that the ratio for a certain figure and
magnitude in bodies can never be found in the nature of bodies.”44
Leibniz begins his second argument with an attempt to explain how the
primary feature of motion (defined as change of place) can arise from the
nature of body. He argues that bodies, as things that exist in space, do not
constitute the ratio of motion, and concludes that “therefore, the ratio of
motion cannot be found in bodies left to themselves.”45 Leibniz insists that
pointing to one body (as the cause of the movement of another) does not
constitute the right kind of ratio. He writes:
But if they say that this body is being moved by another body contiguous to it and
in motion, and this again by another, and so on without end, by no more have they
presented the ratio why the first and second and third and any one whatever is moved
as long as they do not present the ratio as to why the following one is moved and why
all the antecedent ones are moved. For the ratio of a conclusion is not fully given as
long as the ratio of the argument is not given [Ratio enim conclusionis tam diu plane
reddita non est, quamdiu reddita non est ratio rationis], especially because the same
doubt remains in the case without end.46
In his third and final argument of Part I, Leibniz uses cohesion (consisten-
tia) to show that this feature also cannot be explained by the nature of body
itself. With this said and without further comment, Leibniz presents the con-
clusion of these arguments: “through the ultimate analysis of bodies, it be-
comes clear that nature cannot dispense with the help of God.”47 In short,
the three arguments have as their common conclusion that we do “need to re-
sort to God” to explain appropriately the primary features of a body.
Leibniz’s argument in Part I is problematic: the subsidiary arguments
(each directed at a different feature) are themselves less than transparent,
and they do not in any obvious way imply their mutual conclusion. How-
ever, with the help of the assumptions articulated earlier, which function as
implicit premises, we can recognize the subtlety of the argument and the

. VI i : L –. . VI i : L . . VI i : L .

. VI i : L .


   

importance of its implication. Consider, for example, the first subsidiary ar-
gument. It is not at all apparent why the efficient cause of the squareness of
a body does not constitute the right sort of ratio, nor exactly what sort of
thing would. Although Leibniz asserts (in premise ()) that in such a list of
efficient causes “no complete ratio . . . will ever be given” and (in another
quoted passage) that “the same doubt remains . . . without end,” he gives
no indication of why this is the case. He merely assumes (see premise ())
that a simple efficient cause of a feature f (the figure of a body) does not
constitute the appropriate sort of ratio of f. He does not explain that an ef-
ficient cause is insufficient because it includes only one of the factors (here
the active, efficient cause) that contributes to the existence of the features
and hence that it only presents part of the account. In the text, Leibniz
merely asserts that the simple efficient cause or reason is insufficient as the
ratio of the primary features of bodies and that he is in search of a complete
reason (plena ratio).
The distinction between complete and incomplete rationes renders the
fundamental point in Leibniz’s argument transparent. Let’s reconsider a
passage quoted above: “Setting aside all prejudices . . . I set my mind to the
anatomy of bodies, to see whether it is possible to give the ratio . . . without
supposing an incorporeal cause.” We can now see that Leibniz is not after
an incomplete ratio or a simple efficient cause. Rather, he thinks that the
search for an explanation of the relevant feature will come to a satisfactory
end only with the discovery of a complete explanation of exactly how and
why that feature and no other came about. That is, Leibniz seeks a complete
ratio.
Besides the fact that each of the subsidiary arguments relies critically on
the distinction between complete and incomplete rationes, Leibniz also
makes crucial use of the Principle of Self-Sufficiency and the Principle of
Causal Self-Sufficiency. I said above that as a pair, the Principle of Self-
Sufficiency and the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency imply that, if the
full account of a feature f of a being S cannot be found in the nature of S,
then S is not self-sufficient and f cannot be said to belong to S (S cannot be
said to have f). Thus, given the Principle of Self-Sufficiency and the Prin-
ciple of Causal Self-Sufficiency and the fact that the full account of the pri-
mary features cannot be found in the nature of body, it follows that body is
not self-sufficient and that the primary features cannot be said to exist in
the nature of body. The conclusion of each of the subsidiary arguments cru-
cially depends on this point. For example, in his first subsidiary argument,
given the Principle of Self-Sufficiency and the assumption that bodies are
self-sufficient, it follows from the definition of body (premise ()) that the
magnitude and figure of a body will be derivable from the nature of body
itself. Because they are not so derivable (premises () and ()), Leibniz rea-
sons that body by itself does not constitute the right sort of ratio for its fea-
tures (()). Given the Principle of Self-Sufficiency and the Principle of
Causal Self-Sufficiency, it therefore follows that body is not self-sufficient
and that magnitude and figure do not strictly speaking exist in or belong to


  , –

body. The Principle of Self-Sufficiency and the Principle of Causal Self-

Sufficiency help us to decipher exactly what, according to Leibniz, the
problem with body is.
So far so good. But to attain his final conclusion, Leibniz requires yet an-
other assumption, namely, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which in this
context claims that, for every (primary) feature of body, there is a complete
ratio. As with the other assumptions, Leibniz does not argue for this prin-
ciple; he merely uses it. According to Leibniz, because there must be a com-
plete ratio for each primary feature and because corporeal nature by itself
does not offer such a ratio, it is necessary to assume an incorporeal princi-
ple. As Leibniz concludes this part of the Confession of nature against the
atheists:
through the ultimate analysis [extrema resolutio] of bodies, it becomes clear that na-
ture cannot dispense with the help of God. But since we have demonstrated that
bodies cannot have a determinate figure, quantity, or motion, without assuming an
incorporeal being, it readily becomes apparent that this incorporeal being is one
thing in the service of all for the sake of the harmony of all things among themselves.
Moreover, no ratio can be presented why this incorporeal being chooses one magni-
tude, figure, and motion rather than another, unless he is intelligent and wise. . . .
Therefore, such an incorporeal being will be a mind ruling the whole world, that is,
God.48
What Leibniz seeks is a ratio for each and every determinate figure, quan-
tity, and motion that is so complete that it explains exactly why “one mag-
nitude, figure, and motion rather than another” occurs. Since no such ratio
is discoverable in corporeal nature, he reasons that an incorporeal principle
is required.
As a final point to make about Leibniz’s argument in Part I of the Con-
fession of nature against the atheists, we should note that it fails as a criticism
of mechanism: ironically, the position he argues for is consistent with at least
some versions of the mechanical philosophy. Nonetheless, the essay is im-
portant for what it reveals about his original philosophical assumptions.The
arguments of Part I use three significant metaphysical principles, which
themselves help to reveal Leibniz’s dissatisfaction with the standard me-
chanical conception of body. As we shall see, the development of his first
account of substance is motivated both by his continued dissatisfaction with
the explanatory relation between body and its primary features and by his
persistent commitment to the Principle of Self-Sufficiency, the Principle of
Causal Self-Sufficiency, and the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The Con-
fession of nature against the atheists also reveals Leibniz’s fundamental be-
lief in the organization and harmony of the world. There will be ample time
to talk about this early notion of harmony in chapter .
Having offered a proof for the existence of God, Leibniz turns to the im-
mortality of the soul in Part II of the Confession of nature. We will have the

. VI i : L . The Latin is: Ens incorporeale pro omnibus esse unicum ob harmoniam
omnium inter se.


   

opportunity to investigate Leibniz’s conception of mind and soul in the

chapters that follow. The argument here is based on Leibniz’s belief that
because the mind has no parts, it is immovable, indissolvable, and therefore
indestructible. The essential indivisibility of mind plays a crucial role in
Leibniz’s later conception of body and motion. Leibniz does not consider
the exact relation between body and mind. He only mentions that bodies
need an incorporeal principle, and that this is a ruling mind or God. He will
worry about that relation much more in the months to come.

On transubstantiation
The Christian doctrine of the Eucharist had been a problem for philoso-
phers for centuries, but the difficulty was never more politically acute than
after the pronouncements of the Council of Trent. Among other things, the
Council reaffirmed Catholic doctrine on transubstantiation by stating that
at the consecration in the Mass, the substance of the bread and wine are
changed into the substance of Christ, while the appearances (species) of the
bread and wine remain.49 Obviously, there are serious metaphysical diffi-
culties posed by this doctrine. It entails, for example, that the same sub-
stance (the substance of Christ) is able to be in many different places at the
same time and that the nature or substance of a concrete physical thing is
able to change while its features remain. Leibniz neatly describes the prob-
lem in a text that probably dates from . He writes: “The mysteries of
the Eucharist are: the real presence and transubstantiation. These may be
expressed in two propositions: () The one and same body of Christ which
suffered on the cross for us is really present, that is, his substance, wherever
there is the Eucharist Host; () under the appearance [species] of the bread,
in the Eucharist Host, is the substance of the body of Christ.”50
The doctrine created particularly grave problems for mechanical philoso-
phers like Galileo, Gassendi, and Descartes. As a consequence, many mech-
anists simply ignored the pronouncements from Trent. Descartes, for in-
stance, tried to avoid the controversy as much as possible, writing in :
“For the extension of Jesus Christ in this holy sacrament, I have not ex-
plained it, because I was not obliged to do so, and because I abstain as far
as I can from questions of theology.”51 In Leibniz’s essay of –, On
the true method in philosophy and theology, he is explicit about the problems
faced by the leading mechanical philosophers. Leibniz writes that Descartes
has artfully evaded the mysteries of the faith by claiming to pursue philosophy rather
than theology, as though philosophy were incompatible with religion, or as though
a religion can be true that opposes truths demonstrated elsewhere. Once when he

. For a more detailed account of the claims of the Council of Trent and related matters, see
chapter , sect. .
. VI i .
. Letter to Père Mesland; AT IV . Sometimes Descartes was forced to consider the prob-
lem. See, e.g., AT VII –: CSM –.


  , –
had to discuss the Holy Eucharist, he substituted for real species only apparent ones,
and thus revived a doctrine rejected by a universal consensus of theologians. But this
would mean little, if his philosophy could allow bodies to exist in several places at
once. For if body and space are one and the same, how can we avoid the consequence
that in different spaces or places there must be different bodies?
Leibniz applauds philosophers like Gassendi “who in forming a theory of
corporeal nature add to extension a certain resistance or impenetrability,”
but he complains that “the absolute impenetrability of bodies” makes “it as
difficult to see how a body can be in several places as how several bodies can
be in the same place.” In other words, the physics of Gassendi and Descartes
violate the requirements of the Council of Trent and are to be rejected on
those grounds.52
Leibniz wrote some notes on the problem of the Eucharist in , the
same year he wrote the essay On transubstantiation. The notes were written
on a text by an English Catholic and mechanical philosopher, Thomas
White. According to White, the mechanical philosophy could be used to ex-
plain the mysteries of faith, and he offered an account of transubstantiation
that was supposed to be consistent both with scholastic terminology and the
mechanical physics.53 The details of White’s proposals need not concern us.
What is important is Leibniz’s criticism of the mechanical philosophy based
on its incompatibility with the metaphysics of transubstantiation. Although
White offers a standard story about transubstantiation, according to which
the substance of the bread is “annihilated” while the relevant qualities are
left intact, Leibniz argues that such an account is unavailable to the me-
chanical philosophers. According to Leibniz, mechanists like White assume
that the qualities of a corporeal object are like “the heat in fire” in that they
necessarily flow from its essence “and are not able to be separated from the
thing even by the absolute power of God.” Because such qualities “are nec-
essarily in the subject in that they flow from its substance, and necessarily
follow from it,” the mechanical account of transubstantiation is bound to
fail. By such succinct means, Leibniz cuts to the quick of the incompati-
bility between the (standard) mechanical philosophy and the standard ac-
count of transubstantiation: for any mechanist who claims that the sub-

. VI iii –: W –.

. Leibniz’s notes are on a preface that Thomas White (also called Thomas Albius and
Thomas Anglus) wrote for the second edition of the book by his friend, fellow English
Catholic and mechanical philosopher, Kenelm Digby. Digby’s book, Two Treatises. In the
one of which, the Nature of Bodies, in the other, the Nature of Mans Soule; Is Looked into:
In the Way of Discovery, of the Immortality of Reasonable Soules, went through a number
of editions. I discuss some of Digby’s views in the next chapter. It is worth noting in this
context that both White and Digby considered themselves Aristotelians who recognized
the similarities between the ancient and new philosophies. For a discussion of White, see
Beverley Southgate, “Covetous of Truth”: The Life and Work of Thomas White, –.
Southgate cites a manuscript that White wrote on transubstantiation in which he proposes
that the miracle of the Eucharist involves the intermingling of flesh particles with bread
particles ().
. VI i .


   

stance of a body is identical to its essence so that the substance of the bread
just is its extension (or its arrangement of parts), no adequate account of
transubstantiation is possible.
When Leibniz attempted to construct his own solution to the problem of
transubstantiation in , there was a good deal at stake: he accepted (a ver-
sion of) the mechanical conception of physics which claimed that the fea-
tures of objects like bread and wine were (somehow) reducible to the
arrangement of their matter; he was committed to an Aristotelian concep-
tion of substance; and he was motivated to reconcile Catholic and Lutheran
accounts of the Eucharist. That he offered a plausible solution to the theo-
logical problem while embracing these commitments bears witness to his
conciliatory commitment and his philosophical finesse.
In the first few lines of On transubstantiation, Leibniz introduces his proj-
ect. He writes in Part I:
We have undertaken with the help of God to show the possibility of the transub-
stantiation of bread and wine into the body of Christ who suffered for us, which the
Catholic church teaches occurs at the time of consecration. It is to be demonstrated,
accordingly, that: () Bread and wine, losing their own substance, acquire the sub-
stance of Christ’s body; () and become numerically identical with it everywhere;
() only their appearance [species] or accidents remain; () the Substance of the body
of Christ is present in all places where the appearance of the consecrated bread and
wine exists.
The success of the demonstration, according to Leibniz, depends on the in-
terpretation of the terms of the relevant scholastic notions, which “we will
explain very clearly.”55 Because the details of Leibniz’s demonstration are
both complicated and important and because one of my main goals in this
chapter is to excavate his underlying assumptions about substance, the focus
here is on those parts of the essay that are directly relevant to that goal. I will
return to the other parts of the demonstration in chapter . Leibniz writes:
. Substance is a being that subsists per se.
. A being that subsists per se is one that has a principle of action within itself
[in se]. . . .
. Whatever has a principle of action within itself, if it is a body, has a principle of
motion within itself. Indeed every action of a body is motion. Because every ac-
tion is a variation of essence, every action of a body is a variation of the essence
of body. The essence or definition of a body is being in space. Therefore a vari-
ation of the essence of body is a variation of existence in space. Variation of ex-
istence in space is motion. Therefore every action of a body is motion. . . .
. No body apart from a concurring mind [praecisa mente concurrente] has a prin-
ciple of action within itself. This has been demonstrated in Part I of the Catholic
demonstrations [that is, in the Confession of nature against the atheists], where the
existence of God is proved.
. Therefore no body taken apart from the concurring mind is a Substance.56

. VI i : L .

. VI i : L –. In the same way that Aristotle’s notion of cause (aitia) is quite dif-


  , –

We find here for the first time a principle that is fundamental to Leibniz’s
way of conceiving of substance and the key to his account of transubstan-
tiation. This assumption, which I will call the Principle of Substantial Ac-
tivity, assumes that a being S is a substance if and only if it subsists per se
and S subsists per se if and only if it has a principle of activity within itself
(in se). That a substance is essentially what acts and, hence, is what has its
own principle of activity is a view from which Leibniz never wavers. By
such means, On transubstantiation goes beyond what was said in the Confes-
sion of nature against the atheists and explains exactly why corporeal nature
needs an incorporeal principle. In the latter, Leibniz insisted that bodies are
not self-sufficient and cannot “subsist without an incorporeal principle” be-
cause a full account (or ratio) of their primary features cannot be found in
their nature. By means of the Principle of Substantial Activity, Leibniz now
helps us to understand both why an incorporeal principle is needed and
what connection there is between an incorporeal principle and a complete
ratio. That is, where the Confession of nature against the atheists insists on
the necessary relation between self-sufficiency and complete ratio (the Prin-
ciple of Self-Sufficiency claims that a being S is self-sufficient if and only
if a complete ratio of its features can be discovered in S), On transubstanti-
ation offers an explanation of this. In the quoted passage, Leibniz explains
exactly what it is that incorporeal nature has and corporeal nature lacks such
that the latter is insufficient without the former: bodies do not subsist per
se and cannot constitute a complete ratio of even their primary features be-
cause they lack a principle of activity. They need an incorporeal principle
exactly because they need a principle of activity, and they need a principle
of activity in order to cause their features. Without a source of activity to
cause their primary features, bodies would have none.57 In the second part
of On transubstantiation, Leibniz again proclaims: “I call substance an en-
tity subsisting per se,” and then insists that, as the scholastics claimed, such
entities are substantial individuals that act.58
Leibniz also articulates here for the first time what differentiates mind
from body: the former has its own principle of activity, while the latter has
to acquire its activity through union with mind. Given the Principle of Sub-
stantial Activity and the fact that only mind has its own principle of activ-
ity, it follows that body needs mind to “complete” it or to make it substan-
tial. It also follows that because mind has its own principle of activity, it not
only constitutes the substance of body, it is itself a substance.

ferent from our own, so is his notion of principle (archê). The exact meaning and uses of
archê have been much debated, but it is fair to say that for Aristotle (and for Leibniz), a
principle is an origin or source. So, for Leibniz, a principle of activity is a source of activ-
ity. For a clear discussion of the differences between our notions of principle and cause
and those of Aristotle, see Charlotte Witt, Substance and Essence in Aristotle: An Interpre-
tation of Metaphysics VII-IX, esp. –.
. In fact, a complete ratio contains more than just a principle of activity. As we will see later,
it also contains a set of instructions or blueprint for how it will act.
. VI i : L .


   

Let’s be clear. From what Leibniz has said thus far, each corporeal sub-
stance itself contains a substance in the sense that it contains its own prin-
ciple of activity. The remainder of the passage confirms the point that mind
is both a substance itself and a constituent of the substance it creates with
body. Leibniz continues:
. Whatever is taken with concurrent mind is Substance; whatever is taken apart
from it is accident. Substance is union with mind. Thus, the Substance of a hu-
man body is union with human mind; the Substance of bodies which lack rea-
son is union with the universal mind or God. . . .
. Therefore, the Substance of body is union with sustaining mind.
. That whose Substance is in union with a concurrent mind is transubstantiated
when its union with the concurring mind is changed.
. Therefore the bread and wine as bodies, when the concurrent mind has been
changed, are transubstantiated into the body of Christ or taken up by Christ.
Q.E.D.59
Leibniz’s solution to the problem of transubstantiation depends both on a
careful distinction between mind and body and on the fact that anything
with a principle of activity is itself a substance. According to Leibniz, there
are two distinct kinds of things whose every action is a variation of essence:
mind lacks extension and is an essentially thinking thing whose every action
is thought; body lacks a principle of action and is an essentially extended
thing whose every action is motion. The essence of a body, say, the bread,
remains unaffected by the mind sustaining it. Leibniz writes: “the concur-
ring mind . . . does not give or take away essence.”60 As Leibniz makes clear
later in the essay, God is “the Substance of [non-human] things, but not the
essence of them.”61 Because Leibniz here defines substance in terms of ac-
tivity and because mind is the source of activity, the right change of mind
is sufficient for transubstantiation. When the mind of Christ replaces the
previous mind, the essence of the bread and its appearances remain the
same, only its mind, which contains its principle of activity, has changed.
It would be helpful to understand a bit more about the relation between
mind, activity, and substance. The next two parts of the demonstration of-
fer some insight:
[Part] II. . If a body consecrated and appropriated by the mind of Christ has the
same concurrent mind as the glorious body of Christ who suffered for
us,
. it has numerically the same substantial form or substance as the body
of Christ who suffered for us, by number .
. Accordingly the bread and wine in transubstantiation are the numer-
ically identical substance as the body of Christ who suffered for us.
Q.E.D.

. VI i : L ; Leibniz’s emphases. The numbered premises of the demonstration go di-
rectly from  to .
. VI i : L . . VI i : L .


  , –
[Part] III.. A body which is thus transubstantiated is changed in no way except
in the substantial form . . . of the concurring mind, by number .
. That in which nothing is changed except the concurrent mind can re-
tain all its qualities or accidents or, if you prefer, appearances
[species]. For mind is compatible with all accidents to which it does
not give or take away essence, but only action.
. Therefore, all accidents or appearances [species] are preserved in the
transubstantiated bread and wine: extension, firmness, color, odor,
etc., can remain. Q.E.D.62
In this passage, Leibniz equates substance with substantial form. The im-
plication is that the substantial form contains the principle of activity. Be-
cause the substantial form has a principle of activity, it is itself a substance;
because it supplies a body with activity, it is also the substance of that body.
By such means, Leibniz offers a solution to the problem of transubstantia-
tion that is unavailable to mechanical philosophers like Gassendi,
Descartes, and White: because the substance of the body for Leibniz is not
constituted of its matter (or res extensa) but its substantial form, because the
substantial form for non-human substances is God, and because this sub-
stantial form can be in several different places simultaneously, the substance
of Christ can simultaneously be the substance of the bread in Rome as well
as the bread in Augsburg. Moreover, because the substantial form most cer-
tainly is “under the appearance of the bread,” the substance of Christ has
replaced the substance of the bread and yet the appearances of the bread re-
main. By such means, the metaphysical problem posed by the doctrine of
transubstantiation is neatly solved.63
There are several points to emphasize about the proposals in On transub-
stantiation. First, Leibniz retains a mechanical conception of body in that
corporeal features are reducible to the essence of the body. At the same time,
he conceives of substance in terms that are fundamentally Aristotelian: a
passive principle (here, matter or res extensa) is combined with a substantial
form to constitute a non-human substance. He equates mind and substan-
tial form and implies that the substantial form contains a principle of ac-
tivity and hence is a substance. Finally, it is important to note that this es-
say bears witness to the development of Leibniz’s ideas about substantial
self-sufficiency: given the Principle of Substantial Activity, the Principle of
Self-Sufficiency, and the notion of complete ratio, it follows that substances
will be exactly those things that have their own source of activity, which is
necessary in order to give a complete ratio for their features. Leibniz implies
in his demonstration that a body is not itself a substance because it does not
subsist in itself and it does not subsist in itself because it lacks an active
principle. It becomes part of substance when it is joined to mind or sub-
stantial form and thereby acquires an active principle that can act as a source
. VI i : L .
. However, for complicated reasons that I will discuss in ch. , sect. , the metaphysical
problems posed by the Lutheran doctrine of real presence have not been sufficiently
solved.


   

of those features. The principle that Leibniz assumes here, which is an ex-
tension of the Principle of Self-Sufficiency and the Principle of Substan-
tial Activity and which I will call the Principle of Substantial Self-Suffi-
ciency, may be put as follows: a being S is a substance if and only if it is
self-sufficient and S is self-sufficient if and only if the full account or com-
plete ratio of all of its features can be discovered in the nature of S. But
Leibniz also offers here the beginning of an account of substantial form,
where the basic idea is that a substantial form is something mind-like that
contains a principle of activity and that contributes to the self-sufficiency
of the substantial nature of which it is part. The lesson of the demonstra-
tion offered in On transubstantiation is clear: Leibniz is in the process of de-
veloping his own conception of substance, one that is significantly different
from the mechanical conception (although consistent with mechanical
physics) and one that is self-consciously Aristotelian.
That the notion of substance presented in On transubstantiation is
roughly analogous to an Aristotelian conception of substance is a fact that
Leibniz is happy to acknowledge. Upon the conclusion of his account of
transubstantiation, he discusses at length the similarity of his account of
substance in general and of substantial form in particular both to that of
Aristotle and to the proposals of other philosophers scattered throughout
the history of philosophy. Leibniz emphasizes both the ancient roots and
the conciliatory nature of his proposals. He claims that this “philosophiz-
ing of ours differs little from the received [i.e., Aristotelian] philosophy”;
where he has improved on that philosophy is in the clarity with which he
defines scholastic terminology.64 According to Leibniz, the result is better
and clearer than the original and more in agreement “with Aristotle himself
and the noblest of his followers.”65 In his concluding comments, Leibniz
insists that his account will appeal to most philosophers, regardless of their
philosophical perspective. He lists a number of Aristotelian philosophers
(e.g., Averroës, Murcia de la Llana) and non-Aristotelian (e.g., Plato) and
maintains that they would all agree with “these theorems of ours.” Leibniz
is especially insistent that his conception of substantial form is like that of
Aristotle, while his account of individuation is like that of Zabarella and
others. In short, Leibniz takes the theory of substance on which his account
of transubstantiation is based to be a means to reconcile various philosoph-
ical schools.
Before turning to the next theological essay, it is worth calling attention
to a problem concerning the status and source of the nature of body as Leib-
niz presents it in this essay. According to Leibniz, a body is “a being in

. VI i : L .

. VI i : L . By lifting a few sentences of On transubstantiation out of context, Robert
Adams constructs a reading of the text, according to which God relates to non-human bod-
ies by thinking them. Not only does Adams’ reading contradict, as we will see, many other
texts of the period, it is hardly consistent with what Leibniz says here about the agreement
between his view and Aristotle’s. For Adams’ discussion, see Leibniz: Determinist, Theist,
Idealist, pp. –.


  , –

space” that combines with mind to form a non-human corporeal substance.

He also states that mind does not “give or take away essence.”66 The clear
implication is that a body has an essence that is somehow distinct from the
mind with which it joins to form a substance. Leibniz is perfectly clear that
the concurrent mind constitutes the “substances, but not the essences” of
bodies.67 As noted, his ability to solve the problem of transubstantiation
while retaining mechanical physics depends on that distinction. But it is not
clear in the essay what the source of the essence of body is. The answer to
this question constitutes one of the major developments in Leibniz’s
thought in .

Conspectus
I now turn to a piece that is closely related to the Confession of nature against
the atheists. The Conspectus, as an outline of the Catholic demonstrations, is
interesting for what it reveals about Leibniz’s plans and presuppositions.
The range of topics that Leibniz intended to include in this grand work is
astonishing: from the possibility of the immaculate conception and the sal-
vation of non-Christians to the nature of space, body, and angels. Because
the outline contains important insights into Leibniz’s original conception of
the relation between God and creatures, we will return to this text in chap-
ters  and . The Conspectus is important here for what it reveals about the
progress that Leibniz’s thought has made since the Confession of nature
against the atheists. In Part I of the Conspectus, entitled “Demonstration of
the Existence of God,” Leibniz lists his first principles; the first three are:
() “ there is nothing without a ratio;” () “there can be no motion without
continual creation;” and () “there is nothing in bodies that constitutes the
origin of motion.”68 These three principles suggest that the argument for
the existence of God is here (in bare outline) fundamentally the same as it
was in the Confession of nature against the atheists: because the complete
ratio of the (primary) features of bodies cannot be discovered in corporeal
nature, there must be an incorporeal principle, namely, God. However,
each of the three principles in the Conspectus represents a development in
Leibniz’s views since the composition of the Confession of nature against
the atheists. In principle (), Leibniz not only makes explicit what was only
implicit in the earlier work, he extends the range of the assumption.
Whereas in the earlier text, the Principle of Sufficient Reason seemed to
apply only to the (primary) features of body, now it applies to everything.
That is, Leibniz is now willing to assert that for everything there is, there is
a complete ratio.69 This is more than just the first explicit statement of the

. VI i –: L . . VI i : L . . VI i .

. The Academy editors place the composition of the Conspectus within the period –
and that of On transubstantiation within  (see VI ii –). On my analysis, there are
two reasons to think that the Conspectus was written after On transubstantiation: the Con-
spectus includes the first statement of the principle of continual recreation and the first ex-
plicit statement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. That Leibniz considered the devel-


   

Principle of Sufficient Reason, it is an articulation of Leibniz’s fundamen-

tal commitment to the harmony and intelligibility of the world. Against the
background of the notion of complete ratio, the view seems to be that for
everything in the world, there is a complete explanation of exactly why it
and no other came about. Principle () of the Conspectus reveals that Leib-
niz accepts a version of the doctrine of continual recreation. This means
that the relation between mind and body has changed. The supreme being
still provides the cause and account of motion, but it does so in a new way –
namely, by continually recreating bodies.70 Finally, principle () indicates
that Leibniz has come to understand the centrality of motion in explaining
corporeal features and, hence, in arguing for the existence of God. Since
writing the Confession of nature against the atheists, Leibniz has identified
the crucial explanatory role that motion plays in accounting for the features
of bodies, and this has allowed him to streamline his argument for the exis-
tence of God. He has come to understand that since corporeal features are
to be explained in terms of matter in motion, the crucial point to make in
arguing for God’s existence is that the origin of motion cannot be found in
body. Thus, in order to explain corporeal features, we have to resort to God.
The Conspectus bears witness to the fact that Leibniz’s opinions about the
various philosophical problems that cluster around the topic of substance
are evolving in important ways during the period. He explains in his letter
to Thomasius of April  that since writing the Confession of nature
against the atheists, he has “penetrated much more deeply” into the issues
discussed there and has “found out about the perpetual creation involved in
motion, and about the innermost nature of a thinking being or a mind.”71
It is noteworthy that Leibniz’s ideas are developing in such significant ways
while he is working on the theological topics of the Catholic demonstrations.

Demonstration of the possibility of the mysteries of the Eucharist

Among the notes that Leibniz wrote on the problem of the Eucharist be-
tween  and  and that the Academy editors entitled Deomonstration
of the possibility of the mysteries of the Eucharist, the most relevant for us are
some comments made on a text by Thomas White. Leibniz’s comments show
an impressive grasp of both scholastic terminology and the whole range of
problems that the mystery of the Eucharist produced. What is of particular
interest to us now are some suggestions that Leibniz makes about the nature
of body. In Leibniz’s opinion, White and others think that the substance of

opment of the doctrine of continual creation fairly important is clear: he writes to Thoma-
sius in  that since the Confession of nature against the atheists, he has “found out about
the perpetual creation involved in motion” (II i : L ). Since Leibniz does not use this
doctrine in On transubstantiation, it is unlikely that he had yet “found” it.
. In chapter , I will discuss Leibniz’s views about continual creation at greater length. For
now, it is worth noting that his position is not that of occasionalism.
. II i : L .


  , –
something is that which is indivisible in the thing, but they admit that this
“is very difficult to understand.”72 Leibniz lists other difficulties and unclar-
ities facing White’s account of the substance of Christ, and then sides with
Aristotle in claiming that “there is something in body that relates [pertinere]
to substance and that consists in what is indivisible.” This “is to some extent
active and can easily be called form in the Scholastic Style; it is to some ex-
tent passive and is rightly called matter in the sense of the Scholastics.”73
Leibniz offers here the key to his original conception of body. To understand
the place it has in his notion, one need only grasp exactly how the same thing
can be both active and passive, both substantial form and matter.
Leibniz offers the explanation of this paradoxical claim in the only other
text of the period where he explicitly discusses the relation between form
and body. The text, a letter to Thomasius of October , is a rough sum-
mary of the conceptions of substantial form, matter, and substance. As a
whole, the letter is helpful for what it reveals about the motivations behind
Leibniz’s views. According to Leibniz, “the obscurity” of the Aristotelians
was due to “scholastic smoke” and “Aristotle himself agrees remarkably well
with Galileo, Bacon, Gassendi, Hobbes, Descartes, [and] Digby.”74 Given
our concerns, the most important points that Leibniz makes in the letter
may be summarized as follows: he claims () that “the prime matter of Aris-
totle [is] . . . inert mass [moles] without motion and . . . figura;75 () that the
origin of motion is God; () that figura or “form results from the potential
[potentia] of matter;” () that this figura “is the source of all the affections
or sensible qualities;” () that we can call this “innermost figura of parts [in-
tima partium figura]” ‘substantial form’ because (a) it can be distinguished
from matter, (b) it is prior to everything else concerning body, and (c) it is
in terms of it that we explain all the appearances or qualities of the body.76
These points are most easily explained as a group. According to Leibniz,
prior to all motion, what we think of as body is merely inert matter every-

. VI i . . VI i . . II i .

. II i . The Latin term figura has at least two rather different senses. It can mean, on the
one hand, either form, shape, or figure and, on the other, nature, kind, or species. Simi-
larly, the Latin forma is ambiguous between shape or figure and nature or essence. There
are three points to emphasize about Leibniz’s use of figura in this letter to Thomasius.
First, the forma or figura qua shape and the forma or figura qua nature or essence are here
fundamentally related. Leibniz clearly thinks that the figura or forma qua nature of a body
is an organized arrangement of parts of matter and, as such, is “the source” of the shape
the body has. In short, the shape of a body follows from its nature. Second, Leibniz is here
much more interested in the figura qua nature of the body than qua shape; indeed, his ma-
jor concern is with the fact that the parts of matter so organized constitute the figura or
forma qua nature of body. Understanding the text depends on keeping distinct the two
senses of figura. Finally, because Leibniz here takes the nature of a body to be an arrange-
ment of parts of matter, figura qua nature is most appropriately understood as arrangement
or organization. That this is what Leibniz has in mind will become clear in what follows.
Nevertheless, it seems appropriate to stay as close to Leibniz’s original meaning as possi-
ble and not to translate the Latin figura. This will help to reveal the complexity of the text.
. II i .


   

where the same without division or distinction. This inert stuff is what the
Aristotelians call ‘prime matter’ (point ()). God acts on it through motion,
so that combinations of matter in motion arise (point ()). “The figura [,]
arising from such a combination of motions, comprises this orderly arrange-
ment of parts.”77 That is, the inert matter, once moved, becomes arrange-
ments of parts of matter or figurae (point ()). Since God is (in a sense yet
to be explained) the principle of action and since there is a figura only if
there is motion, it is clear that matter is first individuated and then main-
tained as a figura through the active principle in God. But even though God
maintains the figura, the figura still has its own nature: it is the totality and
arrangement of its parts. This implies, first, that figura is distinct from mat-
ter (point (a)): it is, after all, an organized arrangement of matter. But it
also implies that figura is the nature of body and can be said to be prior to
everything else concerning body (point (b)). Because all the features of
bodies (e.g., squareness, heat) are reducible to and explained by the arrange-
ment of their parts, it follows that the figura is that in terms of which we ex-
plain all the features of bodies (point (c)). Understood in this way, it does
not seem so far-fetched to call figura “substantial form.” Even though God
acts as its principle of activity, the figura does constitute the innermost na-
ture of body (point ()) and the source of its affections (point ()). In other
words, although the figura does not have the causal priority and self-suffi-
ciency that Aristotle requires of substantial form, it has some of the other
characteristics that Aristotle attributes to this fundamental principle. For
example, figura so understood constitutes the nature of bodies and the
source of its features. As Leibniz writes, “nothing prevents us from calling
this arrangement the ‘inner prime form’ of a body.”78
This interpretation of the relation between matter and form helps to ex-
plain Leibniz’s comments on Thomas White’s text. According to Leibniz,
there is something in body that is somehow active (and hence called form)
and somehow passive (and thus called matter). It now seems fairly clear that
this is figura understood in the way just explained. The figura, when pas-
sive, is merely matter; when active (that is, when it is made active by God),
is form. But in his comments about White, Leibniz also adds that this some-
thing “relates to substance” and “consists in what is indivisible.”79 Again,
figura conforms. The indivisibility of the figura consists in the fact that the
survival of the figura is dependent upon its not being divided; once a par-
ticular figura is divided, it ceases to be that figura or that arrangement of
parts. Leibniz explains in the April  letter to Thomasius that in the
same way the “generation of a form occurs in an instant,” it “cannot be in-
creased or decreased.”80 The point seems to be that since the figura is the
totality of its parts, if any part is taken away or added, the original figura
does not survive. It is also fairly straightforward how the figura is supposed

. “[F]igura a complexione motuum orta, ipsam partium dispositionem complectitur” (II i
).
. II i . . VI i . . II i : L .


  , –

to “relate to substance.” For if the figura is created and maintained by the

principle of activity in God, then it clearly relates to God and, hence, to a
substance in a fairly unproblematic way.
At the end of my analysis of On transubstantiation, I mentioned a prob-
lem that Leibniz had left unsolved. In that essay, Leibniz claims that a non-
human corporeal substance is formed from the union of body and mind,
where the body is supposed to have an essence. I asserted that there is a
question about the status of the essence of body: Leibniz does not explain
in the essay exactly what the source of that essence is. Once we combine the
notes on White with the October  letter to Thomasius, we can both de-
tect an answer to the question and discern the relation between mind and
body: a body whose material parts are inactive (that is, body qua matter) is
merely passive, inert stuff, and in that sense is not a body at all; a body whose
material parts are active (that is, body qua form) is an organized arrange-
ment of parts or a figura. God is the principle of activity that individuates
matter and then maintains it as a figura. Once God activates its matter, body
has its own essence: it is essentially this organized arrangement of parts, this
matter in motion. By working out the details of how body is supposed to
arise out of matter and mind while having its own essence, Leibniz has taken
an important step toward constructing a viable version of Aristotelian sub-
stance, one that can satisfy the requirements of mechanical physics.
In chapter , I claimed that Leibniz intended to construct a true philos-
ophy out of the doctrines of the major philosophical traditions; in the next
chapter, I argue that the letter to Thomasius of April  is his first at-
tempt to articulate the conception of substance that stands at the center of
his Metaphysics of Substance. In this section, I have suggested that Leib-
niz’s original metaphysical assumptions developed in response to particular
theological demands. By unveiling the fundamental (albeit implicit) as-
sumptions of Leibniz’s early thought, this analysis has prepared the ground
for an account of Leibniz’s original conception of substance and the devel-
opment of his metaphysics more generally. Only with the help of Leibniz’s
notion of complete ratio and his Principles of Substantial Activity, Sub-
stantial Self-Sufficiency, Causal Self-Sufficiency, and Sufficient Reason are
we able to discern the subtle complications of Leibniz’s early thought.81

. Philip Beeley has argued that the major motivation behind the development of Leibniz’s
early metaphysics is the problem of the continuum, and he cites the October  letter to
Thomasius and the notes on White’s text as examples of Leibniz’s early interest in that
problem. While it is surely true that the continuum problem was one of the issues that en-
gaged the young man at the time, it was not his primary concern. The juxtaposition of the
October letter, the notes, and the theological essays makes it clear that, while Leibniz was
keen to solve the problem of the continuum, there were a number of other problems to
which he attached equal weight. His primary concern was to solve all of these in a manner
that would reconcile the religious and philosophical sects of his period. For Beeley’s analy-
sis of some of the texts discussed in this section, see Kontinuität, chs. –; for his com-
ments on the problem of the Eucharist for early Leibniz, see esp. –. I return to mat-
ters concerning the problem of the continuum in ch. .


   

. Leibniz’s Aristotelian assumptions

Seventeenth-century religious strife reached a bloody peak during the
Thirty Years War, which ended in , two years after Leibniz’s birth.
When Leibniz began the conciliatory Catholic demonstrations in , many
German intellectuals faced an unstable political, religious, and intellectual
scene. Since one of the major worries among Leibniz’s relatively conserva-
tive contemporaries was (what they perceived to be) the radical materialism
of the new mechanical philosophy82 and since one of the major disagree-
ments between the Catholics and the various Protestant sects concerned the
doctrine of the Eucharist, it is hardly surprising that Leibniz’s first ecu-
menical essays concerned these topics. In the Confession of nature against the
atheists, Leibniz accepts the explanatory model of the mechanical physics,
but argues that its metaphysical foundations are inadequate. In On transub-
stantiation and his notes on Thomas White, Leibniz struggles with the
Catholic teaching about the Eucharist. With impressive philosophical fi-
nesse, he manages to remain consistent with mechanical physics and with
Tridentine demands. In the next chapter, I discuss Leibniz’s first full-blown
account of substance in a letter to Thomasius of . We will see there how
his synthesis of the mechanical physics and the Aristotelian metaphysics of
substance is supposed to work. But I want to emphasize the fact that Leib-
niz begins to construct the details of his original metaphysics within the con-
text of this elaborate set of theological demands and that at its center stands
a reconsideration of the notions of substantial form and substantial nature.
Before turning to Leibniz’s original theory of substance, it will be help-
ful to summarize the assumptions articulated in this chapter and then to un-
pack their most obvious implications. The assumptions used in the theo-
logical writings of  are as follows:
• The Principle of Self-Sufficiency assumes that a being S is self-sufficient
if and only if the complete ratio for its features can be discovered in the
nature of S.
• The Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency assumes that a being S is a
substance if and only if S is self-sufficient.
• The Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency assumes that for any being S,
strictly speaking, S can be said to have a feature f and f can be said to ex-
ist in S just in case the complete ratio for f can be found in the nature of S.
• The Principle of Substantial Activity assumes that a being S is a substance
if and only if it subsists per se and S subsists per se if and only if it has a
principle of activity within its own nature.
• The Principle of Sufficient Reason assumes that, for everything there is,
there is a complete ratio.

. I will say more about the standard German response to the mechanical philosophy in the
next chapter.


  , –

The notion of a complete ratio, assumed in these principles, may be sum-

marized as follows:
• For some state or feature f, a complete ratio of f () constitutes the neces-
sary and sufficient condition for f; () is perspicuous in that, in those cases
where one can understand it, one sees exactly why f as opposed to some
other state of affairs came about; () is such that in those cases when a full
account of it can be given, that account constitutes a complete explana-
tion of f; and () the ratio itself does not require a reason of the same type.
This notion of complete ratio along with the Principle of Sufficient Reason
implies two other assumptions that Leibniz makes during his early years:
• The Logical Assumption claims that, for any state or feature f, the logically
necessary and sufficient conditions of f exist and in theory can be articu-
lated.
• The Intelligibility Assumption claims that those conditions are in theory
intelligible. It is important to note that, when taken with the Principle of
Causal Self-Sufficiency, the Intelligibility Assumption implies that for
any feature f, f cannot be said to belong to a being S unless one can in the-
ory understand how the nature of S acts as the cause of f.
These assumptions imply a good deal about substance. According to the
Principle of Substantial Activity, each substance will have a principle of ac-
tivity in its nature; according to the conjunction of the Logical Assumption
and the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, for every feature f that strictly
belongs to S, there will be a set of necessary and sufficient conditions in the
nature of S that will constitute the complete ratio of f; and according to the
Intelligibility Assumption, those conditions in S are in theory intelligible.83
In the discussion of the essay On transubstantiation, I noted that Leibniz
equates substantial form and mind, where the basic idea is that a substan-
tial form is something mind-like that contains a principle of activity and that
contributes to the self-sufficiency of the substantial nature of which it is
part. Once we piece together these clues, we obtain two further assumptions.
I date one of these because we will have reason to revise it in chapter  and
again in chapter :
• The Substantial Nature Assumption claims that, for every substance S, it
has a nature that contains the set of necessary and sufficient conditions or
the complete ratio for those features that strictly belong to it and more-
over those conditions are in theory intelligible.
• The () Substantial Form Assumption asserts that, for every substance
S, S will have a (mind-like) substantial form that contains the principle of
activity of S.

. In fact, because of their complexity, only God will understand them, but it was important
to Leibniz, as Rutherford has so nicely pointed out, that nature is fundamentally rational,
and in that sense suited to rational beings. See Rational Order, passim.


   

It is significant that Leibniz does not think it is necessary to argue for

these assumptions: the intelligibility of the world follows from his belief in
the wisdom of God; the self-sufficiency of substances from his commitment
to the philosophy of Aristotle, as he interpreted it. It is important to un-
derstand that the young Leibniz took the created world to be a place in
which everything was thoroughly explicable and that this view followed
from his assumptions about the nature of God. We will have to wait until
chapter  for an account of the basic assumptions behind his Metaphysics
of Divinity, but I will note here that the Principle of Sufficient Reason has
its roots in Leibniz’s belief that such orderliness is a necessary feature of
any world created by God.
That Leibniz was well aware of the various conflicting interpretations of
Aristotle’s metaphysics is clear. It is also evident that some of his assump-
tions about substance go beyond anything that twenty-first-century schol-
ars might consider genuinely based on the texts of Aristotle. But it is also
important to note both that Leibniz considered his views about substance
thoroughly Aristotelian and moreover that they do correspond to the most
fundamental of Aristotle’s views. For example, one can safely say that, for
Aristotle, substance is that in terms of which everything else can be ex-
plained, and a concrete individual substance is what causes and explains (at
least) all of its essential features. Leibniz’s metaphysical assumptions reveal
how he understood the Aristotelian claim that substances are the ultimate
explanatory principles. For him, most fundamentally, substances are self-
sufficient. This means that they have their own principle of activity by
means of which they act as the cause and explanation for their primary fea-
tures. The Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency and the Substantial
Nature Assumption reduce to the same basic intuition, namely, that sub-
stances contain the cause and explanation for what they are and what they
do. It follows that each individual substance is the complete ratio for (at
least) its primary features and moreover that the totality of substances is the
source of activity – and hence the cause and explanation – for everything
that happens in the world. In short, the metaphysical assumptions presented
here reveal how Leibniz interpreted Aristotle’s account of substance. The
listed assumptions constitute the truths that he borrowed from Aristotle’s
philosophy and with which he intended to build his own true metaphysical
system. It seems appropriate therefore to refer to these principles in the
chapters that follow as Leibniz’s Aristotelian assumptions.
It is important to be clear about the status of these assumptions. There
are two points to make. First, I do not mean to claim that Leibniz was com-
mitted to exactly these propositions as formulated. Except for the Principle
of Sufficient Reason, he (almost) never explicitly asserts either these or
equivalent claims. But his lack of forthrightness should not come as a sur-
prise. I claimed in the Introduction and chapter  that he has methodolog-
ical reasons for not explicitly stating his most fundamental philosophical as-
sumptions and that he intended his reader to discover those assumptions


  , –

after the careful consideration of his texts. From a careful analysis of the
theological essays of –, it is clear that Leibniz had a number of philo-
sophical prejudices both about substance and about the relation between
substance and substantial features. The assumptions listed here are an at-
tempt to articulate those prejudices. Second, the textual evidence given in
this chapter is insufficient by itself to justify the claim that these assump-
tions constitute Leibniz’s most basic beliefs about substance. Although I
consider the evidence in the theological essays significant, what is much
more important is the way that Leibniz goes on to use these assumptions.
Therefore, for the moment, we might think of these as working hypotheses
whose confirmation will come when they consistently help to explain both
Leibniz’s texts and the evolution of his thought. The chapters that follow
contain ample proof that these principles do form the core of Leibniz’s
Metaphysics of Substance.
Before turning to the next phase of Leibniz’s philosophical development,
let’s consider some problems that lurk within the assumptions taken as a
group. These cluster around a slight tension between the Principle of Causal
Self-Sufficiency and the Principle of Sufficient Reason: on the one hand,
the Principle of Sufficient Reason demands that there be a sufficient ex-
planation for a feature; on the other, the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency
claims that a feature cannot be said to belong to a substance unless that ex-
planation lies in the nature of the substance. What this means is that if the
Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency extends only to some features (say, es-
sential ones) and not to others (say, non-essential ones), then the latter can-
not strictly be said to belong to or exist in the substance. Take, for example,
the stain on Wanda’s hand. If the nature of Wanda does not contain the
complete ratio for the stain, but rather the ratio is contained partly in the na-
ture of Wanda and partly in the nature of her morning coffee, then strictly
speaking the stain is not a feature of Wanda. But if the stain is not strictly a
feature of Wanda, then of whom or what is it a feature? Another way of put-
ting this is that if the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency does not extend
to all the features of S, then there are going to be some features which do
not strictly belong to any substances at all.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s call the claim that the Principle of Causal
Self-Sufficiency applies to all features of S the Complete-Ratio Theory of
Substance. The Complete Ratio Theory of Substance claims that the nature
of a substance S contains the complete ratio for all its states or features,
whether essential or non-essential. In this case, following the Substantial
Nature Assumption, S would contain the set of necessary and sufficient
conditions or the complete ratio for those features that strictly belong to it,
and moreover the conditions in S would be in theory intelligible. Under-
stood in this way, the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance seems to entail
some very significant conclusions. First, if we extend the Principle of
Causal Self-Sufficiency to all the states or features of S so that the nature
of S constitutes a complete ratio for all such features, then something very


   

like Leibniz’s notion of a complete concept seems to follow.84 For, since the
nature of S contains the necessary and sufficient conditions for all the fea-
tures of S and since a complete concept is the set of predicates truly attrib-
uted of S, the nature of S would contain something very like the complete
concept of S. Moreover, since the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance
claims that every feature of S is caused by the nature of S, then it would
seem to follow that every state or feature of a substance is produced by its
nature and therefore that there is no real causal interaction among sub-
stances. That is, the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance would seem to
entail two significant conclusions: () for every feature f of a substance S,
the cause of f is in S; () no feature of S is directly caused by the nature of
another substance. In short, if we extend the Principle of Causal Self-Suf-
ficiency to all features of a substance and accept the Complete Ratio The-
ory of Substance, then we arrive at two of the three doctrines that are sup-
posed to constitute Preestablished Harmony, namely, the world-apart thesis
and the doctrine of spontaneity.85 As we will see in the chapters that follow,
it took Leibniz several months to decide on how to resolve this tension be-
tween the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Principle of Causal Self-
Sufficiency. The result is a Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance and a ver-
sion of parallelism to accompany it.86
After writing the theological essays of –, Leibniz began to piece
together the implications of their metaphysical commitments. Not surpris-
ingly, these Aristotelian assumptions play a crucial role in the development
of his original conception of substance. It is now time to turn to the letter
in which that conception is first fully articulated.

. For an account of the mature doctrine, see Appendix I.

. There is some reason to believe that as early as –, Leibniz applied the Complete-
Ratio Theory of Substance to non-human substances. This is an extreme conclusion for
which I will not argue here. We will have to wait until ch.  for the textual evidence to sup-
port this claim.
. For a summary of these doctrines, see Appendix II.


 3
Original conception of substance, 

In April , Leibniz wrote a letter to Jakob Thomasius in which he

argues at length for the reconciliation of the Aristotelian and the mechani-
cal philosophies and for a conception of substance that would effect that
reconciliation. In the same year, he prepared an edition of a text by the six-
teenth-century humanist, Mario Nizolio, which he published in early .
Leibniz wrote a lengthy introduction to Nizolio’s book, On the True Prin-
ciples and the True Method of Philosophizing, Against the Pseudo-Philoso-
phers, of .1 Both Nizolio’s text and Leibniz’s introduction discuss the
proper way of philosophizing. It is significant that Leibniz attached to his
introduction a slightly revised version of his April  letter to Thoma-
sius. The letter thereby became the young man’s first published text on a
contemporary metaphysical topic.2 Both Leibniz’s proposal for reconcilia-
tion and his argument for it are strikingly odd. He insists that much of me-
chanical philosophy follows from Aristotelian principles and that Aristotle’s
physics is explicable in mechanical terms. His argument includes a refor-
mation of Aristotle’s notions of substantial form and matter into a me-
chanical conception of body. Leibniz happily concludes that by such means
the mechanical philosophy “can be reconciled with Aristotle’s.”3
The apparent perversity of Leibniz’s position is due to the fact that noth-
ing could be further from the truth. The philosophies proposed by mecha-
nists like Descartes and Gassendi explicitly reject the foundations of the
Aristotelian system. Aristotle’s conception of individual substance, as a
union of matter and an organizing substantial form, stands at the center of
his metaphysics. The rest of Aristotle’s philosophy assumes this notion.

. The original Latin title of Nizolio’s work is De Veris Principiis et Vera Ratione Philosophandi
contra Pseudophilosophos, libri IV. Besides the edition of , Leibniz published another
edition in  under a slightly different title, Antibarbarus Philosophicus sive Philosophia
Scholasticorum Impugnata, libris IV de veris principiis, et vera ratione philosophandi, contra
pseudophilosophos. See VI ii , . Scholars have sometimes conflated the two titles; see,
e.g., L , n. ; Aiton, Leibniz: A Biography, ; Brown, “Leibniz: Modern, Scholastic, or
Renaissance Philosopher?,” , n. . There is a translation of part of Leibniz’s intro-
duction at L: –.
. In earlier works like On the Combinatorial Art, Leibniz had discussed metaphysical topics
and offered some suggestions about the proper elements of metaphysics (see VI i ff), but
the published letter to Thomasius constitutes his first attempt to offer a fully articulated
and original theory of substance.
. VI ii : L . The letter that Leibniz sent to Thomasius is found at II i –; the pub-
lished version is at VI ii –. I refer to the latter in this chapter.


   

Therefore, when Descartes, Gassendi, and many other mechanical philoso-

phers reject Aristotle’s account of substance and insist that all corporeal fea-
tures can be explained wholly in terms of the motion of extended stuff, they
discard the very foundations of the Aristotelian philosophy.
Commentators have generally offered one of two explanations for Leib-
niz’s position: they have maintained either that the young man was disin-
genuous in his proclamations of the virtue of Aristotle’s philosophy, or that
he was woefully misinformed about the ancient thought. I argued in chap-
ter  that Leibniz was a conciliatory eclectic whose goal was to construct a
true metaphysics out of the dominant philosophical schools, and I claimed
that by the late s he had hit upon the core features of his Metaphysics
of Substance. In chapter , I uncovered Leibniz’s Aristotelian assumptions
and maintained that these represent his interpretation of Aristotle’s con-
ception of substance. In this chapter I will discuss the April  letter to
Thomasius in which the methodology and early metaphysics brilliantly con-
verge and in which Leibniz articulates his original conception of substance.
Before turning to the letter itself, however, we will need to do a bit more his-
tory. Leibniz’s philosophical proposals to Thomasius are best understood
in their proper intellectual context.

. Reformed philosophy
Scholasticism had not been long established before philosophers began to
distinguish between the thought of Aristotle and that of his dim-witted fol-
lowers. From the time of Francesco Petrarch (–), many insisted that
the claims of the ancient were superior to those of the uncomprehending
schoolmen, and that the Aristotelianism of the scholastics was not the phi-
losophy of Aristotle himself.4 During the Renaissance and early modern pe-
riod, humanist Aristotelianisms multiplied at a rapid rate. One can hardly
overemphasize the variety of uses to which the ancient thought was put.5
For example, in his De Intellectu, the Italian Aristotelian, Agostino Nifo
(/–), forged a complicated synthesis of Aristotelian, Platonist,

. See Petrarch’s On His Own Ignorance in The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, eds. Ernst Cas-
sirer, Paul O. Kristeller, and John H. Randall, f, , and esp. f.
. Historians of science and philosophy have begun to document the complicated history of
Renaissance Aristotelianism. For some of the standard literature on the topic, see John H.
Randall, The School of Padua and the Emergence of Modern Science; Ingemar Düring, “The
Impact of Aristotle’s Scientific Ideas in the Middle Ages and at the Beginning of the Sci-
entific Revolution”; and Schmitt, The Aristotelian Tradition and Renaissance Universities;
Aristotle and the Renaissance; John Case and Aristotelianism in Renaissance England; ‘To-
wards a Reassessment of Renaissance Aristotelianism,” and Critical Survey and Bibliogra-
phy of Studies on Renaissance Aristotelianism. Some of the more helpful recent literature,
which contains citations to other work, includes: Copenhaver and Schmitt, Renaissance Phi-
losophy, ch. ; Schmitt, Quentin Skinner, and Eckhard Kessler, The Cambridge History of
Renaissance Philosophy, passim; Menn, “The Intellectual Setting,” –; Roger Ariew and
Alan Gabbey, “The Scholastic Background;” and Garber and Ayers, The Cambridge His-
tory of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, passim.


    , 

and Christian doctrines in an attempt to argue that the immortality of the

soul could be defended on grounds both of Christian revelation and philo-
sophical demonstration;6 and the Cambridge Aristotelian, Everard Digby
(–) proposed in his Theoria Analytica of  a combination of
Platonist, kabbalistic, Hermetic, and occult ideas within a generally Aris-
totelian framework. According to eclectics like Everard Digby, the goal was
“to save” the truth in Aristotle while adding to it.7
In the Protestant Germany in which Leibniz grew up, the thought of
Aristotle was combined with a number of philosophical and theological
doctrines. Due to the anti-Aristotelianism of Luther and the early reform-
ers, the scholastic philosophy of the universities had to be radically re-
formed. The important sixteenth-century educational reformer, Philipp
Melanchthon (–), managed to forge a synthesis of the writings of
Aristotle and the teachings of Luther by carefully selecting the bits of Aris-
totle’s writings that did not directly confront Lutheran theology. The result
was an educational program in which theology had replaced metaphysics as
the central point of focus. By the early seventeenth century, however, the
Metaphysics had resurfaced, and more serious attempts were being made to
construct a coherent metaphysical system that also conformed to Protestant
theology.8 Leibniz echoes this tradition when he writes to Johann Friedrich
in a letter quoted in chapter : “We must push metaphysics further than has
been done so far, in order to have the true notions of God and the soul, of
person, substance, and accidents.”9
In the first half of the seventeenth century, the intellectuals of Europe
were also confronted with the new natural philosophies of Galileo,
Descartes, and Gassendi. By the middle of the century, there had evolved a
group of eclectics whose members sometimes referred to themselves as the
“reformers [reformatores]” and their philosophy as “reformed philosophy
[philosophia reformata or philosophia emendata].” For Leibniz, any thinker
who articulated a desire to accommodate the new mechanical physics within
some version of Aristotelian metaphysics was a reformed philosopher.10 Re-

. Nifo, De Intellectu, I.I.. . Everard Digby, Theoria Analytica, .

. For the relation between Aristotelianism and Protestantism in Germany, see standard
works such as Wundt, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik, and Die Philosophie an der Universität
Jena; Petersen, Geschichte; Josef Bohatec, Die cartesianische Scholastik in der Philosophie
und reformierten Dogmatik des . Jahrhunderts; Ernst Lewalter, Spanisch-Jesuitische und
Deutsch-Lutherische Metaphysik des . Jahrhunderts. For more recent studies, see Beck,
Early German Philosophy, passim; Jill Kraye, “Moral Philosophy,” esp. –; Charles
Lohr, “Metaphysics,” esp. –; and Leinsle, Reformversuche, passim.
. II i : L .
. The term ‘reformata’ and its cognates were put to a variety of important uses in the early
modern period. Although in the sixteenth century, the term was employed by various
branches of the Protestant movement to refer to their churches, it came to be used in the
seventeenth century to distinguish the Calvinists and their ‘Reformed Church’ from the
Lutherans. Despite its association with the Calvinists in the seventeenth century, the term
retained its original sense in non-religious contexts. For example, although Leibniz was a
Lutheran, he was happy to describe himself and other non-Calvinists as “reformed
philosophers.” For his use of the term, see sect. . However, it is important to be clear


   

formers had very different recipes for mixing the old with the new, but they
all intended to combine some part of the mechanical physics with Aris-
totelian metaphysics. Each was prepared to say that when the Aristotelian
philosophy was properly understood, it could comfortably accommodate
the mechanical philosophy.
The reformers are best understood in the context of Renaissance hu-
manism and eclectic Aristotelianism, with the additional variable of the new
mechanical philosophy. Like the early humanists, they were inclined to look
at the ancient himself, to distinguish him from his scholastic followers, and
to combine Aristotelian ideas with those of other traditions. But, unlike
their predecessors, they had had time to digest fully the new proposals in
physics and to face squarely the abundance of ever new discoveries (e.g., sun
spots) that often seemed to contradict their cherished Aristotle. Many sev-
enteenth-century intellectuals had turned to the new philosophy11 because
they were displeased with the scholastic natural philosophy of the schools
and because the new discoveries did seem to argue against Aristotelian prin-
ciples.12 But this alternative was considered too extreme by others. For
many seventeenth-century thinkers, mechanism was not only a first step to-
wards atheism, it was unacceptable just because of its total rejection of the
traditional philosophy.13 They maintained that the Aristotelian philosophy
did not need to be rejected, it just needed to be reformed. In typical hu-

about the fact that some of the thinkers whom Leibniz called reformed philosophers and
whom I discuss later did not use this terminology to refer to themselves. For Catholics like
Kenelm Digby, for example, the designation surely would have smacked too much of
Protestantism.
. In the Renaissance and early modern period, there was a wide range of philosophical op-
tions that were called ‘new.’ Until the mid-seventeenth century, the standard distinction
was between the ancient and the new (where the latter could be a revision of something
ancient). The budding philosopher could choose between the new skepticism, new mysti-
cism, new Epicureanism, the new science of Paraclesus, and so on. For discussions of this
point, see Allen Debus, Man and Nature in the Renaissance and Menn, “The Intellectual
Setting.” It is important to recognize that, as Menn puts it: “By the early seventeenth cen-
tury, there were far too many new philosophies available: the problem was to find a single
good one” (). The mechanical philosophies of Galileo, Descartes, Gassendi, Hobbes,
and Digby solved this problem so that, by the mid-century, the designation ‘new philoso-
phy’ had become identified with mechanism.
. For a discussion of scholastic education in seventeenth-century universities, see L.W.B.
Brockliss, French Higher Education in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, and “Aris-
totle, Descartes, and the New Science: Natural Philosophy at the University of Paris,
–;” Schmitt, “The Rise of the Philosophical Textbook;” John A. Trentman,
“Scholasticism in the Seventeenth Century;” Patricia Reif, “The Textbook Tradition in
Natural Philosophy, –,” and Garber and Ayers, The Cambridge History of Sev-
enteenth-Century Philosophy, esp. Part I.
. The desire on the part of many philosophers, even those who accepted the mechanical phi-
losophy, to retain as much as possible of the tradition was quite strong. See Theo Verbeek,
Descartes and the Dutch: Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy, –, for several ex-
amples of Cartesians who were not prepared to start “from nothing” as Descartes himself
proposed, but rather hoped to prove their affiliation with traditional philosophy. Although
some were politically motivated, most were sincere.


    , 

manist fashion, the need to reform Aristotle often took on a moral tone with
suggestions that the teachings of the master must be purified of the degra-
dations to which they had been submitted by his unfaithful and uncompre-
hending followers.14 Thus, at the very time that philosophers like Descartes
and Gassendi were crying for the demise of the Aristotelian philosophy, oth-
ers were calling for its transformation.
By the middle of the century, there were many Aristotelians who were
perfectly capable of accepting the new developments in natural philosophy
and conforming Aristotelian ideas to them.15 Not surprisingly, the number
of new ideas added to the traditional mixture depended greatly on whether
or not there was an advocate of the new ideas in that intellectual commu-
nity. The well-known English Catholic, Kenelm Digby, argued in  that
the new mechanical philosophy was consistent with Aristotle.16 In Paris, the
Aristotelian professors at the University of Paris began in the s to
absorb contemporary developments in natural philosophy, and eventually
revised or even rejected some of the explanatory theories of Aristotle. Ac-
cording to one scholar, the degree to which the professors took the Carte-
sian principles seriously was directly related to the popularity of that phi-
losophy in Paris: when the professors first began to include Cartesian
doctrines in their lectures (in the s), Cartesianism had found its way
into the Parisian salons and the Peripatetics had become targets of
ridicule.17 In Leiden, lectures were given on the Cartesian philosophy in the
s and, after a number of intellectual skirmishes, philosophers like Jo-
hannes de Raey had managed to mix their traditional philosophy with large

. For Leibniz’s most explicit comments on this, see the preface to his edition of Nizolio’s
De Veris Principiis, esp. VI ii –: L –. Like Leibniz, most seventeenth-cen-
tury philosophers distinguished not just between Aristotle and the scholastics, but also be-
tween the good and bad scholastics. For the importance of these distinctions, see Christia
Mercer, “The Vitality and Importance of Early Modern Aristotelianism,” –.
. Recent historians of science and philosophy have begun to acknowledge the progressive
elements in early modern Aristotelianism and the important role that the Aristotelian phi-
losophy played in the development of modern science. For recent studies and for citations
to the relevant literature, see Mercer, “The Vitality and Importance of Early Modern Aris-
totelianism;” Des Chene, Physiologia, passim; Ariew and Gabbey, “The Scholastic Back-
ground;” Cees Leijenhorst, Hobbes and the Aristotelians: The Aristotelian Setting of
Thomas Hobbes’ Natural Philosophy; and Garber and Ayers, The Cambridge History of
Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, passim.
. Digby, Two Treatises, esp. –.
. See Brockliss, “Aristotle, Descartes, and the New Science,” ff, esp. n. . According to
Brockliss, from the s, the Aristotelian professors at the University of Paris “began to
adjust or even reject certain of Aristotle’s explanatory theories in light of contemporary de-
velopments.” Although they “refused to countenance the principles of mechanical philoso-
phy,” they did respond to some of the challenges posed by the new experiments and obser-
vations talked about in Paris at the time (e.g., in chemistry). Brockliss explains that after the
s the courses in physics “began to display an increasing interest in the observational and
experimental work of contemporaries” (–). For this part of the history of Cartesian-
ism, see Francisque Bouillier, Histoire de la philosophie cartésienne, Vol. I, –.


   

doses of Cartesianism. As one scholar notes, in Leiden and Utrecht, “Carte-

sianism was almost normal as early as .”18
In the area of natural philosopy, the situation was more conservative in
Germany in the middle of the century. The havoc and devastation wrought
by the Thirty Years War, fought mostly on German soil, helped to stunt the
growth of the new mechanical philosophy in Germany.19 So did the fact that
the Germans lacked an intellectual center around which philosophical lib-
erals could rally. Whereas England had the Royal Society, and France had
the Academy of Science, Germany had no scientific society. Besides Leib-
niz tucked away at the Hanover court for most of his life, Germany had no
internationally prominent advocate of modern ideas in the whole second
half of the century, and it had no scientific society until , when Leib-
niz’s plans for a Society of Science in Berlin were finally approved.20 As
Leibniz himself notes in , “scholasticism is more firmly established in
Germany” than in the other northern countries.21
But despite the philosophical conservativism in Germany in the s,
there were reformed philosophers who intended to combine elements from
Aristotle’s philosophy with those of the moderns. A case in point is Erhard
Weigel, who, besides Thomasius, was Leibniz’s most influential teacher. I
outlined Weigel’s conciliatory proposals in chapter ; now I turn to his re-
formed philosophy, which was almost certainly the first fully articulated re-
formed Aristotelianism that Leibniz studied. Weigel intends to apply the
mathematical method to all the parts of philosophy, and thereby to construct
a single coherent system. In the preface of his Analysis Aristotelica ex Eu-
clide Restituta of , he asserts that once the philosophy of Aristotle is
properly understood, the new philosophy and its mathematical method will
be reconciled with it and the truths in the philosophy of Gassendi and
Descartes will be placed on Aristotelian foundations.

. Verbeek, Descartes and the Dutch, . Verbeek documents the ascendancy of the new phi-
losophy among Dutch philosophers. See esp. , –, –.
. See Petersen, Geschichte as the standard text on the topic. Petersen also asserts that Leib-
niz, because of his interest in the new philosophy, was a true anomaly in Germany and that
it was only in the time of Kant that Germans developed a philosophy that came to terms
with modern science (–). More recent studies take a similar position on modernism
in early modern Germany. See Beck, Early German Philosophy, esp. chs. –; Leinsle, Re-
formversuche, esp. chs. –. It is surely correct that the Thirty Years War, which ended in
, disrupted intellectual activities. A striking example is that philosophy teaching at the
important university in Herborn was disrupted in the s and leading figures (e.g., Jo-
hann H. Alsted) were dispersed throughout Europe. It is also true that the mechanical phi-
losophy was not an immediate success in Germany. However, there were many ways of be-
ing innovative in the seventeenth century. While the vast majority of Leibniz’s German
predecessors did not endorse the mechanical physics, they did engage in other innovative
projects. I discuss these and other topics in a work in progress, ‘Divine Madness:’ Meta-
physics, Method, and Mind in Seventeenth-Century Continental Philosophy.
. For a brief discussion of the Berlin society, Leibniz’s role in its evolution, and his plans
for other scientific societies, see Aiton, Leibniz: A Biography, , , –.
. VI ii : L .


    , 

Of special interest to us now is the means by which Weigel attempts to ef-

fect this reconciliation. For Weigel, it rests on a transformation of key Aris-
totelian notions. According to Weigel, all “natural things” are constituted by
two principles – “one is called Matter, the other Form.” The former, “what
Aristotle called prime matter,” consists in extension that has “parts outside
of parts” so that it “coincides with space;” as such, it is both indeterminate
and purely potential. Form, on the other hand, is produced by motion and is
the “substantial determination” of extension.22 In other words, form is a de-
termination of matter and, as such, is the source of corporeal features. God
is the cause of motion in that he is “the first cause of all things.” By such
means, Weigel thinks he has clarified the meaning of the Aristotelian first
principles.23 As we will see in the next section, Leibniz’s interpretation of
Aristotle’s fundamental principles bears a striking similarity to Weigel’s.
Leibniz expresses a keen interest in other reformers, most particularly
Kenelm Digby, Jean-Baptiste du Hamel, and Johannes de Raey. Now that
I have defined reformed philosophy as a philosophical alternative, and men-
tioned the German exemplar that had the greatest influence on the young
Leibniz, I would like to describe the most basic ideas of these three philoso-
phers. Their views are worth noting not only because Leibniz read and se-
riously considered their works, but also because they bear witness to the fact
that there was a clearly delineated alternative in England, France, and the
Netherlands to both mechanism and the more traditional sort of Aris-
totelianism.
Jean-Baptiste du Hamel was a well-known Parisian philosopher and text-
book writer who published a number of books on natural philosophy. About
one of them, Leibniz writes in : “in it he brilliantly explains the hy-
potheses of some of the best-known ancient and recent thinkers and often
criticizes them with discernment.”24 Although du Hamel adhered firmly to
Aristotelian principles throughout his life, he did take the new philosophy
seriously. The title of one of his better known texts nicely expresses his at-
titude: De Consensu Veteris et Novae Philosophiae (originally published in
). In his various books, du Hamel considers the principles of mecha-
nism and asks how they can help to explain the physical world.25 In the pref-
ace to one of his scientific works, he expresses the extent of his open-mind-
edness. He writes that there is much to learn both from the new and the
ancient systems, that the condemnation of any philosophical sect is the re-
sult of “limited ambitions,” and that “the proper philosophy” will result
from the free use and consideration of the best philosophical schools.26 Al-

. Weigel, Analysis, –. . Weigel, Analysis, .

. II i : L . Johann C. Sturm also speaks well of du Hamel. See his Philosophia Eclectica,
, , .
. My discussion of Jean-Baptiste du Hamel is based on his Philosophia Vetus et Nova ad
Usum Scholae Accommodata; Astronomia Physica, De Meteoris et Fossilibus Libri Duo; and
De Consensu Veteris et Novae Philosophiae.
. Astronomia Physica, Praefatio.


   

though du Hamel invariably gives priority to Aristotle, he does take seri-

ously the ideas of the “moderns [recentiores].” He often presents the doc-
trines of Gassendi and Descartes and is happy to acknowledge the useful-
ness of “the principles of mechanics.” For instance, du Hamel goes into
detail about how Descartes’ views about fire can help us to understand its
nature better.27 Du Hamel insists, however, that these mechanical explana-
tions can only go so far: because they do not “convey the metaphysical prin-
ciples beneath,” we must turn to Aristotle for the ultimate cause of things.
Natural bodies are constituted of matter and substantial form, traditionally
understood, and their corporeal features ultimately have to be explained in
such terms. In other words, for du Hamel, the old philosophy offers the ra-
tio that illuminates the new observations; the new observations thereby con-
firm the traditional doctrines. While the new philosophy helps to explain
the phenomena, the underlying principles of nature are Aristotelian.28
Another reformed philosopher who was internationally well-known and
much respected by Leibniz is Kenelm Digby. Digby was an English
Catholic, an original member of the Royal Society, and one of the first
philosophers to produce a fully developed system of mechanical philosophy.
His most important publication includes a treatise on the nature of body
and one on the immortality of the soul. These were published together in
 and offer an extended argument for the immortality of the soul based
on an exhaustive account of the nature of bodies and their properties. Digby
interweaves principles from a variety of philosophical positions. He is ex-
plicit about his high esteem for Aristotle and his unmitigated scorn for the
scholastics. In fact, he uses principles of the former to argue against the lat-
ter and is quite explicit about the fact that his discourses “are built upon the
same foundations” as the Philosopher. He describes the latter as “the great-
est Logician, Metaphysician and universal scholar . . . that ever lived. . . .
[His] name must never be mentioned among scholars, but with reverence,
for his unparalleled worth; and with gratitude for the large stock of knowl-
edge he hath enriched us with.”29
Digby is equally explicit about the fact that we must inform Aristotelian
principles with the new discoveries if we are to attain a true science of na-
ture. He produces a complicated amalgamation of atomic, mechanical, and
Aristotelian ideas. The key to his reconciliation of the ancient and the mod-
ern systems is a transformation of Aristotle’s four elements. According to
Digby, “the proper notions of the four elements” are “the notions of Quan-

. Du Hamel, De Consensu Veteris et Novae Philosophiae, –.

. As he writes in the preface of Philosophia Vetus et Nova: “Ratio experientiam et observa-
tiones illuminat . . . . Sed usus et experimenta doctrinam confirmant.”
. Digby, Two Treatises, . Leibniz thought highly of Digby’s Two Treatises whose Latin
translation of  he cites often. See, e.g., VI ii  and . In the latter passage, Leib-
niz lists three contemporary philosophers whom he says have correctly shown the impor-
tance of Aristotle’s philosophy: Thomas White, Johannes De Raey, and Digby. Interest-
ingly, Leibniz also places Digby among the corpuscularians.See, e.g., VI i .


    , 

tity.”30 Thus, he first analyzes each of the elements in terms of rarity and
density, then applies to them the principles of force and velocity, and finally
“deduces” from them the principles “which governeth Mechanics.”31 For
Digby, all sensible qualities are to be explained by the varied proportions of
rarity and density. The details of Digby’s account are complicated and need
not concern us here. What is important is that he manages to retain Aris-
totelian terminology (e.g., of substance, matter, and the four elements)
while transforming the Aristotelian content. He acknowledges his departure
from Aristotle on a “few points,” but insists that he follows in the steps of
that “great oracle of nature” and that “the way we take is directly the same
solid way, which Aristotle walked in before us.” According to Digby, his fun-
damental principles are Aristotle’s: “all the difference between us is, that we
enlarge ourselves to more particulars than he hath done.”32
The final reformed philosopher to discuss here is the Dutch philosopher,
Johannes de Raey (–), who was responsible for the conversion of
many thinkers to Cartesianism and who is probably Leibniz’s favorite re-
former. In an early letter to Thomasius, Leibniz writes that in the same way
that Thomasius had saved Aristotle “from scholastic smoke,” so De Raey in
his Clavis Philosophiae Naturalis Aristotelico-Cartesiana “shows . . . that
Aristotle wonderfully conforms to [the philosophy of] Galileo, Bacon,
Gassendi, Hobbes, Descartes, and Digby.”33 Nor was Leibniz unusual in
his reaction to the Clavis: the text was widely read and highly praised. Ac-
cording to Johann Christoph Sturm, for example, De Raey is “most
learned” and the doctrines of his Clavis “most acute.” Thomasius, however,
does not agree: he criticizes his student for having been too taken by the
philosophical opinions of De Raey.34
For our purposes, De Raey’s Dedicatory Letter of his Clavis is especially
interesting. According to De Raey, after the Europeans “lost the works of
Aristotle,” their understanding of him was due entirely to the translations
and commentaries imported from the “Arab world.” Because the Arabs (and
especially Averroës) misunderstood Aristotle and because (at that time) “the
Greek language was lost” to Europeans who therefore could not consider

. Digby, Two Treatises, . . Digby, Two Treatises, .
. Digby, Two Treatises, .
. II i . It is clear that Leibniz thought of De Raey as a reformer, but it is doubtful that De
Raey ever described himself in this way. According to Verbeek in his Descartes and the
Dutch, De Raey “stands out as the leader of the Dutch Cartesians” (). But Verbeek also
notes both that De Raey is sincere in his attempt to integrate the Cartesian philosophy
“into the philosophic tradition” () and that “De Raey’s most significant insight, in his
own view, is the discovery of the profound similarity of the philosophies of Aristotle and
Descartes” (). From the discussion that follows, it will become clear that De Raey’s Carte-
sianism is steeped in Aristotelian ideas. Leibniz seems justified in categorizing him as a re-
formed philosopher.
. See Philosophia Eclectica, –. As noted in ch. , sect. , Jakob Thomasius rejected the
mechanical philosophy. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that he does not praise the philo-
sophical opinions of De Raey and criticizes Leibniz for his interest in that philosophy.
See II i .


   

“the true Greek codex,” the latter unwittingly accepted these bad transla-
tions and interpretations. By such means, according to De Raey, Aristotle’s
philosophy became lost behind the “most perverse and corrupt words of the
Arabs.” Not only did this general misunderstanding of Aristotle continue
among the scholastics, the prejudice against him continued even after the an-
cient philosophy “was brought to light” and “the thought of Plato, Cicero,
Plutarch, Seneca, and similar authors” was rediscovered. Even now, many
philosophers reject Aristotelian philosophy without knowing Aristotle’s real
views. According to De Raey, the great importance of Cartesian philosophy
is that it reveals the true meaning of Aristotle’s principles. De Raey con-
cludes his Dedicatory Letter by saying that in his book, he will uncover the
real views of the ancient and show that they are both consistent with Carte-
sian philosophy and quite unlike what the scholastics have claimed.
The most fascinating feature of De Raey’s Dedicatory Letter is that he
not only claims that the scholastics and others have misconstrued the real
nature of Aristotle’s philosophy, he also presents a clear explanation of how
such a general misinterpretation came about and why it is now possible to
discover Aristotle’s real meaning.35 However incompatible modern mecha-
nism and Aristotelian physics may seem, the incompatibility is only appar-
ent, an unfortunate result of an historical accident. In order to discover the
correspondence between the Cartesian and Aristotelian philosophies, all one
has to do, De Raey suggests, is to penetrate through the layers of misinter-
pretations to the real philosophy of Aristotle. Not surprisingly, De Raey
thinks that he has accomplished this task. De Raey’s method in the remain-
der of his book is to describe what “the schoolmen” say about a crucial el-
ement in Aristotle’s philosophy (e.g., substance, substantial form, matter),
to quote Aristotle (rendered in Latin) on the topic, and then to explain what
Aristotle really meant. De Raey’s chapter on substantial form, entitled “On
Substantial Form and the Soul of Man, according to Aristotle, against the
Aristotelians,” offers a significant example. He argues there that the origi-
nal notion of substantial form is quite different than it has generally been
taken to be. According to De Raey, a substantial form is what is essential,
that is, it is something that can act as the ratio or essence of a thing, and,
therefore, a substance is simply a thing that has an essence. Since matter has
an essence, it follows that matter is a substance.36 In other chapters of his
Clavis, De Raey treats related doctrines of Aristotle in a similar way: he be-

. I said in ch. , sect.  that Renaissance and early modern thinkers (reasonably) felt the need
to explain why the truth in ancient philosophy was available to them in a way that it had
not been to earlier generations, and I said that the explanations often focused on their newly
developed insights and tools. As early as Petrarch, we find thinkers blaming “the Arabs”
for the misunderstanding of the philosophy of Aristotle in the Latin west. For Petrarch
and other humanists, it was their philological tools that helped them excavate the real Aris-
totle. See, e.g., Petrarch, On His Own Ignorance, –. According to De Raey, it is the
Cartesian philosophy that allows him to regain the proper understanding of the ancient’s
thought.
. De Raey, Clavis, –.


    , 

gins with a lucid and accurate account of an important Aristotelian notion

and then uses it to argue for a position unlike anything accepted by the an-
cient. Concerning the chapter just noted, for example, while it may be true
that a substantial form is most basically an essence, that a substance is by
definition that which has an essence, and even (for some scholastics) that
matter has an essence, it by no means follows that matter is itself a sub-
stance.37 It is important to emphasize, however, that De Raey does manage
to construe intelligently and then put to interesting use genuine elements of
Aristotle’s metaphysics in his attempt to reconcile the ancient’s thought
with Cartesian mechanism.
In presenting the views of these reformed philosophers, I have hoped to
display both the range of alternatives that Leibniz actually faced during his
youth and the complicated nature of some of the proposed reforms. This
should help us to understand and evaluate Leibniz’s own ideas about rec-
onciliation. Each of these philosophers is wedded to the thought of Aristo-
tle, but they differ concerning the degree to which that philosophy repre-
sented the truth and the extent to which they were prepared to reinterpret
his ideas. Leibniz has something in common with each of them. Like du
Hamel, he thought that the new mechanical philosophy should help to illu-
minate and support the ancient truths and, like Weigel, he believed that
mathematics was the key to understanding natural phenomena. Like Digby,
he was prepared to reinterpret Aristotle’s doctrines in order to accommo-
date the new findings and the new physical model. But he has most in com-
mon with Weigel and De Raey in that he believes that the new philosophy
helps to illuminate the real sophistication of the philosophy of Aristotle.
Whereas Digby often seems more wedded to Aristotelian terminology than
to the philosophical doctrines that lay behind it and du Hamel does not at-
tempt a full integration of the two, Weigel and De Raey are committed to
preserving key elements of Aristotle’s metaphysics while constructing their
synthesis of ancient and modern ideas. The details of Leibniz’s philosoph-
ical synthesis differ from the proposals of Weigel and De Raey, but he shares
both the enthusiasm and subtlety of these more thorough reformers.

. Letter to Thomasius
In , while writing his introduction to an edition of a Renaissance text
on the proper way of doing philosophy, Leibniz chose to attach to it a re-
vised version of his April  letter to Thomasius. Leibniz was thereby

. The schoolmen disagreed as to whether matter had its own essence and hence whether or
not it could exist without form. Let me offer some highlights relevant to Leibniz: Aquinas
thought matter was pure potency, and could not exist without form (Summa Theologiae, I,
q. , art. ); Scotus thought matter had a reality distinct from form and could exist with-
out it (Opus Oxoniense, II, disp. , q. ); and Eustachius agreed with Scotus but added a
few thoughts of his own (Summa Philosophiae Quadripartita, Physica, Book I, disp. ,
q. ). For those seventeenth-century philosophers who wanted to make Aristotle more
compatible with the new natural philosophy, the position of scholastics like Scotus and


   

doing something significant: he was announcing his own views about what
philosophy is and what it should be. Nor does the letter to Thomasius dis-
appoint. It offers the key to Leibniz’s original metaphysics and eclectic
methodology, it sets the stage for his later philosophical investigations, and
it reveals the first significant articulation of the results of his Rosental de-
cision. It is significant that when Leibniz attached the letter to his intro-
duction of the Nizolio text, he gave it the title “Letter to a man of the most
refined learning concerning the reconcilability of Aristotle and the moderns
[recentioribus].”38 The text is obscure and worth working through in some
detail.39
Leibniz’s letter may be divided into three parts of increasing specificity:
in the first, he draws a rough sketch of the contemporary philosophical and
methodological terrain and indicates where on the proposed map he stands;
in the second, he presents an argument for the particular methodological
strategy he accepts; and then, in the third, he explicates the metaphysical
conclusion that he thinks that strategy produces, namely, his theory of sub-
stance. I will treat each of these in turn.

Goal and strategy

Leibniz begins his letter by congratulating Thomasius on his Origines his-
toriae philosophicae et ecclesiasticae, the second edition of which appeared in
.40 As noted in chapter , Thomasius’s book is an extremely concise
discussion of the origins of certain philosophical and ecclesiastical doctrines
in which he attempts to trace present opinions back to their ancient origins.

Eustachius was far more attractive that than of Aquinas. For a discussion of the scholas-
tic background to early modern natural philosophy and for references to other literature,
see Ariew and Gabbey, “The Scholastic Background,” esp. –.
. Nizolio is one of the anti-Aristotelian humanists who (like Peter Ramus) wanted to reform
logic teaching and to replace scholastic logic with a form of rhetoric. For a brief account
of Nizolio and references to secondary literature, see Copenhaver and Schmitt, Renais-
sance Philosophy, –; and Schmitt, Skinner, and Kessler, The Cambridge History of Re-
naissance Philosophy, . For a helpful discussion of the relationship between the thought
of Leibniz and Nizolio, see V. Waldemar, “Leibniz, Nizolius, et le nominalisme moderne,”
–.
. In the scholarly literature to date, there is no systematic analysis of the complicated argu-
ment in the letter to Thomasius, and so the sophisticated nature of Leibniz’s Metaphysics
of Substance has not been recognized. For the fullest accounts, see Moll, Der junge Leib-
niz, vol. , passim; and Beeley, Kontinuität, ch. . In Beeley’s short chapter on the letter, he
offers some nice details about Leibniz’s employment of mechanical principles, but claims
that the point of the letter is to convince Thomasius of “the truth of mechanism” ().
According to Beeley, “Leibniz’s letter to Thomasius of  April  served to assert mech-
anism against scholasticism more than to expound his own point of view – simply because
he did not have one at that time” (). Also see Brown, “Leibniz: Modern, Scholastic, or
Renaissance Philosopher?,” –, esp. ff; Wilson, Leibniz’s Metaphysics, ff; Robi-
net, Architectonique disjonctive, f; Belaval, Initiation, ff; Hannequin, “La première
philosophie,” ff; and Kabitz, Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz, ff.
. Thomasius’ book was popular enough to go into a third edition in . References are to
that edition.


    , 

Leibniz congratulates his teacher for offering a “history of philosophy,” and

adds: “I wish, indeed, that you would produce both a style and mode of ex-
pression [stilum filumque] for this new age and warn our unseasoned youth
that it is wrong to give our moderns [novatores] credit either for everything
or for nothing.” Leibniz then lists a number of philosophers “among whom
the mantle of philosophy is torn apart,” and tells Thomasius that it “will be
play for you, but fruitful for the public, to warn the world about them.”41
This introductory paragraph is important because it presents the proper
context in which to see the letter. Leibniz makes three requests of Thoma-
sius, each of which is supposed to fulfill a need of this “new age” and each
of which Leibniz himself goes on to satisfy. First, Thomasius is supposed to
warn the naive youth against taking the innovators (novatores) to be either
wholly right or wrong. According to Leibniz, while the new natural philoso-
phers offer much that is important, they do not offer the whole truth. It is
ironic that Leibniz makes this request of Thomasius: Leibniz knew per-
fectly well that his esteemed teacher had contempt for the “new philoso-
phers”42 and would never have taken up this first request. But if the teacher
could not rise to the occasion, then the student surely would.
Second, Leibniz asks his teacher to caution the public about the tearing
apart of philosophy by recent philosophers. Interestingly enough, Leibniz’s
examples of philosophers who are sundering philosophy include Aris-
totelian philosophers (Sennert and Sperling), humanists (Nizolio), and the
whole range of natural philosophers and mechanists (from Campanella,
Galileo, and Telesio to Hobbes, Gassendi, Digby, and Descartes). In short,
the people on Leibniz’s list have nothing in common except the fact that
they are all fairly recent authors who have expressed their own philosophi-
cal opinions. But that is surely the point: what Leibniz proposes here is that
these intellectuals are destroying philosophy in that each chooses to argue
for his own position without proper regard for the views of others. The
unfortunate result of their approach, Leibniz suggests, is a wide variety of
divergent views that have little or nothing to do with one another. In the
letter to Thomasius, Leibniz suggests that such free thinkers are destroying
the “seamless mantle” of philosophy. This, and the related claim that the
new philosophy is neither wholly right nor wholly wrong, is an implicit
advertisement for Leibniz’s style of conciliatory eclecticism. Instead of ar-
guing for such a variety of incompatible views, Leibniz would have his con-
temporaries seek a compromise among the conflicting sects. Leibniz’s
metaphor of the “mantle of philosophy” that is being “torn apart” also
makes a subtle, though powerful point. The image here echoes the Biblical
account of the “seamless mantle” of Jesus, which was not torn into parts by
those dividing up his possessions after his death (John :23). Among other
things, the mantle became a metaphor of the singleness and wholeness of
Christianity. Leibniz is making significant use of this powerful image: the
clear implication is that philosophy ought to be similarly undivided. That

. VI ii : L . . II i .


   

Leibniz intends to construct a harmonized, seamless philosophy is clear

from what follows.
Leibniz’s third request of Thomasius is to create “a style and mode of ex-
pression” to suit this new age. Leibniz suggests that his teacher is particu-
larly well suited for this task because he, unlike other humanists, is capable
of presenting the “profound reasons for the interconnections among doc-
trines.” The implication is that the new age needs a style that is different
from the one used by the majority of Leibniz’s contemporaries, and that
someone like Thomasius ought to create one. In his preface, Leibniz had
described Thomasius as “the most celebrated peripatetic in Germany” and
one who has “the most accurate understanding of philosophy” as well as the
“most exquisite” erudition.43 The clear suggestion is that it will take some-
one who has a profound understanding of Aristotelian thought in particu-
lar and of the history of philosophy in general to produce the proper style.
I propose that Leibniz saw himself as capable of doing this and that in the
remainder of his letter he intended to express in the proper conciliatory
mode the profound interconnections between the thought of Aristotle and
that of the moderns.
The full importance of Leibniz’s introductory paragraph becomes evi-
dent at this point. By asking Thomasius to fulfill three specific needs of
“this new age [recentiorem hanc aetatum],” Leibniz implicitly presents his
own concerns in the letter. He easily satisfies his first and second requests:
to begin his introduction to Nizolio’s treatise in this way constitutes a pub-
lic cry for a conciliatory style of philosophy and a public warning against
the sundering of philosophy by the various conflicting sects. By warning his
readers against the danger posed by these conflicting philosophers and by
suggesting that what is needed is a more conciliatory approach (based on
“the interconnections of reasons or principles among doctrines”), Leibniz
argues here for the sort of conciliatory eclecticism that he goes on to use. He
also thereby presents the correct context in which to see the remainder of
his letter. Without proclaiming either his own virtues or the importance of
his proposals, he presses upon his reader the great need for the very concil-
iatory philosophy that he proceeds to offer.
At first glance, it may appear odd that Leibniz presents the goals of his
letter in such an indirect way. But when we place Leibniz’s explicit desires
here against the background of the conciliatory methodology articulated in
chapter , his hesitancy does not seem so strange: Leibniz does not want to
be yet another philosopher “stimulated by the vain lust for novelty”44 and
pronouncing either his own great insights or the absolute truth of his opin-
ions; rather, he hopes to lead his readers quietly to the “Harmony of these
different realms.”45 The letter is a paradigm of conciliatory rhetoric. Or, in
Sturm’s words, Leibniz seeks a “modest presentation” of his views.

. VI ii . . GM VI : L . Quoted in ch. , sect. .

. G III : L . Quoted in ch. , sect. .


    , 

Once Leibniz has properly introduced his letter, he distinguishes among

the most important contemporary thinkers and explains where he stands
among them. He thinks that it is important to note the difference between
the Cartesians (whom he says are “those who follow the principles of
Descartes”) and other philosophers who “though often confused with
Cartesians are not.” In the process, he lets us know where he stands:
As to myself I confess that I am anything but a Cartesian. I maintain the rule which
is common to all these innovators [restauratores] of philosophy, [namely that] noth-
ing ought to be explained in bodies except through magnitude, figure, and motion.
Descartes himself, I hold, merely proposed this rule, for when it came to actual is-
sues, he completely abandoned his strict method and jumped abruptly into certain
amazing hypotheses. . . .
Hence I do not hesitate to say that I approve of more things in Aristotle’s books
on physics than in the meditations of Descartes; so far am I from being a Cartesian.
In fact, I venture to add that the whole of Aristotle’s eight books can be permitted with-
out violating the reformed philosophy.46
Leibniz could not be clearer. He is a innovator in that he wants to explain
corporeal features wholly in terms of magnitude, figure, and motion, al-
though he is not in the Cartesian half of this group because he does not fol-
low the principles of Descartes (unfortunately, he never states which prin-
ciples he has in mind). It is important that at the outset of his letter, Leibniz
distances himself from the Cartesians and from any other particular me-
chanical sect.47 He is not interested in the metaphysical underpinnings that
the mechanists offer for their philosophy (and the various debates sur-
rounding them), but only in mechanical explanations of corporeal features.
Besides this, he tells us that he is an enthusiastic reformer and believes that
Aristotle’s physics can be permitted without violating the reformed philos-
ophy. He goes on to explain a bit more about what his position involves in a
passage quoted in chapter :
For the most part, Aristotle’s reasoning about matter, form, privation, nature, place,
infinity, time and motion is certain and demonstrated. . . . [Except what he said about
the impossibility of a vacuum] scarcely any sane person can doubt the rest of Aris-
totle’s arguments.48 Who would disagree, for instance, with his theory of substan-
tial form as that by which the substance of one body differs from that of another?
Nothing is truer than his view of primary matter.49
. VI ii : L . Leibniz’s emphases.
. He also thereby distances himself slightly from reformers like De Raey who explicitly con-
struct their reconciliation around the philosophy of Descartes.
. Note that in the first version of this letter, Leibniz states that “no sane person can doubt
the rest of the contents of Aristotle’s physics, metaphysics, logic and ethics.” According to
Gerhardt, Leibniz crossed out this entire statement in his manuscript (see G IV ). But
the young author obviously changed his mind and decided to leave it, as quoted here, in
the version to be published. It is interesting that he was indecisive about whether or not
to include this strong statement. Compare the revised version at VI ii  and the original
at II i .
. VI ii : L .


   

Of course, in the second half of the seventeenth century, Leibniz’s com-

ment here is an exaggeration. The innovators whom he has just mentioned
question exactly these Aristotelian doctrines and do so precisely because
they accept the rule Leibniz attributes to them. What could Leibniz possi-
bly have in mind here? He continues:
The one question is whether Aristotle’s abstract theories of matter, form, and change
should be explained by magnitude, figure, and motion. This is what the Scholastics
deny and the Reformers [Reformatores] affirm. The latter opinion seems to me to
be not only the truer but also the more in agreement with Aristotle.
Besides the Recentiores (all of whom accept the stated rule), there is a group
of Reformatores who propose to explain Aristotle’s most basic physical prin-
ciples in terms consistent with mechanism. Those principles, as interpreted
by the scholastics, cannot be so explained. The pressing question is, there-
fore, whether the scholastics or the reformers are correct in their interpre-
tation of Aristotle’s physical principles. Leibniz thinks that a reformed phi-
losophy can be constructed that would fully “explain” the relevant
principles and that such a philosophy would be more in agreement with
Aristotle than are the opinions of the scholastics. Leibniz also suggests that
were this reformed philosophy to explain successfully Aristotle’s abstract
theories of matter, form, and change in terms of magnitude, figure, and mo-
tion, then most philosophers would accept the resulting Aristotelian views
about (say) prime matter. After all, these views would be a synthesis of Aris-
totelian and mechanical principles and would appeal to the modern philoso-
phers and to the Aristotelians, or so Leibniz seems to believe. Leibniz’s in-
tention is to formulate just such a reformed philosophy.
The context that Leibniz sets in the first few paragraphs of his letter is
enormously important. He neatly displays his general philosophical con-
cerns and his precise location on the seventeenth-century philosophical
map. He acknowledges the humanists (those “skilled in antiquity”); the tra-
ditional scholastics (e.g., Scaliger); the mechanists, among whom some are
Cartesian and some not; and the reformed philosophers. By placing himself
in the latter group, Leibniz tells his readers exactly where he stands within
the philosophical alternatives. In these few paragraphs, he also reveals his
keen interest in critical eclecticism and the precise form his conciliation
would take. The proclamations he makes for a conciliatory method place
him squarely within the tradition of Renaissance humanism, while his con-
stant preference for Aristotle and the use he makes of Aristotelian concepts
expose him as a reformed philosopher. He will now attempt to argue for this
philosophy.

Reformed philosophy
Leibniz introduces the conclusion for which he will argue by asserting that
as a variety of philosophers have noted, the scholastics perverted Aristotle’s
meaning in metaphysics, logic, and law. Leibniz proposes to demonstrate


    , 

that the schoolmen did this in physics as well. In other words, he will argue
that the reformers and not the scholastics are correct about Aristotle’s
physics. This, he says, can be done in two ways:
It can be shown either that the Reformed Philosophy can be reconciled with Aris-
totle’s and does not conflict with it or in addition, that the one not only can but must
be explained through the other, nay, that the very views which the moderns [recen-
tiores] are putting forth so pompously flow [fluere] from Aristotelian principles. By
the former way, the possibility of the reconciliation is confirmed, by the latter, the
necessity. But if the reconciliation is shown to be possible, it is by that fact accom-
plished. Even if the explanation [explicatio] of both Scholastics and moderns [re-
centiores] were possible, the clearer and more intelligible of two possible hypothe-
ses must always be chosen, and without any doubt this is the hypothesis of the
moderns, which conceives no incorporeal entities within bodies but assumes noth-
ing beyond magnitude, figure, and motion.50
Leibniz presents here, in his typically terse fashion, the assumptions and
structure of his argument. The two crucial issues are, first, whether the
scholastics or the reformers interpret Aristotle’s physics more properly and,
second, whether the physical explanations offered by the scholastics or those
offered by the reformers can be shown to be true.
Leibniz’s argumentative strategy is clever. In the mid-seventeenth cen-
tury, the most damaging criticism leveled against the Aristotelians con-
cerned the use of substantial forms in explaining physical phenomena. The
ridicule to which the Aristotelians were subjected is well known. It was com-
mon for philosophers to claim, as Descartes had, that the schoolmen explain
“that which is obscure through that which is more obscure.”51 Leibniz in-
tends to deflect exactly this criticism. If he can show that such complaints
do not apply to the ancient thought itself but only to those scholastics who
perverted its meaning, then he will have saved Aristotle himself from the
flames of ridicule.
According to Leibniz, the scholastics posit the existence of “a kind of im-
material being” that is “insensible” within bodies, namely, substantial form,
in terms of which corporeal features are to be explained. But “Aristotle
seems nowhere to have imagined any substantial forms” of this kind.52
Leibniz explains that because the reformers have properly understood the
thought of Aristotle, they deny both the existence and intelligibility of any

. VI ii : L .

. AT III . In the Origin of Forms and Qualities, Robert Boyle writes: “And indeed the
doctrines of forms and qualities . . . are wont to be treated of by scholastical philosophers
in so obscure, so perplexed, and so unsatisfactory a way . . . that it is very difficult for any
reader of but an ordinary capacity to understand what they mean.” See Selected Philo-
sophical Papers, ; Works, vol. , –. Or to cite a less well-known example, Joseph Glanvill
was an ardent anti-Aristotelian whose works Leibniz knew (see, e.g., II i , , ) and
who writes that the “Peripatitick forms are . . . obnoxious” and is that “of what the Votaries
of that Philosophy themselves can scarce tell what to make of.” See his Scepsis Scientifica,
. Such criticisms were common in the middle of the seventeenth century.
. VI ii : L .


   

sort of immaterial form and maintain instead that all corporeal features are
to be explained in terms of matter in motion. According to Leibniz, then,
the reformers do not want to explain the features of (say) fire as the tradi-
tional scholastics had done, namely, in terms of some immaterial form in the
fire. Rather, they agree with the mechanists that the heat in fire can be fully
and intelligibly explained by simple reference to the movement of the mat-
ter that makes up the fire; there is no need to posit any other entity.
It is important to understand that the context here is one of physical ex-
planations and that according to Leibniz, the reformers and the moderns of-
fer one explanatory model while the scholastics offer another. Within this
context, Leibniz wants to convince us () that the position of the reformers
is consistent with the thought of Aristotle and therefore that the scholastics’
interpretation of Aristotle’s physics is incorrect; () that the reformers’ po-
sition in fact follows from the fundamental principles of Aristotle’s philos-
ophy, once that philosophy is properly understood; and () that even if the
physical explanations of corporeal phenomena offered by both the scholas-
tics and reformers were “possible,” the former would have to be rejected be-
cause of its lesser intelligibility and because (as he goes on to say) of the
“manifest truth” of the reformed philosophy. A final point to note about
Leibniz’s strategy here is that, although the discussion is presently focused
on physical explanations, it is ultimately about the metaphysical foundations
of physics. Leibniz asserts that “the views of the moderns” about physics
“flow from Aristotelian principles” – that is, from the basic constituents of
Aristotelian metaphysics.
Having stated the conclusion for which he will argue and outlined his ar-
gumentative strategy, Leibniz turns his attention to the proof that the re-
formers and not the scholastics are correct about Aristotle’s physics. He
writes: “I cannot better show this . . . than by asking for any principle of
Aristotle which cannot be explained by magnitude, figure, and motion.”53
He then proceeds to treat Aristotle’s principles of matter, form, and change
in turn. In each case, he takes one of these fundamental principles and trans-
forms Aristotle’s original notion into a mechanistic one. Prime matter be-
comes continuous mass (massa) “which fills the world while all things are at
rest” and “from which all things are produced by motion and into which
they are reduced through rest.” As such, the “essence of matter or the very
nature [forma] of corporeity consists in antitypy or impenetrability.”54
With this notion of matter in place, Leibniz proceeds to the crux of his
reformation of Aristotle, namely, his account of substantial form. Accord-
ing to Leibniz, the substantial form of a body is its figura, which is an “or-
ganized arrangement of parts” of matter produced by motion. He writes:
“For division comes from motion, the bounding of parts comes from divi-
sion, their figurae from this bounding, and forms from figurae; therefore,
forms come from motion.”55 At first glance, this seems quite un-Aris-

. VI ii –: L . . VI ii : L .

. I explained in n.  of the last chapter that the Latin figura is ambiguous between the shape


    , 

totelian. For Aristotle, the substantial form is the cause of the being of the
thing, what makes the thing what it is. As such, it is metaphysically prior
and cannot itself be caused in this manner. What Leibniz has done here is
to make motion the cause of the being of a thing and thereby deprived sub-
stantial form of its causal and metaphysical priority. When it comes to
change, Leibniz reduces the various kinds of change (e.g., generation, cor-
ruption) to local motion. He thereby appears to deny what Aristotle con-
siders the essentially purposive aspect of nature. Once Leibniz shows to his
satisfaction that “all changes can be explained by motion,” he happily con-
cludes that “there is obviously almost nothing in Aristotle’s physics which
cannot be readily explained and made clear through the reformed philoso-
phy.”56
Thus far, Leibniz points out, he has only shown that “these positions can
be reconciled; it still remains to show that they ought to be.”57 As previ-
ously proposed, he will now demonstrate that they ought to be reconciled
by showing how the physical explanations offered by the moderns “flow
from Aristotelian principles.” But Leibniz’s present task is not a very diffi-
cult one. The first part of his demonstration virtually accomplishes it: be-
cause Leibniz has mechanized Aristotle’s basic principles of matter, form,
and change and because Aristotle’s fundamental principles are the origins
or sources of everything else in nature, the position shared by the reform-
ers and moderns (namely, that all corporeal phenomena can be explained by
matter and motion) will follow from those principles. Leibniz explains:
For what does Aristotle discuss, in the eight books of the Physics, besides figure,
magnitude, motion, place, and time? If the nature of body in general can be ex-
plained in terms of these, a particular body must be explained in terms of a partic-
ular figure, a particular magnitude, etc. In fact, he himself says in the Physics, Book
iii, Section , that all natural science concerns magnitude (with which figure is, of
course, associated), motion, and time. . . . Everything in nature must therefore be
explained through these.58
In this context, Leibniz’s earlier comment about reconciling the reformers
and Aristotle is not surprising: he wrote that “if the reconciliation is shown
to be possible, it is by that fact accomplished.”59 By so neatly mechanizing
the Aristotelian principles, he has shown that the physical explanations pro-
posed by both the moderns and the reformers really do follow from Aris-
totelian principles.
With the proof of the reconciliation completed, Leibniz goes on to argue
that some of the more important details of Aristotle’s physics can also be

and the nature of a thing. Although Leibniz does not give a complete account of figura in
the present letter, he does in the letter to Thomasius of October . As I argued in the
subsection entitled Demonstration of the possibility of the mysteries of the Eucharist, the
term often designates an organized arrangement of parts of matter. This is the meaning of
the term in the present context.
. VI ii –: L . . VI ii : L . . VI ii : L .
. VI ii : L .


   

shown to conform to the position of the moderns. Leibniz’s discussion here

is reminiscent of De Raey: he presents a statement from Aristotle’s writings
of a fundamental tenet and interprets it so that it conforms to his analysis
of the ancient.60 The details of Leibniz’s discussion need not concern us;
what is important is that he manages to fit the recalcitrant parts of Aristo-
tle’s physics into the scope of his reformed philosophy. He concludes: “The
Aristotelian Philosophy has been reconciled to the Reformed Philosophy.”61
Leibniz is not yet satisfied. He now turns his attention to the final part of
his demonstration and attempts to show “the manifest truth of the Re-
formed philosophy itself.”62 He maintains that nothing is needed to explain
the phenomena of the world besides magnitude, figure, and motion. Again,
we can skip over the details of this discussion and go directly to the point:
Leibniz here makes use of the nominalist principles for which he had ar-
gued earlier in his preface and thereby incorporates “the nominalist sect, the
most profound of all the scholastics” into his reformed philosophy.63 The
nominalism that he learned at the university from Thomasius has stayed
with him through the decade. In his preface, after praising the nominalist
tradition and giving a brief history of its greatest members, Leibniz wrote:
“The general rule that the nominalists frequently use is that entities must not
be multiplied beyond necessity . . . which reduces to this: the simpler a hy-
pothesis is, the better it is. And in accounting for the cause of phenomena,
that hypothesis is the most successful which makes the fewest gratuitous as-
sumptions. . . . The same thing is true of all the reformers of philosophy to-
day; if they are not supernominalists, they are almost all nominalists.”64 In
his letter to Thomasius, he now claims that:
there are no entities in the world except mind, space, matter, and motion and there-
fore that the hypotheses of those moderns [recentiores], who use only these to ex-
plain phenomena, are the better ones. For it is a defect in hypotheses to assume what
is unnecessary. For truly all things in the whole world can be explained by these
things alone. . . . And truly the human mind can imagine nothing other than
mind . . . , space, matter, and motion, and what results from these things arranged
[comparatis] among themselves.65

. It is important to note that although De Raey and Leibniz are quite similar in their method-
ology, they differ both on details and in their general goal. De Raey accepts many of the
doctrines and much of the terminology of Descartes and considers himself a Cartesian;
Leibniz rejects the Cartesian philosophy and accepts merely “the rule” of the moderns.
. VI ii : L . It is noteworthy that Kabitz is one of the few scholars to consider seri-
ously the conception of body that Leibniz offers in the letter to Thomasius of April .
After presenting a brief description of Leibniz’s view of body, Kabitz explains that Leib-
niz’s position () is merely an extension of the position articulated by Johannes de Raey in
his book on the same topic, and () “has no interest or worth for us . . . in its details” (Kab-
itz, Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz, –).
. Loemker does not include this sentence as it appears in the  version; compare VI ii
 and II i  and L . In fact, at this point in the translation, Loemker combines state-
ments from each version without noting which is which. The differences between the two
versions are important. I will discuss them in chapter .
. VI ii : L . . VI ii f: L .
. VI ii –: L . Leibniz’s emphasis.


    , 

Following the nominalists and reformers, Leibniz claims that everything in

nature can be explained wholly in terms of mind, space, matter, and mo-
tion. There is no reason to admit the use of superfluous immaterial forms
(or anything else) in natural explanations. Therefore, scholastic science
ought to be rejected and reformed philosophy accepted.
By such means, Leibniz has completed the tripartite demonstration orig-
inally promised: he has shown () that the position shared by the reformers
and moderns is consistent with the physics of Aristotle and therefore that
the scholastics’ interpretation of Aristotle’s physics is incorrect; () that the
reformers’ position follows from the fundamental principles of the Aris-
totelian system once that philosophy is properly understood; and () that
even if the physical explanations offered by both the scholastics and re-
formers were “possible” as accounts of corporeal phenomena, the former
would have to be rejected because of its violation of nominalist principles.
With impressive finesse, Leibniz has shown not only that the reformers in-
terpret Aristotle’s physics more properly than do the “uncultured” scholas-
tics,66 but also that they accept the insights of the nominalists. The materi-
als are in place to formulate the “truth per se.” Leibniz now goes on to erect
the foundations for the true reformed philosophy.

Theory of substance
In the remainder of his letter to Thomasius, Leibniz presents a theory of
substance that is supposed to constitute the foundations of the proper re-
formed philosophy. Two closely related problems arise at this point in the
text. First, Leibniz does not reveal in the letter itself any good philosophi-
cal reasons for preferring the reformed philosophy to the mechanical one.
The only criticism that he can muster against the moderns is to note that
they play a part in the dismantling of philosophy. He does not explicitly crit-
icize their view. It is therefore very difficult to understand in the context of
the letter why one should favor the reformed philosophy over mechanism
except for the fact that the Aristotelian language of the proposed reform
might make it more palatable to traditional Aristotelians. To put the prob-
lem another way, if the mechanical explanatory model is successful by it-
self, then there is little reason to contaminate it with anything out of Aris-
totle. Second, because it is difficult to see anything genuinely Aristotelian
in Leibniz’s proposals so far, there seems little reason to take Leibniz’s
proclamations of the virtues of Aristotle seriously. This part of the letter is
so obscure and Leibniz’s views so difficult to make out that commentators
have taken Leibniz’s conception to be a version of mechanism merely trans-
lated into Aristotelian terminology.67
. VI ii : L .
. It is not surprising that even those commentators who have understood Leibniz’s account
of bodies in the letter have balked at this point and felt justified in disregarding Leibniz’s
claims of Aristotelian authenticity. See Aiton, Leibniz, ff; Wilson, Leibniz’s Metaphysics,
–; Robinet, Architectonique disjonctive, ff; Moll, Der junge Leibniz, vol. , passim;


   

Neither of these problems seems too severe, however, against the histor-
ical and philosophical background proposed above. Leibniz’s contempo-
raries were well aware of both the general complaints leveled against the
mechanical philosophers and the varieties of extant interpretations of the
Aristotelian philosophy. Leibniz’s proclamation about the virtues of the Aris-
totelian philosophy would have offered ample evidence of the general
nature of his approach both to the ancient and modern philosophies. More-
over, to have made a frontal assault on the mechanical philosophy would
have smacked too much of sectarianism. Leibniz chose instead to insinuate
the weaknesses of the mechanical philosophy. That Leibniz took the meta-
physical foundations of mechanism to be inadequate would have been evi-
dent to his reader. As we saw in the analysis of the Confession of nature
against the atheists in chapter , Leibniz maintains that as far as can be done,
“everything should be derived [deducere] from the nature of body and its
primary qualities – magnitude, figure, and motion.”68 According to Leib-
niz there, the account of body as res extensa is not adequate as a definition
of corporeal substance because it is not sufficient by itself to explain its pri-
mary features. In the essay On transubstantiation, Leibniz makes body sub-
stantial by adding mind to it. By proposing the Aristotelian philosophy in
the way that he does in the letter to Thomasius, Leibniz would have made
the nature of his criticisms of the mechanical philosophy evident to his con-
temporaries. Let’s now look more carefully at what those proposals and crit-
icisms involve.
The conception of substance presented in the April  letter to
Thomasius includes an account of prime matter, substantial form, and their
relation. I will treat each of these in turn. According to Leibniz, prime mat-
ter is mass itself in which
there is nothing but extension and antitypy or impenetrability. It has extension from
the space which it fills. The very nature of matter consists in its being something
solid [crassum quiddam]. . . . Now this continuous mass filling the world [mundum
replens],when all its parts are at rest, is prime matter, from which all things are made
through motion and into which they are reduced through rest. There is no diversity
in it . . . except through motion.69
This is a clearer account of the position of the  letter to Thomasius dis-
cussed in chapter , section . What has been added is that prime matter
now has its own well-defined nature.70

Hannequin, “La première philosophie” f; Kabitz, Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz,
f; Petersen, Geschichte, ; and Beeley, Kontinuität, ch. .
. See ch. , sect. , n. .
. VI ii : L . Compare what Leibniz says here to Robert Boyle’s account of the me-
chanical philosophy as quoted in ch. , sect. , n. .
. In the  letter to Thomasius, Leibniz used the Latin term ‘moles’ to describe the mass
in bodies; he now uses ‘massa.’ In On transubstantiation, Leibniz defined body as that
which exists in space (see VI i : L ). Clearly, by the time of his April  letter to
Thomasius, Leibniz’s conception has shifted slightly. He tells us here that the nature of
matter consists in extension and impenetrability.


    , 

Concerning substantial form, Leibniz again maintains that God, by act-

ing on matter through motion, creates what there is in the world. He adds:
Forms must necessarily arise from motion. . . . For, the division [of prime matter]
comes from motion, the boundaries of the parts [termini partium] come from divi-
sion, their figurae come from the boundaries of parts, and forms from figurae; there-
fore forms come from figurae. . . . [Thus] forms arise from the potential of matter,
not by producing something new, but by . . . causing boundaries through the divi-
sion of parts.71
If we take figura here to be the organization or arrangement of parts of mat-
ter, then Leibniz’s point becomes clear: arrangements of parts of matter
(figurae) arise from motion and constitute the nature (forma) of body. By so
describing what the relation is between matter and form (forms arise out of
matter) and hence what the relation is between body and form (form is the
nature of body), Leibniz helps to explain the exact relation between corpo-
real features and the form or nature of body.72 It follows that Leibniz’s de-
scription of matter, body, and form is consistent with mechanical physics.
As Leibniz puts it: “Physics deals with the Matter of things, and the unique
affection resulting from the combination of matter with the other causes,
namely, Motion.”73 But this is a mechanism with a difference: Leibniz’s ver-
sion not only reduces corporeal features to the movement of the parts of body,
it does so with a body that is itself self-sufficient in a way res extensa is not.
That is, Leibniz has succeeded where he thought the other mechanists had
failed: he explains how it is that corporeal features are all reducible to and ex-
plained in terms of the nature of body taken by itself. For, if a body (qua form
or figura) is by definition an arrangement of matter in motion (as opposed to
merely res extensa), then it becomes clear that insofar as corporeal features are
reducible to “the subtle motion of parts,” they are reducible to the nature of
body. In short, Leibniz has devised a conception of body that avoids the prob-
lems that he claimed (for example, in the Confession of nature against the athe-
ists) faced the Cartesian conception of body as res extensa.
But this is not the whole story concerning the relation between matter and
substantial form. Leibniz continues:
Matter is devoid of motion in itself [per se]. Mind is the principle of all motion as
Aristotle rightly saw. . . . Aristotle seems nowhere to have imagined any substantial
forms which would themselves be the cause of motion in bodies, as the Scholastics
understood them. . . . For form is indeed the cause and principle of motion, but not

. VI ii : L .

. Leibniz himself thinks that there are several advantages to his account of how matter gives
rise to forms. For example, he emphasizes the fact that by such means, “all the arguments
advanced against the origin of forms from the potentiality of matter itself become child’s
play and trifles,” and “the vexatious problem of the origin of forms” is solved (VI ii :
L ). In other words, Leibniz believes that his account of form solves a problem that had
long plagued (other) Aristotelian philosophers, namely, the problem of how forms arise
out of the potentiality (potentia) of prime matter.
. “Physica agit de rerum Materia, et ex eius cum ceteris causis complexu resultante unica
affectione, nempe Motu” (VI ii : L ).


   
the primary one. . . . I admit therefore that form is the principle of motion within
its own body, and that body itself is the principle of motion in another body. But the
first principle of motion is the primary form, which is really abstracted from mat-
ter, namely Mind. . . . Therefore, it is not absurd that of the substantial forms only
mind should be designated as the first principle of motion.74
Suddenly, at this point, a difficulty arises. Leibniz claims here that mind
must supply motion to matter because “Matter is devoid of motion in it-
self” and that “Mind is the principle of all motion.” This seems clear
enough until Leibniz adds that “form is the cause and principle of motion”
in body. The problem is that on the one hand, he is quite explicit about the
fact that “form is nothing but figura [an arrangement of parts of matter],”75
while on the other, he insists that “form is the principle of motion within its
own body.”76 Nor does Leibniz help to sort things out. He merely asserts
that the form is “not the primary [principle of motion]” and that “the first
principle of motion is the primary form, which is really abstracted from
matter, namely mind.”77 He is silent about exactly how form is supposed to
be both an arrangement of matter and a principle of motion. What are we
to make of all this?
To answer this question, we need to turn to our analysis in chapter  of
the difference between body qua matter and body qua form. In the discus-
sion of Leibniz’s October  letter to Thomasius and his notes on the Eu-
charist (at the end of section ), we saw that although body qua form is
caused and sustained by a concurring mind or God, it constitutes the
essence of body as the organization of matter that it is.78 As long as it is
maintained by mind, it does have its own nature and can act as the cause of
its own features. What this means is that once the form as figura (understood
to be an arrangement of parts of matter) is created and maintained, it has a
nature that is extended and impenetrable. This nature can itself cause mo-
tion in the sense that, when it is struck, it will move and, when it strikes an-
other body, it will move the latter. The fact that mind is the first and ulti-
mate principle of motion is consistent with the claim that, once “mind
supplies motion to matter,” body (the result of activated matter) can cause
particular motions.79
With the exact relation between form and matter more clearly articulated,
we can now turn to Leibniz’s conclusion at the end of his argument in the
 letter. But, again, this passage is less than perspicuous. Leibniz writes:
From these things it follows that the nature of Body is constituted by Extension and
Antitypy, and since there is nothing in things without a cause [causa], by all means

. VI ii –: L . . VI ii : L . . VI ii : L . . Ibid.
. As explained in ch. , Leibniz distinguishes between body qua matter (i.e., body taken to
be passive) and body qua form (i.e., body taken to be active). Or, in Leibniz’s words,
“[body] is to some extent active and can easily be called form in the Scholastic Style; it is
to some extent passive and rightly called matter in the sense of the Scholastics” (VI i ).
. According to Leibniz, “[divine] Mind supplies motion to matter so that it might achieve
for itself a Good and pleasing figura and state of things.” See VI ii : L .


    , 
nothing ought to be supposed in bodies whose cause cannot be presented by their
first constitutive principles. But the cause cannot be presented by these unless by their
definitions.80 Therefore nothing should be supposed in bodies which does not follow
from the definition of extension and antitypy. But from these follow only magni-
tude, figure, situation, number, mobility, etc. Motion itself does not follow from
them. Hence, strictly speaking, motion does not belong to bodies, as a real being [ens
reale] in them, but as I have demonstrated, whatever moves is continuously cre-
ated. . . . Hence it is clear that the explanation of all qualities and changes must be
found in magnitude, figure, motion, etc., and that heat, color, etc., are nothing be-
sides the subtle motions and figures.81
The key to understanding the full significance of this passage is to recog-
nize that Leibniz is here talking about body qua matter. That he has in mind
body qua matter and not body qua form is clear for at least two reasons.
First, the definition of body that he offers in this passage (as “constituted
by Extension and Antitypy”) is equivalent to the one offered previously of
prime matter.82 Second, the argument in the passage does not make sense
otherwise. Once we realize that the body under discussion in this passage is
body qua matter, the full significance of Leibniz’s comments become clear.
We find here an explicit use of the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency,
which claims that for any being S, strictly speaking, S cannot be said to have
a feature f and f cannot be said to exist in S unless the full account (or com-
plete ratio) of f can be found in the nature of S. Leibniz asserts in the above
passage that, strictly speaking, S can be said to have a feature f or f can be
said to be a real being (ens reale) in S only if the cause of S is either part of
the nature of S or itself follows from (is reducible to) that nature. Accord-
ing to Leibniz, f can be said to belong to S or really exist in S only if a com-
plete ratio of f can be found in S taken by itself. The argument in the pas-
sage therefore runs as follows: body qua matter is defined in terms of
extension and impenetrability; the cause of motion cannot be found in body
so defined; therefore, given the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, motion
is not a real being (ens reale) in bodies qua matter.
When properly understood, the passage here is important for what it re-
veals about Leibniz’s version of mechanism. As I mentioned in my discus-
sion of the Confession of nature against the atheists in chapter , section ,
Leibniz and the mechanists agree that all corporeal features are explicable
in terms of the nature of body and that motion itself cannot be derived from
res extensa or extended matter alone; but I also noted that Leibniz and the
mechanists seriously disagree about what these facts imply. Most mecha-
nists were perfectly willing to let God be the cause of motion in bodies with-
out taking body to be incomplete or insufficient as a consequence. That is,
because they did not share Leibniz’s commitment to substantial self-suffi-

. “Ex his patet, naturam Corporis constitui per Extensionem et Antitypiam, quumque nihil sit
in rebus sine causa, nihil etiam poni debet in corporibus, cuius causa reddi non possit ex
primis eorum constitutiis. Iam causa ex iis reddi non potest, nisi per eorum definitiones.”
Leibniz’s emphasis.
. VI ii : L –. . See n. .


   

ciency, mechanists like Descartes and Gassendi were perfectly happy to

accept that although motion is not reducible to the nature of body qua mat-
ter, it nevertheless belongs to it. For instance, Descartes maintains that
motion is a mode of extension, even though it has to be added to extension
by God. The important point to emphasize is that regardless of how mo-
tion comes into the picture, these mechanists took two things to be true
about it: () it is not reducible to or caused by the nature or essence of body
and yet () it is an actual (and many thought essential) feature of body.
Leibniz is now explicitly offering () as a reason for denying (). That is,
Leibniz maintains that motion is not a feature of body or a real thing (ens
reale) in body exactly because its cause cannot be discovered in extended
matter.
It follows that motion is neither part of the essence of body qua matter
nor even an actual feature of it. No doubt, the conclusion to draw from this
is that motion belongs to body only insofar as body is created and main-
tained by concurring mind. And it is here that we find the key to under-
standing both how Leibniz’s position differs from the mechanists and is it-
self Aristotelian. The crucial point is that body qua matter is different from
body qua form. The former is nothing other than impenetrability and ex-
tension, matter without mind, without a principle of activity, and hence
without motion. The latter is something different in that it is combined with
mind in such a way as to form a substance with it. Where Leibniz disagrees
with the mechanists (and perhaps rightly so) is that he thinks we must clearly
distinguish between body qua matter and body qua form.83 The former is
inert stuff and clearly does not have motion as a real being in it, while the
latter does have motion insofar as it is a union of matter and mind. As Leib-
niz puts it in On transubstantiation: “It must be demonstrated . . . against
Descartes that space and extension are really different from body because
otherwise motion would not be a real thing [in body].”84 Because matter
cannot have motion unless it is combined with mind, it follows that it is in-
appropriate to say that motion belongs to body qua matter. Once (divine)
mind adds motion to matter, we no longer have matter; rather, we have a
union of matter and mind. Leibniz’s point is that this union is fundamen-
tally different from mere matter and is what constitutes the nature of a non-
human corporeal substance.

. Conciliation and the Metaphysics of Substance

I have claimed that Leibniz’s central concern in his letter to Thomasius of
 is to construct a metaphysics of substance that combines core features

. It is fascinating that Johann Clauberg, a first generation Dutch Cartesian, recognized this
same problem and struggled nobly in his Disputationes Physicae of  to solve it. For a
discussion of this and other details of Clauberg’s attempts to clarify and expand on
Descartes’ conception of corporeal substance, see my “Clauberg, Corporeal Substance,
and the German Response.”
. VI i .


    , 

of the metaphysics of Aristotle with mechanical physics. In Leibniz’s words,

he intended to show that “the reformed philosophy can be reconciled with
Aristotle.” A thorough examination of the letter has uncovered an elaborate
and enormously clever attempt to do just that. Against the background of
Leibniz’s criticism of mechanism, and with the help of his Aristotelian as-
sumptions, the genuine Aristotelian flavor of the theory he proposes in his
letter is evident. He constructs an account of corporeal substance that is ap-
propriately self-sufficient and properly Aristotelian by demoting res extensa
to a mere constituent of substance and by distinguishing between a primary
form and the form or figura in an individual substance. For Leibniz, prime
matter is extended stuff that functions as the potential principle, and thereby
plays exactly the same role as Aristotle’s matter: it is that “from which all
things are made.”85 Although res extensa is not a substance by itself, Leibniz
has neatly made it the passive element in substance: when res extensa is joined
with the primary form that functions as its principle of activity, it becomes a
constituent of a self-sufficient corporeal substance.86 Like the Aristotelian
notion, Leibniz’s matter is indeterminate and must be made into an individ-
ual thing by its substantial form. As Leibniz writes in a passage we have seen:
“For [divine] Mind supplies motion to matter. . . . Matter is devoid of mo-
tion per se. Mind is the principle of all motion, as Aristotle rightly saw.”87 It
is significant that the individual substance here is composed of indeterminate
matter and a determining form (namely, God) and that, once this “organized
arrangement of parts” of matter or figura88 is created, it is itself a principle
of motion. God may cause (and sustain) the organization of the parts of the
substance, but once those parts are so organized, the (secondary) form is able
to act as a cause of motion both in itself and in another body. The scholastics
often made a distinction between God, as the primary cause of things, and
individual corporeal nature, as the secondary cause. The latter, although sus-
tained by God, could be seen to have its own causal power. The scholastic
distinction is similar to the one that Leibniz makes here: although God or
“primary mind” sustains the organization of the corporeal substance, the lat-
ter has the power to act. For example, when it strikes a body, it is the cause
(along with the organization of the other body) of the resulting motion.89 If
we understand this (secondary) form to be the arrangement or organization

. VI ii : L .

. In chapter , I made this point in reference to On Transubstantiation, where Leibniz writes,
for example, that “no body apart from concurring mind [mente concurrente] is to be taken
as substance,” “substance is union with mind,” and so “the substance of body is union
with a sustaining mind” (VI ii : L ).
. VI ii : L . . VI ii : L .
. Unlike what some scholars have thought, therefore, Leibniz’s conception of substance in
the April  letter to Thomasius is not an extreme version of occasionalism: although
God causes the matter in the substance to move, once this figura is formed, it can itself act
as the cause of the motion in another body, say, by striking it. Leibniz’s secondary form
here is an instance of the scholastic notion of secondary cause. For a discussion of sec-
ondary causes, occasionalism, and their philosophical differences, see Fred Freddoso,
“Medieval Aristotelianism and the Case against Secondary Causation in Nature.” For a


   

of primary matter, then it has some of the features of the Aristotelian notion:
it constitutes the nature of the substance and the cause and explanation of its
essential features.90 While it remains perfectly clear that much of what Leib-
niz says about matter and (secondary) form in this letter is inconsistent with
anything the ancient accepted, these unaristotelian elements fit neatly within
a theory of substance that has the structure of Aristotle’s. For example, al-
though God is the principle and cause of individuation and matter has a well-
defined nature, the fact that they combine as active and passive elements to
form a union that constitutes the cause and explanation for substantial fea-
tures is recognizably Aristotelian.91 With admirable finesse, Leibniz has
placed a version of mechanical physics firmly on an Aristotelian foundation.
In the process, he has made corporeal substances self-sufficient and saved
Aristotelian substantial forms from ridicule. For the sake of convenience, it
will be helpful to summarize Leibniz’s original notion of substance.
• The Original Theory of (non-human) Corporeal Substance asserts that di-
vine mind (or primary form) takes body qua matter, which is extended pas-
sive matter, activates or organizes it and thereby produces a (secondary)
form or body qua form (i.e., an organized arrangement of matter) which has
its own essence and is the cause and explanation of its (primary) features.
For the twenty-first-century reader, however, there may still be lingering
doubts. Leibniz’s proposed conception of substance is so significantly dif-
ferent from that of Aristotle himself that one has to wonder about Leibniz’s
sincerity. We may continue to feel uncomfortable about what one commen-
tator called “a perpetual violence made on Aristotle.”92 Did Leibniz him-
self believe that his proposal was a genuine reconciliation of the ancient and
modern philosophies? Fortunately, there is ample evidence that Leibniz was
perfectly ingenuous in his proposals.
The historical material of this and the previous two chapters provides co-
pious evidence that Leibniz was well aware of the wide range of Aristotelian
options in the period. He was surely cognizant of the fact that some readers
would not be sympathetic to his reformed philosophy and its interpretation
of Aristotle. Thomasius had responded to an earlier (and less developed)
version of Leibniz’s conciliatory philosophy by warning his student that
before there can be “any hope of harmony [among the philosophical
schools], . . . we need to examine a bit more fully the mind of the philoso-
pher.” After suggesting that Leibniz has misunderstood Aristotle, his es-
teemed teacher goes on to point out that the substantial form cannot be iden-

helpful summary of the sort of occasionalism that has falsely been attributed to Leibniz,
see Steven Nadler, Introduction, Causation in Early Modern Philosophy, –.
. See, e.g., II i , VI ii : L .
. Nor is this interpretation of Aristotle’s notion of substantial form a modern anomaly:
Leibniz’s proposal here is somewhat like that made by Suárez and some other scholastics –
namely, that the figure or form (figura) of a body is something like “the determination of
magnitude” (Disp. XLII, Sect. III, ).
. Hannequin, “La première philosophie,” .


    , 

tical to accidental things like the figuration and magnitude of parts “in
whose agreement you seem to want to construct the harmony.”93 Then
Thomasius acknowledges that he is “aware of this way of talking” and that
others may accept this way of making “peace.” Although Thomasius rejects
Leibniz’s conciliatory proposal, he does not find the position shocking.94
Even without the approval of his esteemed teacher, Leibniz was proud of
his original theory of substance and his first attempt at a conciliatory phi-
losophy. In his writings of –, he frequently emphasizes his success at
revealing the true sophistication of the philosophy of Aristotle.95 An espe-
cially striking example of this is offered by one of his most important early
publications, the New Physical Hypothesis of , which he sent to many
of the foremost natural philosophers in Europe and in which he proudly an-
nounces his reconciliation of Aristotle with the mechanists.96 There is am-
ple evidence that like many of his contemporaries, he believed the philoso-
phy of Aristotle to be “very different than commonly described,”97 and that
he took his own synthesis of Aristotelian and mechanical doctrine to be an
important step toward revealing the truth in the ancient philosophy. In other
words, Leibniz agreed with reformers like Weigel, Digby, and De Raey who
claimed that the real value of the “new” physics was that it revealed the true
sophistication of Aristotle’s thought on matters that the scholastics had left
obscure. Leibniz asserts, for example: “Moreover, from this notion of body
and substantial form, there is hope that it is possible to penetrate little by
little into the essence of body about which the Scholastics bid us to de-
spair.”98
In a letter of January  to the German Aristotelian, Hermann Con-
ring, Leibniz summarizes his progress in the development of a true meta-
physics of substance and advertises its conciliatory power. He explains that
through an analysis of “the nature of things,” he came to accept the thesis
that “everything in bodies can be derived from magnitude, figure, and mo-
tion.” Not only has he discovered that this thesis is to be found in Aristotle,
according to Leibniz: “all the following agree: Plato . . . , Democritus and
Leucippus, Lucretius, Bacon, Gassendi, Descartes, Hobbes, Digby, and all
the other great men of our time.”99 Conring’s reaction is noteworthy. He re-
jects Leibniz’s attempt at reconciliation and insists that “it is not the case”
that all these ancient philosophers would accept the mechanical philoso-
phy.100 But Conring is neither shocked nor dismayed by Leibniz’s propos-
als. Rather, as he explains, his rejection of the new physics is partly due to
the fact that the “new empirical data” are perfectly consistent with Aristo-
tle’s views and partly due to the fact that there are too many ignorant prac-
titioners of the modern philosophy who are too willing to ignore much that
is important about the ancient thought. Like Leibniz, Conring intends to
find “a middle path” between “the old and the new,” but he insists that his
position is closer to the real thought of the ancients. Like Thomasius, Con-

. II i . . II i . . E.g., II i , ; VI i . . VI ii .
. VI ii : L . . II i . . II i . . II i 


   

ring wants to have nothing to do with a synthesis of ancient and modern

ideas forged out the new physics.101
An important point lurks here. Not only is the seventeenth century full
of philosophers in search of the real Aristotle, these would-be Aristotelians
are themselves perfectly aware of the enormous differences among inter-
pretations. Although from our scholarly perspective, some of these appear
anachronistic, Leibniz and his contemporaries were fully versed in a whole
range of alternative accounts of the ancient thought. In short, even if we
consider Leibniz’s interpretation of the philosophy of Aristotle to be a dis-
turbing distortion, his proposals did not come as a surprise to his contem-
poraries, even to those who flatly rejected the mechanical physics.
But the most vivid display of the motivation and sincerity behind Leib-
niz’s reformed philosophy occurs in a paragraph that he wrote to Thoma-
sius in April  but deleted from the published version of the letter. He
tells his teacher that the “truth per se” of the reformed philosophy must be
shown “in the same way that the Christian religion can be proven by reason
and experience as well as by sacred scripture.”102 He then continues the
analogy:
The saintly fathers clarified the sacred scripture with the best interpretations; the
monks soon obscured it with their superstitions. Now it has become clear that . . .
the reformed theology is threefold: there is heretical theology that rejects the scrip-
tures themselves . . . ; there is the schismatical theology that rejects the ancient fa-
thers of the church . . . ; there is the true theology that reconciles the teachers of the
church with the sacred scriptures and the earliest church. . . . Similarly, the Greek
interpreters clarified Aristotle; the Scholastics obscured him by idle talk. Now it has
become clear that the reformed philosophy is threefold: the dull [stolida] philoso-
phy, that of Paracelsus, Helmont, and others, that straightforwardly rejects Aristo-
tle; the audacious philosophy that has little concern for the ancients, nay, open con-
tempt for them and replaces even the good ideas with suspicious meditations, as
Descartes did; and the true philosophy that understands Aristotle to be both a great
man and for the most part true.103
In this extraordinary passage, Leibniz compares Aristotle to sacred scrip-
ture and the Greek commentators to the church fathers.104 In the same way
“the monks” perverted the Bible, so the schoolmen obscured Aristotle.
Analogous to the true theology which will be grounded in the Bible, the true

. II i . Leibniz does not abandon his hope of engaging Conring on topics concerning the
new natural philosophy. He sends Conring his new work on physics (see II i ) and he
continues the correspondence. See, e.g., the important letter to Conring of March ,
which was discussed in ch. , sect. .
. Loemker includes this sentence in his translation (), but not the rest of the passage.
In fact, the whole passage is deleted from the  version. Loemker does not make this
clear.
. II i ; compare VI ii .
. This comparison suggests that in Leibniz’s opinion, the writings of Aristotle contain an
abundance of Christian truths and are therefore sacred. It also constitues evidence for my
claim in ch. , sect.  that, according to Leibniz, pagans can divine the underlying meta-
physical truths.


    , 

reformed philosophy will be one of reconciliation grounded in the philoso-

phy of Aristotle. Leibniz’s commitment to a reformed philosophy is clear,
as is the fact that he had no taste for any philosophy (audacious or other-
wise) that ignored the “great man.”
In chapter , I focused on a puzzle that arises concerning Leibniz’s early
works: on the one hand, he appears to convert to the mechanical philosophy
during his walk in the Rosental woods; on the other, he insists throughout
the period on his commitment to the philosophy of Aristotle. We have
finally fully resolved that puzzle. Once we see the works of the s as mo-
tivated by a conciliatory eclecticism, and the published letter to Thomasius
as an attempt to offer just such a philosophy, the importance of the period
and the letter to Thomasius become clear. Not only do the texts of the s
display Leibniz’s two-part methodological assumptions, they contain his
first attempt at original Metaphysics of Substance. Indeed, when Leibniz
emerged from the Rosental grove, he was on a path that would lead to his
letter to Thomasius of April  and eventually to his First truths. As we
will see in the next chapter, Leibniz revises his Original Theory of Sub-
stance, but he never strays from the Aristotelian assumptions attributed to
him in chapter ; and, in fact, his revised version of substance is also mod-
eled on an Aristotelian conception. In the s, as Leibniz’s interests and
sources expand to match the intellectual fecundity of the period, it becomes
more and more difficult to identify the myriad of sources for his eclectic sys-
tem, but he nonetheless remains fundamentally commited to a conciliatory
Metaphysics of Substance importantly centered around the thought of
Aristotle. However much the details of his thought evolve, Leibniz does not
waver from his attempt to forge a synthesis of Aristotelian metaphysics and
mechanical physics. And however much the sources of his doctrines multi-
ply and vary, he continues to attempt to achieve a philosophy of reconcilia-
tion. Thus, Leibniz could write in , in the same letter to Remond with
which I began chapter :
I have found that most of the sects are right in a good part of what they propose, but
not so much in what they deny. The formalists, Platonists and Aristotelians, for ex-
ample, are right in seeking the source of things in final and formal causes. But they
are wrong in neglecting efficient and material causes. . . . I flatter myself to have
penetrated into the harmony of these different realms and to have seen that both
sides are right provided that they do not clash with one another: that everything in
nature happens mechanically and at the same time metaphysically but that the source
of mechanics is in metaphysics. It is not easy to uncover this mystery, because there are
few men who take the pains to combine both types of study.105

. G III : L . My emphasis.


 4
Second conception of substance, –early 

In , Leibniz published two related works which constitute his first ex-
tended account of the laws of motion and their metaphysical foundations
and which he considered important (and good) enough to bring to the at-
tention of some of the most powerful intellectuals in Europe. The first, the
New Physical Hypothesis, subtitled Theory of Concrete Motion, he dedicated
to the Royal Society of London; the second, the Theory of Abstract Motion,
he dedicated to the French Academy of Sciences. Together, these works,
which Leibniz often refers to as the Schediasma in his correspondence,1 pro-
pose a physical system replete with creation story and laws of collision.2 A
year after the publication of the texts, Leibniz left for his four year stay in
Paris, where he was to meet and converse with many of the leading philoso-
phers, scientists, and mathematicians of his time. That the Schediasma is
the culmination of Leibniz’s early study in natural philosophy is clear. But
it also seems obvious that its conception of substance represents a dramatic
change from the position in the letter to Thomasius of April . In the
letter, body qua matter, which is a being in space, is activated by God and
thereby becomes a corporeal substance whose nature is described as its sub-
stantial form. In the Theory of Abstract Motion, Leibniz maintains that bod-
ies are momentary minds whose every action is a momentary endeavor or
conatus. There is no mention of substantial forms or anything else typically
Aristotelian.
In chapter , I maintained that Leibniz’s early conciliatory method and
his desire for the reconciliation of an Aristotelian metaphysics of substance
with mechanical physics continued unabated and formed the foundations of
his mature thought. In chapter , I attributed to Leibniz a number of meta-
physical principles which I claimed constitute the fundamental assumptions
behind his Metaphysics of Substance; and in chapter , I showed that the
conception of substance that Leibniz accepts in  is in fact a successful
reconciliation of a version of Aristotelian substance with mechanical
physics. The implication of these chapters is that Leibniz persists in his

. Both Leibniz and his correspondents refer to the two-part Theory of Abstract Motion and
New Physical Hypothesis as his Schediasma. In one letter, Leibniz calls them “Schediasma
meum duplex” (II i ). See also, e.g., II i , , , etc.
. For a thorough introduction to the physical proposals of these works, see Garber, “Leibniz:
Physics and Philosophy,” –; for an interesting interpretation of Leibniz’s metaphysi-
cal and physical proposals in this two-part work, though one that differs from mine, see Bee-
ley, Kontinuität, chs.  and .


     – 

(Aristotelian) Metaphysics of Substance. Therefore, the total absence of

anything obviously Aristotelian in texts as important as the New Physical
Hypothesis and Theory of Abstract Motion seems flatly to contradict my in-
terpretation.
Nor do any of the scholarly treatments of the Schediasma offer my inter-
pretative story any support. On the basis of the two-part work (and some-
times a few related texts), twentieth-century scholars have consistently
come to one of two very different conclusions. Either they have taken the
momentary minds of the Theory of Abstract Motion as precursors of mon-
ads and claimed that between  and the publication of the Monadology
in , Leibniz is working out the details of his monadism.3 Or they have
argued that despite Leibniz’s apparent attempt to reduce bodies to minds,
he is committed to the real extension of bodies, and therefore that he must
have developed his mental monism at some point later in his career.4 For
those few commentators who have noticed the Aristotelianism of the s,
the claim has been that by  Leibniz has discarded the remaining residue
of his scholastic past and wholeheartedly accepted the mechanical philoso-
phy and the notion of material extension at its core.5
In the previous chapters, I have attempted to show that once we put Leib-
niz’s texts of – in their appropriate historical and philosophical con-
text, a Metaphysics of Substance emerges where previously none was ob-
served. In this chapter, I continue with this historically informed approach
and argue that once we place the Schediasma and related writings in their
proper historical, philosophical, and textual contexts, Leibniz’s metaphys-
ical proposals in  emerge as thoroughly compatible with his Aristotelian
Metaphysics of Substance. While I agree with those commentators who at-
tribute to Leibniz a mental monism in , I take Leibniz’s position to be
both much more complicated and much more interestingly motivated than
has previously been understood.6 In order to discern the reasons behind
Leibniz’s denial of the reality of extended (primary) matter in , we

. See Capek, “Leibniz on Matter and Memory,” –; Garber, “Motion and Metaphysics;”
Kabitz, Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz, ; Hannequin, “La première philosophie,” ff;
and Bernstein, “Conatus, Hobbes, and the Young Leibniz,” –. Bernstein, for instance,
shows nicely how Leibniz reformulated Hobbes’ notion of conatus, and then notes that
whereas Hobbes solved the mind-body problem by reducing every thing to motion, Leib-
niz did so by reducing everything to mind. Bernstein writes: “No wonder commentators
have divined a prophetic anticipation of Leibniz’s monadology in the juvenilia we have
cited” ().
. For recent examples and citations to others, see Arthur, Labyrinth, Introduction; Beeley,
Kontinuität.
. E.g., see Brown, Leibniz, esp. sect. ..
. On the whole, those commentators who have claimed to find in the texts of  the pre-
cursors to monads are those who have not recognized Leibniz’s early Aristotelianism and
who seem to assume that he was somehow always a mental monist. My interpretation dif-
fers significantly in that I think that Leibniz believed in the real extension of matter until
 and then, for complicated reasons that I articulate in chs.  and , decided to replace
extended matter with an infinity of minds.


   

must grasp some of his underlying Platonist assumptions.7 I present these

assumptions in chapter  and unpack some of their most obvious implica-
tions for Leibniz in chapter . Therefore, a full account of Leibniz’s views
about matter in  must be postponed until chapter . In this chapter, I
skirt the topic of matter and focus instead on mind and substance. I main-
tain that commentators are correct to notice that the metaphysical under-
pinings of the Schediasma mark a change from those of the letter to Thoma-
sius of April . However, although these changes constitute a fascinating
revision of Leibniz’s earlier views about substance, they are by no means a
rejection of his Aristotelian Metaphysics of Substance. In short, I claim
that the underlying metaphysics of the Schediasma and related texts is thor-
oughly Aristotelian and perfectly compatible with the developmental story
of the previous chapters.
Leibniz changes his opinion about the nature of substance at least twice
between the time of his April  letter to Thomasius and the Schediasma
of early . The first change occurs between the original letter to Thoma-
sius and the revisions for its published version (that is, between April 
and late ). Although the actual number of additions and deletions in
the second version of the letter are few, they represent a fundamental shift
in Leibniz’s views. He does not discontinue his Aristotelian approach to
substance, but he does significantly modify the active principle within his
theory of substance: the second version of the letter adds an active princi-
ple to extension as an element in corporeal substance where before there was
only the mind of God acting from afar. The second change occurs during
Leibniz’s preliminary work in  for his Schediasma. Sometime in early
, Leibniz begins to use the term conatus, which I will translate as ‘en-
deavor,’ and to describe bodies or corporeal substances as “momentary
minds.” For the sake of easy reference, I will call this revised account of sub-
stance Leibniz’s Second Theory of Corporeal Substance.
The goal of this chapter is to describe correctly and motivate thoroughly
these changes in Leibniz’s theory about mind and substance between April
 and late . Although Leibniz will continue to revise his theory of
substance, he does not alter the general structure of the conception for the
rest of his philosophical career. A thorough investigation of the steps in
Leibniz’s philosophical evolution during these months will help to reveal
part of the deep motivation behind his mature conception of substance. It
is worthwhile, therefore, to display the exact problems with the original con-
ception of substance and to trace the development of its solution. In sec-

. In my PhD thesis, I energetically argued that Leibniz remained committed to the real ex-
tension of matter in ; and in the article (coauthored with Robert C. Sleigh, Jr.) in the
Cambridge Companion to Leibniz, I suggested the same. See The Origins and Development of
Leibniz’s Metaphysics, especially chs. –, and “Metaphysics: The Early Period to the Dis-
course on Metaphysics.” Obviously, I have significantly changed my views. It was the recog-
nition of Leibniz’s early Platonism that led me to reconsider these texts and my interpreta-
tion of them. The material in the chapters that follow bears witness to Leibniz’s Platonism
and to its importance in deciphering the early texts.


     – 

tion , I discuss Leibniz’s reasons for modifying his original account of sub-
stance. In section , I present the changes in the published version of his
letter to Thomasius and claim that they represent a significant revision of
his views. In sections  and , I describe the stages in the development of
Leibniz’s Second Theory of Corporeal Substance. With the help of an un-
noticed theological essay, I uncover Leibniz’s original attempt to construct
an account of substantial activity and substantial unity. As we will see, this
account of activity played a crucial role in the evolution of his views about
substance. Finally, in section , I explicate this revised account of substance
and make some summary remarks about his method and general interests
during the period. In light of his Aristotelian assumptions and Original
Theory of (non-human) Corporeal Substance, it will become clear that
Leibniz’s notion of substance during the period of the Schediasma is quite
different than previously thought.

. Substantial difficulties
Leibniz’s Original Theory of Substance situates mechanical physics within
an explicitly Aristotelian framework. As explained in the last chapter, this
conception both accepts mechanical physics and rejects its standard meta-
physical foundations. Leibniz maintains that a body qua matter is not itself
a substance because it does not subsist in itself and it does not subsist in it-
self because it lacks a principle of activity. As long as body is taken to be
merely extended stuff, it will not be substantial, will not be the cause of its
features, and hence (by the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency) will not
properly speaking have its features. As discussed in chapter , because only
mind or something incorporeal can act as a principle of activity, body as res
extensa must be joined with mind in order to acquire a principle of activity
that can give it motion. Therefore, in Leibniz’s original theory, God acti-
vates primary matter with the result that there are arrangements of matter,
where each arrangement constitutes the nature of an individual corporeal
substance. By such means, an individual corporeal substance comes both to
exist and to have an essence that can act as a cause and explanation of all its
features: its features are reducible to and caused by the arrangement of its
activated parts. According to Leibniz’s original conception, the truth of me-
chanical physics fits neatly within his Aristotelian Metaphysics of Substance.
In the writings of –, Leibniz frequently emphasizes the several ad-
vantages that he thinks this conception of substance has. He points out that
his original conception is a source of reconciliation among the various
schools,8 establishes both an excellent argument for the existence of God
and a satisfactory account of transubstantiation,9 reveals the true sophisti-
cation of the philosophy of Aristotle,10 corrects the mistake of the mecha-
nists by making substance once again appropriately self-sufficient,11 and

. E.g., II i , ; VI i . . E.g., II i , ; VI i , , .
. E.g., II i , . . E.g., VI i , .


   

solves the problem of the explanatory inadequacy of res extensa by distin-

guishing between body qua matter and body qua form. That is, because
body qua form is a union of both matter and mind, it can be the cause and
explanation of its features, and hence its features can properly be said to be-
long to it.12
The apparent power of Leibniz’s original conception of substance to
solve a number of problems at once is impressive. He probably would have
maintained this theory if not for a problem he found lurking beneath the
surface, one significant enough to require a dramatic shift in his thinking.
The problem is due to the fact that while body qua form is different from
primary matter and has a nature in terms of which its features can be ex-
plained, that nature is itself caused by a substance distinct from it, namely,
God. What Leibniz came to realize is that his attempt to make primary mat-
ter complete and substantial by joining it with divine mind fails because
body qua form is not itself sufficiently causally autonomous; moreover,
body qua form is not causally autonomous because it does not have its own
principle of activity. In his April  letter to Thomasius, Leibniz (un-
wittingly) displays part of the difficulty: “Physics deals with the Matter of
things, and the unique affection resulting from the combination of matter
with the other causes, namely Motion.”13 The problem with the original
conception of substance arises because, although corporeal features follow
from the combination of matter and motion, the motion of the parts of a body
(that is, the motion within a body qua form) is itself caused by something
substantially distinct from body. While the nature of body – as an arrange-
ment of parts of matter – is constituted by matter and its arrangement or mo-
tion, something outside of that nature causes the motion and hence the na-
ture. According to Leibniz, although “[e]very action of body is a variation of
the essence of body” and every “variation of the essence of body . . . is mo-
tion,”14 God is the cause of each variation of essence in that God is the cause
of motion.15 The Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency claims that a be-
ing S is a substance if and only if S is self-sufficient and, following the Prin-
ciple of Self-Sufficiency, S is self-sufficient if and only if the full account or
complete ratio of all of its features can be discovered in the nature of S. It
follows from the Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency and the fact that
God is the cause of the activity or motion within the body that body is not
self-sufficient and hence is not a substance. Because Leibniz was concerned

. E.g., II i ; VI i . . II i : L . . VI i : L .
. It is crucial to keep in mind that for any corporeal substance, there are two levels of activ-
ity or motion. For example, the kitchen table is in motion as I push it across the floor; the
baseball is in motion once I hurl it through the air. But each of these objects has a more
fundamental level of activity or motion: each has the corporeal nature it has because the
matter that makes it up is organized or activated or “moved” in a certain way. The table
can be pushed and the ball hurled if and only if each has such a nature. Our concern here
is with this more fundamental level of activity and its source. That is, we are concerned
with the motion or activity of the matter that constitutes the nature of the body and hence
is within the body.


     – 

to formulate a conception of substance that would be properly sufficient,

the fact that his original conception turns out not to be self-sufficient con-
stitutes a serious flaw.
There is however an even more serious problem, one that the Principle of
Causal Self-Sufficiency helps to reveal. According to the Principle of
Causal Self-Sufficiency, for any being S, strictly speaking, S cannot be said
to have a feature f and f cannot be said to exist in S unless the full account
(or complete ratio) of f can be found in the nature of S. It follows from the
Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency and the fact that God is the cause of
the motion or activity within the body qua form that strictly speaking, the
motion neither belongs to the body nor really exists in it. And if internal
motion (or arrangement of parts) is not really in bodies, it becomes unclear
how the nature of the body is supposed to be constituted of matter in mo-
tion. Since God causes the nature (by activating or moving the matter), it
follows from the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency that the motion or ac-
tivity within the nature does not really belong to the nature, and hence that
the nature does not strictly belong to the body. It is surely unacceptable to
say that body does not have its own nature. Nor is it clear how the features
of body that are supposed to be caused by this nature really belong to the
body. According to Leibniz’s mechanical physics, for example, the heat of a
body is reducible to and explainable in terms of the rapid movement of the
parts of the body.16 But since the cause of the motion or activity within the
body is God, it is not clear in what sense the heat belongs to the body. Be-
cause God causes the heat by moving the matter, it would seem to follow
from the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency that the heat belongs as much
to God as to the body. In other words, it is not clear whether the heat of the
fire and the shape of the shoe are in God or in the objects.17
There is good reason to believe that Leibniz discovered this problem with
his original conception of substance soon after writing to Thomasius in
April . In fact, one of the things that makes a comparison between the
two versions of the letter so interesting is that it reveals Leibniz’s first re-
action to this discovery. Although Leibniz articulates the source of the
problem in the original letter, it is clear that he has not yet realized its full
weight. At the end of that text, Leibniz describes for the first time the ex-
act roles of God and matter in explaining corporeal features. He notes that
since God is the cause of the motion within body qua form, motion is not a
real being (ens reale) in body qua matter. He claims that “there is not mo-
tion, strictly speaking, as a real being in bodies” and that he has “demon-
strated instead that whatever moves is continuously created.”18 That is, ac-

. E.g., II i : L 

. I do not mean to suggest here that Leibniz is an occasionalist. He is not. As I explained in
ch. , he merely maintains that God is the active principle in a non-human corporeal sub-
stance whose nature, once organized, can act as the cause of another object. For a more
complete account of the precise relation between God and non-human substances in the
essay On transubstantiation, see ch. , sect. .
. II i : L .


   

cording to Leibniz, body qua matter is inert stuff that would remain so, if
not for the activating power of God who, by adding activity to body qua
matter, produces body qua form. Interestingly enough, although Leibniz
describes the precise relation between God and body qua form and thereby
implies that God is the cause of its activity and hence its nature, he does not
yet see the problem. He happily concludes that “this philosophy is a gift of
God to this old world, to serve as the only plank, as it were, which pious and
prudent people may use to escape the shipwreck of atheism which now
threatens us.”19
Soon after writing to Thomasius in April, Leibniz became aware of the
serious problem facing his conception of substance, and set about solving
it. His solution constitutes a dramatic shift in his thinking about substance.
In order to ground corporeal features properly in body and make body qua
form substantial in the right way, Leibniz could do either one of two things:
he could give up the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency and the Principle
of Substantial Self-Sufficiency or he could revise his original conception of
substance. A denial of his two principles would have neatly resolved the dif-
ficulty. If he had disaffirmed the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, then
a corporeal feature like heat could be said to belong to a body even though
the full account of the heat could not be discovered in the nature of the body.
Because, according to the Original Conception of (non-human) Corporeal
Substance, the nature of a body is the cause of its features, it would follow
from the denial of the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency that corporeal
features belong to the body although the nature is maintained by God. Sim-
ilarly, if Leibniz were to reformulate the Principle of Substantial Self-Suf-
ficiency so that it was no longer a requirement of self-sufficiency that the
full account of all the features be discovered in the nature of the being, body
qua form could be considered a substance. In this case, it would be true that
after God created and maintained the nature of body, the full account of all
the features of the body would be discoverable in its nature.
If rejecting the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency and reformulating the
Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency would have been a fairly straight-
forward way of solving the problem, revising his Original Conception of
Corporeal Substance would not. Revision could take one of three forms: ei-
ther Leibniz could give up mechanical physics (that is, he could deny that
corporeal features are reducible to the subtle motions of matter and then, for
example, revert to some form of scholastic explanatory model); or he could
reject his version of Aristotelian substance in favor of some other, wholly dif-
ferent account; or, finally, he could try to find another way to reconcile me-
chanical physics with his Aristotelian Metaphysics of Substance. The alter-
native that Leibniz chose in  reveals a good deal about his philosophical
priorities: he decided to revise his Original Conception of Corporeal Sub-
stance rather than retract his commitment to either substantial or causal self-
sufficiency. And the fact that Leibniz chose to attempt another reconciliation

. II i : L .


     – 

of mechanical physics and Aristotelian substance bears witness to his hon-

est desire to combine these two philosophies. In short, after Leibniz discov-
ered the problem with his theory of substance, he tried to solve it while re-
maining consistent with mechanical physics, the Principle of Causal
Self-Sufficiency, and the Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency. The ul-
timate result is his Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, whose first ex-
pression we find insinuated in the preface to Leibniz’s edition of Nizolio.
In order to solve the problem facing his Original Conception of Sub-
stance, Leibniz had to find a way to reconstruct the nature of substance: that
nature had to be made properly self-sufficient and it had to constitute a com-
plete ratio of its features. There were two difficulties to overcome. First,
Leibniz had to find a way to give each substance its own principle of activ-
ity so that its nature would have the cause of its motion or activity within it.
Because, according to Leibniz, only something incorporeal and mind-like
could be a principle of activity, he had to find a way to give each body its
own incorporeal principle. Second, he had to find a way to make this incor-
poreal principle a part of the nature of the corporeal substance. If the ac-
tive and passive principles were not unified into an integrated whole, the
problem with the original conception would remain: the motion or activity
within the body qua form would belong only to its active source and not to
the substantial nature. That is, given the Principle of Causal Self-Suffi-
ciency, the complete ratio for the nature of a corporeal substance S must be
found in (some combination of) its constituents: if either one of its two prin-
ciples were solely responsible for the substantial nature, then the original
problem would remain.
Leibniz had his work cut out for him. In order to reconstruct the nature
of substance so as to meet the newly discovered requirements of the Prin-
ciple of Substantial Self-Sufficiency and Principle of Causal Self-Suffi-
ciency, he first had to decide on an incorporeal or mind-like principle to put
into body or corporeal substance, and he then had to devise a way of unify-
ing that principle with the passive principle so as to make a single nature
with it. There is wonderfully straightforward evidence that Leibniz’s de-
velopment took exactly these steps for precisely these reasons, that is, that
he discovered the problem with his Original Theory of Corporeal Sub-
stance, decided to solve it by giving each corporeal substance its own prin-
ciple of activity, and then worked out the details of how exactly to construct
a substantial union out of the active and passive principles. Let’s now con-
sider his first response to the problem.

. Letter to Thomasius revised

As I have noted, the actual additions and deletions in the second version of
the letter to Thomasius are few, but they represent a fundamental shift in
Leibniz’s views about substance. There are four important changes.20 Al-

. Although in his edition of Leibniz’s  letter (VI i –), Gerhardt notes some of


   

though none of these by itself constitutes hard proof of a radical transfor-

mation in his conception of substance, as a group they strongly suggest that
by late  Leibniz had decided seriously to rethink his ontology. Before
turning to Leibniz’s additions and deletions, let me make my strategy con-
cerning them perfectly clear. While I am aware that each of the changes that
Leibniz made to the text can be interpreted in more than one way, I have
chosen not to indulge in alternative readings. Besides the desire to avoid the
tedium of the latter, the interpretation that I offer of the revised letter to
Thomasius is confirmed by a number of related texts discussed in sections
 and . In other words, the full evidence for my reading of these changes
is strewn throughout the remainder of this chapter.
Let’s now consider each of these changes in turn. The first, an addition
to the published version, occurs in the context of a distinction Leibniz
makes between primary and secondary forms, that is, between God and
body qua form. Leibniz writes in :
Matter is devoid of motion in itself [per se]. Mind is the principle of all motion as
Aristotle rightly saw. . . . For form is indeed the cause and principle of motion, but
not the primary one. . . . I admit therefore that form is the principle of motion within
its own body, and that body itself is the principle of motion in another body. But the
first principle of motion is the primary form, which is really abstracted from mat-
ter, namely mind. . . . Therefore, it is not absurd that of the substantial forms only
mind should be designated as the first principle of motion.21
Leibniz claims that mind is “the principle of all motion” and that form “is
the principle of motion within its own body.” In chapter , I discussed the
apparent problem with this: on the one hand, Leibniz is quite explicit about
the fact that “form is nothing but figura [an arrangement of parts of mat-
ter],”22 while on the other he insists that “form is the principle of motion
within its own body.”23 As I explained, the solution to the problem is that
once God creates and maintains the form as figura (that is, as an arrange-
ment of parts of matter), it has a nature that is extended and impenetrable.
This nature can itself cause motion in the sense that when it is struck, it will
move, and when it strikes another body, it will move that body. Leibniz can
claim on this basis both that “mind is the principle of all motion” and that
once “mind supplies motion to matter,” body (the result of activated mat-
ter) is itself a principle of motion.

the revisions in the original letter, his list is incomplete in two ways. First, Gerhardt’s text
does not note the additions that Leibniz makes in the second version of his letter. Because
Gerhardt includes the additions in the text without any acknowledgement that they are
additions, it is impossible to tell exactly what Leibniz has added to the original letter.
Second, Gerhardt’s list of the deletions from the original is incomplete. The fact that
Gerhardt was working from a draft of Leibniz’s letter (which could have had other ver-
sions before publication) and not from the published version probably accounts for at least
some of the mistakes. For Gerhardt’s two most significant omissions, compare G VI  ,
ln , with II i , ln , and VI ii , ln ; and G VI , note, with II i , ln , and
VI ii , ln .
. II i : L . . II i : L . . II i : L .


     – 

But this solution gives rise to the more serious problem posed earlier: if
God or divine mind is the first principle of motion and in that sense sup-
plies matter with the activity or motion that is within it, then it would seem
to follow from the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency that body in fact
cannot strictly be said to have its own principle of activity or motion. Leib-
niz’s distinction between body qua matter and body qua form helps to illu-
minate the seriousness of the problem in the present context. As I explained
in chapter , the key to the distinction between body qua matter and qua
form is that the latter has motion while the former does not: body qua mat-
ter is nothing other than extension, inert stuff with no principle of activity,
while body qua form is supposed to have motion insofar as it is a union of
the active and passive principles. In the passage just quoted, Leibniz claims
that body qua form is a principle of motion, and the strong suggestion is
that it somehow acquires this status because God creates and maintains it.
But of course this leads to the question as to how motion is supposed to be-
long to body given that the cause of the activity or motion within the body
is God. It is difficult to grasp how motion is supposed to be a principle in
body when it does not strictly belong to body. This tension in the original
version of the text indicates that in April , Leibniz has neither analyzed
exactly how motion belongs to body qua form nor seriously considered pre-
cisely how body is a principle of motion. It would seem that in April 
he is only beginning to think through the details of these issues.
Sometime after April , Leibniz must have realized that if the nature
of body is such that motion is not strictly within it, then it does not make
sense to say that body has a principle of motion. The addition that Leibniz
makes to the end of the passage just quoted is interesting because it ac-
knowledges the fact that body, in itself, does not have a principle of motion.
He adds: “Indeed, Aristotle, as I have said, considers it certain that no body
has a principle of motion in itself alone.”24 Leibniz seems to have realized
that because the motion in body qua form comes from God, even body qua
form cannot be said to have its own principle of motion. It is also notewor-
thy that Leibniz’s wording here is consistent with the belief that body may
have a principle of motion through something else. He will soon tell us what.
The second significant revision is also an addition to the original text.
Leibniz claims in his original letter to Thomasius that nothing is needed to
explain phenomena besides mind, matter, space, and motion. According to
Leibniz:
the human mind indeed can imagine nothing other than mind . . . , space, matter,
motion and what results from these related among themselves [ex his inter se com-

. Compare II i , ln  with VI ii , ln : L . The Latin in the latter is “corpus nul-
lum in se solo principium motus habere.” The fact that the addition here is presented as a
position of Aristotle’s should not be taken to indicate that it is not also a position Leibniz
accepts. As I noted in ch. , Leibniz often takes a reference to Aristotle to constitute its
own kind of rhetorical argument: his reference to Aristotle here is probably supposed to
persuade the reader of the truth of the claim.


   
paratis]. . . . For who can imagine a Being that partakes in neither extension nor
thinking [cogitationis]?
The revision occurs in the sentence that follows. Whereas in , Leibniz
asks: “what need [is there] to posit the incorporeal souls of beasts and plants,
the substantial forms of elements and metals devoid of extension?” in the
published version he adds thought (cognitio) to extension and thereby asks
“what need [is there] to suppose the incorporeal souls of beasts and plants,
the substantial forms of elements and metals devoid of extension and
thought?”25 The addition suggests that Leibniz is adding thought to exten-
sion as an element out of which objects may be made. Although it is not yet
clear from the text that we are justified in assuming that there is an under-
lying subject or incorporeal thing that has thought in the same way that
there is a subject or corporeal thing (namely, body) that has extension, it
soon will be. In other words, Leibniz seems to be adding significantly to his
ontology.26
But let’s be clear. Prior to the revised version of the letter to Thomasius,
Leibniz limits the list of incorporeal principles to human mind and God.
As he writes in On transubstantiation, “the substance of the human body is
union with the human mind; and the substance of bodies which lack reason
is union with the universal mind, or God.”27 In brief, before the revisions,
there are two kinds of incorporeal beings: God and human mind. The for-
mer constitutes the substance of non-human bodies, the latter the substance
of human ones. In the revised letter to Thomasius, Leibniz seems to add to
the list of incorporeal principles. The new principle is something that can
have thought. Leibniz now seems to believe that in the same way divine
mind creates (and sustains) human minds which, once created, are separate
from their divine cause, so God could create (and sustain) some other sort
of incorporeal principle that (somehow) has thought and which is also sep-
arate from its cause. In short, Leibniz’s second addition to the letter sug-
gests that there is an incorporeal principle that is distinct from both divine
and human minds and that (somehow) thinks.
It would be easier to grasp the full significance of Leibniz’s addition if
we could describe the nature of divine and human minds in the earlier writ-
ings and then compare them with what Leibniz says about thought (cogni-

. The whole sentence reads in Latin: Quis enim imaginari sibi potest Ens quod neque ex-
tensionis neque cogitationis sit particeps? quid opus igitur animas brutorum, plantarum-
que incorporeas, formas elementorum, metallorumque substantiales, extensionis expertes
ponere? The Latin is less than obvious, and it is noteworthy that the term ‘cognitio’ can
mean knowledge. But, as Daniel Garber pointed out to me, the context demands the trans-
lation given here. In short, against the scholastics, Leibniz argues that there is no reason
to posit the existence of entities like the incorporeal souls of plants and the substantial
forms of elements. The important part of the revision, here placed in italics, appears in
the last phrase of the original: formas Elementorum [,] Metallorum substantiales exten-
sionis et cognitionis expertes, ponere? Compare II i , ln  with VI ii , ln : L .
. I will offer further evidence for this reading in the next section.
. VI i : L .


     – 

tio) in the revised letter. Unfortunately, no such comparison is possible be-

cause before  Leibniz says surprisingly little about the nature of mind.
He neither defines it nor explicitly describes its relation to body. Although
Leibniz is often quite specific about the nature of body and how motion is
an activity (actio) of that nature, he does not go into the same detail con-
cerning mind. For example, in On transubstantiation, he defines precisely
the essence of body and explains exactly how a variation of that essence con-
stitutes motion. In contrast to this explicit account of the nature of body
and its activity, he offers no definition of mind, and says little more than
that mind “lacks extension” and that “[e]very action of mind is thinking
[cogitatio].”28 Nor does Leibniz tell us much more in Part II of the Con-
fession of nature against the atheists where his expressed purpose is to
“demonstrate the immortality of the human mind.” He claims there, for in-
stance, that the activity of mind is thinking (cogitatio) in the same way that
the activity of body is motion; but whereas he then describes the essence of
body, he does no such thing for mind. About mind, he explains only that:
The human mind is a Being one of whose activities is thinking [cogitatio]. . . . For,
thinking [cogitatio] is () a thing that is immediately perceptible, mind being im-
mediate to itself when it perceives itself thinking. () Thinking is a perceptible thing
without awareness of parts. This is clear from experience. For thinking is that some-
thing I know not what, that we perceive [sentimus], when we perceive thinking [cog-
itare].29
In this, his lengthiest discussion about mind during the period, Leibniz dis-
plays little about the nature of mind besides the fact that thinking (cogita-
tio) is an activity of mind and hence is not distinct from it.30 It is also worth
noting that during the period he says less about cognitio (what I have been
translating as thought) than he does about cogitatio (what I have been trans-
lating as thinking), but he always uses the term cogitatio to refer to the ac-
tivity of mind.31
Because Leibniz presents so little information about mind (and even ad-
mits to a basic ignorance about what thinking as an activity of mind is), it
seems clear that he has not yet worked out the details of his conception. He
tells us little more than that mind lacks extension, that it has a principle of
activity, and that the activity of mind is thinking (cogitatio). Moreover, be-
cause Leibniz’s comments about mind prior to the revised letter to Thoma-
sius are restricted to human and divine minds, and because he does not pos-

. VI i –: L . . VI i –: L .

. In ch. , sect. , I analyze some of Leibniz’s early comments about the actions of mind in
order to show the Platonist underpinning of his conception of mental activities. The con-
clusions of that discussion are not relevant here.
. I do not mean to suggest that these are the only senses of the terms. As one would expect,
given the vagaries of such terms in the seventeenth century, Leibniz uses cognitio and cog-
itatio in slightly different ways throughout the period. I am also not denying that prior to
the revised version of the letter, Leibniz sometimes uses cognitio to mean something like
thought (see, e.g., VI i , ; VI ii ). My claim rather is that before late , Leibniz
does not postulate thought as something that might be a constituent of entities.


   

tulate the existence of thought (cognitio) or any other kind of incorporeal

principle, there is no reason to believe that before late , Leibniz takes
there to be an incorporeal principle (or kind of mind) distinct from the
divine and human.32 In short, when Leibniz adds thought to extension as
an element out of which entities can be made, he seems to be proposing a
position that is different from his earlier view and that claims that there is
an incorporeal principle that is (somehow) distinct from both divine and
human minds.
The two final changes in Leibniz’s original text occur towards the end of
the letter, in the midst of Leibniz’s discussion of the motion in body. They
offer corroborating evidence that thought is to be taken as a third kind of
incorporeal principle. As I explained in chapter , at the end of the April
 letter to Thomasius, Leibniz presents a version of the Principle of
Causal Self-Sufficiency and discusses the relation between motion and
body. The final revisions that he makes are especially important because
they represent a dramatic change in the role assigned to God and hence in
the relation of mind to body. Some of the most important features of that
relation have changed in the revised version. In the April  letter, Leib-
niz writes:
From these things it follows that the nature of Body is constituted by Extension and
Antitypy, and since there is nothing in things without a cause [causa], by all means
nothing ought to be supposed in bodies whose cause cannot be presented by their
first constitutive principles. But the cause cannot be presented by these unless
through their definitions. Therefore nothing should be supposed in bodies which
does not follow from the definition of extension and antitypy. But from these follow
only magnitude, figure, situation, number, mobility, etc. Motion itself does not fol-
low from them.
In revising the letter, Leibniz decides to place this last statement and what
he adds to it within parentheses. The final version reads: “(Motion itself
does not follow from them, from which it follows that indeed no bodies will
have motion unless from incorporeal principles.)”33 Thus, Leibniz has
come to believe that bodies will have motion only if there are incorporeal
things (presumably incorporeal principles) that give it to them. The plural

. Leibniz is silent as to whether or not animals have minds. The only thing close to an in-
corporeal principle (other than human and divine mind) mentioned by Leibniz prior to
late  is the “Idea of divine mind” as presented in On transubstantiation. In this essay,
he develops the view that corporeal substance is a union of body and divine mind, and he
suggests that it is an Idea in God’s mind that concurs with body: “Idea is the union of God
with created things” (VI i : L ). He explains that “the divine mind consists of the
Ideas of all things,” that “the Idea of a thing A is one thing, the Idea of B another,” and
that the “substance of each thing is not so much mind as it is an Idea of a concurrent mind”
(VI i –: L ). I will discuss the relation between God and non-human substances
at length in ch. , sect. . As I show, the Idea is not an incorporeal principle which has a
principle of activity that is distinct from God’s mind.
. Motus ipse ex iis non fluit, unde nec corpora motum habent nisi ab incorporeis. Compare
II i , ln  with VI ii , ln .


     – 

here (incorporeis) suggests that there is more than one principle, and the sug-
gestion is that there is (at least) one principle for each body. Leibniz seems
prepared in the published letter to propose that, for each body, there is at
least one incorporeal element that acts as its principle of motion. It seems
reasonable to assume that each incorporeal principle is to be understood as
the subject or bearer of thought (cognitio).34
It follows from the fact that each body has one (or more) incorporeal prin-
ciple that God is no longer the direct cause of the motion in body because
the incorporeal principle will have acquired the role previously assigned to
God. This is exactly what Leibniz’s final significant revision of the letter
implies. In the published version, Leibniz deletes the following passage:
Hence, strictly speaking, motion does not belong to bodies, as a real being [ens reale]
in them, but as I have demonstrated, whatever moves is continuously created and
bodies are something at any instant in assignable motion, but are nothing at any time
midway between the instants of motion – a view that has never been heard of until
now but which is clearly necessary and will silence the atheists.35
By deleting the passage, Leibniz retracts two closely related assertions: that
God continuously creates bodies and that motion does not belong to bodies
as a real thing (ens reale).
The cumulative effect of these four changes is significant. As a group the
revisions do not constitute an explicit statement of Leibniz’s new concep-
tion of substance, but they do reveal that by late , Leibniz had begun
to construct a conception importantly different than the earlier one. He still
maintains both that something incorporeal is the cause of motion in body
and that body has a principle of motion, but he has withdrawn the claim
that God is the sole incorporeal cause of activity in non-human corporeal
substances. That is, God no longer plays the role of the principle of activ-
ity within body qua form.
Nor is it surprising that Leibniz offers so few comments in the revised
version of the letter about his new conception of substance. There are at
least two good reasons for not changing the letter so as to include a full ac-
count of his new views. First, it is virtually certain that Leibniz had not yet
worked out the details of his second conception. As I will show in the next
sections, his Second Theory of Corporeal Substance took some time to con-
struct. While he may have known in late  what the general features of
those changes had to be (for example, that each body had to have its own in-
corporeal principle), it would take time to devise a coherent theory of sub-
stance that solved all the relevant problems. Moreover, as I suggested in
chapter , the goal of the letter as an addendum to the preface of his edition
of Nizolio was as much methodological as it was metaphysical. Leibniz in-

. Again, the next section contains confirmation of this interpretation.

. Compare II i – with VI ii , ln . To my knowledge, previous commentators have
not recognized the differences between the two versions of Leibniz’s letter, except for
Daniel Garber who was the first to notice this final revision. See his “Motion and Meta-
physics,” .


   

tended not so much to convince his readers of the details of his account of
substance as to show them the plausibility and value of a conciliation between
the metaphysics of Aristotle and the physics of the mechanists. As noted in
chapter , the title that Leibniz gave his letter in his preface bears witness to
this claim: he names the piece “Letter to a man of the most refined learning,
Concerning the Reconcilability of Aristotle and the Moderns.”36
In this chapter, I have displayed the problem with Leibniz’s Original
Theory of (non-human) Corporeal Substance and argued that as soon as he
discovered the problem, he began to remake the nature of things drastically.
The revisions made on the April  letter to Thomasius indicate Leib-
niz’s very first reaction to the problem as well as what form his solution
would take. They reveal a good deal about his most basic philosophical in-
clinations: he chose to retain the Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency,
the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, the mechanical physics, and the ba-
sic structure of an Aristotelian conception of substance at the cost of hav-
ing to revise his ontology. It would take time for him to reconstruct his orig-
inal notion of substance so that it could meet the full demands of the
Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency and Principle of Substantial Self-
Sufficiency. But it is significant that by early , he had already hit upon
the basic change he would have to make in his original conception: he would
have to replace the role assigned to God in the original account with an in-
corporeal principle that could somehow be part of substance.

. Development of a perfect union

At some point in late  or early , Leibniz began to revise his Orig-
inal Theory of (non-human) Corporeal Substance so as to make it self-
sufficient in the appropriate way. As I noted in section , in order to solve
the problems facing the original conception, Leibniz needed to achieve two
distinct goals: he had to find a way to give each corporeal substance its own
principle of activity so that its nature could be the independent source of its
own activity and hence the source of its features, and he had to envisage a
way to integrate this principle of activity into the nature of the substance.
In this section and the next, I consider the steps that Leibniz took to solve
these problems. The textual materials of these sections also constitute evi-
dence of the interpretative claims made in the preceding one about the
changes to the April  letter to Thomasius.
In –, Leibniz wrote another essay for his Catholic demonstrations
which he entitled On the incarnation of God or on hypostatic union and in
which we find the first explicit revision of his Original Theory of Corpo-
real Substance.37 In this essay, Leibniz faces the problem of hypostatic

. VI ii .
. The editors of the Academy edition assign this essay to the period – (see VI i ).
On the basis of the content of On the incarnation of God and its relation to other essays for
which we have more definite dates, it seems likely that it was written before . For ex-


     – 

union, here understood to be the problem of how there can be a union of

the divine and human natures of Christ in one substance.38 Given Leibniz’s
philosophical concerns at the time, the theological problem of hypostatic
union seems an especially appropriate context for a discussion of how the
active and passive principles (or mind and body) are to be related in corpo-
real substance. That Leibniz broaches the topic of their relation in this con-
text is significant in two ways. First, it is clear that he considers the ques-
tion about the relation between the mind and body in a corporeal substance
to be similar to the one concerning the unification of the divine and human
natures of Christ. That is, he takes both questions to reduce to the same
thing: how can two things with different natures be unified in one sub-
stance? Second, his attempt to answer these two questions at the same time
displays one of the underlying methodological assumptions that I attributed
to him in chapter . In my discussion there of his Metaphysics of Method,
I suggested that Leibniz assumed an underlying truth beneath the conflict-
ing philosophical schools that would be consistent with Christian doctrine.
By treating the pressing metaphysical problem about the nature of a corpo-
real substance in the context of this grand theological one, he is hoping to
penetrate to the “underlying truth” that will offer the key to the solution for
each. Leibniz appears to have thought that the answer to his question about
substance would be found within the truth of the theological doctrine. As a
philosopher interested in resolving the tensions between his Aristotelian as-
sumptions and his Original Theory of Corporeal Substance, Leibniz might
reasonably have tinkered with the details of his views in isolation from his
other philosophical and theological projects. There are neither essays nor
letters that suggest any such thing. Rather, he chose to treat his newly dis-
covered problem within the severe metaphysical restrictions posed by the
theological doctrine of the incarnation. What he intended to do was to con-
struct a theory of substantial union that would both explain the theological

ample, because N. . (VI ii ff) contains the notion of conatus while On the incarna-
tion of God (N.  (VI i ff)) does not, the latter was almost certainly written before text
., which we know was composed in the winter of –. Given the obvious impor-
tance of On the incarnation of God, it is striking that there seem to be no scholarly treat-
ments of the essay, neither by commentators of the early works (e.g., Kabitz, Beeley) nor
by those scholars who are keen to analyze Leibniz’s theology (e.g., Adams, Rutherford),
nor by those commentators interested in describing Leibniz’s development (e.g., C. Wil-
son, Robinet). This is especially odd since Kabitz calls attention to the text by including
most of it in the Appendix of his book. See Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz, –.
. The term ‘hypostasis’ has a long and varied history, but has generally been taken to mean
substance, nature, or suppositum. In Christian theology, the most common problem of hy-
postatic union was that of the union in Christ of two natures, one divine and one human,
although the term is also related to the doctrine of the trinity, where the question is how
one substance is able to be three persons or have three natures. Although the title of the
essay suggests otherwise, Leibniz seems more interested in the problem of the trinity here
than with that of the incarnation. In fact, the general theological concern is with the rela-
tion between God and creatures, and most of this relatively short essay focuses on the
metaphysical issues that concern the relation between the active and passive principles in
a substantial nature.


   

doctrine and solve the difficulty facing his Original Theory of (non-human)
Corporeal Substance.
Leibniz begins his essay about the incarnation of God with a list of the
things that “are able to be unified hypostatically.” They are:
) God and mind, ) Mind and Body, ) Body and Body through a common mind.
Body and Body are not able to be unified in themselves hypostatically, because no
Body subsists in itself. Mind and Mind are not able to be unified hypostatically, un-
less as perfect and imperfect because imperfect mind [i.e. created mind] does not act
outside of itself unless through Body. . . . Moreover, created Mind . . . is not unified
with every body, but just with the one in which it has been rooted and from which
it cannot be separated. E.g. In the human body it should not be thought that the soul
is unified hypostatically with all the little bodies which are in it, because they change
perpetually, but [the soul] inheres in the center of the brain with a certain fixed and
inseparable flower of substance, most subtly mobile at the center of the animal spir-
its, and [the soul] is unified substantially so that it may not be separated by death.39
Leibniz makes five claims in this passage that are especially relevant to my
present concerns. They are:
() if x and y are unified hypostatically, then either
x or y subsists per se;
() created mind cannot act outside itself except though body;
() if x and y are unified hypostatically, then either
x or y acts outside itself (through the other);
() every created mind has a body to which it is unified
hypostatically;
() created mind is unified hypostatically with a body if
and only if it is rooted in that body and cannot be
separated from it.
Leibniz continues his essay by asserting the following:
() “there is no hypostatical union except by means of
the activity of the one on the other;”
i.e., if x and y are (presently) unified hypostatically,
then one is (presently) acting on the other;
() minds “have in themselves a principle of acting;”
() “every action [of God] on body is one of creation;”
() x and y are unified hypostatically if and only if (a) “one
of them acts constantly by a special ratio of action [actus] on the
other” and (b) “one of them is the other’s
immediate instrument of acting.”40

. The Latin in the latter part of this passage reads: Porro Mens creata . . . non unitur omni
corpori, sed ei tantum in quo radicata est, et a quo separari non potest. V.g. in Corpore hu-
mano non putandum est animam omnibus quae in eo sunt corpusculis hypostatice uniri,
cum perpetuo transpirent, sed in ipso centro cerebri flori cuidam substantiae fixo et in-
separabili, subtilissime mobili in spiritum animalium centro inhaeret et substantialiter
unitur ita ut nec morte separetur (VI i ).
. VI i –.


     – 

Leibniz uses () and () to argue that God and body are not substantially
unified. He explains that because God acts on bodies “by creating,” it fol-
lows that bodies “are not united with God” beyond the moment and there-
fore that neither of the conjuncts in () apply to God’s relation to body; that
is, God does not constantly act on body in the required sense and body is
not God’s immediate instrument of acting.41
But there is an apparent problem here. In the previous section, I noted
that in the revised version of the April  letter to Thomasius, Leibniz
withdrew his assertion about the continual creation of bodies by God, and
I claimed that the deletion of that passage marked a significant shift in Leib-
niz’s view about the activity of God in the natural world. Yet in On the in-
carnation of God, Leibniz asserts that God continually creates bodies. He
writes: “Because there is no hypostatic union except by means of the activ-
ity of the one on the other, God is not able to act on bodies in any other way
(annihilation and creation excepted) than by impressing motion. Moreover,
while bodies are being moved, they are continually being created, as was
demonstrated by me.”42 What are we to think? The crucial questions are:
does the divine mind do the moving or not, and is the mind the principle of
activity in the body or not?
Because Leibniz is discussing for the first time some extremely difficult
theological topics in these notes on hypostatic union and because he has
been forced to rethink his original conception of the relation between God
and bodies, we should not be surprised to find him struggling to clarify his
views about the precise relation between God and bodies. As he proclaims
at the outset of his discussion of that relation: “it must be investigated
whether or not God is hypostatically unified with all bodies, that is, to the
whole World, [and] whether [God] is able to be unified with something or
with nothing.”43 In response to this demand, Leibniz announces that the
divine mind is not hypostatically united with bodies exactly because the cre-
ated minds – and not God – supply the constant activity in bodies. Once we
understand that God creates but does not move bodies, it is easy “to discern
the distinction between the action of mind on Body and [the action] of God
on body.” Leibniz explains:
[Created] Mind does not act on body by creating, but by moving; God creates. In
turn, God does not act on bodies except by creating. However, whatever creates acts
on the thing, [but] does not act by means of the thing and so the thing is not its in-
strument of acting. For truly the instrument of God is Mind, unified with God by
means of which God acts on bodies other than by creating.44
God is hypostatically unified with created minds: the perfect mind acts
constantly on the imperfect ones so that each of the latter is God’s “in-
strument.”45 God is not, however, hypostatically unified with bodies: al-

. VI i . . Ibid. . Ibid. . VI i .

. As we will see in chs.  and , divine mind acts constantly on created mind through ema-
nation.


   

though God constantly creates bodies,46 the divine mind is neither the
principle of the activity in an individual body nor is the body its immedi-
ate instrument of acting. As a response to our questions about God’s rela-
tion to bodies, the divine mind is not the principle of activity in body and,
although the divine mind impresses motion on body, it does so through or
by means of its instrument. The distinction between body qua matter and
body qua form may be helpful at this point. Leibniz’s suggestion in On the
incarnation of God is that, while God keeps the res extensa or extended stuff
in existence through continual creation, created mind takes that matter,
acts constantly on it, and thereby maintains a body qua form or organized
arrangement of matter. Nor is that all. Besides giving each mind its own
principle of activity, Leibniz also suggests in this essay that God imposes
on each mind “a ratio of action [actus]” so that the mind may act as “the
instrument” of God.47
After presenting his arguments to the conclusion that God is not hypo-
statically unified with body, Leibniz thinks it prudent to describe precisely
what he takes a union between created mind and body to be. His account
is both a summary and clarification of some of the claims that he has made
previously. He writes: “if A is [what does] the unifying and B is what is
said to be unified, then (a) A is a thing subsisting per se, (b) A acts through
B on C, (c) A acts immediately on B, that is, not through another.”48 With
the help of this passage, it is now possible to summarize the exact
relation between the active and passive principles in an hypostatical or
substantial union as Leibniz articulates it in this essay. The active princi-
ple subsists per se (claim ()), but only acts outside itself through the
other; the passive principle need not subsist per se, but is the means by
which the active principle acts when it acts outside itself (claim ()).49 Al-
though God does not need a passive principle through which to act, cre-
ated mind does (claim ()). This means that all the activity in the natural
world reduces to that of minds and bodies in hypostatic union. Moreover,
it is not enough that the active principle acts some of the time, it must act
constantly on the passive principle. The idea seems to be that when the
acting stops, so does the union (see claims () and ()). Thus, Leibniz as-
serts in claim () that x and y are hypostatically unified if and only if the
active principle acts constantly on the passive principle and if the latter is
its “immediate instrument” of acting. By such means, we have arrived at

. In fact, Leibniz seems genuinely undecided about how to describe the relation between
God and bodies. At one point, he writes about the creation of bodies by God: “but in a
way he creates, in a way he does not.” See VI i .
. Notwithstanding the fact that minds are instruments of God, Leibniz insists that minds
(at least human minds) are “free.” See VI i .
. VI i . I have substituted lower case letters in place of the numerals Leibniz uses in this
passage in order to distinquish the claims he makes from the ones I have listed above.
. In order to keep to our point, I am skirting some of the comments that Leibniz makes in
the text, which are directly relevant to the hypostatic union of Christ. See the texts for
those details.


     – 

two of Leibniz’s most basic assumptions about the active principles in na-
ture, namely, that an active principle acts constantly and moreover that it
only acts outside itself through its passive principle. I will return to these
points later.
In the remainder of On the incarnation of God, Leibniz says more about
the relation between the active and passive principles (that is, between the
mind and body) in a corporeal substance. While God and bodies “are not
properly unified,”50 he clearly wants to maintain that minds and bodies are.
There is, however, a problem. As Leibniz explains, “the difficulty is, as we
said above: there is no union between mind and body except through the ac-
tion [actio] of the one on the other, but in truth there is no action except
through the impression of motion. Therefore, there will be no union except
through the impression of motion.”51 In other words, Leibniz presents here
another version of claim (), except that in this case he emphasizes the fact
that x and y are hypostatically unified only if one of them is impressing mo-
tion on the other. Whereas () states that there is an hypostatical union only
if x acts on y, Leibniz now claims that x and y are unified only if x impresses
motion on y. The difficulty arises from the fact that according to () and (),
an hypostatical union between x and y requires a constant motion of the one
on the other, and it is unclear how mind is supposed to impress motion con-
stantly on body. Leibniz’s solution seems odd. At this point in the text, he
both admits that mind does not constantly act on body and appears not to
think that this is a serious problem. Rather, he notes: “although mind does
not continually act on body, nevertheless it thinks [cognoscere].”52 Leibniz
goes on to explain that “there is no thought [cognitio] without a union be-
cause to make itself thought is the action of the one on the other.”53 Thus,
according to Leibniz:
() created mind always thinks (cognoscere);
() thought (cognitio) requires a union because “to make itself
thought” is the action of the one on the other (i.e., the formation
of a thought requires an action of mind on body);
() therefore, created mind must always be hypostatically unified
with its body.
Claims () through () are enormously important. Before we unpack
their implications, let’s resolve the difficulty at hand. On the one hand, Leib-
niz says that mind does not constantly act on body which, given (), implies
that mind and body are not correctly unified. On the other, he now maintains
that mind always thinks, and that thought is “an action of the one on the
other,” which seems to entail that one of them does always act on the other.
But if mind constantly acts on body insofar as it always thinks, why then does
Leibniz deny the constant activity of mind on body? Things become even
more confusing when we recall that he begins his discussion of this issue

. VI i . . VI i –. . VI i . . VI i –.


   

(see the long quotation cited in note ) by asserting that x and y are unified
only if x impresses motion on y. It is reasonable to assume that while im-
pressing motion entails acting, acting need not entail impressing motion: x
could act on y in a way that does not involve impressing motion. Thus, when
Leibniz denies constant action of mind on body, it would seem that he is
also denying that mind constantly impresses motion on body. One way out
of this difficulty is to reject the assumption that x impresses motion on y
only if x acts on y. But how can this be? It is possible that when Leibniz de-
nies that mind acts continually, he is not also denying that mind constantly
impresses motion. That is, perhaps we are supposed to take thinking to be
a form of impressing motion in which case mind constantly impresses
motion on body although it does not continually act. One reasonable way of
making sense of such a distinction between acting and impressing motion
is to take Leibniz to mean that mind is not always acting on body in the
sense of willing actions, but that all thought requires some (non-volitional)
interaction.54 There are two advantages in attributing such a position to
Leibniz: first, it makes sense of Leibniz’s otherwise baffling remarks (e.g.,
that impressing motion is not a form of acting); second, it seems true. That
is, it is believeable that although a mind is not always willing actions, it may
constantly be thinking, and hence constantly interacting with the body.
Nor does Leibniz sort these matters out. At this point in the text, he asks
several rhetorical questions about how the mind and the body are related
through thought, but his responses throw little light on the serious issue at
hand. Besides restating his claim that “there is no thought [cognitio] with-
out a union,”55 he offers few clues as to how minds either act or impress mo-
tion on bodies. After skirting the real issue at hand, he ends his essay with
an exclamation: “Amazing. But few – except the most subtle – will grasp the
secrets of such things.”56
The imprecision of the essay’s conclusion should not detract from its
overall significance. Leibniz’s pronouncements in On the incarnation of God
represent nothing less than the foundations of a new conception of sub-
stance. By so clearly focusing on the necessary conditions for an hypostatic
union, the essay squarely faces the problem with the Original Theory of
(non-human) Corporeal Substance. It also contains Leibniz’s original at-
tempt to articulate what will become some of his most basic assumptions
about substantial activity, substantial unity, and mind. Before turning to
these new and provocative assumptions, let’s consider the success of the es-
say as a solution to the problems facing the original conception.
I claimed in section  that in order to solve the problem with his Original
Theory of Corporeal Substance, Leibniz had to find a way both to give each
substance its own active principle and to make that principle part of the na-
ture of the substance. I explained that if the active and passive principles
were not unified into a single nature, the problem with the original concep-

. I owe this way of taking the distinction to Margaret Wilson.

. VI i . . Ibid.


     – 

tion would remain: the substantial feature would belong only to the active
principle that directly caused it and not to the substance. On the incarnation
of God represents significant progress toward the resolution of exactly these
difficulties. According to the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, a feature
f will belong to a substance S if and only if the full account of f is found in
the nature of S. The crucial flaw with the Original Theory of Corporeal
Substance was that the cause of the motion within body qua form (namely,
divine mind) stood outside it and hence remained substantially distinct
from the corporeal nature. The key to Leibniz’s new position is that he in-
serts created mind between God and body, so that mind can act as God’s
“instrument.” But how exactly is this supposed to work? There are two fea-
tures of mind that help it succeed at its assigned task. According to Leib-
niz, each individual created mind has its own principle of activity (claim ())
and its own “special ratio” (claim (a)). That is, the active principle or mind
in a corporeal substance is a fundamentally active thing with its own set of
instructions or “special ratio” by means of which it acts. We will return to
these points below.
Nor is it problematic that mind, the incorporeal principle in the corpo-
real substance, is the cause of the activity and organization within the body.
Leibniz has constructed the substantial union between the principles so that
for any feature f of the corporeal substance S, f results from the organiza-
tion of the passive principle in S and moreover this organization occurs if
and only if the active principle acts through the passive principle. While the
mind is the source of activity, the body is what mind organizes: each is nec-
essary and both are sufficient for the corporeal feature f. By combining mind
and body in this way, Leibniz has cleverly managed to create a single unit
out of active and passive principles. His strategy is straightforward: a real
substantial union between the principles depends on the constant activity
of the one on the other because the constancy of the union of the two de-
pends on the constancy of the connection between them. Since the two prin-
ciples will cease to be a union when they cease to be connected and since
constant activity assures constant connection, Leibniz’s account of sub-
stantial union requires constant activity. In other words, the hypostatic
union of the principles critically depends on two features of mind: that
mind constantly acts and that each mind cannot act outside of itself except
through the body in which it is rooted.
A comparison with organic unities may be helpful at this point. If one
understands an organic unity to be composed of substantial form and mat-
ter, then it is easy to see why unity requires constant activity: if the activ-
ity involved in maintaining the organic unity stops, so does the unity. We
would generally agree that when the maintenance of the organization
ceases (e.g., the heart stops, the liver no longer functions), the unity of the
substantial form and matter does so as well (e.g., the entity dies, the for-
merly organized body becomes a heap of decaying flesh). This account of
substantial unity is nicely consistent with Leibniz’s proposal about the re-
lation between God and bodies: the form takes the body qua matter that


   

God continually creates and, by acting on that matter, out of its own prin-
ciple of activity, the form produces and maintains the organic unity. The
nature of organic unities also helps us to understand what Leibniz means
when he says that the active principle cannot act outside itself except
through the passive: in order to act externally, the source or cause of the
organization has to act through the passive principle that it organizes.
The significance of On the incarnation of God is clear. Its account of
substantial unity constitutes an important first step in the development of
Leibniz’s Second Theory of Corporeal Substance. By giving each active
principle a set of instructions and by permanently connecting each active
principle to a passive principle through which it alway acts, Leibniz has
formulated a genuine unity of incorporeal and corporeal elements whose
composite is both substantially and causally complete. But the importance
of Leibniz’s On the incarnation of God goes well beyond the success of its
solution to the problems facing the Original Theory of Corporeal Sub-
stance. The essay also displays a number of metaphysical ideas that will
evolve into core features of Leibniz’s mature thought. In order to be per-
fectly clear about the importance of the issues at hand, let’s review and
summarize.
There are several points to emphasize about On the incarnation of God. It
will prove important to the discussion of matter in chapter  that until the
second half of , Leibniz is committed to material passivity. Although
during the period –, Leibniz changes the details of his account of
body, he does not waver from the view that a substantial nature is consti-
tuted of an active principle and a passive principle where the latter, before
union with the former, is body qua matter or passive extended stuff. Ac-
cording to Leibniz, there is nothing in passive extended matter that can
function as a source of activity. However, once that stuff is joined with its
active principle, it becomes an organized arrangement of parts (that is, a
body qua form) that can interact with other corporeal substances. The role
that Leibniz assigns to body in On the incarnation of God is consistent with
this account: although body qua matter does not have in itself a principle of
activity, it acquires one from mind and, as claim () announces, thereby be-
comes mind’s “immediate instrument of acting.” Mind takes brute passive
stuff and turns it into an active, corporeal substance.
During the period –, although Leibniz remains firm in his views
about material passivity, he radically changes his views about substantial ac-
tivity. In the early theological essays and in the – letters to Thoma-
sius, God is the principle of activity in a non-human corporeal substance.
However, by the time Leibniz revised the April  letter to Thomasius
and composed On the incarnation of God (i.e., in late  or early ), he
has greatly restricted God’s role and populated nature with incorporeal ac-
tive principles. According to Leibniz in his discussion of hypostatic union,
when God acts on bodies, the activity is one of creation and not one of im-
pressing motion. On the basis of the evidence of the revised letter to
Thomasius and On the incarnation of God, it is clear that by early ,


     – 

Leibniz intended to reconstruct the active principle in corporeal substance.

Since for Leibniz (and for most of his contemporaries), extended passive
matter (body qua matter) could contain nothing active in itself, the as-
sumption was that only something incorporeal could function as a source of
activity.57 In the mid-seventeenth century, the two most obvious candidates
available to play the role of the (created) incorporeal active principle in na-
ture were simple mind or res cogitans (as assumed by the Cartesians and oth-
ers) and substantial form (as assumed by some of the scholastics as well as
the reformers). In keeping with his Rhetoric of Attraction, Leibniz happily
uses both terms to designate the incorporeal principle in body. Although the
terms ‘form’ and ‘substantial form (forma substantialis)’ are more frequent
in the theological essays, ‘mind (mens)’ occurs more often in the writings on
physical topics. The most likely reason for the predominance of ‘mind’ in
the works on physics is that most of Leibniz’s expected readers would have
been confused (if not appalled) by the use of (what they would have con-
sidered) outdated scholastic vocabulary. However, he was perfectly happy to
use the more traditional terminology in his letters to more traditional
philosophers and to those thinkers (like Arnauld) whom he believed to be
sympathetic to his theological goals. The texts of – provide abun-
dant evidence that there is no distinction in Leibniz’s mind between sub-
stantial form and mind and, moreover, that each designates the active prin-
ciple in corporeal substance.58 Therefore, when Leibniz describes the
activity of mind and displays the relation between mind and body in On the
incarnation of God, he is offering thoughts about his Second Theory of Cor-
poreal Substance.
One of the most significant implications of Leibniz’s new theory is that
now the individual corporeal substances constitute the source of the activ-
ity in the natural world. Although God constantly creates them, the sub-
stances themselves are the causes of the comings and goings in that world.
This is important. At the end of our discussion in chapter , we attributed
to Leibniz the () Substantial Form Assumption, according to which,
for every substance S, S will have a (mind-like) substantial form that con-
tains the principle of activity of S. In On the incarnation of God, although
the term used is ‘mind (mens),’ the point is the same: as claim () makes per-
fectly clear, the mind in a corporeal substance has a principle of activity in
itself. But Leibniz also adds significantly to this claim and implies that the
principle of activity has been divinely constructed so as to organize its body
according to a prearranged plan. As Leibniz writes in a passage that we have
seen: “For truly the instrument of God is Mind, unified with God by which
means God acts on bodies other than by creating;” and as he insists in ()(a),

. For support for this claim about activity, see the discussion in ch. , sect.  in the Confes-
sion of nature against the atheists.
. See, for example, VI ii ,  and II i , . In the remainder of this chapter and in
those that follow, there are many examples of the ease with which Leibniz shifts from one
terminology to the other, always with the same basic metaphysics in mind.


   

the mind acts on its body “constantly by a special ratio.”59 The implication
is that the active principle will act as “God’s instrument” because God has
equipped it with a set of instructions that (somehow) directs its actions.
What we have here is an assumption that will play an important role in the
development of Leibniz’s Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance and the
closely related doctrine of Preestablished Harmony, namely, that God con-
structs individual minds so that they behave in a prearranged way and
thereby act according to universal harmony. A thorough discussion of this
important point will have to be postponed until the historical material of
chapter  has been presented. But it is worth emphasizing that in Leibniz’s
original attempt to describe the incorporeal active principles in corporeal
nature, he implies that each of these principles contains a set of instructions
for how to act.
At the end of chapter , I discussed a difficulty that arose concerning a
tension between the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency and the Principle
of Sufficient Reason. It will be helpful to review that problem here. While
the Principle of Sufficient Reason claims that for every state of affairs, there
is a complete ratio, the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency asserts that a
substantial feature f will not strictly belong to a corporeal substance S un-
less the complete ratio of f is contained in the nature of S. In the writings
of –, it is unclear how far Leibniz intends the Principle of Causal
Self-Sufficiency to extend. In the conclusion of chapter , I proposed the
Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance, according to which the nature of a
substance S contains the complete ratio for all its states or features. For our
purposes here, it is important to recognize the radical implications of this
theory: it follows from the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance that the
nature of S contains the complete ratio for every feature f of S, whether f is
an action or passion of S. Against the background of the Complete-Ratio
Theory of Substance, the metaphysical implications of On the incarnation
of God shifts into clearer focus. There are two points to emphasize. First,
the essay is silent about substantial passions (i.e., the features that arise from
S being acted upon), although it implies that corporeal substances are self-
sufficient, and suggests that each substantial nature contains a complete ra-
tio for its actions. The second point to emphasize is that despite the elegance
of its substantial self-sufficiency, the Metaphysics of Substance here does
not resolve the tension between the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the
Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency. On the one hand, the Principle of Suf-
ficient Reason seems to apply easily to this world: for every action in the
world, there is an acting substance that contains in its nature a complete ra-
tio for the action. On the other, there are substantial features that do not
strictly belong to a substance. To return to an example used at the end of
chapter , when Wanda spills fresh coffee grinds all over her hand, the com-
plete ratio for the stain is contained partly in the nature of Wanda and partly
in the nature of the coffee. While this account satisfies the Principle of Suf-

. VI ii –.


     – 

ficient Reason in the sense that there is a complete ratio for the stain, it does
not satisfy the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency: since the ratio for the
stain is not contained in Wanda, it remains unclear to whom or what the
stain belongs.
But that’s not all. In On the incarnation of God, Leibniz makes a number
of provocative points about the relation between the active and passive prin-
ciples. One of the additions that Leibniz made to his letter to Thomasius of
April  involved an apparent change in his ontology. As explained in the
last section, Leibniz added thought (cognitio) to extension as an element out
of which things can be made. I interpreted the addition to imply that at the
time Leibniz revised his letter for publication, he was prepared to add a new
type of incorporeal principle to the world, namely, an incorporeal principle
that could think and function (somehow) as the principle of activity in bod-
ies. In On the incarnation of God, Leibniz confirms this point and
goes well beyond it. Not only does he give each corporeal substance its own
mind that is inseparably attached to a body, he makes the provocative claim
that minds think constantly. According to Leibniz, when a mind thinks
(cognoscere), it produces a thought (cognitio) that “is an action of the one
[mind] on the other [body].”60 That is, when a mind thinks, it produces a
thought that somehow involves its body. Moreover, Leibniz insists that the
unity of the active and passive principle depends on the constant activity of
the one on the other. While it remains unclear exactly what this activity is,
the unity of the substantial nature clearly depends on the organization that
mind (somehow) bestows on body. It is also evident that the activity in the
created world ultimately has its source in the activity of minds.
For the sake of convenience, let’s summarize what we have learned in
this section about the active and passive principles in a corporeal substance.
Leibniz has told us a good deal about the behavior of minds: for every
mind-like substantial form F, F acts constantly on its passive principle P
by a set of instructions given it by God, F is permanently attached to P so
that F will only act outside itself through P, F creates a substantial unity
with P by so acting and the acting of F is a form of thinking that produces
thoughts. This point about substantial unity is worth emphasizing. For
Leibniz, in On the incarnation of God, F and P will form a substantial unity
if and only if F acts constantly on P and P is the “instrument of acting” of
F. Leibniz has also offered here some important information about the pas-
sive principle: P contains nothing active in itself and yet P is F’s “instru-
ment of acting.”
In On the incarnation of God, Leibniz is clear about some of the implica-
tions of these assumptions. For example, we find a view expressed here that
stands as an unmotivated assertion in his mature thought, namely, that a
substance cannot be destroyed by anything other than God. Although we
will have to wait until the next chapter for a full account of Leibniz’s un-
derlying assumption about the close relation between being, perfection, self-

. VI i –.


   

sufficiency, and unity, I want to call attention to the fact that in his original
attempt to formulate his Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, Leibniz
proudly proclaims the (natural) indestructibility of individual corporeal
substances. On the incarnation of God implies that the (natural) indestruc-
tibility of substances depends on their self-sufficiency, and that their self-
sufficiency depends on the constant activity of the active principle on the
passive principle. The essay also insists that the unity of a substance de-
pends on this constant activity of mind. Moreover, on the basis of this meta-
physical union (see especially claims () and ()), Leibniz offers a new so-
lution to the problem of the immortality of the soul and the first part of
what becomes his solution to the problem of resurrection. In the Confession
of nature against the atheists, Leibniz’s argument for immortality was based
on the claim that the soul has no parts and hence cannot be destroyed.61 The
argument in On the incarnation of God follows from the assertion that the
destruction of the human body is irrelevant to human existence: the human
body may pass away, while the human soul persists in some small part of the
original. Although the strength of this argument depends entirely on the
strength of the underlying metaphysical assumption about the relation be-
tween mind and body, Leibniz seems secure in his views. In chapter , sec-
tion , I offer a more complete explanation of Leibniz’s account of resur-
rection. As we will see, he was motivated to attach the mind permanently to
a part of its body in order to offer a metaphysics consistent with that theo-
logical doctrine.
That On the incarnation of God presents the fundamental structure of
Leibniz’s Second Theory of Corporeal Substance is clear. But regardless of
its genuine success as a first major step towards the construction of this new
conception, there were important questions left unanswered in On the in-
carnation of God. Nor did this fact escape its author’s attention: as its ten-
tative conclusion suggests, Leibniz was well aware of the need to add some
important details. In order to develop a theory of corporeal substance that
would constitute an adequate replacement for the original conception, he
had to answer a number of important questions: in what sense does mind
act and think constantly?; how does thinking involve the body?; how exactly
does God act on the mind and the body?; in what sense, is the mind in a cor-
poreal substance permanently attached to some body?; how does the mind
act through the body to which it is permanently attached on the other parts
of its body?; how exactly does created mind act as God’s “instrument”?; in
what sense is mind in the body?; and finally how do conscious minds differ
from the minds in non-human corporeal substances? Although it was not
his purpose in the essay to give a full account of mind, his new conception
of substance obviously will have to distinguish between conscious and un-
conscious minds. According to what Leibniz says here, amoebas and petri-
fied wood, ants and human beings, all continually think in the same way.

. In fact, this is a standard argument in the period. See, e.g., Kenelm Digby’s Two Treatises,
–.


     – 

For the complete answer to most of these questions, we will have to wait
until Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Divinity has been thoroughly laid out. In
the remainder of this chapter, I focus only on those questions whose answers
constitute the most fundamental elements of the Second Theory of Cor-
poreal Substance. In order to develop a notion of substance that would
constitute an adequate replacement for his original conception, Leibniz
had to have something to say about (at least) the following questions:
() what is the mind-like substantial form or active principle in a (non-
human) corporeal substance?, () what does the active principle do to the
passive principle when it acts on it?, () how is the activity within a body
related to its motion?, () what is the nature of (conscious) mind?, () what
is it that mind does when it constantly thinks?, and () how does conscious
mind differ from the active principle or (unconscious) mind in non-human
corporeal substance? It is not surprising that after completing On the in-
carnation of God, Leibniz directed much of his attention to such topics. For
his answers to these questions, let’s turn to the next phase of his philo-
sophical development.

. Development of a conception of mind and activity

While vacationing with Boineburg in August , Leibniz was introduced
to some proposals about motion by Christiaan Huygens and Christopher
Wren.62 He reports that he was especially impressed by Wren’s “thoughts
concerning the rationes of motion.”63 After he studied the texts of these
prominent natural philosophers, he began a more serious study of Hobbes’
physics than he previously had managed.64 Between August  and the
time he left for Paris (March ), Leibniz worked hard on questions sur-
rounding motion and mind. The New Physical Hypothesis and the Theory
of Abstract Motion of  are the culmination of this work. Intended as
they were to be an account of the formation of the world, its maintenance
and physical laws, the two-part study is replete with technical details and
charts. Scholars have attached a good deal of importance to these texts,
which Leibniz calls his Schediasma; and there have been some important re-
cent studies on this aspect of Leibniz’s early thought.65 But there is much
more to Leibniz’s philosophy in – than a study of the Schediasma and
the related works on physical topics suggest. Once we place these writings
within the more general context of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance,
and once we compare them with other texts of the period, they can be seen
to contain answers to the six questions just listed. In other words, the Sche-

. see VI ii . . II i .

. Bernstein shows in “Conatus, Hobbes, and the Young Leibniz” that N. . (VI ii ff)
includes a clear presentation of some of Hobbes’ ideas. In N. . (VI ii ff), the next
essay Leibniz wrote, he begins to make important use of the notion of conatus. The for-
mer piece was probably written in the fall of , the latter in the winter of –.
. See, esp., Garber, “Leibniz: Physics and Philosophy;” Beeley,Kontinuität, esp. chs. , ,
; Arthur, Labyrinth, Introduction, esp. sect. .


   

diasma and related texts go beyond On the incarnation of God and offer the
missing details of Leibniz’s Second Theory of Corporeal Substance.
As a result of Leibniz’s uncharacteristic explicitness about the develop-
ment of his ideas during this period, it is fairly easy to piece together the
steps he took in answering the questions which On the incarnation of God
left unanswered. Since his account of mind and its relation to the passive
principle in substance is crucial to the success of his new conception, it will
be especially important to analyze thoroughly this part of the new theory.
But we need to proceed very carefully at this point. In chapter , I offer an
argument to the conclusion that by the time of the Schediasma, Leibniz had
decided to reject the real extension of passive (primary) matter and to turn
the passive principle in corporeal substance into a collection of mind-like
substances.66 There are two reasons for not presenting an account of those
conclusions here. First, they rely significantly on Leibniz’s Platonism and
other philosophical concerns which are inappropriate to summarize. Sec-
ond, I want to emphasize the fact that the exact nature of the passive prin-
ciple in corporeal substance is irrelevant to the development of Leibniz’s
views about mind and to the general relation between the active and passive
principles in corporeal substance. In other words, the structure of Leibniz’s
Second Theory of Corporeal Substance could comfortably accommodate
radically different accounts of passivity. Let me make the point as clearly as
possible. In the Schediasma and related texts, either there is passive ex-
tended (primary) matter (i.e., body qua matter) or there is not. What I want
to emphasize here is that it is unimportant to our present discussion which
of these disjuncts is true. For our purposes, we may remain entirely un-
committed to the exact makeup of passivity. At this point in my develop-
mental story, it is only required that the active and passive principles be es-
sentially different in that the one acts while the other is acted upon. It should
be understood, therefore, that in the remainder of this chapter, when I dis-
cuss either the body or the passive principle in corporeal substance, I am
committing myself only to the existence of something that is acted upon by
the active principle.
After explicating his views on hypostatic union in On the incarnation of
God, Leibniz was at a critical point. In the formulation of his new account
of substance, he had decided that an incorporeal being somehow had to be
in body so as to form a substantial union with it, that the union of the two
had to involve the constant activity of the incorporeal being or mind on the
corporeal being or body, and that the incorporeal being had to be “rooted
in” the corporeal. At some point in the winter or spring of , Leibniz

. It is important at this point to be clear about terminology. When I argue in ch.  that by
the time Leibniz composed the Schediasma, he had rejected the reality of extended pas-
sive matter, it does not follow that he had given up talking about the passive principle in
corporeal substance. For much of his long career (and arguably for all of it), Leibniz con-
siders the basic entities in nature to be corporeal substances, each of which is constituted
of an active and passive principle, although the passive principle is neither strictly corpo-
real nor strictly passive.


     – 

began to construct an account of the nature of mind and its exact relation
to body that would satisfy these requirements. That is, he developed a con-
ception of mind that helped to answer some of the questions left unan-
swered by On the incarnation of God. But at the same time, Leibniz was
deeply concerned to construct an account of the motion of bodies. The evo-
lution of his views about substance in  reflect his keen desire to solve
these metaphysical and physical problems at the same time.
The process of discovery that led to Leibniz’s insights about mind and
motion depended crucially on the metaphysics of Aristotle and the physics
of Hobbes: whereas Aristotle motivated his account of substance, Hobbes
inspired his notion of endeavor or conatus. But Leibniz also insists that he
has acquired from Cavalieri and others an understanding of the nature of
points and indivisibles.67 In an important letter to Henry Oldenburg of
September , he proudly announces that he has made use of the ideas
of these and other philosophers, and claims that the result of such philo-
sophical borrowing is his new theory about the “abstract rationes of mo-
tion.” Making explicit the connection between the study of motion and the
nature of mind, Leibniz writes to Oldenburg: “I consider [my] theory about
the abstract rationes of motion so important, not for its own sake and not
because of the hypotheses based on it, but because it has led me with a mar-
velous clarity not only to the existence of Minds, but also into [their] more
intimate nature, distinct from body (of which the most sensible and strict
philosophers have yet despaired).”68
Concerning the contribution that the metaphysics of Aristotle made to
the evolution of his thought, Leibniz is clear about the fact that the general
structure of his conception of substance is Aristotelian. According to Leib-
niz, the relation between the active and passive principle is fundamentally
one of organization, where the former causes the organization of the latter
and, by such means, creates an organized unity with it. Leibniz summarizes
the basic point neatly in an important letter to Johann Friedrich of May
. Leibniz asserts that “there is a core [Kern] of [every] substance” and
that this core can either spread throughout the body or “draw itself into an
invisible center [when, e.g., an organism dies],” which is like “its source and

. Because of Leibniz’s use of the term conatus, it is easy to think that Hobbes’ natural phi-
losophy played a more important role in the development of Leibniz’s views at this time
than it probably did. Current commentators on Leibniz’s attempts to solve the problem of
the continuum disagree about the role that Hobbes played. For two recent discussions of
this topic and citations to other literature, see Arthur, Labyrinth and Beeley, Kontinuität.
In developing his new physics, it is clear that in addition to the work of Huygens and Wren,
Leibniz found Cavalieri’s writings to be of great importance. He often refers to Cavalieri
with great admiration and frequently credits the Italian for his understanding of a variety
of important matters (II i , ). For a short discussion of the influence of Cavalieri on
Leibniz, see Pierre Costabel, Leibniz and Dynamics, esp. –. As difficult as it would be
to disentangle the layers of ideas that Leibniz borrowed and used in developing his own
metaphysics of reconciliation, it is clear that Cavalieri is probably more important than has
previously been understood.
. II i .


   

fountain.”69 Leibniz further claims that the core, although unextended, is

somewhat like the embryo of an animal (which contains the core of the
whole body); and he maintains that such a core is to be found in inorganic
as well as organic bodies. I will discuss the details of this difficult text in
section  of chapter . For now, suffice it to say that Leibniz’s notion of a
core of substance is consistent with his view in On the incarnation of God.
At the end of the long quotation with which I began my discussion of that
essay, Leibniz writes:
In the human body it should not be thought that the soul is unified hypostatically
with all the little bodies which are in it, because they change perpetually, but [the
soul] inheres in the center of the brain in a certain fixed and inseparable flower of
the substance, most subtly mobile at the center of the animal spirits, and [the soul]
is unified substantially [substantialiter] so that it may not be separated by death.70
The point to emphasize here is that “this flower of substance” is equivalent
to the “core of substance” in the letter to Johann Friedrich in that it is the
union of the mind and the part of its body to which it is permanently at-
tached. The mind acts through its core to create an organization of matter
that can be more or less expansive. As Leibniz explains to Johann Friedrich,
during the life of an organism, the organization “spreads throughout” the
matter of the thing, while at death, the organization of the whole ceases, and
the organizing principle shrinks to an invisible center. Thus, the relation be-
tween the active and passive principles is fundamentally one of organiza-
tion, where the former turns the latter into an organized unity.
In a letter to Arnauld of November , Leibniz is also clear about his
debt to the thought of Aristotle. Indeed, the description that he offers of his
recent intellectual development is consistent with the developmental story
told in this chapter. He explains to Arnauld:
First I discovered that the essence of body does not consist in extension, as Descartes
(a man otherwise great without doubt) thought, but in motion and consequently that
the substance or nature of body (by all means consistent with the definition of Aris-
totle) is the principle of motion . . . ; moreover, [I discovered that] the principle of
motion or the substance of body lacks extension.71
Let’s explicate this passage with some care. According to the Principle of
Substantial Activity, whatever has its own principle of activity is a sub-
stance. Following that principle, Leibniz assumes here that the active prin-
ciple in a corporeal substance is itself a substance. He therefore implies a
distinction between the active principle or substance (substantia) of body
and its essence (essentia). What Leibniz writes to Arnauld is consistent with
the distinction drawn in the discussion of On transubstantiation between the
substance or active principle in a corporeal substance and its essence as an
organization of parts. Again, his point to Arnauld is that body qua matter
is not by itself the essence of body; rather, before anything corporeal can
have an essence, it has to have an organization and before it can have an or-
. II i –. . VI i . . II i .


     – 

ganization it must have a principle of activity or (in that sense) a substance.

What Leibniz suggests here is that the corporeal essence exists if and only
if the active principle organizes the passive principle: there will be no
essence without organization. A comparison with organic unity may be
helpful here. In an organism, it makes sense to say both that the organiza-
tion is the essence of the thing and also that the organizing principle is the
cause of the essence of the organism in that the principle is what first pro-
duces and then maintains the organization. Thus, when Leibniz explains to
Arnauld that the essence of body is motion and that the substance of body
is an incorporeal principle, the idea is that the essence of the body is the re-
sult of an active principle in a corporeal substance organizing – and in that
sense putting into motion – its passive principle.
After writing On the incarnation of God, Leibniz began to clarify the exact
relation between the active and passive principles in a corporeal substance.
What he borrowed from Aristotle was the idea that the relation is fundamen-
tally one of organization: the active principle organizes the passive principle
and thereby creates the essence or nature of the corporeal substance. It fol-
lows from this basic idea that the active principle could organize more or less
of the passive principle and in that sense be more or less expansive. It also
follows that the model for Leibniz’s Second Theory of Corporeal Substance
is an organism constituted of an (active) organizing principle and a (passive)
principle that is organized. Other texts of , which we will discuss in chap-
ters  and , corroborate this way of understanding the role of the active or
incorporeal principle in corporeal substance.
Leibniz took the next step toward developing his Second Theory of Cor-
poreal Substance when he made a dramatic discovery that allowed him to
solve the critical problem of how to put the unextended and incorporeal ac-
tive principle or mind in body. As he explains to Arnauld: “I saw that geom-
etry, or the philosophy of position, is a step toward the philosophy of mo-
tion and of body and that the philosophy of motion is a step toward the
science of mind. . . . I demonstrated that the true locus of mind is a certain
point or center.”72 Thus, according to Leibniz, he took a crucial step in the
development of his Second Theory of Corporeal Substance when he de-
cided to place mind in an unextended and indivisible point. As he explains
to Oldenburg in September , the development of his new philosophy
“depended on the most subtle contemplation concerning the nature of
points or indivisibles.”73 Once again, in developing this part of his new the-
ory, Leibniz borrowed from other philosophers. That Leibniz owes much
to Hobbes is clear, though scholars disagree about the extent of his debt.
That Leibniz happily placed the mind or active principle of a corporeal sub-
stance in a point is evident, though commentators remain unsure about
some of the details about his conception of points. I defer to other scholars
on these topics, and merely emphasize the fact that the idea of an indivisi-
ble and unextended point gave Leibniz a neat way of putting the unex-

. II i –: L –. . II i .


   

tended and incorporeal active principle in the extended and corporeal one.
By conceiving of a point as that which is unextended and indivisible, Leib-
niz gave himself the conceptual means to distinguish neatly between the
“place” of mind and that of body, and hence a way of putting mind into
body. That is, he discovered that “mind itself actually exists in [bestehen] a
point as opposed to body [which] occupies space.”74
The third crucial ingredient in Leibniz’s eclectic concoction was the no-
tion of endeavor or conatus. As he explains to Oldenburg, he came to un-
derstand that “endeavor, as most correctly observed by Hobbes, is the ori-
gin of motion, or what is in motion as a point is in a line.”75 Hobbes had
defined endeavor as infinitesimal motion or “motion made in less space and
time than can be determined or assigned by exposition or number.”76 Given
our present concern with the development of the general features of Leib-
niz’s Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, the point to emphasize here
is that the conception of endeavor was enormously helpful: it gave him a
way to conceive the actions of corporeal substances or what it is the active
principle does when it acts through its passive principle.77 It seems likely
that the notion of endeavor inspired Leibniz to conceive of the minds in un-
conscious substances as momentary. That is, the idea of an unconscious
mind existing in an unextended point and the notion of an unextended mo-
tion might have inclined Leibniz to think of these minds as existing in un-
extended time: a momentary mind was just the right sort of thing to have

. II i . In fact, scholars disagree about whether or not, for Leibniz here, points are really
unextended or merely too small to be measured. Leibniz writes that a point “is not that
which has no parts [against Euclid], nor [that] whose parts are not considered [against
Hobbes], but rather [that] whose extension is nil” (VI ii ). Scholars disagree about how
to take such claims. As Bernstein puts it: “the dimensionality of a point or the smallness
of its parts is such that it can be dispensed with in geometry” (27). For a discussion of
Leibniz’s views, see especially Bernstein, “Conatus, Hobbes, and the Young Leibniz”; Bee-
ley, Kontinuität, ch. ; Arthur, Labyrinth, Introduction, sect. .
. II i . What Leibniz does not tell Oldenburg is that the notion of conatus or endeavor also
came to play a central role in his ethics. It is striking that in Leibniz’s notes On the elements
of natural law (written between the second half of  and late ), there is a shift in
his treatment of human psychology based on the incorporation of the concept of conatus.
Compare the early essays (VI i. N.. and N..), which are absent of the notion, to those
written after early  (VI i. N..–.), which employ conatus as a central element. In
short, the notion of conatus had important applications, for Leibniz, in ethics and law as
well as in physics.
. Hobbes, English Works, I, .
. Bernstein presents a helpful account of Leibniz’s early use of the notion of conatus and
how it compares to that of Hobbes, but he gives the misleading impression that the use of
Hobbes’ work and ideas extends throughout all of Leibniz’s early writings on natural phi-
losophy. It is interesting that on the basis of his comparison of Hobbes’ and Leibniz’s
works on natural philosophy, Bernstein concludes that: “while Leibniz’s early writings [in
fact only those in late  through late ] on natural philosophy are virtually steeped
in De Corpore he is constitutionally unable or unwilling to absorb an idea without chang-
ing it significantly. At the very moment Leibniz is extrapolating the notion of endeavor
from Hobbes’s pages, he is molding it into a new form.” See Bernstein, “Conatus, Hobbes,
and the Young Leibniz,” .


     – 

an endeavor. But whether or not the one notion influenced the other, Leib-
niz developed the elegant idea that an unconscious mind was a being exist-
ing in an unextended point through unextended time with unextended ac-
tions. Moreover, the notion of endeavor also gave Leibniz a neat way to
explain motion: once he had defined endeavor as “motion through a point
in an instant,”78 he could build motion out of endeavors in the same way he
built space out of points and time out of instants. Leibniz often notes that
“endeavor is in motion or action, as a point is in a line and a moment is in
time,”79 and that “every motion is composed of many endeavors.”80
At the same time Leibniz was deciding where to put mind and how to
conceive of unconscious minds and their actions, he was thinking about the
difference between conscious and unconscious minds. As he wrote to Old-
enburg in April :
every body is an instantaneous mind, mind preserves [servare] endeavor . . . , body
does not preserve [endeavor]: but mind is not able to desist from acting, mind prop-
agates itself [propagare se ipsam] without a new creation; . . . what space and mo-
tion are responsible for [praestare] in bodies, points and endeavors are in minds.81
There are several important points here. First, according to Leibniz, mind
(which exists in a point) “is not able to desist from acting” and indeed “prop-
agates itself without a new creation.”82 Consistent with the statements
Leibniz made in On the incarnation of God, mind subsists per se (statement
()), has a principle of action within itself (statement ()), and acts con-
stantly (statement ( (a))). Second, Leibniz is now prepared to tell us a bit
more about how this happens. Although an unconscious or momentary
mind never persists more than a moment, it (somehow) propagates itself
from moment to moment.83 Third, Leibniz tells us that “mind in its very
nature acts,”84 that “the actions of mind consist in endeavor,”85 and that
“mind preserves [servare] endeavor.”86 Since endeavor is infinitesimal mo-
tion and since motion is a feature of a body or corporeal substance, it fol-
lows that when mind acts it acts through the body to which it is attached and
thereby produces an instantaneous motion. That is, consistent with his po-
sition in On the incarnation of God, Leibniz maintains that every created
mind has a body with which it is unified (statement ()), in which it is rooted
(statement ()), and through which it acts (statement ()). Mind constantly
acts through the body with which it is attached and the result is “endeavor,
or motion . . . in a point.”87 In short, each endeavor is an action of sub-
stance; it is what mind produces when it acts, as it always does, through its
body. Leibniz explains to Johann Friedrich that “as the actions of bodies
consist in motion, so the actions of mind consist in endeavor, that is, mo-

. II i ; see also, e.g., II i . . VI ii ; see also, e.g., II i .
. VI ii . . II i . . Ibid.
. In order to grasp the propagation of minds, we need to understand the theory of traduc-
tion and Leibniz’s use of it. I explicate the traditional theory of traduction in ch.  and in
ch. , sect. , discuss Leibniz’s use of it in the period –.
. VI ii , . . II i . . II i . . II i .


   

tion . . . in a point.”88 Therefore, a corporeal substance is a combination of

an active and a passive principle. By constantly acting on the passive prin-
ciple to which it is attached, mind makes it into a corporeal substance and
maintains it as such. Each of the actions of mind through its passive prin-
ciple results in an infinitesimal motion or endeavor.
At the end of section , I proposed six questions that Leibniz needed to
answer in order to develop a conception of subtance that would constitute
a proper replacement for his original theory. We now have straightforward
answers to the first three of these. First, the active principle in a (non-hu-
man) corporeal substance is a momentary mind that (somehow) propagates
itself. Second, when the active principle acts on the passive principle what
happens is that the mind organizes it. Third, “[e]very action of a body is
motion”89 and “the present motion of body arises from the composition of
preceding endeavors.”90 That is, mind acts constantly and thereby causes a
series of endeavors which are the actions of a body and which themselves
constitute the motion of the latter.
And that’s not all. The newly developed details of Leibniz’s Second The-
ory of Corporeal Substance contain answers to the other three questions as
well. He writes to Arnauld in November :
I demonstrated that the true locus of mind is a certain point or center, and from this
I deduced some remarkable conclusions about the imperishable nature of mind . . .
and the true innermost difference between motion and thinking [cogitatio]. Think-
ing consists in endeavor as body [consists in] motion. Every body can be understood
as a momentary mind or a mind without recollection. . . . As body consists in an ex-
tent [tractus] of motions, so mind consists in a harmony of endeavors.91
Against the background of Leibniz’s Original Theory of Corporeal Sub-
stance and his notion of endeavor, we can discern in such passages the na-
ture of conscious mind and grasp the difference between it and unconscious
or momentary mind.92 We have seen that according to Leibniz, “mind in its
very nature acts” and “the actions of mind consist in endeavor.” Therefore,
conscious and unconscious minds are similar in that each constantly acts,
and the actions of each are endeavors. For Leibniz in , they differ only
in the endurance of their endeavors: while “all the endeavors endure” in
conscious minds, they do not endure in unconscious ones. He writes to Old-
enburg: “Every body is a momentary mind, and accordingly without con-
sciousness, sense, or memory. For truly, if in a single body two contrary en-
deavors could endure beyond the moment, every body would be a true
mind.Whenever this has occurred, [true] minds are produced.”93 When en-

. II i . The original language here is: “wie Actiones Corporum bestehen in motu, so
bestehen Actiones mentium in conatu, seu motus . . . puncto.”
. See, e.g., II i ; VI ii . . II i : L . . II i : L .
. My account here of Leibniz’s conception of mind differs from those given previously. See,
e.g., Bernstein, “Conatus, Hobbes, and the Young Leibniz,”  and ; Garber, “Motion
and Metaphysics,” esp. .
. II i .


     – 

deavors endure, the mind that causes them organizes them into a harmony.
Conscious mind “is made of a harmony of endeavors.”94As Leibniz ex-
plains, “the retention of all endeavors, or rather of the arrangements among
them, that is, of all their states, this constitutes [conscious] mind.”95 In un-
conscious minds, the endeavors do not form a harmony because they do not
endure, and they do not endure because the minds in bodies are merely mo-
mentary. Although an unconscious mind propagates itself, none of its in-
stances lasts more than a moment, and the endeavors that it produces are
infinitesimal. In short, the endurance of the endeavors of conscious mind
is crucial because the harmony depends on the endurance and the thinking
depends on the harmony: “[conscious] minds are able to think, to compare
diverse things; to perceive . . . ; [the minds in] bodies are not.”96
What we have here is nothing less than an account of thinking where the
actions of bodies and the actions of minds are closely parallel. Before sum-
marizing this view, it is worth remembering what Leibniz said about think-
ing in On the incarnation of God. In that essay, he suggests that the think-
ing of a mind in a corporeal substance S (somehow) involves its body and
moreover that when the mind acts on its body, it (somehow) produces a
thought. The proposals about mind and endeavor described here represent
significant progress in Leibniz’s attempt to make sense of exactly how the
thinking of a mind might involve its body. According to Leibniz in the notes
and letters quoted, every mind – whether conscious or not – acts; when it
acts, it organizes its passive principle and produces a substantial state which
is an endeavor. When the mind in a corporeal substance S is momentary, it
is part of a series of minds in S, each of which acts through its passive prin-
ciple to produce an endeavor which is itself a feature of S; the series of these
endeavors constitutes the motion of S. When the mind in a corporeal sub-
stance S endures, it acts through its passive principle to produce a harmony
of endeavors; the harmony of these enduring endeavors constitutes the con-
scious thinking of S. Each harmonized endeavor is presumably a thought.
Leibniz asserts: “As body consists in an extent [tractus] of motions, so [con-
scious] mind consists in a harmony of endeavors.”97 The nature of a cor-
poreal substance S, whether conscious or unconscious, consists in the union
of the active and passive principles in the constant activity of the one on the
other. The difference between the activity of the momentary minds in un-
conscious corporeal substances (or bodies) and the activity of those in con-
scious corporeal substances is a matter of endurance.
Leibniz was proud of this elegant account of mind, thinking, and corpo-
real substance. In the introductory remarks to his Theory of Abstract Mo-
tion, he proclaims that he has grasped “the inmost nature of Thinking, and
the perpetual nature of Mind.”98 However, as I will show in chapter , de-
spite his enthusiasm, Leibniz soon rejects some of the details of this account
of the active principle in corporeal substance. The most dramatic example
of a shift in his thinking is that the definition of an unconscious corporeal

. VI ii . . VI ii . . II i . . II i : L . . VI ii .


   

substance as that which has a momentary mind is itself rather momentary.

There will be ample time to explain the evolution in his views about these
topics in the chapters that follow. Now that I have described the steps that
Leibniz took in the development of his new philosophy and indicated the
sorts of problems each step was supposed to solve, the materials are in place
to explicate his Second Theory of Corporeal Substance. While it is true that
Leibniz will tinker with the details of this theory, it will retain its general
features for years to come.

. Second conception of substance

It is now time to display Leibniz’s Second Theory of Corporeal Substance
and show how neatly it solves the problems faced by the original concep-
tion. In section , I noted that, although Leibniz often refers to mind in his
theological writings of –, he does not offer an account of either mind
or thinking. In sections  and , I showed that between late  and late
, Leibniz constructs a conception of an incorporeal active principle
whose activity generates a substantial unity with its passive principle. The
significant difference between the two theories of substance – according to
which the second is able to avoid the problems with the first – lies here.
In Leibniz’s Original Theory of (non-human) Corporeal Substance, God
activates body qua matter to form an organized arrangement of parts of
matter and then, with matter, creates the nature of body. When Leibniz dis-
covered the problem resulting from this conception (namely, that body un-
derstood in this way was neither causally nor substantially self-sufficient be-
cause the incorporeal cause of its nature stood outside it), he realized that
he had to give each body its own active or incorporeal principle. Not sur-
prisingly, the crucial difference between the first and second theories of cor-
poreal substance is that God is the principle of activity in the former, while
momentary mind has taken that role in the latter. But it was not enough
merely to put an incorporeal or active principle into body; the principle
somehow has to be part of the nature of the body. That is, the incorporeal
or active principle has to form a single, unified nature with the corporeal or
passive one so that the substantial nature can constitute a complete ratio of
its features and hence be properly self-sufficient. Leibniz’s notion of en-
deavor as the infinitesimal motion that mind produces by acting through its
passive principle and his new conception of mind gave him a way of con-
structing a unified substantial nature out of two distinct things. Because the
relation between active and passive principles is one of organization, it fol-
lows that although mind exists in a point, the organization that it causes is
able to be more or less. Because the active principle constantly acts through
its passive principle, each of its actions produces an endeavor or infinitesi-
mal motion. It is important to emphasize the fact that an endeavor, or in-
finitesimal motion, is the result of mind acting through the passive princi-
ple: the mind does the acting, but the passive principle is what is acted upon
and therefore is what is organized. Thus, the mind or active principle and


     – 

the body or passive principle are constitutive parts of any endeavor in that
each endeavor is the result of some mind acting through some body.
By activating its passive principle, mind creates an organization or cor-
poreal substance. Since the active and passive principles are constantly
joined in the activity of the one on the other, a corporeal substance is a hy-
postatic union of the two principles: corporeal substance is constituted by
the active and passive principles in constant relation. By such means, Leib-
niz’s Second Theory of Corporeal Substance avoids the difficulty with his
first: whereas, according to the original theory, the nature of substance by
itself did not offer a complete account of its features, according to the sec-
ond conception, “the nature of the thing is the cause in the thing itself” of
its features.99 By cleverly combining the active and passive principles into
a hypostatic union in terms of which a complete ratio of the corporeal
features of the union can be given, Leibniz has constructed a theory of
substance that is self-sufficient in a way consistent with the Principle of
Self-Sufficiency and Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency. With great
finesse, Leibniz’s Second Theory of Corporeal Substance neatly solves the
problems with the first. Let’s summarize it and the related assumptions of
this chapter as follows:
• The Second Theory of Corporeal Substance maintains that, for each cor-
poreal substance S, whether human or non-human, the nature of S is
constituted of a mind-like substantial form F and a passive principle P.
Consistent with the Substantial Form Assumption and the Passive Princi-
ple Assumption, F acts on P to produce an organization with P such that
the organization is the nature of S (in 1670–early 1671, the mind-like sub-
stantial form in unconscious substances is a momentary mind).

• The () Substantial Form Assumption claims that, for every mind-like
substantial form F in a substance S, F acts constantly on its passive prin-
ciple P by a set of instructions given it by God, F creates a substantial
unity with P by so acting, F is permanently attached to P so that F will
only act outside itself through P, and the acting of F is a form of thinking
that produces thoughts.

• The () Passive Principle Assumption maintains that, for every passive
principle P that forms a unity with a mind-like substantial form F, P con-
tains nothing active in itself and P is the “instrument of acting” of F.
As this account of substance helps to explain, for Leibniz in –early
, the activity in the created world ultimately reduces to the activity of
the mind-like substantial forms in nature. That is, there are mind-like forms
that act and that have been arranged by God from the beginning; although
some of their actions constitute thinking and some constitute motion, they
are the ultimate source of all the activity in the created world.

. VI ii .


   

But despite its significant advantages over the Original Theory of Cor-
poreal Substance, Leibniz’s Second Theory in broad outline is strikingly
similar to the first. Once again, there is a passive element that is indetermi-
nate and must be made a single thing through activity. The principle of ac-
tivity once again is something incorporeal which plays the role of Aris-
totelian substantial form, the determining principle, the principle that
makes the thing what it is. When the incorporeal principle individuates the
corporeal principle, the result is again an individual corporeal substance.
And, once again, the resulting physics is fundamentally mechanical in that
all corporeal features are reducible to and explainable in terms of the cor-
poreal parts. The crucial difference between the two conceptions is that in
the second, each substance has its own incorporeal principle that is related
to the corporeal principle so as to form a single nature with it. This is im-
portant: by giving each substance its own substantial form or organizing
principle, Leibniz has constructed a conception of substance that neatly
solves the problem posed by his original conception; by giving bodies their
own momentary minds, he has populated the world with minds where once
there was only God. Moreover, he has constructed a more straightforward
version of Aristotelian substance, a version more similar to the conception
of Aristotle himself. Like Aristotle, Leibniz now makes substance a com-
posite of two principles that are combined so as to create a single, unified,
and self-sufficient substance. As I have said, Leibniz will tinker with the de-
tails of this account. But the structure of substance articulated here forms
the basis of his Metaphysics of Substance for years to come and constitutes
the background to the philosophy of the First truths.
Leibniz was pleased with his new and improved theory of substance and
proud of its conciliatory potential. In the winter of –, he began to
correspond with some of the leading intellectuals of Europe. As a conse-
quence, he wrote more letters in  than in all the preceding years of his
life. The majority of the  letters are advertisements for his new meta-
physics. Several of these speak specifically about his interest in Aristotle,
reformed philosophy, and theology; others reveal the story behind the de-
velopment of his philosophy. I will discuss some of the details of these let-
ters in the chapters that follow, but it is important to note here that Leibniz
was proud of the theological and conciliatory potential of his Second The-
ory of Corporeal Substance. In the letters of , he frequently proclaims
that his work in natural philosophy is motivated by his interest in theologi-
cal issues. He complains about the fact that because contemporary philoso-
phers want to explain everything mechanically, they both ignore “the real
rationale [of the world] in which the wisdom of the author shines forth”100
and leave unresolved the problem of “the Eucharist, the incarnation [of
God], and other mysteries.”101 Contrary to these mechanists who “take only
matter to be the principle of things,” Leibniz says that he will formulate a
natural philosophy that will be concerned with final causes and that will not

. II i . . II i .


     – 

bring “so much geometry to physics.”102 In this context, it is not surpris-

ing that Leibniz often announces the success of his new conception of sub-
stance in resolving a whole group of theological difficulties. He claims that
his recent work sheds light on “the mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarna-
tion, Predestination, and . . . the Eucharist,”103 and that it constitutes “an
excellent argument” for the immortality of the soul as well as an explana-
tion for the resurrection of the body.104 He also announces that one of the
great advantages of his theory of substance is that it avoids the perpetual
miracle of recreation and does not invoke God unnecessarily.105
The letters and essays of  also indicate that Leibniz remains very
much a reformed philosopher. Throughout the period, he refers to Aristo-
tle and acknowledges the importance of the ancient in the development of
his thought.106 At one point, he even congratulates Aristotle on his style of
doing philosophy, emphasizing the fact that he assumed nothing “about
which he was not certain” and “was careful in every part.” Leibniz marvels
at the fact that in his own century, there are no philosophers “quite like the
ancients,” nor anyone who “makes a wholly integrated system in the way
that Aristotle did.”107 But he also insists that “for the true physics,” one
needs to consider “Hobbes, Galileo, and Huygens on motion” as well as
“Aristotle and Digby who in their pure reasonings do not depend on exper-
iments.”108 In response to a contemporary Aristotelian who insists that
much of what passes for new in their period can be found in Aristotle, he
preaches greater understanding and tolerance: according to Leibniz, while
“much is thought exceptional out of ignorance of Aristotle,” contempo-
raries like Hobbes and Descartes have made many advances.109 And, in a
letter to Duke Johann Friedrich of late , he explains:
I intend to show by means of the strength of the principles of the Reformed Philos-
ophy that it is necessary to place an innermost incorporeal principle in every body,
that is substantially distinct from mass, and that this [incorporeal principle] is what
the ancients and what the Scholastics called substance, although they were unable
to explain themselves clearly and were even less able to demonstrate their opinion.110
In short, despite the very real differences between the Original and the Sec-
ond Theories of Corporeal Substance, Leibniz remains entirely committed
both to his Aristotelian Metaphysics of Substance and to his Metaphysics
of Method.
In the introduction to this chapter, I noted that Leibniz’s New Physical
Hypothesis and Theory of Abstract Motion of  are devoid of Aristotelian

. II i : L . . Ibid. . II i , . . II i .
. See, e.g., II i , ; VI ii , , , . . VI ii –.
. VI ii . . II i –.
. II i . The German-Latin text reads: Ich will weisen vi principiorum Philosophiae
Emendatae, necesse esse ut detur in omni corpore principium intimum incorporeum, sub-
stantiale a mole distinctum, et hoc illud esse quod veteres, quod Scholastici substantiam
dixerint, etsi nequiverint se distincte explicare, multo minus sententiam suam demon-
strare.” Leibniz’s letters to Duke Johann Friedrich are interesting for their combination


   

terminology, and consequently that this two-part work has been taken by
scholars to represent a rejection of the remaining residue of his scholastic
past. Due to the absence of anything overtly Aristotelian in these important
texts, they seem to contradict the interpretative story of Leibniz’s philo-
sophical development as told in chapters –: not only does Leibniz appear
to reject his former Aristotelianism, he shows no clear signs of his concilia-
tory tendencies. As most scholars have agreed, the New Physical Hypothe-
sis and Theory of Abstract Motion stands as vivid proof of Leibniz’s ac-
ceptance of the new mechanical physics. As it turns out, however, once we
widen our philosophical and textual scope, both the Schediasma and the re-
lated physical writings sit easily within Leibniz’s Aristotelian Metaphysics
of Substance. That is, instead of conflicting with Leibniz’s Aristotelian
Metaphysics of Substance, the physical writings of  and  represent
an important step in its full-blown development. Nor do they conflict with
his conciliatory strategy. That Leibniz considers his Schediasma to be the
result of his Metaphysics of Method is clear. In the conclusion to his The-
ory of Abstract Motion, he proudly explains that in the process of develop-
ing his new theory, he “did not leave any theory basically unexamined” and,
moreover, that he meditated “long and deeply” on “the most profound mys-
teries of faith.”111 That Leibniz considers his Schediasma to help reveal the
underlying goodness of the world and the nature of its creator is also evi-
dent. As he claims in the introduction of the Theory of Abstract Motion, his
theory helps to unveil “the profound nature of . . . the First Cause.”112 Now
that we have some sense of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance, it is time
to turn to his Metaphysics of Divinity and the complicated notion of First
Cause at its core.

of German and Latin. The letters are written in German, but the philosophical termi-
nology is all in Latin. As a result, although most paragraphs are merely dotted with Latin
words and phrases, some have more Latin than German. Leibniz explains in his edition
of Nizolio’s text that the German language is potentially an excellent language in which
to philosophize, but that, because people who have tried to turn Latin philosophical lan-
guage into German have been “hissed at,” no one presently dares to philosophize in Ger-
man. For Leibniz’s discussion about the German language and philosophy, see esp. VI ii
.
. VI ii . . VI ii .


 Part three
Metaphysics of Divinity
 5
Platonist assumptions

In , professors at the relatively new university in Paris were troubled

by the sudden popularity of the Aristotelian philosophy. Many considered
it dangerously anti-Christian. They reacted by condemning over 
propositions. Among those condemned were the claims that there is no more
excellent way of life than the philosophical (article ), that only philoso-
phers are wise (article ), and that our intellect by its own natural power
can attain knowledge of God (article ). Among many other things, the
professors intended to make clear that Christianity was the only means to
the truth and that the goal of philosophy was knowledge of the Christian
God. The  propositions condemned in  neatly reflect the struggle
in medieval and early modern thought between philosophical speculation
and Christian truth. Because the mysteries of faith and the revealed doc-
trines were a necessary means to truth and salvation, philosophical study
could not by itself secure them. Philosophers might approach the truth on
some issues, but they were bound to miss the mark on others.1
The young Leibniz concurs. In chapters , , and , I have presented the
development of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance and have argued that
his earliest philosophical proposals are often carefully crafted to conform to
Christian doctrine in general and to revealed truth (e.g., about transubstan-
tiation) in particular. I now turn to his Metaphysics of Divinity, which ar-
ticulates the precise relation between God and creatures and motivates some
of his most important metaphysical doctrines. The core features of Leib-
niz’s metaphysics and epistemology are deeply rooted in the Christianized
Platonism that he imbibed as a youth. Where the Metaphysics of Substance
treats substance as an active, self-sufficient thing, the Metaphysics of Di-
vinity sees it as a created thing into which the Supreme Being emanates its
power and essence. Where the former has its roots in the Aristotelian phi-
losophy, the latter reaches back to the Platonist tradition. In chapters –, I
show that the evolution of some of the most characteristic features of Leib-
niz’s metaphysics (e.g., Pre-established Harmony) resulted from the meld-
ing of his Metaphysics of Divinity and of Substance.
Before his departure for Paris in , Leibniz had arrived at metaphys-
ical doctrines that he would maintain for years to come, that combined Pla-

. For a nice introduction to these issues, see G.R. Evans, Philosophy and Theology in the Mid-
dle Ages, esp. –. For a complete discussion of all the condemned articles, see Roland
Hissette, Enquête sur les  condamnés à Paris le  Mars .


   

tonist and Aristotelian elements, and that solved a number of theological,

ethical, and philosophical problems. In this chapter, I set the stage for the
analysis in the chapters that follow. I first summarize the Platonist doctrines
that most influenced the young Leibniz, and then describe the historical cir-
cumstance in which the young man became thoroughly acquainted with that
philosophical tradition. I return once again to the thought of the two most
prominent professors in Leipzig, Johann Adam Scherzer and Jakob
Thomasius. It is significant that the metaphysics of divinity of each of these
men is Platonist and that Thomasius had well-developed views about a
number of topics concerning the relation between God and the created
world. There can be little doubt that Platonism in general and the views of
these German conciliatory eclectics in particular strongly influenced the de-
velopment of the young Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Divinity.

. Leibniz and Platonism

That Leibniz’s early metaphysics owes a great deal to Platonism will come
as a surprise to many. The Platonism extant in seventeenth-century Ger-
many has not generally been recognized, and the Platonism of the profes-
sors in Leipzig has not been noted.2 Many recent scholars have identified
Platonist and kabbalistic elements in Leibniz’s mature writings and have
speculated about their source. Most have assumed that the recognizably Pla-
tonist flavor of some of Leibniz’s mature writings was due to his increasing
familiarity in the s with the views of the Cambridge Platonists, while
some have speculated about its scholastic, Renaissance, and ancient
sources.3 These scholars have been correct in their recognition of Platonist
elements in Leibniz’s later thought, but they have looked too far afield for
its source. Leibniz drank from the Platonist fountain as a young student in
Leipzig. In his typical fashion, Leibniz took these raw materials and made
them distinctly his own, but there is no doubt that he acquired a thorough
familiarity with them as a university student, and that they are the primary

. Riley has recently noted “Leibniz’s visible devotion to Plato and Platonism, which runs like
a red thread through his whole moral and political philosophy, early and late” (), and he
nicely traces that thread, but he neither analyzes the role of the Platonist philosophy in the
other areas of Leibniz’s thought nor recognizes its immediate source. See Leibniz’ Univer-
sal Jurisprudence, passim.
. For example, in her recent book, Allison Coudert correctly identifies a number of Platon-
ist features in Leibniz’s mature thought, and then assumes that the source of these ideas
must be the Cambridge Platonists in general and Francis Mercury van Helmont in partic-
ular. See Allison Coudert, Leibniz and the Kabbalah. Daniel Fouke proposes that Leibniz
acquired his Platonist tendencies from the Platonism inherent in scholastics like Aquinas.
See his “Emanation and the Perfections of Being: Divine Causation and the Autonomy of
Nature in Leibniz.” Some studies have taken seriously the relation between Leibniz and an-
cient Platonists like Plotinus, but they have focused on Leibniz’s later thought and have not
acknowledged the role Platonism played in his philosophical development. The best of
these studies remains Joseph Politella’s “Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Cabalism in the
Philosophy of Leibniz;” Rudolf Meyer’s “Leibniz und Plotin,” –; and G. Rodier’s
“Plotin: Sur une des origines de la philosophie de Leibniz.”


  

source of his conception of God and the relation between God and crea-
tures.4 According to my account of the development of Leibniz’s meta-
physics, the basic features of his Platonism were in place in –,
several years before he acquired a thorough familiarity with the thought of
Henry More, Anne Conway, Francis Mercury van Helmont, or any other
Cambridge Platonist.5
A question arises at this point: if Leibniz made active use of Platonist
ideas early in his career, then why doesn’t he call attention to it in the same
way that he does to his use of Aristotelian thought? As we have seen, he
proudly proclaims his rehabilitation of the philosophy of Aristotle in his let-
ter to Thomasius. Why didn’t he call similar attention to the benefits of the
philosophy of Plato? Leibniz was not motivated to justify his Platonism be-
cause that philosophy had not become the object of ridicule. On the con-
trary, the vast majority of Leibniz’s contemporaries were themselves in-
clined to turn to the Platonist tradition, both pagan and Christian, for
inspiration concerning divine topics. In other words, Leibniz stands in a
long line of Christian philosophers who found Platonist thought much more
amenable than the thought of other ancient authors to Christian assump-
tions about divinity. As Augustine proclaims in the Confessions, it was the
pagan Platonists who put him on the path to knowledge of the Christian
God. He explains that it was after procuring the books of the Platonists that
he learned about “the light that shines;” it was “from the Gentiles that I came
to You.”6 However much Leibniz’s Platonism might come as a surprise to us,
it did not surprise his contemporaries. Most of them would have understood
exactly what he meant when he wrote in Discourse on metaphysics  that
“Now, first of all it is very evident that created substances depend upon God,
who preserves them and who even produces them continually by a kind of
emanation, just as we produce our thoughts;” or when he claims in Monadol-
ogy  that “God alone is the primitive unity or the original simple substance;
all created or derivative monads are products, and are generated so to speak
by continual fulgurations of the divinity . . . , limited by the receptivity of the

. The claim that Platonism is the primary source of Leibniz’s conception of the relation be-
tween God and creatures is consistent with the fact that Leibniz often turned to the scholas-
tics for inspiration about theological matters. As I suggested in ch. , Leibniz did not draw
careful boundaries between the philosophical traditions, and was happy to borrow ideas
from any orthodox source that could offer help.
. Most scholars have agreed that the source of Leibniz’s Platonist tendencies was some mem-
ber of the so-called Cambridge Platonists, but they have disagreed about which member of
More’s wide circle most influenced Leibniz and when the influence occurred. To cite three
examples, Coudert maintains that the relationship between van Helmont and Leibniz be-
came important in the late s, and that the former was the major source of Leibniz’s Pla-
tonism; Carolyn Merchant thinks that it was Anne Conway who had the most significant
influence, and that it took place in the s; while Catherine Wilson argues that Ralph
Cudworth was the Platonist who most influenced Leibniz, and that it began in . See
Coudert, Leibniz and the Kabbalah, passim; Merchant, “The Vitalism of Anne Conway: Its
Impact on Leibniz’s Concept of the Monad;” Wilson, Leibniz’s Metaphysics, f.
. VII  ().


   

creature, to which it is essential to be limited.” In the intellectual commu-

nity in which Leibniz was raised, there was no need to justify the use of the
Platonist philosophy in the way there was with the Aristotelian one. As
Leibniz explains in the Specimen of Dynamics of , “[j]ust as our age has
already saved from scorn . . . Plato’s ideas,” he will now “make intelligible
the teachings of the Peripatetics concerning forms or entelechies.”7
In brief, I am making two claims: one about the intellectual context in
which Leibniz’s metaphysics developed, the other about the content of that
metaphysics. The first claim is that the philosophy of Plotinus, Proclus, Au-
gustine, Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, and of course Plato himself was
widely known and highly regarded throughout the seventeenth century and
formed a major part of the intellectual context in which Leibniz was raised.
The second claim is that some of the most fundamental doctrines of Leib-
niz’s metaphysics are thoroughly Platonist. In the discussion here, I will
give little support for the first claim except insofar as I argue for the second.
In the late s, Leibniz took his extensive background in Platonism and
molded it to fit his Aristotelian assumptions about substance. By combin-
ing his conception of God with his notion of individual substance, Leibniz
went beyond the Platonism of his teachers and contemporaries and made
that tradition his own.8
Before turning to the pure Platonism that Leibniz imbibed as a student,
it is worth noting the impure form that was also available to him. Recent
scholars have emphasized the fact that scholastic philosophy was itself full
of Platonism, and it has been argued that Leibniz’s use of Platonist tenets
may have come from such sources.9 While it is no doubt true that Leibniz
and his contemporaries absorbed a good deal of Platonism along with their
scholasticism, the scholastics were not the primary source of Leibniz’s Pla-
tonist tendencies. What has not been previously noted, and what is crucial
to an understanding of Leibniz’s thought, is that it was as a university stu-
dent in Leipzig that Leibniz acquired a pure form of Platonism that he dis-
tinguished from the thought of Aristotle and that continued to influence
him for years to come.10 Let us now turn to those sources.

. GM VI f: AG f. In the New System of Nature, the first published presentation of
his mature philosophy, Leibniz spends nearly a fifth of the essay justifying his “rehabili-
tation” of Aristotelian substantial forms. Also see G IV –: AG –; GM VI f:
AG f.
. It is not surprising that twentieth-century scholars have not looked for the roots of Leib-
niz’s Platonism in the intellectual culture of Leipzig: the standard histories of philosophy
in central Europe in the seventeenth century say nothing about this Platonism, nor do the
major biographies of Leibniz notice the Platonism of the professors in Leipzig. In fact, as
far as I know, Loemker is the only scholar to acknowledge the importance of humanist Pla-
tonism as a significant part of the background to Leibniz’s thought, though he does not
identify the philosophers in Leipzig as its source and his discussion of Leibniz’s Platon-
ism is rather programmatic. See Loemker, Struggle for Synthesis, passim.
. See Fouke, “Emanation and the Perfections of Being,” sects.  and .
. Later in life, Leibniz frequently distinguishes among the scholasticism, Aristotelianism,


  

The nature of Platonism in seventeenth-century Germany has not been

systematically studied, and my own research to date has been cursory. But
it is perfectly clear that the professors and students in Leipzig were thor-
oughly acquainted with that philosophical tradition. They were not schol-
ars of Plato, but they were inheritors of a vast literature of writings that they
called Platonist and that they considered a treasure trove of ideas. Making
frequent use of images that one finds throughout the history of Platonism,
they speak of that philosophy both as a source of divine wisdom which like
the sun illuminates everything it shines on, and as a fountain of truth which
has flowed through the thinkers of many centuries and nourishes their own
thought.11 The scope of their erudition in this area is impressive: they re-
fer to the whole range of ancient, medieval, and Renaissance thinkers and
move easily between pagan and Christian authors. It is important to em-
phasize that these German philosophers often do not distinguish among
sources, but tend to treat Platonism as a warehouse of ideas to rummage
through. What I would like to do now is to offer a summary of the Platon-
ist doctrines which are proposed in the texts of Leibniz’s predecessors in
Leipzig and which influenced the development of his early thought.12
A journey through this Platonist terrain may strike some readers as diffi-
cult going. Some of its landmark assumptions (e.g., causal emanation,
levels of being) are not easy to comprehend from our philosophical per-
spective. That some of the great philosophical minds in the history of
philosophy have found such views obvious offers small comfort. While I
cannot hope to expand our philosophical intuitions here, I would like to
make the background assumptions of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Divinity as
plausible as possible. The very fact that some of these doctrines are ex-

and Platonism that he studied as a youth. See, e.g., G III : L –; VI vi –; for
a slightly earlier example, see II i f.
. Marsilio Ficino had written about the Platonic philosophy that “all who desire to taste of
the most delicious waters of wisdom must drink from that perennial fountain.” See Ficino,
Opera, vol. , .
. In his Neoplatonism, R.T. Wallis explains: “‘Neoplatonism’ is a term coined in modern
times to distinguish the form of the tradition inaugurated by Plotinus (–) and lasting
in its pagan form down to the sixth century A.D. from the teaching of Plato’s immediate
disciples (the ‘Old Academy’) and from the Platonism of the earlier Roman Empire (‘Mid-
dle Platonism’)” (). I agree both with P. Merlan, in his “Greek Philosophy from Plato to
Plotinus,” that neoplatonism as a term is “misleading, in that to some it may suggest a more
radical difference between the philosophies of Plato and Plotinus than is warranted” (),
and with Kristeller, who in discussion has encouraged me to refrain from using the term.
There seems no more reason to refer to Plotinus, Proclus, Ficino, and others as neoplaton-
ists than to refer to our scholastic heroes like Scotus, Aquinas, Ockham and others as
neoaristotelians. The latter bear the same relation to Aristotle’s thought and writings that
the former do to Plato’s: they see the ancient as a source of profound philosophical truth
which they intend to interpret and use. But, as Eileen O’Neill has noted in conversation, it
is important to distinguish between philosophers like Plotinus, Ficino, and Leibniz’s teach-
ers, who considered themselves exegetes of Platonist texts, and those early modern thinkers
like Teresa of Ávila, who used Platonist ideas but bore no commitment to the tradition.


   

tremely odd to us helps to explain why their full significance in his thought
has not been adequately appreciated by twentieth-century scholars. To make
matters worse, my account of these views lacks some of the details that would
make them easier to grasp. Since a thorough and detailed analysis of them
would take us too far afield, we will have to be satisfied with cursory sum-
maries. However, we must be fearless: if we are to understand many of Leib-
niz’s most basic beliefs, we must do what we can to fathom these assumptions.
It seems appropriate to focus on the thought of Plotinus, Philo, and Au-
gustine for several reasons: their versions of Platonism were arguably the most
influential in history, they are frequently cited by the professors and students
at Leipzig, Leibniz’s early Metaphysics of Divinity bears a striking resem-
blance to many of their proposals, and Leibniz refers to them frequently and
(mostly) approvingly throughout his life. On the basis of the scant materials
available, we cannot prove that these thinkers were the main sources of Leib-
niz’s Platonism, but we can be certain that he learned about their thought as
a student at Leipzig. Not only did Leibniz write about his youth that “as a
boy . . . Plato and with him Plotinus appealed to me,”13 his teacher Thoma-
sius frequently refers to Philo and Proclus14 and acknowledges the great im-
portance of the thought of Plotinus to the history of Platonism.15
In sections –, I summarize those Platonist doctrines that constitute the
materials out of which Leibniz constructed his Metaphysics of Divinity. My
account has two limitations: it is neither uncontroversial nor sufficiently de-
tailed. Although I have tried to be as accurate as possible in my presentation
of the views of these thinkers, I have had to avoid any serious discussion of
either the important differences among their views or the significant dis-
agreements among scholars who interpret them. In other words, I am
painfully aware that there are other ways of rendering these ancient doctrines.
My primary goal is to situate Leibniz’s texts of – in their proper Pla-
tonist context so that we may more easily discern his original Metaphysics of
Divinity, which is itself constructed out of exactly these Platonist materials.
The summary that follows is offered as a reasonable rendering of the thought
of these figures; it is an interpretation of the Platonist philosophy that as far
as I can tell, Leibniz and his teachers accepted. Finally, my approach to these
Platonist assumptions differs from that of the Aristotelian principles pre-
sented in chapter : our lack of familiarity with many aspects of the Platon-
ist philosophy justifies a summary of these fairly fundamental doctrines in a
way that our familiarity with the Aristotelian philosophy of substance did not.

. The Supreme Being: its unity, self-sufficiency,

perfection
For many ancient thinkers, ontological priority was to be explained mainly
in terms of self-sufficiency. As one scholar makes the point, “that which

. G III : L  . Thomasius, Exercitatio, , , , , , etc.
. Thomasius, Schediasma, ; Exercitatio, .


  

stands in need of nothing for being what it is is ontologically primary.”16

For Platonists, there was a hierarchy of self-sufficiency and being such that
each of the lower strata in the hierarchy was supposed to depend on and be
caused by the higher. In Plato’s Republic, the sensible things depend on the
Ideas which themselves depend on the Good. For many of the philosophers
who followed Plato, it was taken as obvious that unity and perfection were
intimately related to self-sufficiency and being, so that the more reality
something has, the more unified and perfect it would be. Both Christian and
non-Christian Platonists assumed that there is a supremely perfect, wholly
simple, and unified being on which all else depends. The implication was
that only the highest being was wholly perfect, self-sufficient, simple, and
real, and that the beings in the lower strata had diminishing degrees of these
features. What is less a unity, for instance, is less real, and what is less real
is constituted and explained by what is more unified and hence more real.
The third century philosopher, Plotinus (/–), focused especially
on the simplicity and unity of the Supreme Being and maintained that the
greater the unity, the greater the reality, self-sufficiency, and perfection.17
He writes:
there must be something simple before all things, and this must be other than all the
things which come after it, existing by itself, not mixed with the things which derive
from it. . . . For if it is not to be simple, outside all coincidence and composition and
really one, it could not be a first principle, and it is the most self-sufficient, because
it is simple and the first of all: for that which is not the first needs that which is be-
fore it, and what is not simple is in need of its simple components so that it can come
into existence from them.18
From our twenty-first-century perspective, it is difficult to grasp why unity
or simplicity should be the key metaphysical and ontological notion. Nor is
it easy to construct a satisfactory justification for this assumption. There
seems to be a cluster of beliefs that motivate it: that eternity and im-
mutability are the marks of true being and true perfection, that utter
simplicity excludes the possibility of parts and the possibility of change, and
that simplicity implies independence and self-sufficiency. From such as-
sumptions, it is supposed to follow that a wholly simple being is eternally,
immutably, and independently itself.
Many thinkers were loath to characterize the Supreme Being. Some
maintained that language was inadequate, while others argued that to pred-
icate anything of it was to make a division between subject and property and
thereby to suggest a less than perfect unity. Although such thinkers often
deemed it improper to attribute specific positive features to the divinity,
they nonetheless believed that the Supreme Being contained every positive

. Eyjólfur K. Emilsson, “Cognition and its Object,” .

. See Enneads III...–; VI...–; VI....
. V. ..–. With some minor variations, translations are by A.H. Armstrong, Plotinus:
Enneads. For a very helpful account of the intuition behind this notion of unity, see Emils-
son, Plotinus on Sense Perception: A Philosophical Study, ch. .


   

attribute without distinction or division. In this sense, the divine may be

thought of as a storehouse of being within which there is neither distinc-
tion nor division; there can be a distinction or division within being only
“outside” the divine.
Let’s summarize the account of the Supreme Being offered here in the
following way:
• The Supreme Being Assumption claims that there is a wholly perfect, self-
sufficient, and unified being on which all else depends and, moreover, that
each of the features of unity, self-sufficiency, perfection, and reality is a
function of the other.

. Plenitude
According to Plotinus, the “unbounded” perfection of the One is such that
it “overflows” with being. This overflowing has two features worth empha-
sizing here. First, as soon as something is produced or created, there is mul-
tiplicity in that the being and perfection of the One is manifested in diverse
ways. For Plotinus, when the being of the One overflows, it produces the
world of Ideas. Although there are multiple Ideas, as a group they are as
unified as anything can be other than the One itself. In the words of one
commentator, they are “a unity-in-multiplicity.”19 The being of the world
of Ideas itself overflows and eventually becomes the multitude of things in
the material world. The second point to emphasize about the overflowing
of the Supreme Being is that according to many Platonists, everything that
can exist will exist. This assumption, often called the Principle of Plenitude,
maintains that when the One overflows with being, it does not stop until all
possible reality is produced. Plato had suggested in the Timaeus that the sen-
sible world would be incomplete if it did not contain all possible creatures.20
Plotinus retains this idea and suggests that diversity of being is a good thing.
There will be as much being and as many kinds of being as possible. For
Plotinus, the One emanates the fullness of its being continually, so that
every possibility exists. He writes: “it is not possible for anything else to
come into being: all things have come into being and there is nothing left.”21
A problem arises at this point: because a commitment to the widest pos-
sible diversity of being entails that some parts of the world will be less good
than others, the products of the perfect being will contain imperfections.
The solution to the problem embraced by most Platonists was that the
greater goodness of the whole justified the imperfections of some of its
parts.22 In his classic study of the Principle of Plenitude in the history of
western ideas, Lovejoy highlights this striking assumption and identifies

. Armstrong, “Plotinus,” . . Timaeus, e–b, e.

. Enneads, V...–.
. See Enneads, II...–, –; III...f. For a discussion of this theme in the history
of ideas, see Arthur Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being; for a discussion of it in Plotinus,
see Wallis, Neoplatonism, –.


  

Augustine as one of its main sources.23 Many philosophers considered it

better that a variety of different kinds of things at different levels of per-
fection exist than that fewer kinds of things of higher perfection do so. The
metaphysical insistence that the world is as full of diverse being as possible
persisted for centuries; it was surely a cornerstone of scholastic conceptions
of the created world. One of the nicest examples of this Platonist approach
to plenitude among our scholastic heroes is found in Aquinas.24 In Book II
of his Summa Contra Gentiles, he offers several arguments for this assump-
tion. Two of these are particularly relevant to us. Aquinas writes:
Since every agent intends to introduce its own likeness into its effect, so far as the
effect can receive it, an agent does this the more perfectly, the more perfect [the
agent] is itself. . . . But God is the most perfect of agents; therefore it will belong to
him to introduce His likeness into created things most perfectly, so far as befits the
nature of the created thing. But created things cannot attain to a perfect likeness of
God so long as they are confined to one species of creature; because, since the cause
exceeds the effect, what is in the cause simply, and unifiedly is found in the effect in
a composite and multiple fashion. . . . Therefore, the presence of multiplicity and
variety among created things was necessary so that the perfect likeness of God might
be found in things according to their manner of being.25
The multiplicity and variety of things is the best way for the Supreme Be-
ing to introduce its likeness into the created world. Aquinas offers an ex-
planation as to why this is the case:
Moreover, just as things made from matter lie in the passive potentiality of matter,
so things made by an agent must exist in the active power of the agent. . . . There-
fore, if any agent whose power extends to various effects were to produce only one
of them, its power would not be so completely actualized as by producing several.
Now, by the fact that the active power is actualized, the effect receives the likeness
of the agent. Therefore the likeness of God would not be perfect in the universe if
there were only one grade of being.26
In order for the full power and perfection of the Supreme Being to be ac-
tualized, it is necessary that it manifest those features in a variety of ways.
An analogy may help. The most perfect chef in the world cannot manifest
her perfections merely by making pastries; she must also produce salads,
sauces, and grilled vegetables. Similarly, the Supreme Being cannot mani-
fest its perfections merely by making angels and majestic mountains; it must
also create armadillos, rodents, and slugs. Only by such means will the full
range of its potential and power be apparent. As Aquinas concludes, “For
this reason, then, there is distinction among created things: they receive
God’s likeness more perfectly, by being many, than by being one.” But there

. See Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being, ch. , esp. –.
. It is important to emphasize at the outset of any discussion of Aquinas in this context that
his account of creation and of the relation between God and creatures differs in many ways
from the standard Platonist approach (say, that of Plotinus). For a discussion of some of
these issues, see Norman Kretzmann, “A Particular Problem of Creation.”
. Summa Contra Gentiles II,  []. . Ibid. II,  [].


   

is more than one way of “being many.” Aquinas insists that difference
among species is better than difference among individuals. He continues:
the goodness of the species transcends the goodness of the individual, as form tran-
scends matter; therefore the multiplication of species is a greater addition to the
goodness of the universe than the multiplication of individuals of a single species.
The perfection of the universe therefore requires not only a multitude of individu-
als, but also diverse kinds, and therefore diverse grades of things.27
The diversity of kinds of being and of grades of being is a good thing. As
Lovejoy nicely summarizes the point, “the thesis of the inherent and
supreme value of variety of existence as such” and “the assumption that the
more essences, regardless of their rank in the scale, there are realized in the
universe, the better it is” was to “have momentous consequences.”28
But we must not think that diversity by itself is the primary good-mak-
ing criterion. In the second argument that interests us, Aquinas considers
the interrelation among creatures:
But there is more. The highest degree of perfection should not be lacking in a work
made by a supremely good worker. But the good of order among diverse things is
better than any of the members of an order, taken by itself. For the good of order is
formal in respect to each member of it, as the perfection of the whole in relation to
the parts. It was not fitting therefore that God’s work should lack the good of order.
And yet, without the diversity and inequality of created things, this good could not
exist.29
The basic point here is important for our purposes: the goodness of the
products of the Supreme Being is more than just a summation of the good-
ness of the creatures; the goodness of the world is also a function of the or-
derly relations among creatures. Whether Jewish or Christian, ancient or
medieval, theists who accepted the Platonist assumption that the goodness
and perfection of the Supreme Being flowed into its creatures also assumed
that a primary aspect of that goodness was the order or harmony among
creatures. For example, the first-century Jewish theologian, Philo of
Alexandria, claims not only that “virtue is, and will be, and has been in
everything,”30 he also insists that God has constructed things so that “our
whole system, like a melodious chorus of many men, may sing in concert
one well-harmonised melody composed of different sounds well com-
bined.”31 As Aquinas succinctly makes the point more than a millennium
later: “For each thing in its nature is good, but all things together are very
good, by reason of the order of the universe, which is the ultimate and no-
blest perfection in things.”32
For philosophers like Philo and Aquinas, the goodness in the order of

. Ibid. II,  []. . Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being, .
. Summa Contra Gentiles II,  [].
. Philo, On the Migration of Abraham, XXII : Yonge . All references to Philo are from
The Works of Philo, trans. by C. D. Yonge.
. Ibid. XVIII : Yonge . . Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II,  [].


  

God’s creation is greater than the sum of the goodness of its parts. That this
order is supposed to increase the goodness of the world and be the “noblest
perfection” is clear; that philosophers from Philo to Leibniz conceive this
relation in aesthetic terms is also evident. In other words, when the crea-
tures are taken independently of one another and the goodness of each con-
sidered, the sum is less than the goodness of the same creatures taken as an
interrelated whole. It would seem then that the “order of the universe” is
(at least partly) comprised of the relations among creatures, and that some-
how those relations are good-making in a way that exceeds the mere sum-
mation of the goodness of the creatures taken independently of one another.
Let’s consider an interpretation of this order among creatures which is con-
sistent with the comments made by Leibniz’s Platonist predecessors and
which will properly introduce the young Leibniz’s understanding of that
order.
Let’s begin by returning to the example of our perfect chef. The good-
ness of what she produces is not due merely to the excellence and variety of
her products, but to their complementary arrangements. The creamy
smoothness of the sauce will perfectly enhance the crispness of the vegeta-
bles: neither is as good without the other, each perfectly suits the other. In
fact, the relation between the sauce and the vegetables is such that the very
same sauce would not complement anything as well as it complements those
vegetables: it would be too velvety for the fish, too sweet for the potatoes.
The basic intuition here is that each element is good in itself and yet is made
better through its relation to the other. So far, so good. But there is some-
thing missing in this example. Vegetables and sauces are not conscious and
cannot respond to the perfect culinary harmony of their relation. A con-
scious individual is able to feel pleasure and pain in a way that a plate of veg-
etables (presumably) is not. Once we add consciousness to our recipe, we
discover other dimensions to the ordering among creatures. Given the as-
sumption articulated above about the goodness in the world, it is not at all
far-fetched to assume that goodness among conscious beings encourages
more goodness. The basic assumption here is that goodness begets good-
ness. Good behavior encourages the person who does the good: Wanda sees
how well her children respond to her kindness and patience and is thereby
both pleased and encouraged. Furthermore, good behavior encourages the
person who merely observes it: Wanda is courageous in the face of great dif-
ficulty and inspires those around her to do the same. By being good, she
makes those related to her better. One way of capturing the assumption that
the goodness of the world encourages more goodness is as follows: for every
being S that has an Enhancement Relation to a being R, the relation of S to
R is such that an increase in the goodness of S will promote an increase in
R which is non-reciprocal (that is, the increase in R will not then promote
an increase in S). Assuming that human virtue is a good thing, and that the
more human virtue there is in the world, the better the world is, it would
seem to follow that the goodness of a world would be partly a function of
its enhancement relations: the more relations there were and the easier it was


   

for individuals to benefit from the benevolence of others, the better the
world would be. For example, let’s assume that Wanda, who is wonderfully
good but who suffers from a severe case of agoraphobia, spends most of her
time holed up at home watching C-SPAN and weeping for the sins of hu-
manity, about which she is psychologically incapable of doing anything.
Because of the limited enhancement relations in Wanda’s world, no one
benefits from her enormous goodness. But suppose the enhancement rela-
tions were different and somehow Wanda’s deep concerns for the state of
the world were communicated to the occupants of her neighborhood so that
her neighbors could be moved by her sympathy, if only unconsciously. The
more Wanda frets over the poverty in her city, the more her neighbors find
themselves worried enough to do something about it. One could argue that
the enhancement relations of the latter world add to its perfection. In such
a world, Wanda’s goodness is communicated to others and thereby increases
the total goodness in the world.
It is not my concern to show that Plotinus, Philo, or Aquinas was com-
mitted to the Enhancement Relation as articulated here. They may not have
been. But I would like to claim that this relation helps to explain how the
goodness of a world is able to be greater than the sum of the goodness of its
parts and yet how the goodness of its parts contributes to that more general
goodness. If the individuals of a world cannot contribute to the goodness of
one another and therefore cannot contribute to the overall goodness of the
world, then the world does not seem ordered or harmonized in the way Leib-
niz’s predecessors apparently desired. In short, given the relevant assump-
tions about goodness and virtue articulated here, it seems to follow that the
goodness of a world would be partly a function of the nature of the En-
hancement Relations among creatures.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s summarize these points about the good-
ness in the created world as follows. Until we turn to Leibniz’s texts, our ac-
count must remain somewhat vague.
• The Principle of Harmonized Plenitude assumes that the goodness of the
world is partly a function of the variety of the beings within it, partly a
function of the sum of the goodness of the beings within it, and partly a
function of the order among those beings where the latter is understood
primarily in terms of the Enhancement Relation among the beings. The
Enhancement Relation is as follows: for every being S that has an En-
hancement Relation to a being R, the relation between S and R is such
that an increase in the goodness of S will promote an increase in R, which
is non-reciprocal.

. The Supreme Being as transcendent and immanent,

as unity and multiplicity
One of the most basic assumptions of the Platonist account of creation is
that the being of the One is so abundant that it necessarily overflows and


  

thereby produces what there is. Given that Judeo-Christian orthodoxy de-
mands the free choice of God and therefore implies (at least) that the
Supreme Being could have chosen not to create the world, the Platonist cre-
ation story seems to stand in dramatic conflict with the Judeo-Christian one.
To put it simply, the one story claims that the abundance of being is so great
that it must overflow; the other requires that however abundant the being,
it need not do so. Regardless of how counterintuitive the idea of controlled
or partial overflowing seems to be, the early Christians embraced it. Nor is
that all. The Platonist story of creation posed another problem for early
Jewish and Christian thinkers. Orthodoxy demanded that the creation oc-
cur “in the beginning.” It was with enormous philosophical finesse that the-
ologians like Philo of Alexandria (ca.  BC– AD) and Augustine (–)
managed to transform the ancient Platonist account into one that cohered
with the Bible. Both the Jewish Philo and the Christian Augustine conceived
of the One as a mind that contained all positive essences or Ideas. By such
means, Philo and Augustine found a way to combine the Biblical creation
story with the Platonist one. From Augustine onward, the standard Chris-
tian conception of the One was of a perfect and infinite divine mind that
contained the Ideas and that “in the beginning” freely created a world mod-
eled on them.33 We will have the opportunity to consider some of the de-
tails of this conception in what follows.
Pagan and non-pagan Platonists differed about the details of their cre-
ation stories, but they were in general agreement about the result: every-
thing in the created world was understood to be a manifestation of the di-
vinity.34 The basic idea was that the diversity in the world was the essence
of the Supreme Being variously manifested. Some obvious problems arise
at this point concerning the relation between the transcendent One and its
products. In brief, for the Platonists, the Supreme Being is supposed to be
wholly self-sufficient, yet it is said to be in everything. Creatures are sup-
posed to be finite and limited, yet they are said to be in the Supreme Being
and to share its features. That is, the Supreme Being is supposed to be in
the creatures, and yet they are also said to be in it. What are we to think?

. In the Timaeus (a), there is the suggestion that the Forms are somehow in the intellect
of the creator, who then models the things of the world on them.
. The same idea appears in the thought of many Jewish kabbalists, where the divine attrib-
utes are supposed to emanate to all levels of creation so that every being participates in all
of them. For a recent account of kabbalistic thought, its development, and complications,
see Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, esp. ch. . Christian kabbalists like Raymond
Lull and Johann Reuchlin, who were widely known in Germany in the seventeenth cen-
tury, followed in this tradition and maintained that every creature exemplified all the di-
vine attributes. For Lull, each creature is infused with all the divine features so that one
can grasp them at every level of being. Johann Reuchlin was a German student of Pico
della Mirandola and the first full-fledged modern Christian kabbalist. For a brief intro-
duction to Reuchlin, see Moshe Idel, “Introduction to the Bison Book Edition” and G.
Lloyd Jones, “Introduction,” both in Martin Goodman and Sarah Goodman, trans. Jo-
hann Reuchlin: On the Art of the Kabbalah. There is a good deal of secondary literature
written on Lull. For a basic introduction, see Francis A. Yates, The Art of Memory.


   

While I dare not attempt a full analysis of the relation between the Supreme
Being and its products, I would like to summarize certain aspects of that re-
lation. There are three closely related questions that are particularly rele-
vant to Leibniz: () how can the Supreme Being or the One be transcendent
from its products while they are in it?; () how can the Supreme Being be
both transcendent from its products and immanent in them?; and () how
can the One be both the unity and the multiplicity in the world? Answers to
these questions will place Leibniz’s own conception of the relation between
God and creatures in its proper perspective.
Before facing these questions, however, it will be important to remind
ourselves that they apply with equal force to the Judeo-Christian God of the
Bible. As Paul writes to the Ephesians, there is “one God and Father of all,
who is above all, and through all, and in all” (Ephesians :). In Acts we are
told: “For in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts :); and
in the Book of Psalms, we find that the “Lord, art most high over all the
earth” (Psalms :) and yet is intimately related to all things. In Psalm 
(–), the entire universe is told to pay tribute to God who not only created
all things, but also is their abiding source:
Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars.
Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens.
Let them praise the name of the Lord! For he commanded and they were created;
And he established them for ever and ever; he fixed their bounds which cannot be
passed.
Praise the Lord from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps;
Fire and hail, snow and frost, stormy wind fulfilling his command.
In the Confessions, Augustine faces these problems head on and then ex-
plains how he discovered the key to their solutions. At the very beginning
of the book, he worries aloud to God about precisely our questions: “With-
out you, whatever exists would not exist. But does what exists contain you?
I also have being . . . which I would not have unless you were in me. Or
rather, I would have no being if I were not in you.” To add to the difficulty,
Augustine agrees with Paul in his description of God: “For from him and
through him and in him are all things” (Romans :). The torment that
such questions caused Augustine persisted for years, and ended only when
he realized how to conceive God. It was the Platonists who effected that re-
alization. Augustine explains: “[b]y reading these books of the Platonists I
had been prompted to look for truth as something incorporeal.”35 What Au-

. Confessions, VII, xx (). Scholars have long argued about which Platonist writers most in-
fluenced Augustine at this crucial moment; the debate has mostly centered on Porphyry
and Plotinus. John Rist argues persuasively that it was Plotinus “who led Augustine” to
the view that “Christianity can subsume Platonism” and that Augustine’s use of Platon-
ism has “led us to think of an almost essential relationship between Platonism and an in-
tellectual explanation of Christianity itself.” See Rist, “Plotinus and Christian Philoso-
phy,” esp. ff. In his edition of the Confessions, Henry Chadwick claims that the text
“constantly echoes” the thought of Plotinus. See Chadwick’s Introduction, xxiii, and the
editor’s notes in his ed. of the Confessions.


  

gustine came to understand and what we need to grasp is how it is “that all
finite things are in you [God]”36 and yet “derive their being from you.”37
How can the divine be both transcendent and immanent? The problem is
acute: according to Plotinus, the One is “alone by itself” and simple, while
it is also “everywhere” and “fills all things.” He writes: “How then do all
things come from the One, which is simple and has in it no diverse variety?”
The solution to the problem lies in a distinction between the One insofar as
it is supremely self-sufficient and the One insofar as it is the principle on
which all else depends. Plotinus explains: “The One is all things and not a
single one of them: it is the principle of all things, not all things, but all
things have that other kind of transcendent existence.”38 The crucial point
here is that the One is “all things” insofar as it is their principle or source
and it is “not a single one of them” insofar as it is the perfect, self-sufficient,
and unified reality. He continues: “All these things are the One and not the
One: they are he because they come from him; they are not he, because it is
in abiding by himself that he gives them.”39 The One is transcendent in that
it is self-sufficient and in need of nothing else. Plotinus writes in a passage
we have seen: “there must be something simple before all things, and this
must be other than all the things which come after it, existing by itself, not
mixed with the things which derive from it.”40 But the One is also imma-
nent in that it is the source of everything else and that on which everything
constantly depends: the One “is the principle of all things . . . because as
principle it keeps them in being . . . and because it brought them into exis-
tence.”41 Such texts suggest a solution to our general problem as to how the
One can be both transcendent from its products and immanent in them. In
order to understand this, we need only recognize what one scholar has called
their “nonreciprocal dependence.”42 The One is transcendent in that it ex-
ists wholly independently of all its creatures and needs nothing else to be
what it is. For creatures, this is not the case; they depend fully and constantly
on the One.
To conceive the complicated way in which the One is immanent in the
world, we must turn to our first question: how the Supreme Being or the
One can be transcendent from its products while they are in it? To grasp
how the products of the One are in it while it exists independently of them,

. Confessions VII, xv (). . Ibid., VII, xx (). . Enneads, V...–.
. Ibid., V...–. . Ibid., V...–. . Ibid., V...–.
. The phrase ‘nonreciprocal dependence’ is used by O’Meara who summarizes his account
in the following way: “Reality is a structure of dependence, the posterior depending on the
prior, being constituted by the prior, incapable of existing ‘without’ the prior which can
exist without it. The prior is thus part of, or in, the posterior (as constitutive of it), just as
the posterior is potentially in the prior (as coming from it): causes are ‘in’ their effects and
effects are ‘in’ their causes. But while a part of the posterior, the prior is also apart from it
as independent of it. Thus the prior is both immanent in the posterior and transcends it:
The One is ‘everywhere’ and ‘nowhere.’ As independent and as prior, the cause is differ-
ent from the posterior, its effect, superior in perfection and more powerful: causes [which
are prior ‘by nature’] . . . are superior to their effects.” See Dominic J. O’Meara, “The Hi-
erarchical Ordering of Reality in Plotinus,” .


   

one must understand that their nature and being comes from the One and
never exist independently of it while it exists independently of them. Think
of a fountain that miraculously hovers fifty feet above the Las Vegas strip,
and though unconnected to any source, spews forth streams of ice cold wa-
ter. The existence of the fountain in no way depends on the water, and yet
the nature and being of the water depends entirely on the fountain. Like the
fountain, the One exists independently of what flows from it; like the wa-
ter, the products of the One continually depend on their source.43 In this
case, the products of the One and the water of the fountain “exist in” their
source in that their very existence depends on it. The ‘exists in’ relation here
consists in ontological dependency. In this sense, a being B exists in a being
A just in case the whole being and nature of B depends continually on A.
To speak metaphorically, B exists in A because the being and nature of B
flows from A.
Let’s now turn to our second question, namely, how the Supreme Being
can be both transcendent from its products and yet in them? According to
Plotinus and other Platonists, the One is entirely apart from and “beyond”
its products and yet “present to” them and constitutive of them. In the fif-
teenth century, Marsilio Ficino makes the point dramatically in a brief di-
alogue between God and the soul. In Ficino’s dialogue, God explains: “I am
both with you and within you. I am indeed with you, because I am in you;
I am in you, because you are in me. If you were not in me you would not be
in yourself, indeed, you would not be at all”. God continues: “Behold, I say,
do you not see? I fill heaven and earth, I penetrate and contain them. . . .
Behold, do you not see? I pass into everything unmingled, so that I may sur-
pass all; for I am also able to enter and permeate at the same time, to enter
completely and to make one, being unity itself, through which all things are
made and endure, and which all things seek.” In brief, God exclaims: “in
me are all things, out of me come all things and by me are all things sus-
tained forever and everywhere.”44 To grasp how the One is transcendent
and yet present to its products, we have to turn to the causal relation be-
tween it and them. In Plato’s Republic, the Good may be interpreted as the
cause or source of the Ideas which themselves may be seen as the cause or
source of the sensible things. In the Platonist literature, there are three stan-
dard ways to describe the causal relation between higher and lower strata in
the ontological hierarchy. In the participation relation, the individual on the
lower stratum is supposed to participate in that of the higher; in the model-
image relation the higher is said to generate the lower as an imperfect im-
age of itself. The third way of describing the causal relation in the hierar-
chy and the one most relevant to Leibniz is that of emanation. Drawing on
Plato’s analogy to the sun in the Republic, and assuming the other causal no-
tions, this relation compares the One to the sun whose rays flow from it. As

. Plotinus’s famous examples are of the sun, which emanates light, and the fire, which em-
anates heat.
. The Letters of Marsilio Ficino, Vol. I, .


  

Plotinus writes: “The visible universe, then, is properly called an image al-
ways in the process of being made . . . ; just as, as long as the sun exists, all
its rays will shine forth.”45 It is important for our purposes that a lower level
object will have a property in an inferior way to a higher level object. The
attributes or properties of a higher sphere are transmitted to those of the
lower, but in a less perfect form.46 Philo makes the basic point well when he
writes: “the mind of the universe created the universe, and the Creator is
better than the created, therefore it can never be contained in what is infe-
rior to itself. . . . [I]t is not suitable for the father to be contained in the
son.”47 According to Philo, although “the living God contains every-
thing . . . , it is impiety to suppose that he is contained by any thing.”48
Oversimplifying somewhat, we can say that if the perfect A has an at-
tribute f, then A can emanate f-ness to a lower being B. In the emanative re-
lation, A loses nothing while B comes to instantiate f-ness. A remains tran-
scendent and pure, while B becomes an imperfect image of the perfect f.
The emanative process is assumed to be continual so that B will participate
in f-ness and have f imperfectly if and only if A acts or emanates f-ness. It
is important to emphasize the fact that in the emanative causal relation (as
with the other two), the f of A is greater and more perfect than that of B
and yet that the f in B resembles its cause. Moreover, it is important for our
discussion of Leibniz to note that emanative causation is not restricted to
the One: other, less perfect beings, may produce their products through em-
anation. For Platonists like Plotinus and Proclus, any act of production in
the created world is a case of “imitating the One.” Proclus puts it neatly:
“Every productive cause produces . . . while itself remaining steadfast. For
if it imitates the One, and if the One brings its consequents into existence
without movement, then every productive cause has a like law of produc-
tion.”49 It is supposed to follow from this account that the cause is “greater”
than the effect and the effect resembles the cause.
We are now prepared to explain how it is that the One is transcendent
from its products and yet in them.50 The perfection and transcendence of

. Enneads, II...–.

. As Emilsson puts it in Plotinus on Sense Perception: “It is an underlying feature of Ploti-
nus’ thought that the explanation of any feature must be in virtue of something that pos-
sesses the feature in question in a ‘more perfect’ way than the thing to be explained” ().
. Philo, On the Migration of Abraham, XXXV, : Yonge . As a Jewish theologian, Philo
was not interested in the metaphysics of the trinity. The comment here about father and
son is not a reference to that doctrine.
. Ibid., XXXII, : Yonge .
. For some of Plotinus’ comments on emanative causation, see Enneads, V...–,
IV...–, V...–. The account of emanative causation offered here is based on
but varies slightly from the excellent discussion of Eileen O’Neill in her “Influxus Physi-
cus.” For more on emanative causation in Plotinus, see John Bussanich, “Plotinus’s Meta-
physics of the One,” –, and O’Meara, “The Hierarchical Ordering of Reality in Plot-
inus,” sects. II, III.
. By combining the views of Plotinus and others, I am slightly misrepresenting the views of
the former. As E. Emilsson has pointed out to me, Plotinus rarely says that the One “ex-
ists in” anything, but instead talks about the One being “present to” things.


   

the One remains unchanged while it continually emanates its attributes to

its products, which then have those attributes in a manner that is inferior to
and hence wholly different from the One. Recent scholars have insisted, in
a way that is quite relevant to Leibniz, that Plotinus is not a pantheist and
does not believe that the being of the One constitutes the being of its prod-
ucts. The causal theory of emanation reveals how this is so. As Plotinus
writes in a passage quoted above: “all [created] things have that other kind
of transcendent existence. . . . [T]he One is simple and has in it no diverse
variety.”51 For any attribute of a creature, that attribute is derived from the
One and yet the attribute exists in the creature in a way quite distinct from
that of the One. Plotinus puts it nicely when he explains that the One “is
like the things, which have come to be” except that they are “on their level”
and “it [the One] is better.”52 The One is in the creatures in the sense that
it emanates its attributes to them; it remains transcendent from them be-
cause it neither loses anything in the emanative process nor shares any of its
perfections with them. It is perfect; they are not. Plotinus writes: “[the One]
must be other than all the things which come after it, existing by itself, not
mixed with the things which derive from it, and all the same able to be pres-
ent in a different way to these other things.”53 Elsewhere, he explains that
“the One is always perfect” and “its product is less.”54
The Platonist conception of the causal relation between the Supreme Be-
ing and its creatures helps to explain how the Judeo-Christian God can be,
in Paul’s words, “one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through
all, and in all” (Ephesians :). As Augustine makes the point in his Con-
fessions:
I considered all the other things that are of a lower order than yourself, and I saw
that they have not absolute being in themselves, nor are they entirely without being.
They are real in so far as they have their being from you, but unreal in the sense that
they are not what you are. For it is only that which remains in being without change
that truly is. . . . [God] himself ever unchanged, he makes all things new.55
The causal relation between the Supreme Being and its products explains
how the One can be transcendent and yet be in its products. Here the ‘ex-
ists in’ relation is to be understood in terms of emanation, where the basic
idea is that attributes of the One emanate to its products, and in that sense
exist in them. The One remains pure and transcendent while its attributes
or properties “exist in” the creatures. The crucial point to understand is that
the properties exist in the products in a manner wholly different than the

. Enneads, V...–. Emilsson has pointed out to me that it is debatable whether or not Plot-
inus himself accepted emanation as a theory, and that the causal relation between the One
and its products can be thought of in different terms. On this topic, see Emilsson’s very
helpful paper, “Plotinus on the Intelligible.” Whether Plotinus accepted this theory or not
is not so important here as is the fact that he was interpreted by his medieval and early
modern interpreters to have done so.
. Ibid., VI...–. . Ibid., V...–. . Ibid., V...–.
. Confessions VII, xi (). Also see XII, vii (), xi ().


  

way they exist in the One. The perfect being A emanates f-ness to B so that
B participates in f-ness and f-ness is in B, but the f-ness in B is inferior to
the f-ness in A. A has f perfectly; B has it imperfectly.
With this account of the causal relation between the Supreme Being and
its creatures in hand, we are prepared to answer our third question, namely,
how the transcendent One can be both the unity and multiplicity in the
world. We touched on both of these issues in the last section. That the One
is the multiplicity in the created world is fairly straightforward: when the
One overflows, it necessarily produces a multiplicity in that the being and
perfection of the One is manifested in diverse ways. The One exists in the
multiplicity in the sense that it is immanent in its products.56 But the crea-
tures also necessarily instantiate the unity of the One. For our purposes, it
will be helpful to distinguish between two senses in which the unity of the
One is in the world. First, the unity of the Supreme Being is in every exist-
ing thing. We have noted the close connection between unity and being. Ac-
cording to Plotinus, “nothing is real which is not a unity” and moreover “a
thing is a unity by the presence of the One.”57 Each existing thing will be a
unity not by virtue of itself but by virtue of the presence in it of the One
itself. Plotinus explains: “All these things are the One and not the One: they
are he because they come from him; they are not he, because it is in abiding
by himself that he gives them.”58 The Supreme Being remains transcen-
dent while emanating its unity to each of its products. The unity of the One
is in the world in that it is in each of its creatures, although the latter have
a less perfect unity than the One itself, which is the only pure unity. Second,
the unity of the One is in the totality of creatures. The interrelations and
harmony of the parts of creation are due to the One. We will discuss this
sense of unity at greater length in the next section.
Much has been said in this section that is relevant to our analysis of Leib-
niz. It will be helpful to summarize the most important of this material.
• The Theory of Emanative Causation claims that for a being A that is more
perfect than a being B, A can emanate its attribute f-ness to B in such
a way that neither A nor A’s f-ness is depleted in any way, while B has
f-ness, though in a manner inferior to the way it exists in A. The emana-
tive process is continual so that B will instantiate f-ness if and only if A
emanates f-ness to it.
• The (tentative) Creaturely Inferiority Complex asserts that every product
of the Supreme Being contains all the attributes that constitute the divine
essence, though the product instantiates each of those attributes in a man-
ner inferior to the way in which they exist in the Supreme Being.
In our discussion of plenitude in the last section, we saw that the good-
ness of the world is partly a function of the variety of being within it. The

. For more on multiplicity, see Enneads III...; IV...–; V...–; V...–;
VI...–.
. Ibid., VI...; also see VI...–. . Ibid., V...–.


   

Creaturely Inferiority Complex helps to explain why this might be the case.
If we assume that every product of God contains all the divine attributes
and if we assume that no single product affords more than a partial view of
those attributes, then it would be reasonable to believe that the world would
be made better by a variety of expressions or instantiations of those attrib-
utes. It would also be reasonable to assume that one of the ways in which
creatures differ from one another is in the clarity of their instantiation of
those attributes. One might think for example that the glory of God is more
clearly manifested in a salamander than in a slug, and more clearly still in
Socrates. As we will see in the next chapter, such assumptions were em-
braced by the young Leibniz.

. Reflective harmony and sympathy

It is now time to turn our attention to the interrelations among the parts of
the world. There are two notions that are extant in Platonism and that bear
strongly on Leibniz. The first concerns the unity that was believed to exist
among all the parts of the created world. I said earlier that the unity of the
One is immanent, not just in every individual product of the One, but also
in the whole of creation. The ancient notion of sympathy finds its feet in
the idea that there is a fundamental unity among all the emanations of the
One. Although originally a Stoic theory about the close interrelations
among the parts of nature, the Platonists extended the idea in interesting
ways.59 For the Stoics, the cohesion among the parts of an individual body
and the cohesion among the parts of the world were to be explained in terms
of the sympathy among the parts. Some of the Platonists expanded on this
idea and talked about the parts of the world as related in such a way that
every part was in communication with every one. In other words, the result
of this unity among the parts of the world is a cosmic sympathy such that
an occurrence in one part of the world “must produce a sympathic reaction
in every other part.”60 In his discussion of the relation between individual
souls and Nous or what is sometimes called the World Soul, Plotinus makes
it clear that the interconnection among the parts of the world is based ulti-
mately in their having the same source. He writes:
How, then, is there one substance in many souls? Either the one is present as a whole
in them all, or the many come from the whole and one while it abides [unchanged].
That soul, then, is one, but the many [go back] to it as one which gives itself to mul-
tiplicity and does not give itself; for it is adequate to supply itself to all and to re-

. For a classic account of Stoic physics in general and their notion of sympathy and pneuma
in particular, see S. Sambursky, Physics of the Stoics, esp. ch. . As Sambursky makes clear,
the later Stoics tended to identify the pneuma with the divinity (–). It would seem
then that at least some Stoic explanations for sympathy did not differ greatly from those
offered by the Platonists.
. Wallis, Neoplatonism, . Interestingly, Wallis insists here that for Plotinus “there is a pre-
established harmony linking the destinies of all souls,” and notes that this is “echoed in the
later philosophy of Leibniz.”


  
main one; for it has power extending to all things, and is not at all cut off from each
individual thing; it is the same, therefore, in all.61
In section , I noted that for those theists who accepted the Platonist as-
sumption that the goodness and perfection of the Supreme Being flowed
into its creatures, it followed that the goodness of the world was partly a
function of the orderly relations among creatures. We saw that not only is
there goodness in all creatures, but also that there is goodness in the order
among them. Indeed, according to Aquinas, “the order of the universe . . .
is the ultimate and noblest perfection in things.”62 We now come to the same
point from a slightly different angle. It should be clear that unity, like good-
ness, is manifest both in the individual creatures and in their interrelations.
For someone who believes that every creature is a manifestation of the di-
vine essence, it would naturally follow that there exists an order connecting
each instantiation to every other. As Philo explains: “And being superior to,
and being also external to the world that he has made, he nevertheless fills
the whole world with himself; for, having by his own power extended it to
its utmost limits, he has connected every portion with another portion ac-
cording to the principles of harmony.”63 This harmony among the “por-
tions” of the divine is such that each responds to the activity and states of
all the others. Moreover, as the Stoics insisted, there is even a greater affin-
ity and sympathy among the parts of something with a unified structure.
The parts of a single body in nature are in close sympathy with one another;
the parts of an organic body even closer.
Let’s summarize the basic point here as follows:
• The Relation of Sympathy, which can be more or less, claims that each cre-
ated being corresponds to the activity and states of all the beings.
The second relation that exists among the parts of the world is that of re-
flection. Whereas sympathy appears to hold true of all beings, reflection ap-
plies only to minds or mind-like beings. In his account of the realm of Ideas,
Plotinus rejects the statuesque immobility of Plato’s world, and adds the
striking notion that this world is “teeming with life” and that the Ideas
themselves are mind-like. By attributing mental capacities to the Ideas,
Plotinus offers a fascinating way of conceiving the interrelations among the
multiple Ideas. For Plotinus, the Ideas are themselves capable of reflecting
and, in a sense, of containing each other. In On the Soul, Aristotle had
claimed that to think something was in a sense to contain it.64 Plotinus ap-
parently takes this feature of Aristotle’s philosophy of mind and applies it
to the realm of Ideas. It follows that when Idea R thinks Idea Q and Q thinks

. Enneads, IV...–. See also I...–. As these passages suggest, it is not obvious how
Plotinus will be able to individuate among souls. For a recent discussion of this problem
in Plotinus and references to other secondary literature, see Henry Blumenthal, “On Soul
and Intellect,” –, esp. –.
. Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II,  [].
. Philo, On the Posterity of Cain V.: Yonge . . On the Soul, Bk. III, ch. .


   

R, each in a sense contains the other. Because each Idea thinks all the oth-
ers, each can be said to contain them. The different perspective that each
Idea has on the others is just a different means to the interconnection or
unity that exists among the Ideas. One scholar has claimed that this “unity-
in-diversity” among the “community of minds” is “[t]he most strikingly
original feature” of Plotinus’ account of the realm of Ideas.65 Plotinus of-
fers a marvelously vivid description of the interrelations among the Ideas:
Everything is clear . . . to everything, for light is transparent to light. Each, there,
has everything in itself and sees all things in every other, for all are everywhere and
each and every one is all, and the glory is unbounded; for each of them is great, be-
cause even the small is great: the sun there is all the stars, and each star is the sun
and all the others.66
It is important for our purposes that this reflective interconnection not be
limited to the realm of Ideas. Individual souls are similarly related in that
each is wholly present to all the others, although they are not fully conscious
of the others, and the unity among souls is not as great as that among the
Ideas. These last two points are interestingly related: individual souls may
remain unconscious of the goodness and interconnections among things,
stray from the path of virtue, and thereby isolate themselves from the oth-
ers. Each soul nonetheless contains all the others and thereby constitutes a
unity with them.67 Let’s summarize the basic point here as follows:
• The Theory of Reflective Harmony claims that there is an interrelation
among minds such that each mind thinks or reflects all the others so that
each mind may be said to contain all the others.
The Theory of Reflective Harmony has obvious relevance to two points
made earlier about the harmony and order among creatures. In the discus-
sion of the Plotinian conception of the unity and multiplicity in the created
world, I emphasized the fact that the One emanates its unity to the totality
of creatures. I claimed that for any philosopher who took every creature to
be a manifestation of the divine essence, it would naturally follow that there
exists an order connecting every instantiation of the divine essence to every
other. For example, according to Philo, the world is like “a melodious cho-
rus” whose members “sing in concert one well harmonized melody com-
posed of different sounds well combined.”68
Moreover, the theory has obvious connections to the Principle of Harmo-
nized Plenitude, especially to its idea that the goodness of the order among
creatures is greater than the goodness of the sum of the individual creatures
themselves. The Theory of Reflective Harmony offers an account of the in-
terrelation among creatures that helps to explain how their order or interre-
lations could increase their goodness. According to the theory, every mind

. Armstrong, “Plotinus,” . . Enneads V.., –.

. Ibid., III..., IV...–, II.., IV. .ff.
. Philo, On the Migration of Abraham XVIII, : Yonge .


  

is related to every other in the sense that a change in one is reflected in a

change in the other. In our discussion of Harmonized Plenitude, we saw that
the goodness of the world was partly a function of the order among created
beings. I speculated there that this order involved the Enhancement Rela-
tion among them. According to the latter, for any being S that has an En-
hancement Relation to a being R, the relation of S to R is such that an in-
crease in the goodness of S will promote an increase in R that is
non-reciprocal (that is, the increase in R will not then promote an increase
in S). The Enhancement Relation is exactly what is needed to guarantee that
the increased goodness in a world of reflective individuals will promote not
just change, but change for the better. That is, since the Enhancement Re-
lation claims that an increase in the goodness of one being will promote an
increase in the goodness of those beings with which it has an enhancement
relation, it follows that an increase in the goodness of any mind will be re-
flected in the increase in the goodness of every other. The conjunction of
the Theory of Reflective Harmony and the Enhancement Relation entails
that there is an Enhancement Relation among all minds. It also helps to
make sense of the Platonists’ claim that an order among individuals could
add significantly to the goodness of the world. In a world in which the En-
hancement Relation holds between all minds, each mind is capable of con-
tributing much more to the goodness of the world than merely its present
state of goodness: with every increase in its goodness, it contributes to the
goodness of every other reflective mind.
In the discussion of the Creaturely Inferiority Complex, I emphasized
the fact that one of the ways in which creatures might differ from one an-
other is in the clarity of their manifestation of the divine attributes. If we
suppose that creatures can instantiate that essence more or less clearly and
that the clarity of the instantiation is a function of the goodness of the crea-
ture, then it would seem to follow that as a creature becomes better, it re-
flects the divine essence more clearly. In brief, the more perfection or good-
ness the creature has, the more like God it is. Given the interconnection and
reflection among creatures, it would seem to follow that for any substance
S, the greater the clarity of its instantiation of the divine, the greater its
helpfulness to other substances in their ascent toward the divine. The help-
fulness of a substance S to the moral development of other substances is a
function of the clarity of its instantiation of the divine essence, which itself
is a function of the goodness of S.
On the basis of this discussion, let’s revise the Creaturely Inferiority
Complex as follows:

• The Creaturely Inferiority Complex asserts that every product of the

Supreme Being contains all the attributes that constitute the divine
essence, though the product instantiates each of those attributes in a man-
ner inferior to the way in which they exist in the Supreme Being and,
moreover, the grade of perfection of a creature is related to the clarity of
its instantiation of the divine essence.


   

. Ideas and knowledge

Plato famously distinguished between being and becoming, where the eter-
nal and immutable Ideas constitute the former while the temporary and mu-
table sensible objects constitute the latter. For Plato, the realm of being and
the realm of the intelligible is the same so that the only objects of knowl-
edge are the Ideas. The implication is that we cannot grasp the Ideas in sense
perception. Many Platonists placed the Ideas, as objects of knowledge,
within us. According to Plotinus, for example, the Ideas reside in us and are
constantly present to us, although we are unaware of them because our sur-
face consciousness is only one level of awareness. Although Platonists dif-
fered about the precise role played by the senses in the acquisition of knowl-
edge, most agreed that the process of coming to know the Ideas was one of
removing oneself from the mutable world of the senses and discovering the
immutable Ideas within. The acquisition of knowledge was considered an
arduous, internal journey that required rigorous intellectual and moral dis-
cipline. The point of philosophy, therefore, was to raise oneself above the
petty concerns of this world, to concentrate on the eternal truths, and even-
tually to acquire knowledge of the Supreme Being.69 For most theists, the
acquisition of knowledge of the Ideas was a necessary step toward knowl-
edge of God.
In his essay On the Migration of Abraham, Philo vividly describes this
epistemological journey. He asserts that wisdom, which is the proper goal
of humanity, “will never happen to you if you remain here dwelling among
the objects of the external senses, and wasting your time among the dis-
tinctive qualities of the body.”70 He distinguishes neatly between that
“which is perceptible by the outward senses and [that which is] intelligible
by the intellect,”71 and insists that only when we “quit the abode of the out-
ward senses” and “set up the abode of the soul” can we “dwell in mind and
intellect . . . among the objects of contemplation.”72 According to Philo, in
the world of the sense, “the mind is . . . a fugitive” that has “left its own ap-
propriate objects which are comprehensible to the understanding.”73 He
warns:
do not . . . employ yourselves in the investigation of the earth . . . , but rather seek
to become acquainted with yourselves and your own nature, and do not prefer to
dwell anywhere else, rather than in yourselves. For by contemplating the things
which are to be seen in your own dwelling . . . you will . . . arrive at a correct knowl-
edge of God and of his works. For you will perceive that there is a mind in you and
in the universe.74

. See, e.g., Enneads, V...–, –; IV...–. For a recent discussion of Plotinus’
views about physical reality, see Michael F. Wagner, “Plotinus on the Nature of Physical
Reality.” For a thorough discussion of Plotinus’ account of sense perception, see Emils-
son, Plotinus on Sense Perception and “Cognition and Its Object.”
. Philo, On the migration of Abraham, V.: Yonge .
. Ibid., XXXVII : Yonge . . Ibid., XXXVIII : Yonge .
. Ibid., XXXVIII : Yonge . . Ibid., XXXIII –: Yonge .


  

In short, one must “rise up and leave the objects of the outward senses, and
. . . go over to those of the intellect.”75 For our purposes, it is noteworthy
that Philo takes there to be (at least) two necessary steps in the acquisition
of wisdom: first, we must consider “this invisible chain of harmony and
unity, which connects all those parts” of the world,76 and then God must
“cause the light of truth to shine,”77 so that our intellect can contemplate
some of the Ideas. Following Plato’s distinction in Book VI of the Repub-
lic, Philo and others insisted that it was the faculty of intellect or under-
standing (intellectus) and not that of reason that could contemplate and
grasp the truths.78
Christian Platonists endorsed the steps in this epistemological journey.
For Augustine, the objects of knowledge are to be found within one’s self.79
In the Confessions, he writes to God:
These books [of the Platonists] served to remind me to return to my own self. Un-
der Your guidance I entered into the depths of my soul. . . . I entered, and with the
eye of my soul, such as it was, I saw the Light that never changes casting its rays
over the same eye of my soul, over my mind. . . . What I saw was something quite,
quite different from any light we know on earth. . . . It was above me because it was
itself the Light that made me, and I was below because I was made by it. All who
know the truth know this Light, and all who know this Light know eternity.80
It is important that Platonists like Augustine thought of the mind as both
the subject and object of knowledge, as what knows and what is known. In
On the Trinity, Augustine writes that only “the mind can place itself into its
own field of vision”81 and “be understood through its own thinking [cogi-
tatio].”82 The mind, as thinking subject, can turn itself upon itself and at-
tempt to contemplate the Ideas within itself. As subject, the mind is muta-
ble and temptable; as object, it is immutable and pure in that it contains the
Ideas. The “changeable” mind can only reach the “unchangeable” Ideas, as
Augustine writes, “through the help of God.” The possibility of knowledge
is grounded in God’s intimate presence in the human mind. Augustine ex-
plains: “God is wholly everywhere” and “the mind lives and moves and has
its being in him.” The mind acquires knowledge “by turning towards the
Lord, as to the light which in some fashion had reached it even while it had
been turned away from him.”83 But even with divine help, as he explains in
the Confessions, “the power of my soul . . . belongs to my nature” and “I can-
not grasp all that I am. The mind is not large enough to contain itself.”84

. Ibid., IV : Yonge . . Ibid., XXXIX : Yonge .
. Ibid., XIV : Yonge .
. Republic, Book VI, d-e. Of course, scholars debate the exact significance of the line
analogy in Book VI, and the terminology concerning the faculty that grasps “the intelligi-
bles” was not entirely set among Greek writers. Latin authors, however, were more in
agreement in that the Latin ‘intellectus’ standardly designated the faculty that grasps the
Ideas and eternal truths.
. Augustine, Confessions VII, xx (). . Confessions,VII, x.
. On the Trinity XIV, vi (). . Ibid., XIV, xi ().
. Ibid., XIV, xv (). . Confessions, X, viii ().


   

The goal of life, therefore, is to remove oneself as much as possible from the
ties to the material world and to contemplate the eternal and immutable
Ideas within. Because the mind is mutable and finite, it can never grasp the
whole of its contents; with the help of God, however, it can grasp some part
of it.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s summarize the basic points here as fol-
lows.
• The Epistemological Assumption claims () that the mind is the object of
knowledge in the sense that it contains the eternal truths or Ideas, () that
the mind, which is mutable and finite, will become aware of those objects
only if it both turns away from the material world and is aided by the
divine light, and () that it is the intellect or understanding that is capa-
ble of grasping those truths.

. Matter and the hierarchy of being

In the history of Platonism, the notion of matter has been extremely prob-
lematic. In the Timaeus, Plato suggests that sensible matter is a kind of re-
ceptacle into which the Ideas are placed. Here, the basic assumption is that
matter is a form of privation or limitation, and so particular material in-
stantiations of an Idea are necessarily imperfect. All the activity in the world
comes from what is immaterial; matter lacks unity and form and contributes
nothing positive. Such an account of matter does not sit well with the
Supreme Being Assumption, which claims, among other things, that each
of the features of unity, self-sufficiency, perfection, and reality is a function
of the other. Since matter appears to lack unity, perfection, and self-suffi-
ciency, it would seem to follow that it is also devoid of being and goodness.
The problematic status of matter is nicely exemplified in the thought of
Plotinus, where it can be interpreted as both something and nothing, as both
good and evil. For Plotinus, the fundamental problem is that on the one hand,
matter, as the final emanation of the One, would seem to have some perfec-
tion, while on the other hand, matter, as something wholly ununified and
mutable, would seem to have none. There is no doubt that there is a sense in
which matter, for Plotinus, is the complete negation of everything good: he
describes it as something that “corrupts”85 and as “non-being.”86 Here, the
idea is that the descent from the One must reach its logical end when, in the
words of one scholar, it becomes the “absolute otherness from the Good,
where there can be no longer any unity, goodness or reality at all.”87 At other
times, Plotinus discusses an intelligible matter that exists in the realm of
Ideas.88 For Christian Platonists like Augustine, matter could not be inher-
ently evil since it was created by God, but it could be inherently inferior. Its

. Enneads, I...–. . Ibid., II....

. For an account of matter in Plotinus, see Armstrong, “Plotinus,” esp. –, and Denis
O’Brien, “Plotinus on Matter and Evil.”
. See Enneads II..–.


  

mutability and divisibility placed it at the lowest stratum of being. In other

words, for many Platonists, the exact relationship between matter as recep-
tacle, matter as negativity, and matter as Idea is not clearly worked out. As
we will see in chapter , this same lack of clarity infects Leibniz’s early views
about matter.
For most Platonists, it followed from the Supreme Being Assumption that
there were grades of reality and perfection. Two important metaphysical
doctrines were thought to be closely related to this commitment to a hier-
archy of being. First, many believed that the human soul had a special
status in the ontological hierarchy because it was as perfect an unity as any-
thing other than God could be, despite the obvious fact that it was tied to
and rooted in the material world. For Plotinus, the soul was self-perfectible
and naturally immortal; for Augustine, it was perfectible with God’s grace
and immortal with God’s will. According to Augustine, although the soul
is the closest of all creatures to God, it is not divine in that it shares the es-
sential instability and mutability of all created things.89 Second, many
philosophers believed that something lower in the hierarchy of being could
not act on something higher. From this claim, it was supposed to follow that
something lower in the hierarchy could neither create nor destroy some-
thing higher.
Such tenets about activity, production, and destruction gave rise to a
number of related difficulties, several of which are relevant to Leibniz. Be-
cause matter was believed to be on the lowest metaphysical rung and to have
no power whatsoever, a question arose about how the body could act on the
soul. Plotinus, Augustine, and others fretted about exactly how, in Plotinus’
words, “the soul comes to be in a body.”90 Moreover, because something
with less perfection could not produce something with more perfection, it
was unclear what to do about the creation of human souls. A debate raged
among Christian theists about whether or not human souls could arise from
other human beings (say, human parents) or had to be produced directly by
God. The debate was complicated both by the doctrine of original sin, ac-
cording to which all human beings are supposed to inherit the sinfulness of
their first parents, and by the Biblical creation story, according to which
everything was supposed to have been created “in the beginning.” For some
theologians, it was obvious that only the Supreme Being could create souls,
and that it did so at the creation of the world. Among the theories that arose
to explain how this was supposed to work, one of the most important was
that of traduction. As Goclenius defines the problem in his Lexicon Philo-
sophicum, traductionism arose as a solution to the problem of whether or not
the justice of God could be passed down to successive generations through
“carnal generation.”91 Although traductionism as a doctrine was supposed
to solve a number of related problems, the core assumption was that all hu-
man souls were present in Adam and were passed down and distributed

. De Beata Vita I.; De Generatione X .. . Enneads, IV....

. Goclenius, Lexicon Philosophicum, .


   

through generations. The idea seems to be that they remain dormant until
the appropriate time to be actualized.92
A very closely related problem arose from the conflict between the story
of creation in Genesis, according to which God created everything, and the
apparently obvious fact that some natural objects produce others. In some
of his writings, Augustine offered a solution to the problem according to
which God did create everything in the beginning but allowed some of his
creatures to remain latent, in a state of potentiality. Such things exist in a
state of “potentiality” until it is appropriate for them to make their appear-
ance. Augustine uses the analogy of a seed, and says that these things exist
as rationes seminales or rationes causales: these “seminal rationes” have a ger-
minal existence until it is time for them to develop into fully actualized crea-
tures. In this sense, they contain the principles of their subsequent devel-
opment and merely have to wait for the right time to grow.93 In his work On
the Trinity, Augustine explains that God:
governs creatures from within and from the summit of the whole causal nexus. . . .
For all things were created at the beginning, being woven primordially into the
texture of the world; however, they await the proper opportunity for their appear-
ance. Just as mothers heavy with their offspring, the world is heavy with the causes
[rationes] of things still to be; and they are created in the world by no one except
that Supreme Being in whom there is not birth and no death, no beginning and
no end.94
I will not attempt to explain Augustine’s position. What is important for our
purposes is to see that the notion of “seminal rationes” gave Augustine a way
of conceiving the causal efficacy of created things and the temporal un-
folding of events, while at the same time safeguarding God’s role as creator
of everything.
Let’s summarize some of these points in the following way:
• The Doctrine of the Hierarchy of Being maintains that matter, which is the
lowest stratum of created being, lacks all power and causal efficacy, while
human souls, which constitute the highest stratum of created being other
than angels, can only be created and destroyed by God.
• The Causal Seed Doctrine asserts that God created everything in the be-
ginning as seminal rationes which remain dormant until the appropriate
time for them to become causally efficacious.

. Platonism in Leipzig
In chapter , section , I presented the methodological proposals of the two
most prominent professors at Leipzig in the middle of the seventeenth cen-
tury, Johann Adam Scherzer and Jakob Thomasius. In this chapter, I have

. As we will see, Leibniz was interested in the doctrine of traduction. See VI ii .
. On the Trinity, III viii (); De Generatione VI, passim.
. On the Trinity, III ix ().


  

articulated several Platonist assumptions in an attempt to capture the core

features of the Platonism that Leibniz imbibed as a student. It is now time
to look briefly at the writings of Scherzer and Thomasius with an eye to
their Platonism. That these prominent professors in Leipzig were thor-
oughly acquainted with that philosophical tradition is clear.95 Their texts
contain, with varying degrees of completeness, all of the Platonist assump-
tions articulated above.
In the textbooks by Scherzer, we find a thorough discussion of kabbal-
ism, Renaissance Platonism, and the prisca theologia.96 He refers to Plato,
Plotinus, Philo, Proclus, Augustine, and Johann Reuchlin, documents the
heresies and religious chaos of his age, and asks how “will the bare truth
ever be revealed?” His answer is that we will find the truth in “the words of
the scripture . . . properly understood.”97 In his Vade Mecum, Scherzer
makes several points that are especially relevant to our present discussion.
He says that he is following Plato in the second book of the Republic when
he defines God as what “remains simple” while being “most beautiful . . .
and most good.” Embracing the causal doctrine of emanation, Scherzer
claims that the Supreme Being is the principle of all things and their con-
stant source: “in acting . . . [God] is neither changed nor depleted” and yet
“is that through which things live.” He claims to follow Ficino and others
by conceiving of God as “the light itself . . . , the reason of reasons, the fount
and maker of all things, the uniform and omniform form . . . , the unity in
the multitude.” According to Scherzer, the Supreme Being contains all
things while remaining fundamentally simple, and acts constantly to con-
serve creatures, while “nothing in him is changed, nor is it depleted.”98
Scherzer distinguishes between the archetypal world and the created world,
where the former is the Idea of all possible things as they exist in the mind
of God and the latter is the coordinated aggregate of created things. The
conception of the divine and its relation to the created world is clear. The
mind of God contains the Platonist Ideas or archetypes; the creatures of the
world are manifestations of these Ideas. The former are perfect, and the lat-

. For the spring semester of , Leibniz visited the University of Jena, where he studied
with Erhard Weigel, whose works are also a mixture of Platonism, Aristotelianism, and other
philosophies. Unlike the Platonist ideas of Thomasius and Scherzer, the Platonism of
Weigel has been noted. See Moll, Der junge Leibniz, Vol. I; and Leinsle, Reformversuche,
–. In ch. , sect. , I argued that Weigel is a reformed philosopher. As a philosopher who
endorses many Aristotelian doctrines, he nonetheless accepts a fundamentally Platonist ac-
count of God and the relation between God and creatures. Weigel also embraces the general
features of the metaphysical and epistemological doctrines articulated in sects. –. In his
Analysis, Weigel agrees that the Supreme Being emanates its attributes continually into crea-
tures (, ) and acknowledges that these attributes are like Platonist Ideas (), which
can be glimpsed by “our intellect” with the aid of “the divine light” (). Weigel is espe-
cially articulate on some of the the epistemological points discussed in sect. .
. Scherzer’s methodological and philosophical views are more complicated than indicated
here. For more on Scherzer, see my “Humanist Platonism in Seventeenth-Century Ger-
many.”
. Scherzer, Collegii anti-Sociniani, Praefatio. . Scherzer, Vade Mecum, –.


   

ter are not; yet the perfection of God is evident in the composition and har-
mony of created things.99
Leibniz’s mentor, Jakob Thomasius, was also thoroughly conversant with
the details of Platonism. Despite his very definite Aristotelian leanings,
Thomasius had an impressive grasp of the other great ancient systems. For
example, his Exercitatio is an extended comparison of the philosophies of the
Stoics, the Aristotelians, and the Platonists on a long list of philosophical and
theological topics.100 In this text, Thomasius refers to the whole range of pa-
gan and Christian Platonist philosophers. One of his general conclusions is
that Platonism is on the whole much less heretical than Stoicism, although
he insists that all ancient pagan philosophers must be approached with cau-
tion. He agrees with Scherzer that God, who is thoroughly perfect and sim-
ple, is the source of all things.101 Thomasius claims that the Supreme Being
is “the fountain of features which flow into creatures,” and he is happy to ac-
cept Augustine’s conclusion that “God contains all things in himself;” but
he insists that this flowing or emanation be understood in the right way. For
Thomasius, it is enormously important to understand that the flowing is
controlled by God’s will and that the divine is properly transcendent.102 In
short, Thomasius accepts the general features of the account of God and the
relation between God and creatures offered by Scherzer, although he often
goes into many more details than the latter does.
Thomasius’ Exercitatio is an important work for our purposes. As an ex-
tended comparison between the philosophies of the Stoics, the Aristotelians,
Epicureans, and the Platonists, it covers all the Platonist doctrines articulated
in the last section, and more. Four features of this long and elaborate text are
of special interest to us. First, it proposes an epistemology like the one de-
scribed in section . According to Thomasius, it is the faculty of under-
standing (intellegentia) that grasps the forms or Ideas which, due to their eter-
nity and incorruptibility, are the only objects of knowledge. Second,
Thomasius is concerned with the grave problems that cluster around the con-
cept of matter. He discusses at length each of the issues and worries articu-
lated in section . For example, at one place in the text, Thomasius ponders
the question of whether or not “matter is the principle of bad.”103 In another,
he asks how “the germ of matter” could be in God? In this discussion, he
places matter with its fundamentally divisible nature at one ontological ex-
treme and the Supreme Being with its thoroughly simple nature at the other.
Given the divisibility of matter, Thomasius wonders whether or not there can
be anything “positive” about it. He explains that some philosophers have

. Scherzer, Vade Mecum, .

. We tend to think of Thomasius as an Aristotelian because that is how Leibniz described
his illustrious teacher. E.g., at VI ii , Leibniz claims that Thomasius is the “most cel-
ebrated German Peripatetic.” But Thomasius was much more than that. He wrote a num-
ber of books explicating and then comparing ancient philosophies. He was obviously
well-versed in Stoicism, Platonism, and other ancient ideas. Although he tends to agree
with Aristotle, he takes Platonism very seriously and knows its history very well.
. Thomasius, Exercitatio, –, . . Ibid., –. . Ibid., .


  

maintained that what is corporeal cannot come from what is incorporeal,104

while others have claimed that the Idea of matter was “one before everything
came to be.”105 Thomasius goes on to present an elaborate solution to the
problem of how matter can be understood to come from God. Drawing on
Plato, Proclus, and the Italian Renaissance humanist, Francesco Piccolomini
(–), he offers a fascinating variation on the Platonist theme of an hi-
erarchy of dependence.
This brings us to the other two features of the Exercitatio that are spe-
cially relevant to the young Leibniz. Thomasius is very concerned to explain
exactly how God is related to creatures and how creatures are related to one
another and to God. In his discussion of these difficult topics, he is keen to
turn the Stoic notion of a World Soul, which he considers heretical, into
something both theologically orthodox and metaphysically useful. Con-
cerning the relation among creatures and their relation to God, Thomasius
cites a number of authors who claim that the “essence of God permeates”
the world so that there is an “effusion of vital spirit.” He points out that some
philosophers have wanted to identify “the Agent Intellect of Aristotle with
the Platonist Soul of the World” and have claimed that “the Agent Intellect
participates in divinity.” Thomasius agrees with the basic assumptions here
that the World Soul permeates all creatures and connects them all together,
and moreover that there is a close relation among creatures in that they all
exist within “the living spirit” and “light of God.” He suggests that due to
the close interconnection among minds, each mind assists the others in its
ascension toward God.106 That Thomasius accepts a version of the Princi-
ple of Harmonized Plenitude and the Enhancement Relation is clear.
But Thomasius also insists that such claims smack of heresy and inco-
herence unless we clarify the notion of a World Soul. Thomasius agrees with
philosophers like Scotus Erigenus who claims that “everything is God and
God is everything,” but he demands that we understand exactly the relation
between God and nature. According to Thomasius, it is important to grasp
that everything “is wholly part of the divine” and yet that God is not in na-
ture. Citing Plotinus, Proclus, and other Platonists, Thomasius offers the
following account of the relation between God and creatures:
Things are in God as in a fount and first cause, i.e., most eminently; secondly, they
are in Mind as Ideas and form; thirdly, they are in Soul as rationes placed in its
essence; fourthly, they are in Nature as seeds. For nature is the seminal power ef-
fused in universal matter by the soul of the World. Fifth, they are in Matter, al-
though as a shadow, through imitation and participation.107
The details of this account are both fascinating and difficult. What is par-
ticularly worth our attention is the fact that the hierarchy here is such that
what is more complicated and divisible is supposed to depend on and be ex-
plained by what is more simple and unified. Thomasius writes: “As Mind

. Ibid., –. See also –. . Ibid., –.

. Ibid., –. . Ibid., .


   

depends on God, [and] Soul on Mind, so Nature depends on Soul.”108 It is

important to grasp the exact nature of this dependence relation. Thomasius
says that the higher stratum is the principle of the lower and contains “em-
inently” what the lower stratum “participates in” or has “formally.” In his
Lexicon Philosophicum, Goclenius offers some help. As he explains, God
contains all things eminently in the sense that the divinity contains them
“above every limit and above every grade.” According to Goclenius, the
“opposite” of this is to have those things “in a certain way [modus] and with
a limit.”109 Thomasius summarizes his point: “As mind receives Ideas from
God, Soul receives rationes from mind; so nature receives seeds from
soul.”110 The dependence relation is very similar to the one described in
section  between the strata in the Plotinian hierarchy: each level in the hi-
erarchy has eminently what the next lower stratum has in a less unified and
less perfect way. We called this relation one of “nonreciprocal dependence”
where the basic idea was that the higher stratum remains transcendent while
also being immanent in the lower. In the same way that the Plotinian One
contains the being of all the Ideas without distinction, so does Thomasius’
God; in the same way that the Plotinian realm of Ideas contains that being
but with distinctions among it, so does Thomasius’ Mind. According to
Thomasius, Mind contains the Ideas which are “mental modes” of God and
“the exemplars and archetypes” of things.111
So far, so good. But what exactly is “the World Soul”? In keeping with
the relation of nonreciprocal dependence, the rationes of the World Soul
must contain the being of the Ideas though in a less perfect and less unified
way. In other words, the Ideas must be transcendent from and yet imma-
nent in the rationes in the World Soul. An obvious way of making sense of
this is to suppose that the rationes are the complex essences or blueprints for
the individuals in the created world. They are complex instantiations of the
Ideas. In this case, the World Soul is the collection of such essences or blue-
prints; it is the fully articulated blueprint for the actual world. This inter-
pretation of the World Soul successfully explains how it “depends on”
Mind and how the rationes contain formally what the Ideas contained emi-
nently. Moreover, this interpretation helps to explain Thomasius’ account
of nature. As Thomasius puts it, nature is “the power [virtutem] of the
seeds infused into Matter by the World Soul.”112 The World Soul is God’s
plan for the actual world; nature is the instantiation of that plan in matter.
Thomasius claims that there are great benefits to this account of the World
Soul. In particular, he thinks that it helps to make sense of the relation be-
tween the Ideas of God and the world, in that it successfully explains how
created things can be said to come from the Supreme Being and yet be dis-
tinct from it. This account also avoids the problems that the theory of the
. Thomasius, Exercitatio, 
. Goclenius, Lexicon Philosophicum, . The history of the substance-mode relation has
not been thoroughly studied. For a sketch of that history, see my “Leibniz and Spinoza
on Substance and Mode,” sect. .
. Thomasius, Exercitatio, . . Ibid., . . Ibid., .


  

Stoics faces because, unlike that theory, this account does not conflate God
and the World Soul. Rather, it makes it clear that the Ideas are not in mat-
ter, although the seminal powers are.113
In fact, Thomasius’ proposals may not be quite as helpful as he thinks:
they require a more thorough explication before their success in explain-
ing the relation between God and the world may be properly evaluated. I
will offer neither an explication nor an evaluation here. But I would like to
emphasize the fact that Leibniz’s favorite professor presents in elaborate
detail a Metaphysics of Divinity that goes well beyond anything proposed
by the standard Aristotelian-scholastic account. Thomasius’ thorough
familiarity with the complicated details of Stoicism, Aristotelianism, and
Platonism is impressive. With Thomasius as his mentor, there can be little
doubt that the energetic and precocious Leibniz would have become
entirely conversant in these details. Nor did Leibniz’s early exposure to
Platonism end with his university studies. Most of his favorite authors dur-
ing the s were those who wrote extensively on the “the divine
Plato.”114 While it is true that during the late s Leibniz was interested
in formulating his Metaphysics of Substance, he was also keen to develop
the details of his Metaphysics of Divinity.
In chapters , , and , I focused on the role that the Aristotelian phi-
losophy played as a source of ideas for the young Leibniz. In this chapter,
I have outlined the background to Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Divinity.
Once the texts of – are seen in the light of Leibniz’s early Platon-
ism, it is relatively easy both to discern many of the core elements of his
mature philosophy and to identify many of the motivations behind these
views. That Leibniz’s early Platonism is very much over-determined is
clear. The next three chapters offer abundant evidence of the important
use to which the young Leibniz put these assumptions. Not only did he ab-
sorb the main features of this metaphysics, he expanded upon the views
that he inherited in important ways. While Leibniz made this ancient tra-
dition his own, there can be no doubt of his intellectual debt. As Paul Os-
kar Kristeller has written:
ever since classical antiquity, Platonist philosophers have tried not so much to repeat
or restate Plato’s doctines in their original form, as to combine them with notions of
diverse origin, and these accretions, like the tributaries of a broadening river, be-
came integral parts of the continuing tradition.115
In a way that has not been fully explored, Leibniz’s metaphysics is such a
tributary.

. Ibid., –.

. For example, Leibniz refers to the works of Athanasius Kircher and Johann Heinrich Al-
sted, both of whom he considers “most learned” and both of whom make thorough use
of Platonist ideas. See, e.g., VI ii , ; VI i , . For a brief account of Kircher
and Alsted, see ch. , sect. .
. Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance, –.


 6
Metaphysics of Divinity, –early 

In the final days of , Leibniz wrote a letter to Jakob Thomasius in

which he discusses the philosophy of Plato, the nature of mind, and the im-
portance of final causes. In the letter, the young man compares his illustri-
ous teacher to Plato and displays some of his own most basic beliefs about
the place of mind in nature. Leibniz proclaims that Thomasius and Plato
share a goal and method. In the same grand way that Plato helped his con-
temporaries escape “from the shadows” of materialism by introducing them
to final causes, so Thomasius has encouraged his contemporaries to avoid
the dangers of that false philosophy by reminding them of the importance
of such causes in physics. As Leibniz sees it, Plato had the courage to reject
the views of his materialist predecessors and to turn instead to the “truly
rational rationes of things, that is, the ends.” Where Democritus and some
of his contemporaries mistakenly made matter the ratio of things, Plato cor-
rectly saw that there were “two principles, mind and matter.” Similarly, be-
cause Leibniz’s contemporaries rely too heavily on geometry “which lacks
any reference to a final cause [caussae finalis]” and because in general “the
ratio of the recent physics . . . [is] the material causes [caussas materiales] of
things,” Thomasius struggles to return philosophy to its proper objects.1
Leibniz encourages his teacher to follow Plato’s lead and prove the useful-
ness of mind to philosophy in general and to physics in particular.
There is little doubt that Leibniz is sincere in his approbation of Thoma-
sius. But by December , the student has gone beyond the proposals of
his teacher. From Thomasius, Leibniz had inherited a conception of the cre-
ated world as an elaborately interconnected and divinely harmonized whole.
For example, in his Physica, Thomasius insists that we must attend to the
interrelations among created things and witness among them “the harmony
and beauty of ends.” He writes: “there is the most elegant nexus among
things and the finest order.”2 From his teacher, Leibniz had learned that the
Supreme Being is immanent in the world in the sense that the rationes of the
World Soul are instantiated in something like seminal powers.3 When Leib-
niz insists in the December  letter to Thomasius, that philosophers
must reclaim minds and final causes, he is prepared to exceed the pro-
nouncements of his teacher in significant ways. By the final month of ,
Leibniz is willing to reduce everything to the activity of mind-like sub-

. II i . . Thomasius, Physica, Praefatio.

. I discussed some of Thomasius’ views in ch. , sect. .


   , – 

stances whose behavior has been harmoniously arranged by God. As he ex-

plains to Thomasius, the thinking of individual or “secondary” minds
“comes from the first mind, i.e., from God,” who “in his wisdom, has
arranged things from the beginning” so that “all things follow as if by a cer-
tain necessity toward the greatest harmony of all things.” Leibniz explains
that because of his discovery about the relation between primary and sec-
ondary minds, “I came to think of motion as the sole universal [thing] on
earth, from which a ratio can be given for all the phenomena which we per-
ceive as many and marvelous in their appearances.”4
Leibniz surpasses Thomasius’ proposals in three critical ways. Where
Thomasius made seminal powers the source of activity, Leibniz assigns cre-
ated minds this task. Where the teacher struggled to explain the place of mat-
ter in God’s world, the student rids creation of brute passive stuff. Where
the elder preached that human beings could climb the epistemological lad-
der from seminal reasons and then World Soul to Ideas and then God, the
younger demands that we turn our backs on the sensory world to find God.
That is, Leibniz intends to retrieve a Platonist epistemology according to
which the only objects of genuine knowledge are internal and immutable.
For Leibniz in December , there are two distinct aspects to nature and
being. To understand the sensory world or world of becoming, we must at-
tend to the phenomena and to motion: it is motion by means of which “the
ratio of all phenomena . . . can be given.” To understand the world of Ideas,
we must first attend to the underlying harmony of things and then to the di-
vine source of that harmony. According to Leibniz, because things were so
“arranged from the beginning” by primary mind, it is possible to discern
harmony within creation and then to seek the eternal Ideas within the world
and within our souls.5 When Leibniz proclaims the virtues of Plato’s phi-
losophy to Thomasius at the end of , he is entirely in earnest.
During the months between the publication of the Nizolio edition in early
 and the end of , Leibniz was enormously productive. He managed
to construct the core features of his mature philosophy. What he did during
these months was to take the various presuppositions that he had either in-
herited from his teachers or devised himself and apply them to a whole
range of pressing philosophical and theological problems. That is, in ,
Leibniz was equipped with the following philosophical presuppositions: the
Aristotelian assumptions uncovered in chapter , the Second Theory of
Corporeal Substance presented in chapter , and the Platonist assumptions
articulated in chapter . The philosophical topics that occupied him were
nothing less than the problems of causation, knowledge, goodness, and be-
ing, while the dominant theological problems were the incarnation of
Christ, the resurrection of the body, and the mystery of the Eucharist. As I

. II i –.
. II i . See Leibniz’s New essays on human understanding of – where he makes very
similar comments about the usefulness and importance of Plato’s philosophy. See VI vi
–. The extent to which Thomasius endorses the claims listed here is unclear.


   

will show, the core features of Leibniz’s metaphysics developed out of an

attempt to solve exactly these problems by precisely those means. If I am
right in my analysis of the texts of –, then the central doctrines of
Leibniz’s philosophy resulted from the melding of his Metaphysics of Di-
vinity and Substance and were in place by late , several years earlier
than previously thought.6
A preview of things to come may be helpful. In this chapter, I make a gen-
eral survey of the early writings and discuss some of the most important les-
sons that Leibniz learned from his Platonist predecessors. On the basis of
an analysis of the texts of –early , I show () that Leibniz’s origi-
nal conception of harmony is a combination of Emanative and Reflective
Harmony, where the Supreme Being emanates its essence to creatures, some
of which are in Reflective Harmony with one another, () that the Platonist
tradition bequeathed to Leibniz a set of related assumptions about the ac-
tivity, unity, and divinity of minds, () that underlying Leibniz’s notion of
created substance is the view that for every substance, there is a complete
concept in God’s mind and an ontological correlate in the substance, and fi-
nally () that Leibniz’s epistemology is Platonist in the sense that the only
proper objects of knowledge are the Ideas which are grasped by the intel-
lect and which are non-sensory. In chapter , I argue that when Leibniz
wrote the December  letter to Thomasius, he had decided to reject the
reality of extended (primary) matter and to construct the passive principle
in corporeal substance out of mind-like substances. He remains committed
to the general structure of his Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, al-
though he radically transforms its passive principle. That is, I maintain that
by the winter of –, Leibniz has accepted a version of panorganism
according to which corporeal substances are constituted of a mind-like sub-
stantial form and passive principle, where the latter is a collection of cor-
poreal substances, each of which is itself a substantial form and collection
of substances. There is no passive extended matter anywhere in the created
world, but there is passivity. In chapters  and , I argue that soon after de-
veloping this mind-like theory of substance, Leibniz hit upon Preestab-
lished Harmony as an elegant means to explain the interrelations among the
created substances of the world.

. Universal harmony
Early in the s, Leibniz explains that “metaphysics knows the end of all
disciplines, or rather of all things. Its nature is to treat of God, . . . the ul-
timate end of all things.”7 It is now time to turn our attention to the role of

. In fact, I argue in “Metaphysics: The Early Period to the Discourse on Metaphysics” that
Leibniz did not develop the Preestablished Harmony until . See sect. , esp. –.
It was my recognition of Leibniz’s Platonism that led to a thorough reevaluation of some
of the early texts and a recalibration of the main parts of Leibniz’s development.
. VI i .


   , – 

the Supreme Being in Leibniz’s original metaphysics. Since the notion of

God as the emanative cause of the created world stands at the very center
of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Divinity, let’s begin there.
For decades, scholars have considered Leibniz’s conception of universal
harmony to be one of the most central features of his thought. Recent com-
mentators have been concerned to show that from an early point in his ca-
reer, Leibniz conceived the world to be harmonious, where harmony is to be
understood in terms of unity and multiplicity, each of which is conceived as
a good-making criterion. There has been a lot of speculation about the
motivation behind Leibniz’s conception of harmony and about how to un-
derstand the relation between its demand for multiplicity, diversity, or
variety on the one hand and identity, simplicity, or unity on the other. Not
unreasonably, some commentators have argued that these criteria are at ten-
sion with one another; others have worked rather hard to show that they are
not.8 In this section, I will argue that once we place Leibniz’s original com-
ments about harmony in their rightful Platonist light, it becomes clear that
these good-making criteria are much more closely related than has previ-
ously been recognized.
As I will argue here, universal harmony has two constituents, each of
which follows directly from the Platonist assumptions articulated in chap-
ter . The first of these, what I call Emanative Harmony, follows from the
assumption that God creates and maintains the world through emanation,
and therefore that every creature is an instantiation of the divine essence.
The second of these, what I call Reflective Harmony, is a version of the Pla-
tonist Theory of Reflective Harmony articulated in chapter , section . I
will consider each of these in turn.

Emanative harmony
The Platonist conception of the Supreme Being as the emanative source of
the created world entails that God be both the unity and multiplicity in the
world. As the idea was explained in section  of chapter , the Supreme Be-
ing is the multiplicity in the world in the sense that the variety of creatures
is merely the divine essence diversely manifested, that is, the Supreme Be-
ing emanates its essence in a variety of ways and thereby produces multi-
plicity within the world. As we saw in that discussion, the Supreme Being
is the unity in the world in two senses: first, its unity emanates to each of its
products and thereby produces a unified and real thing; second, its unity
emanates to their totality and thereby produces an interrelated whole. In
section  of chapter , we also noted that the divine essence was often iden-

. In their recent discussions, scholars have focused on those texts by Leibniz in which the
good-making criteria are described as simplicity or identity and diversity or variety. For my
discussion here, there is no significant difference between this terminology and that of unity
and multiplicity. See esp. Nicholas Rescher, Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Nature, ; Ruther-
ford, Rational Order, –; David Blumenfeld, “Perfection and Happiness in the Best Pos-
sible World.” For citations to other literature on the topic, see Rutherford and Blumenfeld.


   

tified with the divine attributes, and that the common belief was that every
created thing contained all of those attributes. In order to make the Theory
of Emanative Harmony properly orthodox and to avoid claims of panthe-
ism, it was of crucial importance for Augustine and other Christian Pla-
tonists to insist that the divine attributes of creatures be utterly inferior to
those of the creator. As the Creaturely Inferiority Complex insists, every
product of the Supreme Being contains all the attributes that constitute the
divine essence, though the product instantiates each of those attributes in a
manner inferior to the way in which they exist in God.
In the texts written between  and , there is neither serious dis-
cussion of the relation between God and creatures nor extensive use of the
Platonist metaphysics articulated in chapter . Leibniz’s primary interest dur-
ing the mid-s was the wholesale restructuring of legal practice although,
as noted in chapter , he was also concerned to erect his own mechanical
physics. Leibniz mentions the divine Ideas in passing in his Metaphysical Dis-
putation on the Principle of Individuation of , refers frequently to a vari-
ety of Platonists during the period, takes notes on Platonist texts, but makes
minimal use of Platonist doctrines. We need not jump to conclusions how-
ever: the young man had not shed the Platonism of his teachers. In the well-
known Dissertation on the Combinatorial Art of , Leibniz briefly turns to
the topic of the relation between God and creatures in a way that discloses his
dormant Platonism. After the title page of the published text, Leibniz pres-
ents some “corollaries” that are supposed to follow from this combinatory art
and that fall into four categories: logic, metaphysics, physics, and practical.
One of the metaphysical corollaries is: “God is substance; creature is acci-
dent.”9 Throughout the s, Leibniz uses the Latin term (accidens) in a
fairly standard scholastic way: an accident is a non-essential property that can
be said “to flow” from the essence of the thing of which it is a property. Mi-
craelius, for example, writes in his Lexicon Philosophicum that an accidental
property “flows from the essential principles” although it is not “part of the
essential constituents.”10 Leibniz’s use of this term in describing the relation
between God and creatures is important. It implies that creatures both flow
from God’s nature and reflect that nature, but do not do so necessarily. The
text indicates that Leibniz had accepted the Platonist conception of God
promulgated by his teachers but had no reason to use it during the time he
was working on physical and legal topics. He soon would, however. When
Leibniz begins his serious study of theological issues in , his Platonism
makes its grand entrance. In the Catholic demonstrations, Leibniz turns his at-
tention to topics that require a precise analysis of the causal relation between

. VI i : L .
. Micraelius, Lexicon, . Scherzer defines accidental emanation as what follows “naturally
from a subject as a result of its properties or models.” Vade Mecum, . For a brief account
of the scholastic notion, see Jorge E. Gracia, Introduction to the Problem of Individuation
in the Early Middle Ages, . For some of Leibniz’s uses, see VI i –, , , .


   , – 

creatures and God. In developing his views on this topic, Leibniz turns to the
Platonist model. It is in this context that Leibniz begins to construct his Meta-
physics of Divinity, and first articulates the notion of harmony at its core.
Prior to , the only references to harmony that we find in Leibniz’s
papers appear either in legal and logical contexts (and have nothing to do
with metaphysics) or in the notes Leibniz took on Johann H. Bisterfeld’s
book.11 In a lengthy legal work written in , Leibniz asserts that there
is “an elegance and harmony in the world that coincides with the divine
will,”12 but he does not develop this idea. In his essay On transubstantiation,
Leibniz presents for the very first time some of the details of his Meta-
physics of Divinity. Concerning the general relation between God and crea-
tures, he proclaims his account to be similar to “Plato in the Timaeus about
the world soul,” to “Aristotle in the Metaphysics and Physics about the agent
Intellect,” to the Stoics and others. Like these other philosophers, he main-
tains that God is “diffused through everything.”13 In section , I will de-
scribe exactly how this diffusion comes to be. In brief, the Supreme Being
chooses among “the infinitely really diverse Ideas” in its mind to create
some so that “[t]he substance of each [non-human] thing is not so much
mind as it is an Idea of a concurring mind.”14 For each non-human sub-
stance, there is a corresponding Idea that functions as the substantial form
of the substance. We will return to the complicated role of these Ideas in
section , where I argue that each Idea is also a complete concept. What is
important now is to understand exactly how God diffuses things.
According to Leibniz in On transubstantiation, each Idea is in God and in
creature. In a marginal note he writes:
The unions of Mind and Body are Ideas, as angles are the unions of points with lines.
Ideas are the same thing as the Substantial forms of things. Ideas are in God as an

. For the former, see VI i , , ; for the latter, VI i , . Rutherford has said that
Leibniz was “greatly impressed” by Bisterfeld’s conception of harmony, and has used Bis-
terfeld’s account as “a starting point” for an interpretation of Leibniz’s conception. See Ra-
tional Order, –. It is highly improbable that Bisterfeld was even a minor source for Leib-
niz’s own conception of harmony. There is no doubt that Leibniz thought well of Bisterfeld’s
book and that some of his own ideas are quite like those of the Herborn philosopher. But
there is very little reason to believe that Bisterfeld was more important than Scherzer or es-
pecially Thomasius in this regard. Leibniz hardly ever refers to either Bisterfeld or his book
after  and he never includes Bisterfeld on any of his lists of philosophers who influenced
him on these matters. For an interesting discussion of the relation between Bisterfeld and
Leibniz on the topic of harmony, see Maria Rosa Antognazza, “Immeatio and Emperiocho-
resis: The Theological Roots of Harmony in Bisterfeld and Leibniz.”
. VI i .
. Although part of the remainder of this provocative text is illegible, the gist of Leibniz’s
proposals seem clear. The relevant text in the Academy edition reads as follows (with the
illegible parts in the text marked with dots by the editors): Ipse Plato in Timeo animam
mundi, Aristoteles in Metaphysicis et Physicis Intellectum agentem per omnia diffusum,
Stoici Substantiam Mundi Deum statuentes, Averroes Aristotelis Intellectum . . . propa-
gans, Fracastorius et Fernelius Originem formarum . . . in hoc consentiunt omnes: Sub-
stantiam, naturam, principium. . . . See VI i .
. VI i –: L .


   
action is in an agent, as Creation is in God. If someone should ask: Is an Idea a cre-
ated thing or not? It should be reponded: Is a creature a created thing or not?15
Leibniz has constructed the Idea to suit perfectly the ontological demands
of Emanative Harmony. In section  of chapter , I explained that when the
products of the Supreme Being are said to exist in their transcendent source,
the point is that the whole being and nature of each product depends on that
source. It is in this sense that each Idea is in God: it depends entirely on
God for its being and nature. In the Confession of nature against the atheists
Leibniz defines an action of substance as a variation of essence. In On tran-
substantiation, each Idea is a variation of the essence of God, and in that
sense “flows” from the divine nature. The Idea depends entirely on God
who is its transcendent source. But the Idea is also a product of God and
therefore, insofar as the Idea is in the creature, so is God. In section  of
chapter , we discussed the claim that the Supreme Being is said to exist in
its products. As the Creaturely Inferiority Complex summarizes the point,
every product of the Supreme Being contains all the attributes that consti-
tute the divine essence though the product instantiates each of those attrib-
utes in a manner inferior to the way in which they exist in the Supreme
Being. The Supreme Being is in its creatures in the sense that its Ideas are:
each Idea is merely a variation of the emanated essence of God. In this
sense, the relation between God and creatures in On transubstantiation con-
forms to the interpretation offered above of the “metaphysical corollary” in
Leibniz’s early Dissertion on the the Combinatorial Art: each creature flows
from God’s nature, where the assumption is that the divine essence is dif-
fused through every created thing in the world. But even at this early stage,
Leibniz is careful to insist that the Supreme Being choose which Ideas to
create and that it do so among an infinite number of possibilities. Finally, it
is noteworthy that Leibniz’s position bears an affinity to that of Thomasius
as described in section  of chapter . For both Leibniz and his teacher, God
is immanent in creatures and distinct from them so that their diversity (or
variety) is the divine essence variously manifested and their unity (or iden-
tity) follows from the fact that they are all acts or emanations of the same
thing. For Leibniz, as for his revered teacher, the Supreme Being is both
transcendent from and immanent in all its products. As Thomasius made
the point, God is distinct from nature and yet “God is everything and every-
thing is God.”16
Besides On transubstantiation, the most important text from the Catholic
demonstrations that treats harmony is the Conspectus, a work briefly exam-
ined in chapter . As noted there, it is an outline of Leibniz’s Catholic
demonstrations, which includes a stunning array of theological and philo-

. VI i . This marginal note might have been written later than the text itself.
. Exercitatio . For a discussion of this point, see ch. , sect. . We find the same meta-
physical commitment in Anne Conway who insists in her Principles of the Most Ancient
and Modern Philosophy that God is present in all created things and “immediately fills” all
things. See Book V, sect. .


   , – 

sophical topics. At the end of the third part of this outline, Leibniz turns to
the possibility of the beatific vision. He writes: “the beatific vision or [seu]
the intuition of God, face to face, is the contemplation of the universal Har-
mony of things because GOD or [seu] the Mind of the Universe is nothing
other than the harmony of things, or [seu] the principle of beauty in
them.”17 We need to proceed carefully. Since the whole point of the Catholic
demonstrations is to avoid heresy and promote religious concord, we should
not read this passage as a heretical harangue. Leibniz is here discussing the
topic of beatific vision and how it is that human beings might come “face to
face” with God. According to Leibniz, the goal of human life is the recog-
nition of harmony, where that is the same thing as the intuition of God:
when we “contemplate the universal Harmony of things,” we are face to face
with the Divine. According to Plotinus, the beatific vision is something like
an intuition of how all things are one. According to Thomasius, the final
stage in the ascent to God is the recognition of the divine Ideas that are con-
tained in the universal “Mind.” In the Conspectus, Leibniz agrees with his
Platonist predecessors. The beatific vision will occur when we are able to
discern the unity within the multiplicity of the world: “the harmony of
things, or the principle of beauty in them” is just God insofar as the
Supreme Being is the unity and multiplicity in the world. We will have
glimpsed God once we recognize that the divine unity, beauty, and perfec-
tion are immanent in everything.
But we need to do some explaining at this point. It is one thing to say that
God is discernible as the unity and multiplicity in the world, it is another to
equate this with beauty and harmony. The use of such aesthetic criteria is
itself noteworthy. What does Leibniz have in mind? As a preface to Leib-
niz’s views, it will be helpful to remind ourselves that it was standard for
Christian philosophers to describe the world that God chose to create as pre-
dominantly one of harmony, beauty, and orderliness within variety. Thoma-
sius often insists, for example, that God can be recognized in “the harmony
and beauty” of the world.18 As noted in section  of chapter , for those
philosophers who were committed to the view that the Supreme Being was
perfection itself, it was necessary to explain how there could be imperfec-
tions among the products of such a being. The standard story was that the
goodness of the whole was increased by the diversity of being. But there is
more to Leibniz’s early emphasis on the relation between beauty and har-
mony than that. From the late s, Leibniz was concerned with the prob-
lem of evil. In this context, the problem of the imperfections in the world
is particularly acute. Aquinas’ response to the problem is typical: God “does
not prevent corruption, deficiency, and evil from being in things . . . because
the supreme beauty [summus decor] would be taken away from things, too,
if the order of distinct and unequal things were removed.”19 Aquinas at-

. VI i . . E.g., Physica, ; Physica, Perpetuo Dialogo, –.

. Summa Contra Gentiles, III,  [–]. For a discussion of this point in Aquinas and other
medievals, see Lovejoy’s Great Chain, ch. . I do mean to suggest that Leibniz’s use of aes-


   

tempted to explain “the diverse grades of goodness” at least partly in terms

of beauty and harmony. Leibniz’s early interest in the beauty and harmony
of the world also had theological and ethical motivations.
In order to grasp the role of the aesthetic criteria in Leibniz’s earliest
comments about harmony, we need to turn to his other major project dur-
ing the late s. At the same time that he was developing the metaphysi-
cal theology of the Catholic demonstrations, he was thinking about matters
of jurisprudence. In a series of notes written between  and late ,
he investigates a wide range of theological, metaphysical, and ethical topics.
These texts, entitled Elements of natural law, treat a number of related top-
ics: human virtue and goodness, divine and human justice, knowledge, wis-
dom, and universal harmony. We will return to some of these texts in this
and the next two chapters. That Leibniz should discuss such heady ethical
and metaphysical topics in an essay about jurisprudence should not come as
a surprise. In a published work of , he is quite explicit about the fact
that “the greatest mysteries” must be considered by the student of ju-
risprudence because unless such things are known beforehand, one cannot
judge properly about the just and unjust. Leibniz proclaims in the preface
of this work, entitled Specimen of Collected Philosophical Questions Con-
cerning Law, that it is philosophy afterall that sits “on the throne of wis-
dom.”20 The Elements of natural law contains brief solutions to some of the
grand philosophical questions in an attempt to construct the proper basis
for an analysis of legal matters. To this end, Leibniz offers clues to his orig-
inal conception of Emanative Harmony.
In the Elements of natural law, Leibniz describes the dominant feature of
God’s world for the first time as universal harmony, which he defines both
as “diversity compensated by identity”21 and as “identity compensated by
diversity.”22 He makes some provocative claims about how he envisages the
interrelation between these notions. The basic intuition is that there is a sin-
gle thing which underlies all the diversity, to which all things are ultimately
reducible, and which is discernible. Leibniz writes: “There is greater har-
mony when there is greater diversity, which nonethess is reduced to iden-
tity. (For there cannot be grades in identity, but in variety).”23 But he also
emphasizes the importance of the fact that the unity within the variety be
evident. He explains: “Variety delights but only when it is reduced to a
unity,” where the latter is “ordered, connected.”24 About variety, Leibniz
proposes that “identical propositions” are not pleasing “because they are
obvious and too uniform,” as are “rhythmic verses” which have “the same
ending.” The right sort of variety consists in the juxtaposition of the same

thetic criteria is similarly motivated, but I will not discuss this difficult point here. For a
helpful discussion of harmony in Leibniz’s thought that recognizes that aesthetic aspect,
see Rutherford, Rational Order, ch. , esp. –, and ch. .
. VI i . . VI i .
. VI i . There is very little written on Leibniz’s early ethics. For a helpful recent work,
see Francesco Piro, “Leibniz and Ethics: The Years –.”
. VI i . . VI i .


   , – 

elements in different ways. For example, to make a pleasing song, Leibniz

explains: “It is sufficient for the last part of the [song’s] ending to repeat
with a changed beginning.”25 The aesthetic criterion at work here is one
where the beauty of an object is a function of how much the elements of the
same thing can be made to vary in subtle ways while the unity or singleness
of the thing remains evident. The aesthetic criterion applies nicely to the
account of the beatific vision in the Conspectus: the harmony of the world
is a function of the variety of ways in which the essence of God is diffused
in the world, while remaining recognizably the same thing. God is like an
infinite melody played in infinitely complex ways. As Philo had made the
point centuries earlier, God has constructed things so that “our whole sys-
tem, like a melodious chorus of many men, may sing in concert one well-
harmonized melody composed of different sounds well combined.”26
That this melody is recognizably the same, despite the diversity, is cru-
cial to Leibniz’s early proposals in ethics. He agrees with some of his Pla-
tonist predecessors that the perfection of God is diffused in the world and
therefore that harmony plays an important moral function. According to
Leibniz in the Elements of natural law, the process of becoming a good per-
son is that of stripping away the chaos and “the confusion of human affairs”
and coming to grasp “the infinity” of God. For the good person, “the dis-
sonance” of things will be compensated “through consonance.” Leibniz ex-
plains: “But for those who inquire into these things more deeply, the con-
fusion of six thousand years (although not even this lacks its own harmony),
when compared to eternity, seems like a single dissonant beat, which when
brought into consonance with the whole by the compensation of other dis-
sonances, increases admiration for the ruler, who embraces the infinite.”27
According to Leibniz, “the Good is when harmony is understood thor-
oughly”28; indeed, “everyone would love everyone, if only we were to look
upon, to elevate our eyes to universal harmony.”29 I will discuss some of the
complications of this moral epistemology in section  of chapter . For now,
let’s direct our attention to the implied metaphysical lessons: in the Elements
of natural law, the goal of life is to recognize that everything is an emana-
tion of God and hence that everything is a proper object of love. In a letter
to Arnauld of , Leibniz summarizes his position:
I am planning to treat the Elements of natural law in a short book. . . . I define a good
person . . . as one who loves all people . . . ; harmony as diversity compensated by
identity. For variety always delights us, once it is reduced to a unity. . . . I show that
it is the same thing to love others and to love God, the seat of universal harmony.30

. VI i .
. Philo, On the migration of Abraham, XVIII : Yonge .
. VI i . Joseph McAlhany helped with the translation of this Latin text: sed qui haec al-
tius scrutantur, iis confusio sexies mille annorum (etsi ne haec quidem careat harmonia
sua) aeternitati comparata unius pulsus dissoni instar habere videtur, qui alia dissonantia
compensante in consonantiam summae redactus auget admirationem infinita complexi gu-
bernatoris.
. VI i . . VI i . . II i –: L .


   

God is the seat of universal harmony in the sense that the Supreme Being
is the transcendent emanative source of the unity and diversity in the cre-
ated world. Because every created thing is an instantiation of the divine
essence, to love creatures and to love God is the same thing.
At this point, a summary is in order. In the late s, Leibniz was work-
ing on a number of interrelated projects which required that he articulate
for the first time his conception of the relation between God and the world.
For a model of that relation, the young man turned to the Platonism of his
teachers. Leibniz’s original conception of harmony, what I have called Em-
anative Harmony, develops from that tradition. In the texts of –, we
find a Metaphysics of Divinity that contains the Platonist assumptions ar-
ticulated in chapter  (especially section ) about the Supreme Being and its
relation to creatures. According to Leibniz, there is a single, unified, and
perfect Supreme Being who chooses to emanate its being and perfection into
creatures and who nonetheless remains transcendent while all its creatures
contain an imperfect instantiation of its essence. Because the Supreme Be-
ing emanates or diffuses its essence into all its products, both as individuals
and as a group, it is the unity in the world. In a note of , Leibniz asserts
that the ratio of things will be “[t]herefore in Mind, that is, in the one in
many things. Therefore, [it will be] in Harmony, that is, in the unity of many
things, that is, diversity compensated by identity. Moreover God is the one
that is all things.”31
Leibniz is explicit in the texts of – that God is the unity in the
world, but he is less insistent about the fact that God is also the multiplic-
ity in things. As noted above, he clearly maintains in his essay On transub-
stantiation that it is an Idea of God that constitutes the substantial form of
a non-human substance, and moreover that each such Idea is different from
every other. It follows that the Ideas of God constitute the diversity among
the non-human substances of the world. As he writes: “the Ideas of God
are the substances of things.”32 In some notes of , he writes that “an
act of God is in the creature although God is everywhere.”33 Nor do I think
that we should be troubled by the scarcity of such explicit statements: for a
Christian theist like Leibniz, that God is everywhere and constitutes every-
thing goes without saying; there was no reason to state the obvious. As Leib-
niz explains in the Conspectus, “the eternal” modes of the Supreme Being
include its omnipotency, omniscience, and omnipresence.34 The Supreme
Being is everywhere and in everything as the emanative cause of the world.
It is the unity and the multiplicity in the world, and in that sense is the har-
mony of things. At the most fundamental level, there is no genuine tension
between unity and multiplicity as good-making criteria because they reduce

. VI ii .The Latin is: Ergo in Mente, id est uno in multis. Ergo in Harmonia id est uni-
tate plurimorum, seu diversitate identitate compensata. Deus autem est unus omnia.
. VI i . . VI i .
. VI i . That God is the unity and diversity in the world seems almost a commonplace
among Leibniz’s German predecessors. E.g., see Johann von Wower, De Polymathia Trac-
tatio, chs. –; Thomasius, Exercitatio, –; Scherzer, Collegii, –.


   , – 

to the same thing. In a way that we will discuss more fully in chapter , the
goal of human life is to recognize the beauty and harmony in things where
that consists in discovering the orderliness beneath the apparent chaos, the
consonance beneath the apparent dissonance, the divinity beneath the ap-
pearances.

Reflective harmony
For Leibniz and his Platonist predecessors, Reflective Harmony is the re-
sult of Emanative Harmony. As discussed in section  of chapter , the close
interconnection among creatures was supposed to follow from the fact that
they were all emanations of the same perfectly unified thing. The funda-
mental assumption was that the unity of the Supreme Being would be im-
manent in the whole of creation. As Philo wrote: “And being superior to,
and being also external to the world that he has made, he nevertheless fills
the whole world with himself; for, having by his own power extended it to
its utmost limits, he has connected every portion with another portion ac-
cording to the principles of harmony.”35 As noted in section  of chapter ,
this harmony among the “portions” of the divine is such that each responds
to the activity and states of all the others. We also noted these two kinds of
correspondence between created things: sympathy, which exists among all
things, and reflection, which appears to apply only to minds or mind-like
beings. According to the Relation of Sympathy, each created being corre-
sponds to the activity and states of all creatures; according to the Theory of
Reflective Harmony, there is an interrelation among minds such that each
mind thinks or reflects all the others so that each may be said to contain all
the others. As I also explained in the discussion of these issues, the latter
theory has a close connection to the Principle of Harmonized Plenitude,
where the relevant idea is that the goodness of the world is partly a function
of the variety of the beings within it and partly a function of their interre-
lations. I will argue in the remainder of this section that the young Leibniz
took these tenets from his Platonist predecessors and used them to construct
his original theory of Reflective Harmony. As we will see in chapters  and
, Leibniz’s account of Reflective Harmony evolved in significant ways
and became more sophisticated between late  and . I will argue in
chapter  that a subtle but noticeable shift occurs in Leibniz’s thinking be-
tween early and late  about the interrelations among creatures. Al-
though in  and early , Leibniz seems to restrict Reflective Har-
mony to conscious minds, by the end of  he is prepared to apply it to
all creatures. For our purposes here, however, it is important to understand
that the original theory of universal harmony included a robust sense of the
close interconnections among human minds.
The image of the mind as a mirror is a permanent fixture of Leibniz’s
mature thought. He first develops this idea between late  and  in

. Philo, Concerning the Posterity of Cain, V.: Yonge .


   

the Elements of natural law. In our discussion of Emanative Harmony above,

we turned to these notes for some of Leibniz’s most explicit comments
about God as the unity and multiplicity in the world. It is not surprising
that we should also find there his original comments about Reflective Har-
mony. Leibniz’s main concern in these essays is with the moral development
of human beings. It is in this context that he presents his first thoughts
about the interrelations among creatures. According to Leibniz, the journey
to knowledge and wisdom requires a unity of minds. The image of the mind
as a mirror was developed in this context. Its original use occurs in the sec-
ond note for the Elements of natural law which was written between the au-
tumn of  and the summer of . Leibniz argues:
If God did not have rational Creatures in the world, he would have the same har-
mony, but devoid of Echo, the same beauty, but devoid of reflection and refraction
or multiplication. On this account, the wisdom of God required [exigebat] rational
Creatures, in which things might multiply themselves. In this way one mind might
be a kind of world in a mirror, or a diopter, or some kind of point collecting visual
rays.36
There is much to be said about this provocative passage. We find here the
basic thesis of this section, namely, that universal harmony consists in Em-
anative and Reflective Harmony, and moreover that the latter depends on
the former. The harmony to which Leibniz refers in the first sentence is Em-
anative Harmony; it is the essence of God variously manifested in a unified
fashion. The second kind of harmony is Reflective Harmony, which devel-
ops out of the former and exists in embryonic form in this passage. It finds
its feet in the assumption that the world is made better by the close interre-
lations among minds. The visual images here are stunning: by acting as a
mirror, each mind reflects, refracts, and multiplies the beauty inherent in
Emanative Harmony. The assumption is that the reflection of things in the
world is a good thing because each individual creature, as an emanation of
the essence of God, is fundamentally good. Also in the passage, we find a
justification for perceptual fecundity, something that will become more im-
portant to Leibniz in the mid-s. According to the Principle of Harmo-
nized Plenitude, the goodness of the world is partly a function of the vari-
ety of beings within it. What Leibniz adds here is the fascinating idea that
the perceptions of minds will add significantly to the multiplicity and vari-
ety in the world. That is, the goodness of the world will be increased through
the existence of perceiving or reflecting minds. In short, the goodness in-
herent in Emanative Harmony entails the goodness of reflection.
In fact, for Leibniz, Reflective Harmony has enormous ethical and epis-
temological benefits. I will unpack some of the epistemological implications
of the mind as a mirror in section . Given our interest now, namely, to un-
derstand Leibniz’s original views about the interconnections among crea-

. VI i . For an important account of the special significance of rational minds in Leib-
niz’s conception of the best world, see Rutherford, Rational Order, esp. f, –, f.


   , – 

tures, it will be helpful to identify exactly what it is about Reflective Har-

mony that increases the ethical goodness in the world.
In another note from the Elements of natural law, Leibniz makes clear the
ethical significance of the reflective nature of mind:
But as a double reflection can occur in vision, once in the lens of the eye and once in
the lens of a tube, the latter magnifying the former, so there is a double reflection in
thinking: for since every mind is like a mirror, there will be one mirror in our mind,
another in other minds. Thus, if there are many mirrors, that is, many minds recog-
nizing our goods, there will be a greater light, the mirrors blending the light not only
in the [individual] eye but also among each other. The gathered splendor produces
glory. This is part of the reason for the deformity in mind: otherwise there would be
nothing in the shadow to be magnified through the reflection of the mirrors.37
Through a fascinating blend of modern scientific images (of lenses and
magnification) and ancient ones (of shadows and light), Leibniz implies that
moral development depends on the intimate relation among minds. By such
means, we not only arrive at the Platonist doctrines of Theory of Reflective
Harmony and the Principle of Harmonized Plenitude, we come to glimpse
their close connection in Leibniz’s thought. According to the former prin-
ciple, there is an interrelation among minds that consists in the fact that each
mind thinks or reflects all the others in such a way that a change in one is
reflected by a change in another. Reflective Harmony will increase goodness
in the world in a straightforward way: because of the close interconnection
among minds, an increase in the goodness of one will be reflected in all the
others. In other words, every mind perceives what happens to every other
one, at least with regard to its goodness. It is important that the relation
among minds is such that they can only aid, and not detract from, their mu-
tual moral development. This reveals the close connection between reflec-
tion and the Enhancement Relation in Leibniz’s original account of Re-
flective Harmony. According to the Principle of Harmonized Plenitude, the
goodness of the world is partly a function of the variety of beings within it
and partly a function of the order among beings, where this is understood
primarily in terms of their Enhancement Relation. According to the latter,
for every being S that has an Enhancement Relation to a being R, the rela-
tion of S to R is such that an increase in the goodness of S will promote an
increase in R which is non-reciprocal (that is, the increase in R will not then
promote an increase in S). The implication of the Elements of natural law is
that Reflective Harmony adds to the goodness of the world because reflec-
tion is just such an Enhancement Relation. There is even a suggestion in the
text that while minds can increase the goodness of other minds, only God
can decrease them. For example, Leibniz explains that because of God’s
love of harmony, “an harmonic mind cannot become distorted except as a
punishment.”38 In other words, the Enhancement Relation among minds

. VI i : L . Unfortunately, the exact date of this text is not known; it was written some-
time in –.
. VI i .


   

appears to be such that only an increase in goodness is possible. In general

terms, then, the Reflective Harmony among minds is good because it in-
volves the perception of the variety of the instantiations of the divine
essence and because it guarantees an increase in the ethical goodness among
minds (and prevents the possibility of a decrease).
For our purposes, the main point here is that each mind is intimately re-
lated to every other so that it (unconsciously) perceives the others. That is,
there is a unity among minds such that each reflects all the others (at least)
with regard to their moral goodness. It is appropriate to ask at this point
whether or not Leibniz was prepared to extend this sort of Reflective Har-
mony to other creatures as well. Because his main concern in the Elements
of natural law is the moral development of human beings, it is not surpris-
ing that his primary focus is on the special connection among human minds.
Given the close interconnection among conscious minds, it is tempting to
assume that related texts contain evidence of some sort of universal sym-
pathy or reflective connection among all creatures. In fact, there is no tex-
tual evidence to this effect. Rather, Leibniz suggests a distinction between
the Reflective Harmony among human minds and the harmony that exists
for everything else. In an early note from the Elements of natural law, he ex-
plains that God “likes what concerns harmony in nature and He likes the
particular harmony of minds.”39 It will be important to our discussion in
chapter  that prior to May , Reflective Harmony is restricted to hu-
man minds.
There is more to say about the epistemological and ethical benefits of Re-
flective Harmony, and I will return to these topics in section . What is par-
ticularly relevant here is the fact that in Leibniz’s original thinking about
universal harmony, the Reflective Harmony among minds plays a signifi-
cant part. For the sake of convenience, let’s summarize Leibniz’s original
two-part conception of harmony as follows.
• (–early ) Emanative Harmony claims that God is the variety in
the world in that every creature is an inferior instantiation of the divine
essence, and that God is the unity in the world in the two-fold sense that
each individual creature and the totality of creatures instantiate the divine
unity so that each individual is a unity and the totality is an interrelated
whole.
• (–early ) Reflective Harmony, which is closely related to the Pla-
tonist assumption articulated in chapter , claims that there is an interre-
lation among human minds such that each mind thinks or reflects all the
others, at least with regard to their moral development.
It is worth emphasizing that there is no evidence of the Relation of Sym-
pathy in the texts of -early .

. Ibid.


   , – 

. Mind
In –, when Leibniz was deciding on Emanative Harmony as the dom-
inant feature of God’s creation, he was developing his theory of mind along
consistent lines. It was surely important to explain how the active principles
or substantial forms in substances could accommodate Emanative Harmony.
It will be helpful at this point to take inventory of Leibniz’s proposals about
mind. In chapters  and , I noted that for the young Leibniz only some-
thing incorporeal could serve as the active principle in created substances; in
chapter , I articulated Leibniz’s Original Theory of Corporeal Substance
according to which God is the active principle in non-human substances. In
chapter , we saw that in , Leibniz replaced this active principle with a
momentary mind, and that the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency de-
manded that each substance have its own mind-like substantial form. In the
last section, I displayed Leibniz’s original conception of harmony without
any reference to his shifting views about substance and mind during the
period. In fact, Leibniz’s conception of Emanative Harmony was unaffected
by this transformation in his account of substance. In its original form, har-
mony only demanded that each creature be an instantiation or expression of
the essence of God: whether the active principle in the creature was divine
mind, as in the essays of –, or momentary minds, as in the texts of
–, Emanative Harmony did not specify exactly how the creature
should satisfy this demand. But if the original doctrine of Emanative Har-
mony did not say very much about exactly what the creature should be, it
demanded a good deal about what it should do. The metaphysical responsi-
bilities of substance were enormous. Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance
required that the fundamental entities in the world be substances, and that
these substances be essentially active. During the period –, Leibniz
integrated the Platonist assumptions about knowledge, creation, and unity
with the Aristotelian ones about self-sufficiency, activity, substantial forms,
and matter. I would now like to display how some of the Platonist assump-
tions articulated in chapter  are used in the early writings and how they bear
on the topic of the mind or the active principle in corporeal substance.
In the discussion of On the incarnation of God in section  of chapter , I
unearthed some assumptions about substantial unity and substantial activity.
For our purposes here, the relevant claims from the Substantial Form
Assumption are as follows: for every created mind-like substantial form F in
a corporeal substance S, F acts constantly and, moreover, the substantial unity
formed between F and the passive principle P in S depends on the constant
activity of F on P. In that discussion, we also noted that in On the incarnation
of God Leibniz claims that the activity of God on creatures is one of creation.
According to Leibniz, “God does not act on bodies except by creating;” more-
over, mind “is the instrument of God” and is “unified with God.”40

. VI i . See ch. , n. .


   

Against the background of the Platonist assumptions, we are now pre-

pared to articulate more thoroughly the relation between unity, activity, and
self-sufficiency in Leibniz’s thought. To speak somewhat crudely, Leibniz
takes the Supreme Being Assumption, which asserts that each of the fea-
tures of unity, perfection, self-sufficiency, and reality is a function of the
other, and the Doctrine of the Hierarchy of Being, which claims that only
God can create and destroy human souls, and grounds them firmly in the
notion that a substance is what is fundamentally active. Leibniz’s belief in
the essential connection between the activity of mind on the one hand and
its unity, perfection, self-sufficiency, and indestructibility on the other dates
from his early post-graduate days. For example, in a published text of ,
he discusses the problem of the identity of individual things and considers
a solution that interweaves activity, unity, self-sufficiency, and indestructi-
bility. He speculates that the source of identity is the vivens unum, the liv-
ing unity, which is indivisible and acts as “a fountain of life,” and he explains
that “as the Rabbis maintain,” the soul is “like a little house in a certain part
of the body, which no power can destroy.”41 The position here assumes that
vitality, self-sufficiency, and unity are indelibly linked, and the suggestion
is that the indestructibility of such beings is supposed to follow from their
vitality or activity. The text evokes an image of the human soul as an im-
penetrable and eternal fortress, as though such vital unities cannot be de-
stroyed because they have mightier metaphysical muscles than other beings.
The Supreme Being Assumption helps us to grasp that their mightiness is
a function of their perfection, which, according to Leibniz, is rooted in their
activity. Another way of making the point is as follows: as discussed in sec-
tion  of chapter , a thing S has unity if and only if it participates in the
unity of the Supreme Being; according to Leibniz, a mind is divine-like,
which means (among other things) that it has unity per se because it partic-
ipates so fully in the divine unity; it follows from these facts about unity and
mind that mind cannot be destroyed by anything other than the supreme
source of its unity.42
The close connection between the activity, perfection, and indestructibil-
ity of mind persists in the writings of –. In the essays included in the
Catholic demonstrations, we find the same connection between the activity of
mind on the one hand and its perfection, unity, and self-sufficiency on the
other. For example, in the second part of the Conspectus, entitled “Demon-
stration of the Immortality of the Soul, and of Incorporeality” and written
in –, Leibniz lists several topics which at first glance are not obviously

. VI i . The young Leibniz also asserts that “the Rabbis” claim that the soul resides in a
little bone that cannot be destroyed. See II i . The belief that some bones are “death-
less” is mentioned by Plato in the Phaedo, d.
. It also follows that anything that a mind organizes or diffuses will itself instantiate the
unity of the mind. That is, there is a hierarchy of unity and self-sufficiency from the
Supreme Being to mind-like form to the passive principle of the form. E.g., Leibniz writes:
“As God survives when creatures are destroyed, so Mind survives when the body is de-
stroyed.” See VI ii .


   , – 

related to immortality. Of the six subjects listed, only the final one, a dis-
cussion of the argument presented by Kenelm Digby for the immortality of
the soul, explicitly mentions the issue. The other five topics concern the
activity of mind, where the assumption is that the immortality of the soul
is supposed to follow from the fact that only God can destroy an active thing.
One of these is particularly interesting: Leibniz intends to argue for the
immortality of the soul based “on self-motion, following Plato.”43 Com-
ments such as this in the Conspectus suggest that Leibniz conceived the soul
as something like a self-perpetuating unity, and that he took this view to be
Platonist.
Elsewhere in the Conspectus, Leibniz makes it clear that besides inde-
structibility, the metaphysical mightiness of minds entails that only God can
create them. According to Leibniz, human minds are propagated “from
God through Traduction.”44 As noted in section  of chapter , the theory
of traduction is roughly the view that the souls of all human beings were
present in Adam and were passed down and distributed among subsequent
generations. The theory, which was motivated by the belief that human
souls could not arise naturally, is closely related to the Platonist Causal Seed
Doctrine, according to which God created everything “in the beginning” as
seminal rationes so that they would remain dormant until the appropriate
time. In the Conspectus, Leibniz embraces the traduction of souls and, by
the winter of –, is prepared to apply the theory to mind-like sub-
stantial forms in non-human substances. As I noted in chapter , when
Leibniz populated nature with momentary minds, he explained their cre-
ation by traduction: according to Leibniz, a momentary mind propagates it-
self through traduction. It would seem, then, that in the period –,
only God can create and destroy minds. As Leibniz writes to Oldenburg in
September , the activity of mind is “extraordinary” and “perpetual.”45
The perfection, unity, and self-sufficiency of mind is based in its activ-
ity. But what sort of activity is this? Not only does the mightiness of minds
mean that they can neither be destroyed nor created by natural means, it also
is supposed to imply that they are indefatigable. As we saw in chapter , sec-
tion , for Platonists like Plotinus and Proclus, emanative causation is not
restricted to the One: other beings may produce through emanation. In
chapter , I discussed in some detail the account of conscious mind that
Leibniz composed in , and I noted that there are few extant comments
about the nature of mind prior to that time. Although in On the incarnation
of God, Leibniz insists that mind acts constantly, he does not explain how
it continues to do so. The easiest way to explain the indefatigability of mind
is to assume that created minds act through emanation. In a published work
of , Leibniz offers some evidence to this effect. He writes: “Thought is
a sensible Quality of the human intellect, or [seu] it is a sensible quality of
that thing, I know not what, within us which we observe to think. But we
cannot explain . . . what it is to think. . . . This Quality is also in God and

. VI i . . VI i . . II i .


   
Angels.”46 Since we know that, for Leibniz, God acts through emanation,
it would seem to follow that the divine mind thinks by such means. What
Leibniz suggests here is that in much the same way that the Supreme Being
emanates its thoughts without depleting itself, so do the minds of angels and
human beings.
The closest that Leibniz comes during our period to a direct comparison
between the emanative activity of God and that of mind occurs in two let-
ters of May . As discussed in the previous section, Leibniz describes
the relation between God and creatures in On transubstantiation as one of
diffusion, and insists that God is “diffused through everything.”47 It is
therefore striking that in the letter to Johann Friedrich of May , Leib-
niz says that the passive principle in a corporeal substance “is diffused” by
the mind or substantial form and that the mind acts “without being dimin-
ished.”48
Moreover, in a letter to a Dutch Copernican, Leibniz describes his Sche-
diasma and the important implications that follow from his proposals in that
two-part work. He writes to Lambert van Velthuysen in May :
I will expose the ratio as to how God can make a body which is produced by a kind
of motion, so that it is naturally indissoluble . . . even if all the strengths in the world
join together; what is more, I will show that with a body, into which a mediating
mind has been implanted, the mind is able to multiply itself through Traduction
without new creation, with no loss to the incorporeal [principle], something which
before now no one has been able to show clearly and distinctly.49
There is much that is interesting here. Leibniz insists on the fact that cer-
tain bodies are indestructible, and the suggestion is that their indestructi-
bility depends on the mind at their center. But how is the indestructibility
of a body supposed to follow from its mind? Let’s turn for help to the ()
Substantial Form Assumption, whose relevant implication here is that there
will be a substantial unity formed between the substantial form F and the
passive principle P in a corporeal substance S just in case F acts constantly
on P. As explained in chapter , by so acting on P, F will produce and main-
tain an organization with P that constitutes the nature of S. Following this
assumption, the unity of a body persists as long as the activity of its mind
does. So what about its activity? In the quoted passage, Leibniz is explicit
about the fact that the mind in the body will multiply itself through tra-
duction. This means roughly that each present mind contains the causal
seeds or seminal rationes for future minds in its nature. For our purposes,
however, it is particularly important that the mind is capable of doing all

. VI i –: L . For the moment, I am ignoring the constant thinking that minds are
supposed to do. This feature of mind, which is identified in the () Substantial Form
Assumption, will be discussed in ch. .
. VI i .
. II i . Also see II i –. I will discuss this diffusion relation at greater length in ch.
, sect. .
. II i .


   , – 

this with “no loss” to itself. The point is that created minds are like divine
mind in that they contain in themselves the seeds of what will follow and
act through emanation so that they do not deplete their power. As Leibniz
announces to Van Velthuysen: “From these and other demonstrated mat-
ters concerning mind, many new things follow.”50
The moral to the story of this section is that, for the young Leibniz, cre-
ated minds are modeled on divine mind and therefore are fundamentally
self-sufficient unities that act through emanation.51

. Creation stories, –early 

For Leibniz, his teachers, and many theists, divine omniscience implied that
at the creation of the world, God knew everything that would subsequently
happen. This assumption, when combined with the free choice of God and
the notion of Emanative Harmony articulated in section , yields some
weighty metaphysical results. In this section, I will argue that some of Leib-
niz’s most characteristic doctrines were such results. But before we turn to
the relevant texts, let’s speculate about the conjunction of these commit-
ments. My Speculative Creation Story has five parts.

Speculative creation story

For a Platonist theist who believed that the Supreme Being chose what to
create, it would be reasonable to assume that there were emanative options
available. For our purposes here, it is important to distinguish between such
options and the possible instantiations of a particular option. In brief, an
emanative option is a way that the Supreme Being could emanate its essence.
As noted in section  of chapter , the essence of the Supreme Being con-
sists in the divine attributes. It follows that each emanative option is a dif-
ferent way of combining those attributes. An analogy may help at this point.
Think of the divine essence as a set of well-defined characters that may be
used in various narrative alternatives, and think of each emanative option as
a version of a story within which the characters act characteristically. Like
the emanative options, each narrative option contains all the characters act-
ing out their well-defined nature, but each narrative differs from every other
in the details of how the characters interact. In one version of the story, the
good folks join together and justice is quickly triumphant; in another, the

. II i . For other evidence of the similarity between divine and created minds, see the re-
mainder of this letter.
. During his Paris years, Leibniz puts the point succinctly in some notes on Plato’s Phaedo.
Making explicit the fact that created mind-like forms are unified with and, in that sense,
participate in the divine mind, Leibniz writes in March : “God is indeed the form of
life” and whatever “participates in life is not able to be distinguished.” See VI iii .
As the student of Leibniz’s mature thought knows, Leibniz persists in emphasizing the
close relation between activity, unity, and indestructibility. See, e.g., G II , ; G IV ;
II i .


   

bad guys conspire and justice takes longer to win the day. When the
Supreme Being chooses among emanative options, it is like selecting among
narrative options: in one emanative option, the divine attributes relate in one
way; in another, they relate differently. It is important to see that the ema-
native options can be very different from one another, just like the versions
of the story. There is however an important disanalogy between the creation
of a narrative option and that of an emanative one. As our account of ema-
native causation in section  of chapter  made clear, the emanation of the
divine attributes entails a loss of perfection. According to the Theory of
Emanative Causation, for a being A that is more perfect than a being B, A
can emanate its attribute f-ness to B in such a way that neither A nor A’s f-
ness is depleted in any way, while B has f-ness, though in a manner inferior
to the way it exists in A.
Once the Supreme Being decides on an emanative option, two things fol-
low. First, the proposed combination of the divine attributes is set. This
means that among the emanative options or possible emanations of the
divine essence, one has been chosen. Second, there will be a number of dif-
ferent expressions or instantiations of that essence.52 Let’s return to our
analogy. Think of the chosen emanative option as analogous to the selected
story, where the interrelations among the characters has been fully con-
ceived. Further, suppose that the fully conceived story can be translated into
a number of different languages where each translation is a complete ver-
sion of the story. In this case, each translation will differ radically from the
others in that it will have different sentences, but each nonetheless will be
an account of the same tale. Similarly, each instantiation of the chosen em-
anative option is different from the others, but each is also an expression of
the same thing. For the sake of clarity, let’s agree to the following terminol-
ogy. Among various emanative options, the Supreme Being chooses one of
the infinity of ways to combine its attributes, that is, it chooses one among
infinite versions of the divine essence. Let’s call the chosen emanative op-
tion ‘the (selected) divine essence.’ Having selected this emanative alterna-
tive, God then creates it. The process of creation is one of emanation, where
God emanates the (selected) divine essence and thereby produces and sus-
tains the created world. Within the created world, there are individual crea-
tures. Each creature is what we will call ‘an instantiation’ of the (selected)
divine essence. In sum, through emanation, God instantiates the (selected)
divine essence in each individual created thing. Let us summarize the first
part of our Speculative Creation Story as follows:
() Among an infinity of emanative options (each of which is a version of
the divine essence), the Supreme Being chooses one. God emanates this
(selected) divine essence so as to create and sustain the world. Each in-

. According to the standard view of the Supreme Being – whether the Plotinian One or the
theistic God – both the Supreme Being and creation stand outside of time. Therefore, the
episodes that constitute creation are atemporal; the priority suggested in our story by
words like ‘first’ and ‘then’ is a logical and not a temporal one.


   , – 

dividual created substance S is an instantiation of the (selected) divine

essence.
Nor is that all. When we combine this first part of the speculative story
with a commitment to divine foreknowledge, some weighty metaphysical
consequences follow. For a Platonist theist who believed that the Supreme
Being has foreknowledge about all creaturely occurrences, it would be nat-
ural to think that “in the beginning” God knew exactly how, for each indi-
vidual creature, it would behave in all its details throughout the course of
its existence. In this case, God would conceive the details of each instanti-
ation of the (selected) divine essence. To help us in the next part of our
story, let’s remind ourselves briefly of two related senses of ‘essence,’ which
were widely accepted in the seventeenth century and are relevant here. First,
an essence is what is given in the definition of the thing and what can be
grasped by the intellect; second, it constitutes the nature of an individual
and that from which its properties flow. It is striking that Micraelius asserts
in his Lexicon Philosophicum that the “properties emanate from the essence
of the thing.”53 Scherzer, for example, defines an essence as “what is first
conceived in a thing, without which the thing is not able to be; it is what is
fundamental and the cause of other things which are in it.”54 We need to
keep a firm grip on the difference between an essence as something con-
ceived and as something contained in an individual created thing from
which the properties of the thing (somehow) flow or emanate.
If we assume that God has foreknowledge about everything that every
creature will do and if we accept the part of the Speculative Creation Story
thus far articulated, then it would seem to follow that for every instantiation
of the (selected) divine essence, God has a fully articulated conception of
the thing. That is, once we assume the complete foreknowledge of God con-
cerning all the details of all created beings, then it would seem to follow from
Emanative Harmony that in the process of creation, God will conceive a
fully articulated individual essence for every creature. For the student of
Leibniz, this should sound familiar. According to the mature Leibniz, for
every substance S, S has a concept that is so complete that it contains in it
every predicate that will truly be predicated of S. What I am suggesting here
is that for someone committed both to divine foreknowledge about all sub-
stantial features and to Emanative Harmony, it would be natural to think
that there is a complete concept for every created substance. That is, it is
reasonable to suppose that as part of the creation of the world, the Supreme
Being will conceive the essence of every individual creature as thoroughly
as possible. In keeping with the first part of our story, the conceived essence
of an individual substance, S, is two things at once: it is a version of the (se-
lected) divine essence (and hence a version of the divine attributes) and it is
the complete concept of S. Let’s summarize the second part of our Specu-
lative Creation Story in the following way:
. Micraelius, Lexicon Philosophicum, .
. Scherzer, Vade Mecum, ; also see Goclenius, Lexicon Philosophicum, .


   

() For every created individual substance S, there is a complete concept in

God’s mind that contains all the predicates of S and that is a version of
the (selected) divine essence.
Let’s push on. Once we assume that the Supreme Being has a complete
concept for every individual substance S, it is reasonable to think that every
mind-like substantial form F contains a set of instructions for how to act
and that the set of instructions is the ontological correlate of the concept.
That is, once the Supreme Being conceives the fully articulated individual
essence or complete concept, it actualizes that conceived individual essence
by turning it into the set of instructions for the activity of the being
throughout the course of its existence. In this case, the created individual S
will be two things at once: it will be the actualization of the complete con-
cept of S and it will be an instantiation of the (selected) divine essence,
which God emanates to the creature. This part of our story fits nicely with
the Aristotelian assumptions about self-sufficiency in general and the role
of the substantial form in corporeal substance in particular. According to
the relevant part of the () Substantial Form Assumption, for every cor-
poreal substance S, S will have a mind-like substantial form F that contains
the principle of activity of S and a set of instructions given it by God for
the activity of F on its passive principle P. Because the instructions in F will
tell F how to activate and organize P at every moment of S’s existence, it
will function as the ontological correlate of the complete concept: every
predicate in the complete concept or conceived essence of S has a correlate
in the set of instructions. As will become clear, the set of instructions con-
stitutes a necessary condition for the truth of the predicates included in the
complete concept of S. In order for all the predicates in the concept to be
truly predicated of S, it is not only necessary that the F in S have the right
set of instructions, it is also necessary that those instructions be perfectly
coordinated with the instructions in all the other substances in S’s causal
purview. For example, the coffee stain on Wanda’s hand is partly due to her
clumsy gesture and partly due to the wet coffee grinds. This account of the
actualized essence fits nicely with the description of the activity of mind
presented in the preceding section: God emanates the (selected) divine
essence to S whose mind-like substantial form then acts according to its in-
structions. The substantial form is like a transmitter of the divine attrib-
utes: it receives a set of instructions about how to instantiate the attributes
and then sets about doing so. Let’s summarize the third part of our story as
follows:
() For every individual substance S, there is a substantial form F that con-
tains a set of instructions that tells F how to activate and organize its
passive principle P at every moment of S’s existence and that therefore
functions as the ontological correlate of the complete concept in that
every predicate in the complete concept of S has a correlate in the set of
instructions and the instructions constitute the necessary condition for
the true ascription of those predicates.


   , – 

For some readers, our story may have taken an unforeseen turn: it as-
sumes intersubstantial causation. Nor is this incoherent. God might con-
ceive a complete concept for every created substance and yet allow created
substances to interact. This is perfectly possible as long as we assume a ver-
sion of parallelism. If God gave each substance a substantial form with a
principle of activity and a set of instructions about how to act, and if God
constructed every substance so that their activities were perfectly coordi-
nated, then there could be a complete concept for every substance and yet
there could be causal interaction. In this case, the complete concept of S
will be true of S only if the instructions in the substantial form F of S are
perfectly parallel to the instructions in all the substances with which S in-
teracts. In this case, the stain on Wanda’s hand would be included in her
concept although the complete ratio for the stain would not be contained in
her nature. Her nature would only include instructions for how she will be-
have in relation to the coffee, while the nature of the coffee (assuming that
it has one) would contain instructions for how it will behave in relation to
Wanda. It is noteworthy that the Principle of Sufficient Reason would
neatly apply to such a world: for every feature of every substance, there
would be a complete ratio. However, the Principle of Causal Self-Suffi-
ciency would not extend to all substantial features: the stain on Wanda’s
hand would not strictly belong to Wanda due to the fact that although there
is a complete ratio for the stain, that ratio is not contained in the nature of
Wanda. From this account, it follows that for the individual substances of
the world, their concepts can be complete and yet they can interact. Let’s
summarize the fourth part of our Speculative Creation Story as follows:
() There is intersubstantial causation among substances and (Weak) Par-
allelism where the latter is understood as follows: for every substance S,
the set of instructions in the substantial form F of S is constructed so
that the actions of S will perfectly correspond to those of all the sub-
stances with which it interacts, with the result that all the predicates
contained in the complete concept of S will be true of S.
As a postscript to our Speculative Creation Story, let’s consider what would
result from the combination of our story as outlined and the Principle of Har-
monized Plenitude, whose relevant claim here is that the goodness of the
world is partly a function of the variety of the beings within it. As Aquinas
and others were wont to point out, the greater the diversity of being, the bet-
ter. When we apply this assumption to the account just offered of individual
created substances, the suggestion is that it would be a good thing if each in-
stantiation of the (selected) divine essence were different from every other.
That is, the conjunction of the Principle of Harmonized Plenitude and our
creation story would seem to imply a version of the Principle of the Identity
of Indiscernibles.55 Let’s summarize this final part of our story.

. For a brief account of this principle, see Appendix I. A related way to motivate the prin-


   

() Every instantiation of the (selected) divine essence is different from

every other; that is, there are no two created substances with the same
individual essence.
I claimed earlier that when we combine the theory of Emanative Har-
mony and the complete foreknowledge of God, we obtain some weighty
metaphysical results. Although our speculative story is not the only way to
unpack the implications of these theories, it is a reasonable way to do so.
That Leibniz toyed with something very like this story will be evident be-
low. But another motivation behind this elaborate speculation is to provoke.
Within the context of the Aristotelian and Platonist assumptions articulated
in chapters  and , the Second Theory of Corporeal Substance described
in chapter , and the theory of Emanative Harmony displayed here, it is pos-
sible suddenly to see a number of Leibniz’s mature tenets in a new light. In
the writings of the mature Leibniz, key features of his metaphysics are put
forward as closely linked. Following Leibniz’s lead, scholars have firmly be-
lieved, for example, that the account of substance as what has a complete
concept is crucially tied to Preestablished Harmony. Leibniz’s early texts
suggest otherwise. As our story reveals, Leibniz could have developed some-
thing very close to the Complete Concept Theory of Substance and yet have
accepted causal interaction. But the speculative story is also provocative in
that it reveals what might have motivated some of Leibniz’s mature tenets.
It shows that a commitment to the foreknowledge of God, the theory of
Emanative Harmony, and the demand for a robust self-sufficiency of sub-
stance implies a number of details about how individual corporeal sub-
stances might be understood to instantiate the divine essence. We can be
certain that Leibniz accepted the foreknowledge of God.56 If I am accurate
in my proposals about his early Metaphysics of Substance and about his
commitment to Emanative Harmony, then we would expect to find him
speculating along lines similar to the ones just presented.

Emanative creation story

In the texts of –, we do find Leibniz thinking along lines similar to
our creation story. For the sake of convenience, let’s call his version the Em-
anative Creation Story. The earliest and most important text for our pur-
poses is On transubstantiation. The essay is worth a careful analysis in this
context.
In chapter , section , I unearthed the metaphysical principles in the the-
ological essays of – and claimed that On transubstantiation contained
some of Leibniz’s first pronouncements on individual created substance.
We saw there how he finessed the problem of transubstantiation: he claimed
that the corporeal essence of the body remained the same while the active
ciple concerns the fact that according to Leibniz, each substance or essence has a different
perspective on the world. I will discuss this in the next section.
. See, e.g., VI i .


   , – 

principle of the substance changed. The bread continues to smell and taste
like bread even though its active principle has been replaced by that of
Christ. However, On transubstantiation also contains Leibniz’s first articu-
lation of Emanative Harmony. Once Leibniz has described the basic fea-
tures of created substances and outlined the strategy of his solution to the
problem of transubstantiation, he goes on to treat the exact relation between
God and creatures. It is now time to consider the Metaphysics of Divinity
in this essay. In an attempt not to overestimate the importance of our Spec-
ulative Creation Story, let’s first consider the Emanative Creation Story
presented in Leibniz’s text without the assumptions and distinctions dis-
played in our story.
In the main demonstration of On transubstantiation, Leibniz asserts that
“the Substance of [a non-human] body is union with sustaining mind,”
while “the union of God with creatures” is “an Idea.”57 Although he claims
that there is “a substantial form or Idea” unique to every non-human sub-
stance, he does not explain exactly what an Idea is.58 In the “Scholia” of the
essay, the details of the relation between God, Idea, and individual non-hu-
man substances are presented. For each non-human substance, there is a
corresponding Idea in God’s mind.59 Leibniz makes the following three
points: () “although the divine mind is the same [for all creatures], the con-
current divine mind is not. For the divine mind consists of the Ideas of all
things;”60 () “the composition of Ideas does not constitute parts of the di-
vine mind;” and () “[i]n God there are infinitely really diverse Ideas, yet
God is indivisible.” Concerning the difference between human and non-hu-
man substances, he explains that “the Ideas of God are the Substance of
things;” for human beings, “the Idea of God is not the substance,” because
humans “are moved by [their own] mind.”61 In short, God has an infinite
number of diverse Ideas that are products of the divine mind and that some-
how are in the divine mind without being a part of it. Because “the divine
mind is the same” for all non-human corporeal bodies, Leibniz acknowl-
edges that some might object “that there is one substantial form for all bod-

. VI i : L .

. VI i : L . In order to solve the problem of the Eucharist, it is important for Leib-
niz to be more precise about what exactly replaces the substance of the bread and wine: if
God is the principle of activity for the bread and the wine, then in what sense is there a
change in substance when the substance of the bread is replaced by that of Christ? In other
words, what is the criterion of identity for a principle of activity that would make sense of
the theological requirement that the substance of the Eucharist becomes Christ?
. Some of the language of the essay strongly suggests occasionalism: for example, Leibniz
talks about the “concurrent mind” of God, which is somehow the principle of activity of
every non-human substance. But the position in On transubstantiation is not that of the oc-
casionalist. Given the great emphasis that Leibniz places here and in related texts on the
per se subsistence and activity of substances, it is surprising that some commentators have
assumed that the position here is a version of occasionalism.
. VI i : L . The Latin in this last sentence is “Mens divina enim Ideis omnium re-
rum constat.”
. VI i –: L .


   

ies, the concurrent divine mind.” But he insists: “this does not follow. Since
. . . the Idea of thing A is one thing, the Idea of B another, the result is that
one Idea of the divine mind concurs with A, another with B.” We should
understand these Ideas, according to Leibniz, in relation to the views of
both Plato and Aristotle: “The Idea of Plato is the same as the substantial
form of Aristotle. For it is apparent that there is not one substantial form
for all bodies but a different one for different bodies. . . . The substance of
each [non-human] thing is not so much mind as it is an Idea of a concur-
ring mind.”62 What Leibniz offers here is a clever mixture of Platonist and
Aristotelian elements and terminology: each Idea in God’s mind is like a
Platonist Idea in that it is an essence (albeit of an individual thing), but it is
also like the substantial form of Aristotle in that it is the organizing princi-
ple of the individual substance.63
Let’s be clear. The word ‘Idea’ in the general context of a discussion
about the relation between God and creatures is ambiguous: it could be ei-
ther a Platonist Idea in God’s mind (say, Justice), or a conceived essence of
a possible individual which would have been formed by a combination of
such Platonist Ideas (Thomasius called such combinations of Ideas ‘ra-
tiones’), or an actual instantiation of such an essence in the material world.64
For Leibniz, in the essay, ‘Idea’ refers to both of the latter. That is, Leibniz
is cleverly playing on the ambiguity of the word to capture the close rela-
tion between the conceived essence and the actualized one. The Idea qua
conceived essence is what God conceives; the Idea qua substantial form of
non-human substances is “an action” of God and is what God produces.
Given the extreme metaphysical demands of transubstantiation and em-
anation, Leibniz’s theory of Idea is impressive. We saw in section  that an
Idea is in its divine transcendent source and that it is an act or product of
God. The point that I want to emphasize here is that before God produces
the Idea qua substantial form, the Idea qua conceived essence is a concept
in God’s mind.65 In other words, the Idea of an individual non-human sub-
stance is originally a conceived essence and then an actualization of that con-
cept. There are two points to make. First, Leibniz finds this dual status of

. VI i –: L .

. It was common for Platonists to include the Idea of an individual essence among the other
Ideas. For example, Plotinus maintains there are such Ideas in the Intelligible realm. It
seems that Plotinus himself saw a connection between the Ideas of Plato and the forms of
Aristotle. Leibniz’s suggestion, therefore, is neither radical nor original.
. In fact, Adams offers another alternative in Leibniz, namely, that the Idea “is the idea of
the body,” which he says “foreshadows Leibniz’s later view in which the body of a monad
is the body which that monad perceives most distinctly” (). There is no reason to take
this alternative seriously. Not only does much of what Leibniz says in the text flatly con-
tradict Adams’ interpretation (e.g., as noted below, Leibniz insists that an Idea is a sub-
stantial form and contains a principle of activity), there are no other early texts in which
Leibniz offers a position that is remotely similar. Nor is this the only case where Adams
misinterprets a passage by Leibniz due to a confusion about the referent of “Idea.” See
his “Phenomenalism and Corporeal Substance in Leibniz,” passim.
. The priority here is logical and not temporal.


   , – 

Idea attractive. In a related text, he compares it to a point that “is at once

common to two lines or intersectors” and to an angle that “is at once center
and lines.”66 Second, he implies that the only difference between the Idea
qua conceived essence and the Idea qua substantial form is that the latter has
a principle of activity. He insists throughout the text on the importance of
the activity of the Idea qua substantial form. According to Leibniz, the Idea
can act as the substance or substantial form of the (non-human) creature only
if it contains a principle of activity that is somehow its own.67 As Leibniz
makes the point in some related notes on the Eucharist, Ideas qua substan-
tial forms “are things” that exist “outside of” God and, although each Idea
is “an act of God,” it is “in the creature.”68 The suggestion is that when the
Supreme Being acts to produce the Idea qua substantial form, it somehow
combines the Idea qua conceived essence with a principle of activity.
Questions arise at this point: what exactly is the Idea qua conceived
essence?; how exactly do the Ideas qua substantial forms differ from one an-
other? As we have noted, Leibniz insists that “the Idea of thing A is one
thing, the Idea of thing B another,” that is, each substantial form is differ-
ent from every other. The question of individuation is particularly poignant
in the context of the problem of transubstantiation: because the goal is to
explain how the substance of Christ is supposed to replace that of the bread
and the wine, it is of crucial importance that the Ideas be clearly individu-
ated. We find help with our questions in the following passage:
In the Idea there is contained ideally both passive and active potential, both active
and passive intellect. Inasmuch as the intellect concurs with what is passive, to that
extent there is matter in the Idea; inasmuch as the intellect concurs with what is ac-
tive, to that extent there is form.69
We need to proceed carefully. The full weight of this comment depends on
its careful unpacking. Unfortunately, Leibniz offers no direct help. He uses
the distinction between Passive and Active Intellect in only one other text
during the period, where he merely states that the Active Intellect is what
is immortal in us.70 We need to look elsewhere for assistance.

. VI i : L .

. In chapter , I discussed the theory of substance proffered in On transubstantiation, and
explained that because anything with a principle of activity is a substance, it follows that
both a corporeal substance and the substantial form that constitutes the active part of that
corporeal substance are substances. Therefore, the Idea qua substantial form is also a sub-
stance in that it contains a principle of activity. Unfortunately, Leibniz is not very clear on
exactly how the Idea has activity and yet is “an act of God.” As argued in chapter , it was
the difficulty as to the status of activity in created things that led Leibniz to change his
Original Theory of Corporeal Substance.
. VI i .
. VI i : L . The Latin is as follows: In Idea continetur idealiter et potentia passiva et
activa, intellectus agens et patiens. Quatenus concurrit intellectus patiens, eatenus in Idea
est materia; quatenus intellectus agens, eatenus forma.
. VI i . In some texts of –, Leibniz discusses how the “intellect [intellectus]” ac-
quires knowledge. I discuss this point in the next section, but it has no bearing here.


 Although the distinction between the Active and Passive Intellect goes
back to Aristotle’s On the Soul, it was interpreted in a variety of ways by
philosophers scattered throughout the history of Western philosophy.
Roughly speaking, the intellectus was taken to be the faculty of understand-
ing that could know the forms or natures of things; its knowledge was the
result of the preparation on the part of the Active (or Agent) Intellect of the
raw epistemological materials so that once processed, those materials could
be known by the Passive (or Material) Intellect. Philosophers sometimes
compared the Passive Intellect to prime matter, because it could take on any
form (i.e., any object of knowledge) and had no forms in its own nature; they
compared the Active Intellect to form because it actualized the potency in
the Passive Intellect. Glossing over some complications, when I know the
form of Justice, my Passive Intellect has received the processed material
that my Active Intellect gives it. Philosophers disagreed a good deal about
the details of the interrelations between the Passive and Active Intellects
and whether they are mortal or immortal. Relevant to our discussion of
Leibniz’s conception of the Idea qua conceived essence is the fact that some
philosophers (e.g., Alexander of Aphrodisias) equated the Active Intellect
with God and maintained that it was immortal, while the Passive Intellect
was mortal. Avicenna agreed that the Active Intellect was divine and added
a further Platonist twist by saying that it contained within it the Forms, and
in that sense was a storehouse of knowledge. Most important for our pur-
poses, however, is the basic point that the Passive Intellect was believed to
be potentially all forms in the sense that it could receive any form whatso-
ever as an object of knowledge. It was up to the Active Intellect to give
the forms to the Passive Intellect so that they could be known. The crux of
the distinction was that the Active Intellect actualized the potentiality of the
Passive Intellect, and the Passive Intellect could passively receive all forms.
This sketch of the distinction conforms to the accounts offered in some
of the prominent seventeenth-century philosophical lexicons. In his Lexi-
con Philosophicum of , Goclenius says that the intellectus is most basi-
cally “the principle of understanding,” but warns that it is “an obscure no-
tion.”71 He goes on to distinguish between Active and Passive Intellects by
noting that the Passive Intellect is “the reception of an object,” while the
Active Intellect “perfects” the object and thereby prepares it for under-
standing. In this sense, according to Goclenius, the Passive Intellect counts
as the matter and the Active Intellect the form.72 In his Lexicon Philosoph-
icum of , Micraelius claims that the Active Intellect takes the material
represented in the Passive Intellect and “operates on it” so as to produce
knowledge,73 while Castanaeus in his Celebriorum Distinctionum Philosophi-
carum Synopsis of  says that the Passive Intellect (what he calls the ‘Pos-

. Lexicon Philosophicum, . . Ibid., .

. Micraelius, Lexicon Philosophicum, –. We know that Leibniz had a copy of both the
Micraelius and the Goclenius lexicons in his library in Hanover. I would like to thank Ger-
hard Biller for helping me track down this fact in the Leibniz Archives.


sible Intellect’) “universally receives all forms” and that the Active Intellect
“is what makes the possible intellect to be in act to all things which are in it
potentially.”74 The important point for our purposes is that in all these
accounts, the Passive Intellect receives and “takes on” any material it is
given (whatever exactly that material is), while the Active Intellect is an ac-
tive processor.
With this said, we can return to the passage quoted from On transubstan-
tiation and to our questions about the nature of the Idea qua conceived
essence and about the difference among the Ideas qua substantial form. In
the context just set concerning the Active and Passive Intellect, the passage
can be seen to imply that for a (possible) substance S, the nature of the Idea
qua conceived essence of S is such that it contains the fully articulated
essence of S. Leibniz writes: “Inasmuch as the intellect concurs with what
is passive, to that extent there is matter in the Idea; inasmuch as the intel-
lect concurs with what is active, to that extent there is form.” What Leibniz
suggests here is that, since the Idea qua conceived essence “concurs” with
every active and passive state of S, it contains all the predicates of S. Ac-
cording to Leibniz, the Idea contains “ideally both active and passive
potential, both active and passive intellect.” By comparing the Idea to the
Active and Passive Intellect, Leibniz emphasizes the fact that the Idea qua
conceived essence contains “ideally” everything that S will do and every-
thing that it will suffer.75 In sum, the Idea qua conceived essence of S con-
tains ideally all the features of S.
In this case, the answer to our question about the individuation of the
Idea qua substantial form is fairly dramatic. As the instantiation of the Idea
qua conceived essence, the Idea qua substantial form will contain the set of
instructions for how S will act so as to actualize all the features that the con-
ceived essence contained “ideally.” In this case, each Idea qua substantial
form will differ from every other in that it will have a different set of in-
structions. According to Leibniz, his claim that each substantial form dif-
fers from every other is “in conformity with the principles of the noblest
scholastics and Aristotelian philosophers, those for whom the substantial
form is the principle of individuation.”76 Nor should it be surprising that
in the context of the problem of transubstantiation, Leibniz would opt for
such a robust principle of individuation. As I said in the discussion of On
transubstantiation in chapter , the matter of the bread and wine remains the
same when they are transubstantiated; what changes is their substantial
form. As Leibniz writes: “A body that is thus transubstantiated is changed
in no way except in the substantial form or Idea of the concurring mind.”77

. Castanaeus, Celebriorum Distinctionum Philosophicarum Synopsis, .

. The distinction in the Latin between agens and patiens is hard to capture in standard Eng-
lish. The basic distinction is between what acts and what suffers or is acted upon. To keep
as close to this idea as possible, I will use the English verbs “to act” and “to suffer,” though
the distinction between acting and being acted upon should be kept clearly in mind.
. VI i : L . . VI i : L .


   

Leibniz solves the metaphysical problem of transubstantiation with enor-

mous finesse: the matter remains the same, as does its physical properties,
while the Ideas that God emanates to the bread and wine are neatly re-
placed.78 The emanation of the divine mind is replaced by the mind of
Christ or, in other words, the Idea that was the substantial form of the bread
is replaced by the Idea that is the substantial form of Christ. According to
Leibniz, “the mind of Christ can impart operation, action or subsistence
both to the glorious body of Christ and to the species of consecrated bread
and wine, at the same time, and in varying cases in various places on the
earth.” Through emanation of the relevant sort, “the mind of Christ can be
present everywhere in the . . . consecrated bread and wine.”79
At the outset of my discussion of On transubstantiation in this section, I
proposed to explicate the Emanative Creation Story presented in that text
without the assumptions and distinctions used in our Speculative Creation
Story. Having done that let’s now compare our story with the one Leibniz
offers in his essay.80 We find evidence in On transubstantiation of our story.
In keeping with part (), Leibniz writes: “[T]he divine mind consists in the
Ideas”81 and chooses among “the infinitely really diverse Ideas” in its mind
to create some so that “[t]he substance of each [non-human] thing is not so
much mind as it is an Idea of a concurring mind.”82 The result is that God
is “diffused through everything.”83 These Ideas are “in God” and yet “are
the substances of things.”84 Although Leibniz is silent in On transubstanti-
ation about how exactly God selects among the Ideas, in related notes on the
Eucharist, he distinguishes between what the Supreme Being thinks and
what it does. According to Leibniz, what God does follows from what “he
wishes and holds for the best.”85 It would seem that the Supreme Being
thinks or conceives an infinite number of possible individuals, decides
which group of these “holds for the best,” and then acts accordingly. In
keeping with parts () and () of our story, Leibniz explains that each Idea
contains “ideally” both passive and active potential and yet each Idea is the
substantial form of its substance. How exactly does it do both? According
to our Speculative Creation Story, for each individual created substance S,
there will be a complete concept of S in God’s mind and a substantial form
F in S that contains the set of instructions for the activity of F. I suggested
that the set of instructions in F is the ontological correlate of the complete
concept. On transubstantiation offers significant evidence for this view since
the Idea is first a fully conceived essence of S and then, when joined with a
principle of activity, becomes the substantial form of S (where S is a non-
human substance). That is, the Idea qua conceived essence is a complete

. That Leibniz offers a coherent solution to the problem is clear; that he would have con-
vinced his contemporary Roman Catholics is unclear.
. VI i : L .
. For a summary of the five parts of the Speculative Creation Story, see Appendix II,
ch. .
. VI i : L . . VI i –: L . . VI i .
. VI i : L . . VI i : L .


   , – 

concept, while the Idea qua substantial form contains the ontological cor-
relate of the complete concept in the guise of a set of instructions for the
activity of F. Just as part () of our speculative story demands, the Idea qua
substantial form contains both the principle of activity of F and the in-
structions for how F will act.
The one part of our speculative story about which On transubstantiation
is silent is part (), which concerns causal interaction and (Weak) Parallelism.
However, there is reason to believe that Leibniz also accepted these tenets.
During the period –, he sometimes talks as though substances do
causally interact,86 and there is no evidence of the denail of intersubstan-
tial interaction. That is, there is reason to believe that during the period un-
der discussion Leibniz was prepared to admit intersubstantial causation. If
he does admit such causation and if he endorses parts () and () of the
Speculative Creation Story, then it would seem to follow that he also must
accept (Weak) Parallelism. As implied in the discussion of parts () and ()
of our speculative story, the set of instructions in the substantial form F of
a substance S is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the truth of the
predicates contained in the complete concept of S. In a world of intersub-
stantial causation, all the predicates contained in the complete concept of S
will truly apply to S only if (Weak) Parallelism is also true. In other words,
if I am right in the attribution of parts () and () of the Speculative Cre-
ation Story to Leibniz and if he accepts intersubstantial causal interaction
during the period, then it would seem to follow that he also endorses (Weak)
Parallelism.
Concerning the final part of our Speculative Creation Story, On transub-
stantiation employs something very like the Principle of the Identity of In-
discernibles. As noted above, each substantial form and hence each (non-
human) substance differs from every other. Since we can comfortably
assume that human substances also differ, the world seems to contain no two
substances that are identical.
Did Leibniz really accept such a radical position in –? That is, was
his Emanative Creation Story so similar to our speculative story? There is
some reason to balk at this point and to worry about reading too much into
On transubstantiation in general and into Leibniz’s comparison between the
Idea and the Active and Passive Intellects in particular. How certain can we
be that in the late s, Leibniz took there to be a complete concept for
every substance and an ontological correlate in the substantial form for
every such concept? Let’s consider other textual evidence. In the Conspec-
tus, Leibniz lists some of “the eternal modes of God.” In notes that he added
to the text, he writes about the modes of omnipresence and multipresence:
“God knows everything and in this way all properties are contained in the
definition; this can be illustrated admirably through a numerical example,
e.g., whoever knows , knows it to be ++.”87 Given that the context here

. E.g., VI ii ; II i –; VI i –.

. The note could have been added any time between  and .


   

is that of the relation between God and creatures, we can reasonably assume
that the knowledge under discussion is knowledge of creatures. If we as-
sume that the  is analogous to the complete concept or, as we described it
in our Speculative Creation Story, the fully articulated conceived of a pos-
sible substance, then it is surely possible that what the Supreme
Being knows when it knows that “all properties are contained in the defini-
tion” is all the properties that are contained first in the conceived and then
in the created individual essence. That is, it knows the complete concept of
the created substance. Moreover, the notes that Leibniz wrote on the prob-
lem of the Eucharist at roughly the same time as On transubstantiation of-
fer evidence that the substantial form of a substance contains the ontologi-
cal correlate of the complete concept. He explains: “The substance of things
is Idea. Idea is union of God and creature, just as an action is a unity [unum]
of acting and suffering [agentis et patientis].” As Leibniz goes on to explain:
“The Ideas of God and the Substances of things are the same thing, but dif-
ferent in relation.”88 By such means, Leibniz can be seen to offer a succinct
account of the role that the substantial form plays in God’s world. Given
Leibniz’s commitment to the Principle of Substantial Activity, according to
which S is a substance if and only if S has a principle of activity per se, the
Idea under discussion here must be the Idea qua substantial form. There-
fore, what Leibniz suggests in this text is that, although in its relation to
God, the substantial form F is merely active, in its relation to its passive
principle P, F constitutes a unity with P and in that sense suffers along with
P. Since the Supreme Being can be presumed to know the contents of its
Ideas, it follows that God has foreknowledge of all the predicates that will
truly be ascribed to the unity (i.e., the substance) constituted of F and P. It
would seem to follow therefore that the Idea or substantial form F in the
substance S will contain instructions for how F will form a unity with P so
as to fullfil its preconceived plan. That is, consistent with our Speculative
Creation Story, these notes on the Eucharist suggest that the Idea qua sub-
stantial form contains instructions for how S will act so as to acquire all its
divinely foreseen features.
Thus far in my account of Leibniz’s Emanative Creation Story, I have
only considered texts that date from – and that display Leibniz’s
Original Theory of Corporeal Substance. But in On the incarnation of God,
we also find evidence of the Emanative Creation Story. According to the ac-
count of substantial unity and activity that we discovered in that essay, for
every corporeal substance S, S will have a (mind-like) substantial form F
that contains the principle of activity of S and a set of instructions for the
behavior of F on its passive principle P. As Leibniz insists, each mind has
“a special ratio” by which it acts as “God’s instrument.” The relation be-
tween God and creatures, as it is displayed in On the incarnation of God, is
consistent with parts () and () of the Emanative Creation Story.89

. VI i .
. VI i –. For a full discussion of these points, see ch. , sect. .


   , – 

Nor is that all. In the December  letter to Thomasius with which I
began this chapter, Leibniz goes even further. He dramatically proclaims the
need to return to final causes so that his contemporaries may be saved “from
the darknesses” of materialism. In the remainder of the text, he makes two
points that are particularly relevant here. First, he suggests that a more thor-
ough contemplation of final causes will expose the underlying necessity of
things. For Leibniz, the “clock of the world” unfolds “as if by necessity”
toward the greatest good. This unfolding occurs because “the first mind . . .
in its wisdom, establishes things from the beginning so that there is rarely
need of extraordinary concurrence . . . for the conservation of things.”
Leibniz goes on to explain how this works. As he writes to Thomasius,
“thinking and motion” are “the efficient causes of all things.”90 According
to the Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, thinking and motion are the
two sorts of activity in the world, both of which reduce to the activity of the
mind-like substantial forms in corporeal substances which themselves act
“by a special ratio.” Therefore, Leibniz’s point to Thomasius seems to be
that the activities of substantial forms are the efficient causes of everything
else, and moreover that these mind-like substantial forms are arranged from
the beginning to act “as if by necessity.” In other words, all the states of the
world reduce to the activities of substantial forms which are themselves
prearranged from the beginning. But in this case, we have an account of sub-
stantial form that is consistent with part () of the Emanative Creation
Story: the substantial form F of a substance S contains the ontological cor-
relate of the complete concept of S in that every true predicate in the
concept has a correlate in the set of instructions. Another point of special
relevance to us here concerns part () of the speculative story and a point
we made in discussion of Leibniz’s version of the Emanative Creation Story
in On transubstantation. I argued that in a world in which there are both
complete concepts for substances and genuine causation among them, there
will have to be (Weak) Parallelism. In the December  letter, Leibniz
recommends to Thomasius that he conceive of the interrelations among
creatures in civil and not in material terms. Leibniz’s point seems to be that
the substances in the world behave like the members of a “grand republic”
in that each acts according to its place and in appropriate relation to all the
others.91
In section , I noted Leibniz’s interesting application of the theory of tra-
duction to the momentary minds in non-human substances, where the idea
was that each momentary mind propagates itself through traduction; and I
explained the relation between this theory and the Platonist Causal Seed
Doctrine, according to which God created everything “in the beginning” as
seminal rationes so that they would remain dormant until the appropriate
time. I also analyzed a letter to Lambert van Velthuysen of May  in
which Leibniz insists that the mind in a body “multiplies itself through
Traduction without new creation, with no loss of incorporeality [incorpo-

. II i –. . II i . For a brief account of parallelism, see Appendix I.


   

ralitatis].”92 In the letter to Johann Friedrich of May  which we also

discussed briefly in section  and in which Leibniz describes the relation be-
tween a mind and its body as one of diffusion, we find the same emphasis
on traduction and the same moral to the story that Leibniz draws in his let-
ter to Van Velthuysen: there is no need for the perpetual miracles of God
because minds act “without being diminished.”93 Leibniz’s use of the the-
ory of traduction is relevant to our concerns here. According to his Second
Theory of Corporeal Substance as articulated in chapter , the minds in un-
conscious substances are momentary. Traduction is critical in a world pop-
ulated by momentary minds: without traduction, God would have to create
minds constantly; with it, minds are, in the words of Augustine, “like moth-
ers heavy with their offspring” in that they contain “the causes of things still
to be.”94 But traduction will only work if minds have two rather demand-
ing characteristics. First, as noted, each mind must contain power sufficient
to produce other minds without being depleted. Second, as Augustine sug-
gests in his account of seminal rationes, God must have prearranged things
so that every seed acts according to plan. That is, the proper functioning of
traduction requires the careful prearranged coordination among substances,
or something very like (Weak) Parallelism. Not surprisingly, in his letters to
Van Velthuysen and Johann Friedrich, Leibniz’s basic point seems to be
that all the activities in the natural world have been prearranged in minds,
which not only act out of their own perpetual power, but reproduce them-
selves in a manner carefully prearranged by God. Similar to Augustine with
his notion of seminal rationes, Leibniz suggests that God has scattered an
infinity of causal seeds throughout creation which function as the source of
all the activity in the world and which do so in a divinely harmonious fash-
ion. The general idea seems to be that in the same way the (selected) divine
essence flows from the Supreme Being in a perfect and orderly fashion, so
do the activities of minds.
Before concluding this section, it will be worthwhile to turn to another
letter of May  that neatly outlines Leibniz’s version of the Emanative
Creation Story. In a letter to Magnus Wedderkopf, Leibniz offers an im-
portant summary of some of his most basic beliefs. He explains that “it is
necessary that everything be reduced [resolvi] to some ratio.” Nor should
we stop until we have arrived at “the first ratio” or we must admit “that
something is able to exist with sufficient ratio for its existence.” About this
first ratio, he asks:
What is the ultimate ratio of the divine will? The divine intellect. For God wills those
things which he understands to be best and harmonious and selects them, as it were,
from the infinite number of all possibilities. What is the ultimate ratio of the divine
intellect? The harmony of things. What is the ratio of the harmony of things? Noth-
ing. For example, no ratio can be given for the relation of  to  being the same as
that of  to , not even in the divine will. This depends on the Essence itself, or the

. II i . . II i .

. On the Trinity, III ix (). For a more thorough discussion of this point, see sect. , ch. .


   , – 
Idea of things. For the Essences of things are like numbers and contain the very
possibility of Beings, which [possibility] God does not make, but he makes existence:
since rather these possibilities themselves or the Ideas of things coincide with God
himself.95
Given our present concerns, what is striking about this passage is the
poignant directness of Leibniz’s views about creation. We will bypass the
difficult details concerning the relation between the divine will and intellect
and focus on the part of the creation story that most concerns us here. There
are several significant points. First, the background assumption seems to be
that for everything that happens, there is a complete ratio. Second, Leibniz
insists that every such ratio can itself be reduced to a first ratio or God. A
question arises: how exactly does God or the “first ratio” constitute the com-
plete ratio for the secondary causes or minds? The short answer to the ques-
tion is: harmony. For now, we will avoid the long answer except to note that
this harmony coincides with the Supreme Being itself. But how? At this
point, I call upon both the discussion (in chapter , section ) of the rela-
tion between the transcendent and immanent God, and the account (in sec-
tion  above) of Leibniz’s views about Emanative Harmony. With this ma-
terial in hand, the point here becomes fairly straightforward: “the very
possibility of Beings” is contained in God who then makes this “Essence”
or “Idea of things” immanent in the world. The harmony of things just is,
following the terminology introduced here, the instantiation of the (se-
lected) emanative essence of God. But our passage is more than just a very
clear account of Emanative Harmony. Notice what follows. The essences of
things, writes Leibniz, depend on “the Essence itself.” Following our ter-
minology, the point is that the complete concepts of individual substances
are versions of the (selected) divine essence. Leibniz goes on to point out
that these conceived essences or complete concepts contain “the very pos-
sibility of Beings” and that these possible beings are not strictly made by
God. This is both an accurate description of the complete concepts, and is
consistent with our account of Idea in On transubstantiation: God does not
make the conceived essences in that they follow from the divine essence.
That is, like the Idea qua conceived essence of On transubstantiation, the
complete concepts are “in God” in the sense that they are versions of the
divine essence that follow from it and in that sense are not produced. As
Leibniz nicely makes the point here, they “coincide with God himself.”
Moreover, Leibniz compares these complete concepts to numbers, and im-
plies that the actualization of these conceived essences is like the instantia-
tion of such numbers in the world.96 It is important that according to Leib-
niz here, the difference between the conceived essence and the instantiated
essence is that although the Supreme Being does not make the former, it
makes the latter. That is, like the Idea qua substantial form in On transub-

. II i : L .

. This is almost certainly Leibniz’s first use of such an arithmatical analogy which will be-
come prominent in his Paris period. See, e.g., VI iii , , .


   

stantiation, the ontological correlate of the complete concept requires an act

of God. In short, the creation of an individual substance requires that God
actualize or instantiate the complete concept. Finally, the passage suggests
that the essence of an individual thing, like the essence of a number, will
contain all those properties that are truly predicated of it. To put it another
way, when the Supreme Being chooses to actualize the complete concept, it
gives each substance the ontological correlate of the concept so that the sub-
stance will act to fulfill God’s prearranged plan. In the same way that the
properties of a number will follow from its essence, so will the properties of
the actualized complete concept. After insisting to Wedderkopf that this ac-
count is perfectly consistent with the freedom of God, Leibniz declares:
“Hence it follows that whatever has happened, is happening, or will happen
is best, and also is necessary.”97
I do not think that we can avoid the surprising conclusion that the young
Leibniz’s Emanative Creation Story contains all five parts of the specula-
tive story presented here. In -early , Leibniz was attempting to
solve a number of problems at once. Some of his solutions place him in close
proximity with key doctrines of his mature thought. At first glance, the fact
that he had these radical philosophical leanings at such an early stage might
seem shocking, especially since they have gone unnoticed. But as I sug-
gested in the presentation of the Speculative Creation Story, when we com-
bine the Aristotelian principles attributed to Leibniz in chapter  with the
Platonist tenets articulated in chapter , and then add a commitment to
divine foreknowledge, some of the more radical features of Leibniz’s meta-
physics are very close at hand. It is worth noting, however, that in the
period -early , Leibniz was not yet prepared to embrace the
Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance.
I said in chapter  that once we take seriously Leibniz’s Metaphysics of
Method, we will be able to discern a long-missed aspect of his brilliance.
The present section contains a striking example of this. Leibniz’s Emana-
tive Creation Story is the result of a brilliant blending of materials from a
diverse group of sources. What Leibniz does is to take an Aristotelian Meta-
physics of Substance and Platonist Metaphysics of Divinity, apply them to
a set of contemporary theological, physical, philosophical problems, and
thereby create a fascinating Metaphysics of Divinity of his own.
On the basis of our discussion in this and the preceding section, we can
revise the () Substantial Form Assumption as it was articulated at the
conclusion of chapter . Its final  – early  version runs as follows:
• The (early ) Substantial Form Assumption claims that, for every
mind-like substantial form F in a substance S, F acts constantly on its pas-
sive principle P by a set of instructions given it by God and that consti-
tute the ontological correlate of the complete concept of S, F creates a
substantial unity with P by so acting, F is permanently attached to P so

. II i : L .


   , – 

that F will only act outside itself through P, the acting of F is a form of
thinking that produces thoughts, and moreover F acts through emanation
and therefore can neither be created nor destroyed by anything other than
God.

. Platonist epistemology
How do human minds fit into this world of Emanative Harmony? Accord-
ing to the Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, for each non-human
substance, there is a mind-like form that contains a principle of activity and
set of instructions. Whereas such minds unconsciously act according to this
blueprint built into them, rational minds are conscious of the world and
their position in it. As Leibniz writes in the Conspectus, “minds are free;
bodies are necessary.” Each human mind is two things at once: it is both
something that instantiates the (selected) essence of God and something
that is conscious of other creaturely instantiations. In the period of –,
Leibniz begins to investigate the exact role that conscious minds play in a
world of Emanative Harmony.98 In the present section, I will consider the
texts of this period and outline the general features of Leibniz’s epistemol-
ogy. In chapter , I argue that there is a subtle though important shift be-
tween early and late  in Leibniz’s thinking about the role that sensory
appearances play in the acquisition of knowledge. In brief, the shift consists
in the fact that by late , Leibniz is more concerned than he was earlier
to explain the exact relation between our perceptions of the sensory ap-
pearances and our knowledge of the underlying realities. Prior to May ,
he seems either unconcerned or undecided about the place of sensory ap-
pearances on the road to knowledge.
When Leibniz began to investigate the place of conscious minds in a
world of Emanative Harmony, the results were significant. In his inquiry
about the relation between human minds and their divine source, he ana-
lyzes how the former is able to contemplate the latter. Of crucial importance
here is the fact that a human mind is capable of recognizing the unity be-
tween itself and other minds. For each conscious individual, the goal of life
is to recognize the divinity within the world and the means to that recogi-
tion is through the unity among minds. In his exploration of the relation
among conscious minds, Leibniz investigates how each individual mind is
able to contribute to the epistemological journey of all the others. Of cru-
cial significance here is the fact that each individual human mind is able to
reflect all the others “like a mirror.”
In this section, I argue that Leibniz’s original epistemology is thoroughly
Platonist. As I suggested in chapter , for most Platonists, the world is fun-
damentally good and is moving toward the good. Human beings love the

. In this chapter, I have generally tried to appeal only to texts of the period –. Be-
cause some of the notes that are most explicit about Leibniz’s epistemology are dated
–, the period covered in this section extends into .


   

good and strive to be good. Doing good requires knowing what the good is
and loving it. The true objects of knowledge are those immutable essences
or Ideas (e.g., Justice) which are constitutive of the good and which can be
known only by removing oneself from the mutable world of appearances.
Many Platonists equated the Ideas with the divine attributes, so that to
know the Ideas was to know God. For many, the Ideas exist in us, put there
by God, as the only proper objects of knowledge; because of our finitude,
the recognition of these Ideas requires God’s help. For some, God’s help
comes in the form of love. According to Augustine, for example, the “im-
mutable light of God . . . gave a shock to the weakness of my sight . . . , and
I trembled with love and awe.” He explains: “The person who knows the
truth knows it, and he who knows it knows eternity. Love knows it.”99 In
section  of chapter , we also described the journey to knowledge. For Pla-
tonists like Philo of Alexandria knowledge is attainable only for those who
“quit the abode of the outward senses” and “dwell in mind and intellect . . .
among the objects of contemplation.”100 According to Philo, as long as we
waste our time with “the distinctive qualities of the body,”101 we will not
“arrive at a correct knowledge of God and of his works.” For Philo, one of
the points to life is to recognize that “there is a mind in you and in the uni-
verse.”102 In section  of chapter , I offered the Epistemological Assump-
tion as a summary of this somewhat complicated Platonist theory of knowl-
edge and knowledge acquisition: it claims () that the mind is the object of
knowledge in the sense that it contains the eternal truths or Ideas, () that
the mind, which is mutable and finite, will become aware of those objects
only if it turns away from the material world and is aided by the divine light,
and () that it is the intellect or understanding that is capable of grasping
those truths. In the texts of –, we find ample evidence that Leibniz
accepts this assumption. Let’s consider each claim in turn.

Ideas as objects of knowledge

I asserted at the outset of this chapter that according to Leibniz, there are
two aspects of the created world: the sensory or phenomenal world of be-
coming and the eternal and immutable world of being. For the young Leib-
niz, the acquisition of knowledge depends crucially on the fact that a hu-
man mind can turn itself upon itself and be both subject and object of
knowledge. The mind as subject is capable of understanding all essences;103
the mind as object contains them in its nature.104 Let’s consider some texts.

. Augustine, Confessions VII, x (). For Augustine and Leibniz, grace plays a role in the
acquisition of knowledge, although Leibniz is less explicit than Augustine about its im-
portance. The mature Leibniz is relatively clear about his views. See, e.g., Discourse on
metaphysics, ch. ; Leibniz’ Deutsche Schriften, –: L –.
. Philo, On the Migration of Abraham XXXVIII : Yonge .
. Ibid., V. : Yonge . . Ibid., XXXIII –: Yonge . . II i .
. It is well-known that in the late s and throughout his life, Leibniz was thoroughly


   , – 

In notes written during the summer of , Leibniz repudiates those

who claim that “there is nothing in the intellect that is not first in the sense.”
According to Leibniz, this is true only “in a limited way” for “there is noth-
ing in the intellect that was not first in sense, except the intellect itself.”105 In
the discussion of the Active and Passive Intellects in section , I noted that
for some philosophers (e.g., Averroës) the Intellect contains the Ideas. Leib-
niz concurs: for him, the Intellect comes replete with the Ideas, which are
the true objects of knowledge. Therefore, when he writes that “there is
nothing in the intellect that is not first in the sense, except the intellect it-
self,” he is claiming that the Intellect is able to have two sorts of objects:
those Ideas that are contained in its nature and those sensory materials that
are not. We find further evidence to this effect in Leibniz’s outline of the
Catholic demonstrations. In the third section of the Conspectus, entitled “The
Demonstration of the Possibility of the Mysteries of the Christian Faith,”
Leibniz makes some revealing comments about the relation between divine
and human mind. His plan is to discuss “the eternal” modes of God,
namely, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and multipresence; to
analyze the omnipresence and multipresence of God in human mind; and to
include “an exposition of the Ideas,” insofar as they are in divine as well as
human mind.106 As noted in section  of chapter , it was common for Pla-
tonists to think that the divinity was present in the human mind and that
the acquisition of knowledge required divine help. In Augustine’s words:
“God is everywhere” and knowledge is attainable only “through the help of
God.”107 In the Conspectus, Leibniz agrees that God is present in mind, and
endorses the claim that both human and divine mind contain the Ideas.
Moreover, in the second part of this outline for the Catholic demonstrations,
entitled “Demonstration of the Immortality of the Soul, and of Incorpo-
reality,” Leibniz proposes to demonstrate immortality on the basis of “the
thinking of incorporeals.”108 In the Phaedo, Plato had argued for the im-
mortality of the soul based on the fact that, like the incorporeal Ideas, the
soul is an incorporeal thing. Roughly, one of Plato’s points was that only
something that itself could escape the corporeal world of becoming would
be capable of thinking or grasping the incorporeal world of the Ideas.109
Following Plato, Leibniz seems to assume in the Conspectus that the capac-
ity of the soul to think the eternal and immutable Ideas entails its immor-
tality. For our purposes here, however, the point to emphasize is that in texts
written in the period –, Leibniz endorses the first claim in the Epis-

interested in the examination of the physical world. How does his genuine enthusiasm
for natural science conform to his Platonist epistemology? For the answer to this ques-
tion, see chapter , section .
. VI ii . My emphasis.
. VI i . The Conspectus was written during the period when Leibniz believed that the
mind in non-human substances was the “concurrent mind” or God. Therefore, the minds
under discussion here must be human.
. Confessions, XIV.xv (). . VI i . The Latin is: “ex cognitione incorporalium.”
. Phaedo, b–b.


   

temological Assumption, namely, that the mind is the object of knowledge

in that it contains the immutible and incorporeal Ideas.

Intellect and the material world

In the notes for the Elements of natural law and in other texts of -early
, Leibniz proudly proclaims that his theory of knowledge is Platonist.
He insists that the acquisition of knowledge ultimately demands that we
turn away from the material world so that our intellect can grasp the truths.
He distinguishes clearly between the senses and the intellect and between
the sciences based on them. According to Leibniz, there are two sorts of sci-
ences: those “which depend on experience . . . and sense” and “those sci-
ences which depend on definitions . . . and demonstrations.”110 Although
he encourages work in the former (e.g., medicine) and admits that such dis-
ciplines have made progress in controlling nature, he insists that this sort of
science does not benefit our souls. For Leibniz, despite the genuine useful-
ness of the mechanical sciences based on the phenomena, they do not lead
us to the real underlying truths: “Therefore until now we have been igno-
rant of, that is we have not consumed, nor have we imbibed the true foun-
tains of the equal and the good.”111 He writes: “Now that we are conquerors
of the world, there assuredly remains an enemy within us: everything is
clear to man but man, the body to the mind, and the mind to itself.”112 Our
souls will be benefited only when we turn away from the senses and discover
the real truths that lie beyond them. According to Leibniz, unlike those sci-
ences that are based on the sensory phenomena, “the principles of the
[other] sciences possess eternal truth” and are based on the understanding.
These principles are like “what Plato called an Idea.”113 In sum, the true
objects of knowledge are the Platonist Ideas which the understanding
grasps and which cannot be reached through the senses. In the introductory
paragraph of the Theory of Abstact Motion, Leibniz makes the same sort of
pronouncements about the relation between physics and true knowledge.
He explains that his physical proposals are ultimately based on “the inner-
most nature of Thinking, the perpetuity [perennitas] of Mind, and the First
Cause. . . . [F]rom these fountains, both clear and limpid, flow forth pro-
found truths . . . about the Good and the Equal, and the Just.”114 In his con-
clusion, he returns to this theme and insists that the goal of his work in
physics is “to offer solid demonstrations about God and Mind” and to af-
firm “the mysteries of the faith.” He proclaims that his physical proposals

. VI i : L .

. VI i : L . In Plato’s Phaedo, the discussion of the Ideas and the possession of
knowledge of them begins with a set of questions about the Equal (see especially a-
d). In the Republic (esp. b–), where the discussion is focused primarily on Jus-
tice, Plato suggests that the Good is the ultimate Idea. See the quotation, cited in n. ,
in which Leibniz mentions these three Ideas.
. VI i : L ; my emphasis. . VI i : L . . VI ii .


   , – 

are founded on “a certain singular harmony of things detectable to those

minds accustomed to such Music.”115
Soon after writing the Theory of Abstract Motion, Leibniz began to work
on the details of how minds could become so accustomed. In a fascinating
note of , entitled Trinity, Mind, we see him tinkering with the details
of his views. The abundant additions and deletions made to the manuscript
offer a ringside seat on a struggle among formulations. Leibniz’s first at-
tempt to articulate a basic tenet of his epistemology, namely, that “Mind is
what perceives eternal [truths],” became “Mind is what is concerned with
eternal truths,” which he also crossed out.116 He tried again, and wrote and
then crossed out both of the following: “The Intellect is what concerns it-
self with the eternal truths;” “The Intellect is what concerns itself with the
perception of things which are in act.” These rejected formulations reveal
that in one of his original attempts to display how the mind acquires knowl-
edge, Leibniz turned to the model of the Agent Intellect. As noted previ-
ously, for some philosophers this faculty is both the subject and the object
of knowledge: as subject, it is the faculty that receives the objects of knowl-
edge; as object, it is a storehouse of the eternal truths. According to Leib-
niz, the eternal truths are in the mind as possible objects of knowledge. He
writes in Trinity, Mind: “For if God did not think [cogitaret] himself to be
in act, then . . . he would neither perceive [perciperet] nor have happiness.”
That is, because God is the only thing that, as an object of thought, could
make himself happy, it follows that if he were not able to be his own object
of thought, then he would have no happiness. The Supreme Being must
therefore be its own object of thought. Leibniz continues: “So, it is not able
to be otherwise than that God thinks himself to be in act, and that mind
thinks itself to be in act. Mind and God do not differ except that one is fi-
nite and the other infinite.”117 In other words, finite conscious mind is like
God in that it is able to have itself as an object of thought. According to
Leibniz, when mind reflects upon itself, it contemplates the same objects as
does God, namely, the eternal truths. These objects are non-sensory and fol-
low from the nature of human mind in much the same way that they follow
from the nature of divine mind.
In chapter , I will explore a slight shift between early and late  in
Leibniz’s thinking about the epistemological value of sensory appearances.
The important point for us now is that for Leibniz in –early , each
mind is an Intellect with its own storehouse of eternal truths or Ideas which
are non-sensory.

. VI ii .
. VI ii . Leibniz did not finish writing the first formulation before he began the second.
He wrote Mens and then quae percipit aetern (sic), which he crossed out before writing
refertur ad aeternas veritates.
. VI ii .


   

Divine light
But if the Ideas are in our mind and non-sensory, then how do we attain ac-
cess to them? In chapter , section , I will discuss the precise role that the
sensory appearances play in the acquisition of knowledge. For now let’s re-
strict ourselves to a discussion of how the divine light helps us attain knowl-
edge. Given the Platonist epistemological goal, it would be reasonable to
predict that the journey to it would be an individual and internal one, aided
only by God. In fact, the journey importantly depends on the vast inter-
connections among divinely harmonized creatures, and in that sense is im-
portantly aided from without. In section , I discussed Reflective Harmony
and presented Leibniz’s original comparison of the mind to a mirror. In the
ethical context of the Elements of natural law, the poignancy of the image
would have been clear to Leibniz’s contemporaries. Mirrors in the seven-
teenth century were both darker and more obscure than their modern ver-
sions, and must have differed widely in quality.118 In one of the passages in
which Leibniz uses the analogy, he mentions “the deformity of mind.”119
It seems likely that he was motivated to develop this analogy in order to dis-
play the important role of Reflective Harmony in the acquisition of knowl-
edge by finite, mutable minds. Let me explain.
Over the months that Leibniz composed the various notes of the Elements
of natural law, his views about ethical matters evolve in interesting ways.
But underlying these changes are the assumptions that all creatures, despite
their “deformity,” contain goodness and that rational creatures can (at least
in theory) come to see both the goodness in each thing and the goodness in
everything. To oversimplify somewhat, by the autumn of , Leibniz
concludes that human beings will become good just in case they recognize
the divinity in things and therefore love them. According to Leibniz, “the
Good” has been attained “when harmony is understood thoroughly.”120
Moreover, “a Good Man is one who loves everyone.”121 For Leibniz, then,
in order to become good, one must acquire knowledge of the good; to ac-
quire knowledge of the good is just to recognize the unity within the mul-
tiplicity or (what amounts to the same thing) to perceive the divinity and
goodness in everything and hence to love everything.122 In brief, to know
the good is to understand Emanative Harmony: “It is obvious that every-
one would love everyone, . . . (if only) we were to elevate our eyes to uni-
versal harmony.”123
So far, so good. But how exactly does one come to understand Emanative
Harmony? Leibniz’s answer to this question places him in a long line of Pla-
tonists. Consider the following passage from Plotinus’ Enneads, which we

. Loemker makes this point at L , n. . . VI i : L .

. VI i . . VI ii .
. For an excellent discussion of Leibniz’s views about love and related matters, see Riley,
Leibniz’ Universal Jurisprudence, passim.
. VI i .


   , – 

considered briefly in section  of chapter . About the interrelations among

the mind-like Ideas, Plotinus writes:
Everything is clear . . . to everything, for light is transparent to light. Each, there,
has everything in itself and sees all things in every other, for all are everywhere and
each and every one is all, and the glory is unbounded; for each of them is great, be-
cause even the small is great: the sun there is all the stars, and each star is the sun
and all the others.124
As noted in chapter , there exists a similar reflective interrelation among
individual souls, although they are not fully conscious of it. For Plotinus
and many other Platonists, a necessary step to knowledge of the One is the
recognition of the unity or oneness among individual souls. That is, for each
individual soul, its first step toward an understanding of the unity and di-
vinity in all things is the recognition of the unity among souls. Or, to make
the point another way, the journey to knowledge for the individual soul will
begin with a recognition of its connection to all other souls.
In the Republic, Plato compares the Good to the sun which sheds its light
on every other being.125 For Plotinus and others, the metaphor of the sun
as a source of goodness and being was put to a variety of uses. With his
image of a mind as a mirror, Leibniz cleverly picks up and extends the
standard Platonist metaphor of God as a sun emitting rays. He combines
the ancient image with elements from contemporary science to produce a
vivid picture of the divine light within nature. As noted in section , Leib-
niz’s first use of the metaphor suggests that the reflection and refraction of
light adds to the beauty and goodness of things. According to Leibniz, a
mind is like a “point collecting visual rays.” But there is more going on than
just that. For Leibniz’s contemporaries, the role that mirrors played in mi-
croscopes and telescopes was well known. Since both of these instruments
used mirrors to extend the human capacity to see, Leibniz surely intends
for his analogy to suggest that the Reflective Harmony among minds in-
creases the capacity of each moral being to see the good. That is, because of
the Reflective Harmony among minds, each mind will be more enlightened
and the good will be more visible. As Leibniz makes the point in a passage
quoted in section :
since every mind is like a mirror, there will be one mirror in our mind, another in
other minds. Thus, if there are many mirrors, that is, many minds recognizing our
goods, there will be a greater light, the mirrors blending the light not only in the [in-
dividual] eye but also among each other. The gathered splendor produces glory.126
In this passage, which bears a resemblance to the one just quoted from the
Enneads, each mind reflects the goodness of the others and thereby increases
the capacity of each to see the good. In section , we noted the place of the
Enhancement Relation in Leibniz conception of Reflective Harmony. The

. V..  , –; my emphasis. . Republic b–b; c.

. VI i : L . My emphasis. Unfortunately, the precise date of Leibniz’s text in not
known; it was written sometime in –.


   

important point to emphasize about the relation here is that it guarantees

that minds will increase the goodness and not the badness of one another.
That is, Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Divinity requires that minds be related
so that their goodness can only increase. The image of the mind as a mirror
is perfectly suited to the point: in the same way that the reflection of mir-
rors increase light, so does the reflection of minds increase goodness. For
Leibniz, the divine light inherent in the world aids in the journey of the in-
dividual soul to the truth. Because of the unity among minds, and because
goodness begets goodness, humans can escape the material world of be-
coming and grasp the unity within the world and within themselves. In
Philo’s words, “there is a mind in you and in the universe.”127 As Leibniz
suggests in the letter to Thomasius with which I began this chapter, “God
has arranged things from the beginning” so that individual souls might rec-
ognize “the greatest harmony of all things.”128 For Leibniz, God offers each
human mind help in its journey by placing each mind in Reflective Har-
mony with all the others. Since each being is an instantiation of the (se-
lected) divine essence and since all human beings reflect all the others, God
has constructed the world so as to aid each mind in the epistemological jour-
ney to the Ideas.
I began chapter  with a discussion of the  Aristotelian statements
condemned in Paris in . For the authors of this condemnation, it was
of crucial importance to insist that knowledge could be attained only with
the help of the divine light and that the ultimate object of knowledge be
God. In this section, I have suggested that the young Leibniz shared this
epistemological vision.

. Leibniz’s original Platonism

In Chapter , I offered a summary of a number of Platonist doctrines
which, it was claimed, constitute the materials out of which Leibniz devel-
oped his Metaphysics of Divinity. As suggested there, much that is inter-
esting in Leibniz’s early writings has gone unnoticed due to our ignorance
of the vastness and variety of Platonism in the seventeenth century. In this
chapter, I have placed some of Leibniz’s early texts against the background
set in chapter . The results are startling. Among the ten assumptions ar-
ticulated in chapter , we have unearthed nine in Leibniz’s early writings.
That is, with varying degrees of clarity, we have discerned in texts and es-
says written between  and early , the Supreme Being Assumption,
the Doctrine of the Hierarchy of Being, the Principle of Harmonized Plen-
itude, the Enhancement Relation, the Theory of Emanative Causation, the
Theory of Reflective Harmony, the Creaturely Inferiority Complex, the
Causal Seed Doctrine, and the Epistemological Assumption.129

. Philo, On the Migration of Abraham, XXXIII –: Yonge .

. II i –. . The one missing assumption is the Relation of Sympathy.


   , – 

In this chapter, the primary focus has been on Leibniz’s original views
about knowledge, harmony, and the role of mind in such a world. I have
suggested that Leibniz’s notion of universal harmony has not been properly
understood because its Platonist roots have not been recognized, and I have
claimed that when Leibniz characterizes the harmony in the world as unity
or identity compensated by multiplicity or diversity, he is asserting that God
is both the unity and the multiplicity in the world. Besides his notion of har-
mony, I have also claimed that Leibniz’s Platonist predecessors bequeathed
to him assumptions about the divinity of mind and the means to knowledge.
Nor does Leibniz waver from these fundamental Platonist commitments.
Although there is abundant evidence of his Platonist doctrines scattered
throughout the mature writings, he is rarely as explicit about their inter-
connections as he is in On the true mystical theology. In this text, written in
German (probably) in the final years of the seventeenth century, Leibniz
places his Platonist cards on the table. In fact, he is explicit about each of
the major claims of the present chapter. Concerning the main focus of sec-
tions  and , namely, the emanative relation between God and creatures and
the Emanative Creation Story, he asserts in On the true mystical theology:
“Every perfection flows . . . from God, as essence, power, existence, spirit,
knowledge, will. . . . The divine perfections are concealed in all things,
though very few know how to discover them there.”130 Although Leibniz
does not discuss the notion of a complete concept, he is explicit about the
fact that God creates the world so that each individual substance contains
“everything” through its direct relation to God and yet that each substance
differs from the others. He writes: “there is a diversity of [those] things
which belong directly to the one being and are, as it were, embodied in it. . . .
In each and every being there is everything – but with a certain degree of
clearness.”131 Concerning section  and our point about the unity and di-
vinity of mind, Leibniz is particularly eloquent in On the true mystical the-
ology. He announces: “Within our self-state [Selbststand] there lies an in-
finity, a footprint or reflection of the omniscience and omnipresence of
God. . . . Every single self-state, such as I or you, is a unified, indivisible,
indestructable thing. . . . God belongs to me more intimately than does my
body.”132 Concerning the claims of section , Leibniz is also unusually
forthcoming in this essay about the human soul and its journey to knowl-
edge. Employing the same metaphor that he used in the December  let-
ter to Thomasius, Leibniz says that the mind must turn away from “the
shadows” and seek God. He warns in On the true mystical theology that al-
though there is some knowledge that “belongs to this shadow way,” we must
eventually turn away from our interest in history, language, and nature to
find our way to God who is both “the easiest and the hardest being to know.”
Leibniz writes:

. Leibniz’ Deutsche Schriften vol. I : L . . Ibid. –: L .
. Ibid. –: L .


   
Only the inner light that God himself kindles in us has the power to give us the right
knowledge of God. . . . Hence there are many who are learned without being illu-
mined . . . This light does not come from without, although external teaching can,
and sometimes must, give us an opportunity to get a glimpse of it. Among the ex-
ternal teachers there are two which best awaken the inner light: the Holy Scriptures
and the experience of nature. But neither of these helps us if the inner light does
not work with them. (The knowledge of God is the beginning of wisdom, and the
divine attributes are the primary truths for the right order of knowledge.) The es-
sential light is the eternal Word of God, in which is all wisdom, all light, indeed the
origin of all beings and the origin of all truth.133
In conclusion, I would like to draw attention to the philosophical prox-
imity between Leibniz’s original Metaphysics of Substance and the tenets
of his mature thought. The writings of -early  suggest that Leib-
niz is on the verge of developing some of the central doctrines of his ma-
ture philosophy. We have found evidence of the indestructibility of minds,
the notion of a complete concept, the conception of a mind as a mirror, and
a commitment to the per se unity and activity of substance. Nor is that all.
We have also glimpsed a tendency to think, as Leibniz wrote to Thomasius
in the December  letter with which I began this chapter, that substances
are “arranged . . . from the beginning” so that “all things follow as if by a
certain necessity toward the greatest harmony.”134 Therefore, it does not
seem farfetched to say that when Leibniz wrote to Thomasius in the final
month of  and argued energetically for a return to final causes and an
escape “from the shadows” of material causes, he was on the threshold of
his mature thought. Let’s now consider the next stage in its development.

. Ibid.
. II i .


Part four
Metaphysics
 7
Matter, passivity, and panorganic vitalism,
–

In November , Leibniz wrote his first letter to the great Antoine
Arnauld. While the correspondence between Leibniz and Arnauld that
dates from the s is surely one of the most fascinating philosophical ex-
changes in seventeenth-century philosophy, it is not entirely surprising that
Arnauld did not respond to our young German’s first attempt at communi-
cation. The letter of  is long, tedious, and obscure. But the very fea-
tures that probably repelled Arnauld make the letter enormously significant
for us. It stands as elaborate proof of Leibniz’s genuine and persistent con-
cern with theological issues. It also presents one of the reasons that the
young man had in the months before his departure for Paris to deny the re-
ality of passive matter.
In this chapter, I turn to Leibniz’s early views about matter and passiv-
ity. Between  and , Leibniz believed that there was primary pas-
sive matter, what I called body qua matter in chapters ,  and . He con-
ceived the contribution that primary matter makes to a corporeal substance
in terms consistent with his understanding of the Aristotelian philosophy:
body qua matter has a nature or essence – roughly, extended inert stuff –
that is organized by the substantial form or active principle so as to consti-
tute the nature of a corporeal substance. In the Metaphysical Disputation on
the Principle of Individuation of  and for at least a few years later, Leib-
niz took every corporeal thing in the world to result from the organization
of such extended inert stuff by an active principle.1
Twentieth-century scholars have generally been in agreement that, by the
time of the Monadology of , the created world for Leibniz is constituted
entirely of unextended mind-like monads. From Arthur Hannequin in 
to Benson Mates in , most historians assumed that when Leibniz be-
gan to construct his own philosophical ideas, they were based on a version
of mental monism.2 This scholarly consensus ended, however, with the
ground-breaking work of Daniel Garber, who argued in  that Leibniz
promulgated a version of corporeal substance in the s in which the pas-
sive principle is constituted (roughly) of extended force. Since the publica-
tion of Garber’s seminal article, there has been a raging debate about the

. For the most complete account of this earliest work by Leibniz and for other literature, see
Lawrence B. McCollough, Leibniz on Individuals and Individuation, chs. –.
. Besides Hannequin and Mates, also see Brown, Leibniz; Rescher, Leibniz, An Introduction;
Aiton, Leibniz; Mahnke, Leibnizens Syntheses; Belaval, Initiation.


 

role of extension in Leibniz’s metaphysics.3 Robert Sleigh and Robert

Adams have argued against Garber’s account and maintained that the mon-
adological view is already in place in the s.4 Catherine Wilson has in-
geniously maintained that Leibniz has three “semi-systems” during the pe-
riod, one of which assumes the reality of extension, one of which does not.
Donald Rutherford and Glenn Hartz have energetically defended opposite
views about body, somewhat in reaction to Wilson.5 In one of the few books
on Leibniz’s early philosophy, Philip Beeley has concluded that the young
Leibniz is committed to the real extension of matter and that his mental
monism must have developed later.6
In this chapter, I argue for a three-part conclusion. I claim () that in the
autumn of , Leibniz decided to reject the reality of matter, where the
latter is taken to be the extended inert stuff that the active principle in a cor-
poreal substance organizes into the nature of a substance, () that by the
winter of –, he transformed the passive principle in corporeal sub-
stance into a collection of mind-like substances, and () that during the win-
ter of –, Leibniz invented panorganism, according to which the pas-
sive principle in a corporeal substance is constituted of a vast collection of
corporeal substances, each one of which is itself a corporeal substance
whose passive principle is so constitituted, and so on in infinitum.7
The argument for this conclusion is elaborate. Once again, it depends
crucially on some historical facts. Besides the Aristotelian and Platonist as-

. Garber neatly summarizes his position in the following way: “if Leibniz believes in the re-
ality of corporeal substance . . . , then he is admitting something into his world that is ex-
tended in a way that minds, souls, or monads are not. But that is not to say that corporeal
substances are extended in the deepest sense. Leibniz can certainly hold . . . that what is
basic in body is force, and that extension is ultimately to be understood in terms of the forces
bodies have. In particular, Leibniz seems to hold that extension results from the primitive
passive force that excludes the penetration of one body by another. On this view, an extended
body can be regarded as the diffusion of the force of impenetrability that defines a region
that is the space occupied by a given body.” See Garber, “Review: Leibniz’s Metaphysics: A
Historical and Comparative Study by Catherine Wilson; Leibniz and Arnauld: A Commen-
tary on their Correspondence by Robert C. Sleigh, Jr.,” –.
. Sleigh, Leibniz and Arnauld: A Commentary on their Correspondence, esp. chs. –,passim;
Adams, Leibniz, Part III, passim. Also, see Brown, Leibniz, Part , esp. –.
. Wilson, Leibniz’s Metaphysics, esp. ch. . Also see Robinet, Architectonique disjonctive, pas-
sim; Rutherford, Rational Order, Part III and “Phenomenalism and the Reality of Body in
Leibniz’s Later Philosophy;” Hartz, “Leibniz’s Phenomenalisms,” “Exactly how are Leib-
nizian Substances related to Extension,” and “Why Corporeal Substances Keep Popping
Up in Leibniz’s Later Philosophy.”
. Beeley, Kontinuität, passim.
. I want to make it clear that Leibniz does not use the term “organism” in these early texts.
He mostly describes these panorganic collections as “worlds within worlds.” I have felt
justified in importing the later terminology into these early texts for two reasons. First,
Leibniz does seem to conceive of each of these subordinate substances as a creature; sec-
ond, since this view is virtually the same as the later position, it seems appropriate
to streamline things and apply the same terminology here. As Justin Smith has pointed out
to me, Leibniz does not use the term ‘organism’ until . For a discussion of these and
other matters, see Smith, Leibniz, Microscopy, and the Metaphysics of Composite Substance,
passim.


 , ,   , –

sumptions articulated in previous chapters, the facts here include some of

the problems that surround the notion of matter in the seventeenth century
as well as details about the theological issues that continued to interest the
young Leibniz. The clearer we become about these problems, the easier it
will be to motivate and explicate the transformation of his views. It is dur-
ing the period – that Leibniz first faces the full force of the difficul-
ties concerning material passivity and conceives his solution. As I argue
here, he first recognizes the inconsistencies between his views about pri-
mary matter on the one hand and his Aristotelian and Platonist assumptions
on the other. Then, after briefly tinkering with the details of his original ac-
count, he decides that the account of matter as the extended inert principle
in nature is fundamentally incoherent, and he quickly hits upon the basic
outline of his solution which depends importantly on a reinterpretation of
ancient notions of pneuma or World Soul. In the sections that follow, I an-
alyze each of these steps in turn. Section  contains an account of the prob-
lems that forced Leibniz to reconsider his views about the passive principle
in nature. Section  outlines the steps that he took in his effort to construct
a coherent account of material passivity and then displays the reasons be-
hind the ultimate failure of this attempt. Section  presents his new account
of passivity in terms of a universal vitality or World Soul that is organized
into panorganic arrangements of vital beings, and it argues that his new ac-
count of passivity solves the problems that confronted his earlier view. Sec-
tion  offers further evidence to the conclusion that by the winter of –
Leibniz was prepared to transform the passive principle in nature into
panorganic collections of vital substances.

. Material difficulties
In all of his investigations concerning passive inert matter during the s,
Leibniz was haunted by two ghosts.8 One is the well-known problem of the
continuum; the other, though ignored by scholars, is a set of problems that
he inherited from his teachers and that concerns the brute passivity of mat-
ter and its place on the hierarchy of being. I summarized some of the latter
difficulties in section  of chapter . Although the problem of the contin-
uum and the problem of passivity are related, they play different roles in
the evolution of Leibniz’s theories about the passive principle in nature. In
my discussion here, I would like to avoid the labyrinth of the continuum as
much as possible. There are two reasons for doing so. First, the problem of
the continuum is indeed labyrinthine and like the labyrinth of free-will,
ought to be avoided at all costs. Since there are some recent helpful studies
of the role of the problem in Leibniz’s thought, it seems unnecessary to re-

. In all my investigations concerning Leibniz’s views about matter, I have benefited greatly
from the advice given by Justin Smith and Richard Arthur. Besides reading drafts of this
chapter, they have helped me to understand some of these difficult topics much more thor-
oughly than I otherwise would have done.


 

produce the issues and difficulties here. Second, I do not think that the con-
tinuum problem was a major motivation behind Leibniz’s revision of his
theory of passivity. As I will argue here, the transformation that occurred
in Leibniz’s thinking in – about the passive principle in corporeal
substance was primarily due to his realization that passivity was incompat-
ible with his Aristotelian and Platonist assumptions. Although there were a
number of questions that clustered around the notion of matter in the late
s and early s, the one that most beleaguered the young Leibniz was
how to make a passive principle consistent with the goodness of the world
and the causal self-sufficiency of substances.
Before considering the exact difficulties that Leibniz came to see with his
previous notion of matter, let’s remind ourselves of why there has to be a
passive or limiting principle in created substance. In fact, the passive prin-
ciple in corporeal substance has two demanding jobs. Its primary duty is to
root the substance in the world of becoming. Many theists used the Doc-
trine of the Hierarchy of Being to argue that angels and human souls reside
among the highest strata of created being. For others, because souls were
divine-like or even part of the divine, it was necessary for the body or pas-
sive principle in nature to limit the creature in the appropriate fashion. For
many thinkers, it was the body or limiting principle that situated the crea-
ture in the world of change. In section , chapter , I provided evidence that
the young Leibniz models minds and their activities on God. In this chap-
ter, we will see other evidence to this effect, where the idea is that minds are
divine-like while the bodies to which they are related are in constant flux.
The second job of the passive principle is closely related to the first.
Whereas the active principle, according to Leibniz, is what acts constantly
out of its own nature, the passive principle is what receives or “suffers.” As
Leibniz makes clear, the passive principle must be capable of receiving the
impressions or actions of others.9 For Leibniz, there has to be a passive
principle in corporeal substance that can suffer in the right way. Mere ac-
tive principles by themselves would not suffice.
In chapter , I claimed that in the mid-s, Leibniz was committed to
mechanical explanations in physics and was busily trying out some of the
prominent mechanical options. In –, as he began to explore the var-
ious implications of his Aristotelian assumptions, serious questions arose
about how to understand passivity. That the youthful Leibniz was painfully
aware of the many difficulties surrounding the concept of matter as the pas-
sive principle in nature is clear. For example, he proclaims in some notes of
 that the notion is so problematic that it is not clear whether or not any-
thing coherent can be said about it.10 Leibniz’s difficulty in the late s
concerning matter and passivity can be summarized as follows: in keeping

. See II i . The Latin verb that Leibniz uses is pati. It is not until late in  that Leib-
niz gives a full account of how his new conception of passivity explains the suffering and
passions of substances. I discuss this topic in ch. .
. VI i .


 , ,   , –

with the () Passive Principle Assumption, he believed that every cre-
ated mind or substantial form is permanently attached to a passive princi-
ple. Because he was in full agreement with the new mechanical physics ac-
cording to which all the features of body are to be explained in terms of the
movement of its parts, he was motivated to piece together a proper account
of passivity from the mechanical proposals. But, at the same time, he was
becoming increasingly convinced that all such accounts were incoherent and
that his own previous proposals were inadequate.
What exactly were the problems that convinced Leibniz to transform his
account of passivity? There were several related difficulties. Some of these
strongly encouraged him to rethink his conception of passivity in –.
Let’s first consider the most influential problems. In order to understand
Leibniz’s increasing disapprobation of the place of material passivity in na-
ture, it will be helpful to distinguish two versions of the same basic prob-
lem which, for the sake of clarity, I will call the Passivity Problem. Although
each version of the Passivity Problem fundamentally concerns the question
of how something unified, active, and good can have something divisible,
inactive, and morally neutral as a constituent, the details of the problems
are different, and each elicits a slightly different response from Leibniz.
However, at the heart of each version of the Passivity Problem is the idea
that pure passivity cannot contribute anything positive either to the world
in which it exists or to the substance of which it is a constituent.
The first of these problems concerns how passivity is supposed to con-
tribute to the variety and goodness of the world. According to the Principle
of Harmonized Plenitude, the goodness of the world is partly a function of
the variety of the beings within it, partly a function of the sum of the good-
ness of the beings within it, and partly a function of the order among those
beings where the latter is understood primarily in terms of the Enhance-
ment Relation among beings. Moreover, according to the latter, for every
being S that has an Enhancement Relation to a being R, the relation of S to
R is such that an increase in the goodness of S will promote an increase in
R which is non-reciprocal (that is, the increase in R will not then promote
an increase in S). It is striking that purely passive matter is incapable of con-
tributing to the goodness of the world in any of the ways noted here: it can
have neither variety nor goodness nor order per se. For the sake of easy ref-
erence, let’s call this the Plenitude Problem.
The second Passivity Problem concerns how the passive principle is
supposed to contribute anything positive to the reality, unity, or nature of
a corporeal substance. Given Leibniz’s Aristotelian assumptions, it is not
surprising that he would explore exactly how material passivity con-
tributes to the nature of a corporeal substance. In section  of chapter ,
I surveyed some of the difficulties that the concept of matter had posed
for the Platonists. As I explained, the notion of matter as divisible and pas-
sive does not sit well with one of the claims in the Supreme Being As-
sumption, namely, that each of the features of unity, self-sufficiency, per-
fection, and reality is a function of the other. Moreover, the Doctrine of


 

the Hierarchy of Being claims that matter, which is the lowest stratum of
the hierarchy, lacks all power and causal efficacy. Following this assumption,
many Platonists found it very difficult to explain the apparent causal inter-
action between the mind and the body in a corporeal substance, and many
thought it reasonable to ask whether or not matter can be said to have any
being at all. I also noted in section  of chapter  that Thomasius worried
intensely about exactly these questions: his texts contain lengthy discussions
about the sundry problems confronting the notion. That Leibniz inherited
deep suspicions about the ontological status of matter from Thomasius and
others is clear. In the Specimen of Collected Philosophical Questions Con-
cerning Law of , Leibniz neatly summarizes the traditional Platonic
distinction between being and becoming. As he contends, it was Plato’s view
in the Timaeus that “because of the continuous flux [continuum fluxum] of
things, nothing is a this, nothing is a that, but everything must be called a
kind of this or a kind of that.” Leibniz goes on to insist that only the Ideas
are permanent.11 Matter is never a this or that because it lacks permanence,
reality, and unity. It is important to be perfectly clear about this problem,
which I will call the Reality Problem. The difficulty is that, insofar as brute
passive stuff has nothing positive or real in its nature, it seems to have noth-
ing to contribute to the unity, reality, or nature of anything else. For Leib-
niz in the s, this was a particularly grave problem since he had com-
mitted himself to the mechanical physics, according to which matter was
supposed to constitute and explain the nature of corporeal objects.
Besides the Passivity Problem, the young Leibniz was very concerned to
solve the various difficulties that clustered around the problem of the contin-
uum. The problem, which plagued Leibniz for years, concerns how a con-
tinuous whole is to be constituted. The difficulty applied with equal force to
any continuous whole, whether time, space, or motion. One of the aspects of
the problem that most interested him in our period was the Problem of Cohe-
sion, namely, how divisible extended material stuff hangs together to form a
single thing. Although this difficulty looks a bit like the Reality Problem – and
Leibniz sometimes discusses the two together – it is not the same problem.
The Reality Problem arises in the context of specific Platonist assumptions
about reality and being, whereas the problem of continuity in general and of
cohesion in particular concerns how a number of things of the same sort (say,
bits of matter) constitute a continuous whole. One way of making clear the
difference between the two problems in the evolution of Leibniz’s views
about passivity is that, as we will see, for an extended period in , Leib-
niz was satisfied with a solution that he had developed to the Problem of Co-
hesion and yet at the very same time was enormously concerned with the Re-
ality Problem. In a sense, the former difficulty is primarily a physical one; the
latter is essentially a metaphysical one that encompasses Leibniz’s deepest as-
sumptions about being and reality, where the point is that unity and reality

. VI i . I capitalize all the words in the title of published texts, but only the first word in
the title of unpublished ones. See xiii.


 , ,   , –

can only arise from something divine-like. Once we distinguish clearly be-
tween these problems, it becomes clear that the former played a relatively mi-
nor role in the development of Leibniz’s views about the passive principle in
nature. Recent scholars have overestimated the importance of the problem of
the continuum in the development of Leibniz’s metaphysics because of a fail-
ure to distinguish among these problems.12
The final problem concerning the passive principle in corporeal sub-
stance that interested Leibniz is what I will call the Metaphysical Problem
of Cohesion, where the concern is with the relation between the active and
passive principles in corporeal substance. Here the question is: how do
these principles interact so as to produce a single, unified, and active na-
ture? The () Substantial Form Assumption offers an answer to this
question in terms of activity: the unity depends on the constant activity of
the active principle on the passive one. However, as Leibniz began to re-
think his views about passivity in –, he was forced to reconsider the
source of this unity. Despite the fundamental role that the solution to this
problem played in Leibniz’s conception of substance, the problem had no
direct bearing on the development of his theory of matter. I therefore
postpone discussion of this topic until the analysis of substance in the next
chapter.

. Material progress
When Leibniz left the Rosental woods in , he had chosen the mechan-
ical over the scholastic model for physical explanations. As I argued in chap-
ter , one of his projects during the mid-s was to develop an account
of extended matter that could act as the foundation for that physics. For
Leibniz at the time, there were two general options about how to conceive
of the principle: it could be entirely passive or only partly so. Each option
generated grave problems and clever responses. Although in the period
– the details of his account of matter changed, Leibniz remained
committed to the existence of primary matter as extended and impenetra-
ble passive stuff. In other words, body qua matter had an essence and na-
ture distinct from the organization that it obtained from its active principle.
The idea was that the active principle took this material stuff and created
an organized nature with it, and moreover that the matter contributed its
corporeal features to the substantial nature. For example, in both the Con-
fession of nature against the atheists and On transubstantiation of , prime
matter is defined as “a being in space” that is accordingly impenetrable,13

. Recent scholars like Beeley and Arthur have claimed that Leibniz’s attempt to solve the
problem of the continuum strongly influenced the development of his metaphysics. I think
that these careful commentators have overemphasized the importance of the problem be-
cause they have not distinguished clearly between it and the Passivity Problem. See Bee-
ley, Kontinuität, passim; and Arthur, Labyrinth, Introduction. In his Leibniz, Brown rec-
ognizes a part of the problem. See esp. –.
. VI i , : L , .


 

while in the October  letter to Thomasius, it is “inert mass [moles],”

and in the letter to Thomasius of , it is “something solid and impene-
trable.”14 At the very time that Leibniz was making such assertions, he was
developing his Original Theory of (non-human) Corporeal Substance. As
he began to work through the implications of his Aristotelian assumptions,
a number of severe problems with his original conception of primary mat-
ter became evident.
In chapter , I discussed at length some of the problems that in 
Leibniz came to see with his Original Theory of Corporeal Substance and
that led him to revise that theory. In brief, I argued that given the Principle
of Causal Self-Sufficiency and the Principle of Substantial Activity, Leib-
niz came to realize that the features of the individual corporeal substance S
did not strictly belong to S and that in order to construct a theory of sub-
stance that was appropriately self-sufficient, he would have to give each cor-
poreal substance its own active principle or mind-like form. The moral to
the developmental story of chapter  was that Leibniz’s commitment to his
Aristotelian assumptions forced him to change his conception of the active
principle in non-human corporeal substances.
Against the Platonist background set in chapter , it is now appropriate
to unveil another major part of Leibniz’s developmental story in . Once
again, the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency and Principle of Substantial
Activity play pivotal roles. In this case, the moral to the story is that these
Aristotelian assumptions forced Leibniz to change his thinking about the
passive principle in nature. Between  and late , although the de-
tails of Leibniz’s account of matter vary in the way noted earlier, he persists
in believing that the passive principle contributes something positive to the
substantial nature. What Leibniz came to realize in  was that it followed
from the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency and the Principle of Sub-
stantial Activity that passivity by itself could have no positive features. Ac-
cording to the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, for example, purely pas-
sive matter can strictly speaking have no features or states since it has no
active principle to cause them. As Leibniz makes the point in some notes of
–: since nothing can be said of matter without form, matter is itself
“nothing.”15 Once Leibniz articulated his Aristotelian assumptions and
began to examine the exact contribution that the passive matter in a corpo-
real substance was supposed to make to the complete ratio of the corporeal
features of that substance, the Reality Problem became evident. Leibniz
realized that the role assigned to material passivity in the explanation of
corporeal features was incoherent in that it was supposed to contribute fea-
tures to the corporeal substance which, given the Principle of Causal Self-
Sufficiency, it did not strictly speaking have. It was sometime in the middle
of  that Leibniz rejected his earlier conception of matter as something
that although passive, contributes positively to corporeal substance. Leib-
niz came to see that an explanation had to be offered for any positive feature

. II i . . VI i .


 , ,   , –

attributed to matter, that the explanation had to involve more than mere pas-
sivity, and therefore that activity of some sort had to be imported into the
passive principle in nature. In brief, at the heart of Leibniz’s increasing dis-
satisfaction with the notion of primary matter or body qua matter was the
fact that brute passivity lacks all positive features and therefore can neither
play a role in the explanation of substantial features nor add anything good
to the world.
While telling the developmental story about mind in chapter , I identi-
fied the theological essay, On the incarnation of God, as a transitional piece.
Among other things, I argued that the text reveals Leibniz’s attempt to re-
vise his Original Theory of Corporeal Substance in a way that would sat-
isfy the demands of his Aristotelian assumptions. In that essay, Leibniz en-
deavors for the first time to create a genuine substantial union out of
individual minds and bodies. The Conspectus of – marks a similar
turning point in the developmental story about matter although the evi-
dence here is less clear.16 In this essay, Leibniz admits for the first time that
body qua matter has nothing in its nature to cause or explain some of its
fundamental features, and that it has those features due to its active princi-
ple, that is, God. Leibniz writes: “there is nothing without a ratio,” there is
no motion “without continual creation,” and body contains neither the “ori-
gin of motion” nor the “origin of cohesion.” The point here seems to be as
follows: there is nothing in body qua matter that can act either as the source
of motion or the source of cohesion, and yet there is motion and cohesion
in a body qua form; therefore, since the ratio for these features is not in the
passive principle, it must be in the active principle, that is, God, who pro-
duces the motion and cohesion through continual creation. In brief, there
will be no cohesion without the “continual creation” of bodies by God.17
Moreover, since primary features like figure and magnitude depend on the
cohesion of the parts of the body, it would seem to follow that there will be
no corporeal features without continual creation. I showed in chapter  that
Leibniz deleted his statement about continuous creation from the published
version of the letter to Thomasius. I argued that between the original letter
of April  and the published version of early , Leibniz was moti-
vated to change his view about the active principle in corporeal substance
in order to make it cohere with his original Aristotelian assumptions. I now
want to show that something very similar was underway concerning the pas-
sive principle in corporeal substance, and that the Conspectus bears witness
to the beginning of a profound shift in his thinking.
In the April  letter to Thomasius, Leibniz insists that body qua mat-
ter contributes antitypy or resistance to corporeal substance, while God

. The Academy editors have placed the Conspectus within –. See VI ii . Accord-
ing to the developmental story I present here, it must have been written after April .
In fact, there are several details of the text that suggest the later date: e.g., the use of the
theory of traduction, and the first explicit presentation of the Principle of Sufficient Rea-
son. For more on this, see ch. , n. .
. VI i .


 

plays the role of active principle. The idea is that God takes the body qua
matter or passive principle and through the process of continual creation,
produces a corporeal substance. Of special importance to us now is the fact
that in the original letter, body qua matter makes a contribution to corpo-
real nature on an ontological par with the contribution made by God: when
the divine contribution (activity) combines with the material contribution
(resistance), the result is a corporeal nature that can act as the cause and ex-
planation of its features. In the Conspectus, Leibniz seems to imply that
body qua matter will contribute nothing without the help of God. Whereas
in the orginal letter, God takes matter that is already cohesive and then does
something to it, in the Conspectus, God must make matter cohesive before
anything else can occur.
By the end of , Leibniz has changed his mind. Between the compo-
sition of the Conspectus in  and the changes made to the published ver-
sion of the letter to Thomasius in the winter of –, Leibniz recog-
nized that as long as God was the active principle in nature, corporeal
features would not strictly speaking belong to corporeal nature. Leibniz saw
that in order to attribute any positive features to the corporeal element in
substances, he would have to populate nature with mind-like substances.
Since none of the changes made to the revised version of the letter directly
concern the account of body qua matter, it seems clear that Leibniz had not
yet decided exactly how to solve the problem facing the passive principle in
corporeal substance: in the published version of the letter, Leibniz still
claims that body qua matter has resistance, although nowhere in the text
does he offer an explanation of how matter comes to have such features.
However, when Leibniz deletes the statement about continual creation from
the published letter and inserts an incorporeal principle as one of the fun-
damental entities in nature, he comes down firmly on the side of his new
approach to substance. By the end of , he will proclaim that each non-
human substance has its own mind-like active principle, and moreover that
the passive principle of each corporeal substance is constituted of an infin-
ity of mind-like substances.
A general summary of the relevant part of Leibniz’s philosophical de-
velopment may be helpful at this point. In –, Leibniz’s primary con-
cerns were with legal, ethical, and theological matters. In the theological es-
says of the period, he was concerned to solve a number of difficult problems.
He brought to these problems a set of Aristotelian and Platonist assump-
tions about substance which he attempted to use and articulate for the first
time in those essays. As he began to work through his views about substance
and body in the essays and letters of –, he discovered tensions and
problems within those assumptions. As I argued in chapter , soon after
April , Leibniz recognized that it followed from his Aristotelian as-
sumptions that corporeal features could not strictly speaking be attributed
to individual corporeal substances unless each substance was given its own
mind-like principle of activity. I now want to claim that at around the same
time and for much the same reasons, Leibniz realized that positive features


 , ,   , –

could not strictly be attributed to the passive principle in corporeal sub-

stance unless it also contained an active principle that could function as the
source of these features. At some point after April , Leibniz was moti-
vated to change his views about the passive principle in corporeal substance
in order to make it consistent with his original Aristotelian assumptions. I
maintained in chapter  that he had to give each corporeal substance its own
mind-like principle of activity; I am here claiming that in mid-, he de-
cided to transform the passive principle in nature into something appropri-
ately active. In the Conspectus, Leibniz is struggling with a number of is-
sues related to God, created mind, and the relation between the two. When
he proposes at the beginning of this outline for his grandiose Catholic
demonstrations that God causes the cohesion in bodies by continual creation,
he is offering a temporary solution to a grave problem. By the end of ,
Leibniz was in search of a new way to conceive the passive principle in cor-
poreal substance. In order to remain consistent with his Aristotelian and
Platonist principles, he decided to populate the created world with mind-
like substances that could act as the cause and source of corporeal features.
Let’s now turn to this next phase in the evolution of Leibniz’s views about
passivity.
In August , while on vacation with Boineburg, Leibniz met Erich
Mauritius, who introduced him to some of the publications of Christo-
pher Wren and Christiaan Huygens on the motion and collision of bodies.
Leibniz’s new-found fascination with these topics encouraged him to of-
fer a more thorough account of the cohesion and motion of bodies than he
had previously done. It is exactly at this point in his philosophical devel-
opment that the problem of the continuum began to raise its monstrous
head.18 Let’s remind ourselves of what a many-headed monster it was. In
the history of philosophy, the problem of the continuum is the problem
about how a line or any other continuous mathematical quantity can be
composed out of things like points or indivisible line segments. While it
is true that Leibniz was deeply interested in this mathematical puzzle, and
that his invention of the infinitesimal calculus developed out of that in-
terest, he was equally concerned to answer a number of related questions
about time, motion, and matter. As Richard Arthur has summarized the
point:
Leibniz’s contemporaries and predecessors understood the problem as pertaining
not just to purely mathematical entities, but to all supposedly continuous things. In
this wider sense, the continuum problem is that of the composition of anything con-
tinuous: is matter infinitely divisible, or does it have indivisible first elements or

. I do not mean to suggest that Leibniz was unaware of the problem previously, but rather
that it was in  that he came to see the full range of its associated difficulties. See Bee-
ley’s Kontinuität for an account of Leibniz’s earlier concern with the problem and for a
thorough description of its intellectual context.


 
atoms? Is motion composed of an infinity of instantaneous tendencies to move? Is
space composed of points, or time of instants or moments?19
For seventeenth-century natural philosophers, the problem of motion was
especially important and extremely difficult: since a proper theory of mo-
tion required an account of physical and temporal parts, a theory of motion
seemed to demand an account of matter and time.
In the period late  through early , Leibniz confronted the prob-
lem of the continuum head-on. Among other things, he was concerned to
solve the Problem of Cohesion where the question is: how do the parts of a
body cohere so as to produce a single thing? Because in  Leibniz had
decided to reconstruct the passive principle in corporeal substance so that
it could act as the causal source of its features and because he believed that
only something mind-like could function as a principle of activity, it fol-
lowed that in order to explain the cohesion of the parts of body, Leibniz had
to resort to mind-like active principles. In short, Leibniz’s metaphysical
commitments at the end of  demanded that his solution to the Problem
of Cohesion depend on the activity of created minds.
Consistent with Leibniz’s Original Theory of (non-human) Corporeal
Substance as he presented it in On transubstantiation, the divine mind acts
by means of an Idea qua substantial form to produce the cohesion among
the parts of a body. By such means, divine activity itself solves the Problem
of Cohesion. When Leibniz decided in  to give each non-human cor-
poreal substance its own mind or principle of activity, he had to rethink his
solution to the Problem of Cohesion. In the winter of –, Leibniz read
(or reread) Hobbes’ work on motion and was greatly influenced by the Eng-
lishman’s notion of endeavor (conatus). As I claimed in chapter , Hobbes’
idea of a momentary endeavor gave Leibniz a tidy way to conceive both the
motion of bodies and the thinking of minds. It is in the summer of 
that Leibniz begins to proclaim proudly that his investigations about mo-
tion have led to insights about mind. With great finesse, Leibniz managed
to explain the continuity of motion, time, and matter in similar ways: each
was to be constructed out of infinitely small elements. In this context, what
was particularly helpful to Leibniz about Hobbes’ notion of endeavor was
that it offered a neat way of describing the actions of momentary minds and
thereby of explaining cohesion. It follows from the Second Theory of Cor-
poreal Substance that the cohesion among the parts of the body is due to
the actions of its momentary minds.
During the period –early , although Leibniz was not entirely
satisfied with his account of cohesion, he considered his solution to the
Problem of Cohesion better than the alternative accounts. He later rejected
his solution and for some years grappled with other ways to solve the prob-
lem. But, for our purposes here, it is significant that he was relatively satis-
fied with his solution to the Problem of Cohesion during the precise period

. Arthur, Labyrinth, Introduction.


 , ,   , –

within which he transformed the passive principle in nature into a panor-

ganic collection of mind-like substances. Let’s consider the evidence. In a
letter to Hobbes of July , Leibniz insists that, while he agrees with
much of what the great man has said about motion “where the foundations
which have been laid seem to be remarkably justified,” Hobbes has failed to
account clearly for “the cause of consistency, or what is the same thing, of
cohesion in things.” Leibniz offers his own solution to the problem: “I
should think that the endeavor of the parts toward each other . . . would it-
self suffice to explain the cohesion of bodies.”20 In a letter to Oldenburg of
September , Leibniz discusses these topics at length. He makes several
points that are relevant to our discussion. First, he insists that neither
Descartes, Gassendi, Hobbes, nor any other contemporary has properly ex-
plained the cohesion among the parts of the body. Second, he notes that he
has arrived at his own views about cohesion by combining the metaphysical
insights of Aristotle with those of Hobbes. In the letter to Oldenburg, Leib-
niz summarizes his Second Theory of Corporeal Substance and insists on
the importance of incorporeal beings in nature. Consistent with his com-
ments in the letter to Hobbes, Leibniz’s solution to the Problem of Cohe-
sion depends on the insertion of an infinity of momentary minds into mat-
ter. He explains to Oldenburg: “Nor is it possible that there be any other
convincing explanation of the connection among things other than that
which refers to incorporeal beings and their extraordinary activity which is
perpetual. . . . Nor is it possible that the world . . . lacks or has lacked in-
corporeal beings.”21
Despite the elegance of his Second Theory of Corporeal Substance and
despite the relative satisfaction with his solution to the Problem of Cohe-
sion, in the summer and autumn of  Leibniz acknowledges some un-
fortunate consequences of his position. For example, because matter was
taken to be infinitely divisible and because for any part of matter to move,
there had to be a mind or active principle to move it, it followed that the
arrangement of the parts of the body would be caused by an infinite num-
ber of minds. That is, every body has an infinity of parts; for a body to be
cohesive, all its parts have to move; for any part to move, there must be a
mind-like active principle to move it; therefore, every body will be consti-
tuted of an infinity of momentary minds moving bits of matter. To put it
another way, since the cohesion among the parts of a body depends entirely
upon the action of each of the infinity of minds, every body has an infinite
number of unifying principles. That Leibniz is concerned with exactly
these difficulties is clear. In particular, he finds the instability of the unity
formed by momentary minds and extended matter problematic. As he ex-

. II i : L .

. II i –. Leibniz’s comments to Oldenburg about the reconciliation of Aristotle and
Hobbes are consistent with the developmental story offered in chs. –: he was commit-
ted to an Aristotelian conception of substance into which he easily inserted an account of
activity in terms of endeavor.


 

plains to Oldenburg in September , there cannot “be one being or one
body” unless all the parts of the body are in motion. Therefore, in order for
a body to be a single whole, all its parts must be in a coordinated motion.
But if the unity and identity of the body are constituted of that coordinated
motion or that arrangement of parts, then the body will be a constantly
changing thing. As Leibniz explains: “Mass is constituted by a state of, what
I call, prime matter and is able to be broken by the smallest impulse.” A
body will be a collection of an infinity of creatures, each of which is itself a
momentary mind and some part of matter; it will not be a stable object since
each arrangement or state of primary matter is momentary. Therefore, there
is a sense in which no body will retain its unity or identity for more than a
moment.22
It was also during the summer and autumn of  that Leibniz became
acutely aware of the Reality Problem and the issue of how there can be a
genuine unity or reality that has matter as a major constituent. In July
, Leibniz wrote two letters in which he outlines the physics of the
New Physical Hypothesis.23 As I will argue below, by the time of the pub-
lication in early  of this work and its companion piece, the Theory of
Abstract Motion, Leibniz had denied the existence of extended inert mat-
ter. Although the evidence is not entirely clear, there is reason to believe
that he did not make this radical shift until October or November of 
and that it was primarily the Reality Problem that motivated him to do so.
Let’s consider the facts. As Leibniz confesses to Oldenburg in his letter of
September : “nothing plagues me more than the cohesion of parts in
the whole. . . . As I readily admit, it is necessary that there be another co-
hesion among things . . . ; but how this cohesion comes about, I am not
able to explain.”24 We find here the original version of an argument that
will become prominent in Leibniz’s later writings, namely, that the real-
ity of a collection depends on the reality of its parts and that the reality of
the parts demands that the parts themselves be “wholes” or unities. What
plagues Leibniz in the autumn of  is that he cannot explain the co-
hesion of the parts within the body or coherent whole. In other words, al-
though Leibniz is relatively satisfied with his account of cohesion, ac-
cording to which the parts of a body B cohere as long as those parts
endeavor within the body so as to form a coherent whole, he cannot ex-
plain how the parts of B are themselves real unities or wholes. One way of
capturing the intuition here is to remind ourselves that Leibniz’s robust
sense of causal and explanatory self-sufficiency demands that unless each
of the parts or constituents of B offers a complete ratio of its own unity,
it will not be able to contribute in the right sort of way to an explanation

. Ibid.
. The Academy editors write in their introductory comments to the New Physical Hypoth-
esis that Leibniz’s letter to Oldenburg of July  indicates that Leibniz had developed
the physics presented in the published work by that time. See VI ii .
. II i .


 , ,   , –

of the unity of B. That is, it follows from the Principle of Causal Self-Suf-
ficiency that B can strictly be said to have cohesion only if the parts that
constitute the nature of B are themselves real unities.
But why exactly can Leibniz find no real unities within B? The letter to
Oldenburg of September  offers an important clue in solving the mys-
tery behind Leibniz’s rejection of material passivity and his acceptance of
what we might call ‘mental passivity.’ In order to grasp a major part of Leib-
niz’s motivation, we need to recognize that the peculiar nastiness of the Re-
ality Problem arises from the utter inertness of extended stuff. As long as
nature is filled with inert extended matter, there can be no unities or
“wholes,” and the explanation of cohesion or any other feature will be in-
sufficient. In brief, as long as nature contains material passivity, there can-
not be a solution to the Reality Problem. As Leibniz suggests in the letter
to Oldenburg, before we can fully explain the cohesion and unity among the
parts of the body, we must explain the cohesion and unity among the parts
of the parts. That is, we have to explain the cohesion and unity within each
of the parts before we can explain the cohesion among them.
We need to be careful here and distinguish between a version of the Prob-
lem of Cohesion (that is, the continuum problem) and the Reality Prob-
lem.There is no doubt that most of Leibniz’s comments in the letter to Old-
enburg concern the former. In particular, Leibniz finds vexing the fact that
the cohesion of a body B assumes that the parts of B are themselves a co-
hesive whole and that the parts of those parts are cohesive wholes as well.
Since, at any level of parts (whether of B or the parts of B or the parts of
the parts of B), the cohesion of those parts depends on the cohesion of the
parts of those parts, one is left wondering how there can be any unified or
cohesive object in the world. As Leibniz jokingly asks, “why does the wind
not carry off our heads like it carries away balls?”25 It is important to grasp
that as serious as this problem is, it is one that applies with equal force to
the theory of panorganism that Leibniz soon developed. According to
panorganism, there are substances within substances in infinitum. We will
save the details for later, but for now it is noteworthy that the same regress
argument applies with equal force here: before we explain the cohesion of
B, we must explain the cohesion of the parts of B, and so on.
For the first time in the letter to Oldenburg, Leibniz suggests the severity
of the Reality Problem, whose basic point is that there cannot be a unity or
genuine reality in a body B because matter in its nature has no such features.
Since inert passive matter depends entirely on an active principle for all such
positive features, it cannot contribute in any way to the reality and unity of B.
But let’s say more about the precise source of the difficulty. The severity of
the problem for Leibniz in September  was significantly increased by his
self-inflicted metaphysical demands. First, consider his point about the unity
and reality of the parts of the body. Following the Supreme Being Assump-
tion, unity and reality are a function of one another. As long as the parts of

. II i .


 

bodies have no unity, they have no reality; and as long as the parts have no re-
ality, the reality and unity of the whole is in doubt. Second, consider the prob-
lem about the explanation of features. Following the Principle of Sufficient
Reason and its associated notion of complete ratio, Leibniz was committed to
the idea that for everything in the created world, there is a complete ratio. The
complete passivity of the material principle in bodies implies that there can-
not be a complete ratio either for the cohesion within any particular body or
for any of the corporeal features that depends on cohesion. Another way of
making the point is to note that according to the Substantial Nature As-
sumption (which, as noted in the conclusion of chapter , is very closely re-
lated to the Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency), for every substance S,
S has a nature that contains the complete ratio for those features that strictly
belong to it, and moreover those conditions are in theory intelligible. Since
matter in its nature has neither cohesion nor unity, it can make no contribu-
tion to the explanation of those substantial features. It follows from the Prin-
ciple of Causal Self-Sufficiency that those features therefore do not strictly
belong to the substance whose nature is partially constituted of material pas-
sivity. An example may help to highlight the difficulty. Sally, the slug, has a
body that is smooth, shiny, and cylindrical. All of these features depend on
the organization and cohesion of the parts of Sally. According to Leibniz’s
Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, Sally has a substantial form or ac-
tive principle that organizes some passive matter so as to create Sally’s nature.
That nature, which is constructed out of these two principles, is supposed to
be the cause and explanation of Sally’s features or substantial states. The
problem here is that because Sally’s passive principle has nothing positive in
its nature, it can make no contribution to the production of those features.
What did Leibniz do? Soon after writing to Oldenburg in September, he
decided on a radical remedy for his problems. His solution was ingenious in
a number of ways. Not only did it allow him to solve both the Reality Prob-
lem and the Plenitude Problem in a way that was wonderfully consistent
with his various metaphysical assumptions, it gave him the chance to include
another ancient philosophical idea in his eclectic mixture. Once again, Leib-
niz managed to rectify and expand upon his metaphysics through the reha-
bilitation of an ancient theory. And once again, he sent his first attempt to
outline this solution to Thomasius. By the end of  he had hit upon his
solution: to construct the passive principle in corporeal substance out of an
infinity of mind-like substances.

. From passivity to vitality

I began chapter  with the December  letter to Thomasius in which
Leibniz compares his illustrious teacher to Plato and demands that we return
to final causes in nature. But there is much more to the letter than an exalta-
tion of former teachers and final causes. Leibniz also describes his recent de-
velopment in philosophy.


 , ,   , –
I recently had a kind of dream about physics. You know that I believe that the effi-
cient causes of all things are thinking and motion, where the latter is local motion
(for I do not think that there is another kind), and the former is the thinking of first
mind, i.e., of God (from whom the secondary minds themselves derive what they
think).
Leibniz continues with a comment we have seen: “the first mind in its wis-
dom arranged things from the beginning so that there is rarely need of ex-
traordinary concurrence . . . for the conservation of things.” As Leibniz
reasons, no one would praise a manufacturer who must correct his work
every day.26
Clearly, the direct causal relation between God and creaturely features,
which was so central in Leibniz’s Original Theory of Corporeal Substance,
is here fully severed. The Supreme Being continues to emanate the divine
essence to its products, but each creature has its own active principle by
means of which it acts. I described this activity in chapter . According to
the Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, the nature of a corporeal sub-
stance S is constituted of a mind-like substantial form F and a passive prin-
ciple P. Consistent with the () Substantial Form Assumption and the
() Passive Principle Assumption, the features of S are caused and ex-
plained by this organization. Of particular importance to us here is the fact
that, following the Substantial Form Assumption, every created mind or
substantial form is permanently attached to a passive principle so that it will
only act outside itself through that principle. Moreover, following the
() Passive Principle Assumption, P contains nothing active in itself.
Against this background, it is striking that by the end of , Leibniz is
prepared to transform the passive principle in nature into something that is
fully active. While it remains true that the active principle and the passive
principle in a corporeal substance S are constantly united and that the fea-
tures of S reduce to the organization formed by the constant activity of the
one on the other, the nature of the passive principle and the nature of their
relation have been radically changed. As Leibniz announces to his teacher
in December , “[g]iven these assumptions” about the arrangement of
things by God at the beginning: “I came to think of motion as the sole uni-
versal [thing] on our earth, from which a ratio can be given for all the phe-
nomena, which we perceive as many and marvelous in their appearances:
certainly now generally, then specifically, when the same phenomena are
more carefully examined.”27 Leibniz here suggests that motion has replaced

. II i –. The Latin is: Habui et ego nuper somnium quoddam physicum. Scis eam mihi
sententiam esse, omnium rerum caussas [sic] efficientes esse cogitationem et motum, mo-
tum inquam localem: neque enim alium credo: cogitationem autem primae mentis, i.e. Dei
(a qua ipsae secundae habent, quod cogitant). Prima autem mens pro sapientia sua ita res
initio instituit, ut non sit ei facile ad conservationem rerum opus extraordinario concursu,
prorsus ut illum automatopoeum nemo laudaverit, qui quotidie aliquid in opere suo emen-
dare cogatur.
. II i . The Latin is: His positis, venit mihi in mentem motus quidam unicus universalis
in terra nostra, ex quo omnium phaenomenorum, quae in speciebus multa ac mirabilia sen-


 

passive matter as the universal stuff, which (somehow) is organized by in-

dividual created minds. That is, the “first mind” arranges the “secondary
minds” in “the beginning” so that the union of these secondary minds and
this universal thing called ‘motion’ somehow constitutes a ratio for the phe-
nomena. But how? In the remainder of the letter to Thomasius, Leibniz
summarizes the physics of his Schediasma and then presents his views about
aether which he describes as “a most subtle body” whose movement “is the
cause of most phenomena.”28 Although Leibniz is silent about the precise
relation between the secondary minds and the aether, the December 
letter to Thomasius offers the key to his new theory of passivity: there is an
aether or universal vitality that has replaced the passive inert stuff of his
previous view.
A number of questions arise at this point. However, before turning to a
more detailed account of Leibniz’s views about this aether or universal vi-
tality, I would like to draw attention to another aspect of the December 
letter to Thomasius. In chapter , I discussed the letter to Thomasius of April
 in some detail and paid particular attention to its conciliatory method.
Although the letter of December  is neither as important philosophi-
cally nor as subtle rhetorically as the earlier one, there is an interesting par-
allel between the two. Like the earlier letter to the December one begins by
praising a work by Thomasius and attributing to it a developed philosoph-
ical position that it does not contain. This time, the new publication is
Thomasius’ Physica of , “in which the greater part of philosophy” is
explained and in which Thomasius is supposed to have emphasized the im-
portance of final causes and the dangers of materialism. Given Leibniz’s
comments, it is remarkable that while Thomasius’ dialogue does discuss fi-
nal causes, it includes neither a highly original nor thorough account of this
type of cause. Nor does it contain an extended argument against the dan-
gers of contemporary materialism.29 Once again, Leibniz is attributing to
his teacher the inspiration for some of his own new commitments, and us-
ing his mentor as a sounding-board for his newly developed ideas. The De-
cember  letter is also quite like the April  in its lack of crucial de-
tails. Leibniz only hints at the profound changes in his thinking about
physical matters. But like the earlier letter, once we realize that Leibniz’s
philosophical moralizing is as much about himself as about his teacher and
once we see his praises and complaints in this light, we are able to discern a
good deal about the motivation and inspiration behind Leibniz’s new vision.
Leibniz complains to Thomasius that his contemporaries neglect “the ra-
tional causes” of things and attend too much to material principles. He con-
gratulates his mentor for attempting to follow in the footsteps of Plato by

timus, ratio reddi possit: generatim nunc quidem, speciatim tunc, cum phaenomena ipsa
magis excussa erunt.
. Ibid.
. Full title is: Physica, Perpetuo dialogo, suis tamen capitibus interciso, sic adornata, ut scientia
naturalis non tantum definiendo ac dividendo, sed etiam celebrioribus attingendis controversiis,
idque plana methodo nec difficili, explicetur.


 , ,   , –

attending to the other principle of nature, namely, mind. Having praised

Thomasius, Leibniz describes the world as a “great republic” that moves
“toward the greatest harmony.” I will return to the image of the world as a
republic in the next chapter. The point to emphasize here is that Leibniz is
offering his teacher a first glimpse of his new conception of nature accord-
ing to which God emanates a vital spirit or aether that is then organized to
form the mind-like substances in nature. When Leibniz goes on to propose
that his account of aether is that of “a most subtle body” whose movement
“penetrates” and hence explains (almost) everything in nature, he is dis-
playing how this vital ingredient is supposed to work. By such comments,
Leibniz made clear to his teacher what is less obvious to us, namely, that the
mind-like substances that are the source of this universal motion hark back
to the ancient notion of pneuma or spirit. As Leibniz learned from Thoma-
sius himself, according to many ancient thinkers, this spirit was supposed
to penetrate everything and act as the vital ingredient in nature. It will be
helpful to review here the most relevant facts about the theory of a worldly
pneuma or World Soul. It is a history with which Thomasius and his stu-
dent were thoroughly familiar and one from which Leibniz drew inspira-
tion in the autumn of .

Panorganic vitalism
In Book I of On the Heavens, Aristotle proposed a “fifth essence” or aether
which constitutes the substance of the superlunar world. In On the Gener-
ation of Animals, he connected the nature and function of this celestial
aether to the pneuma or ‘breath of life’ in animals. Aristotle distinguishes
between fire as a destructive force and fire or heat as a source of life and ex-
plains that it is “the heat of the sun and the heat in animals [that] brings
about generation.”30 Some ancients appeared to have taken this pneuma to
apply to the universe as a whole. Here the idea was that the pneuma was the
vitalistic principle in nature. As Sextus wrote: “we have a certain commu-
nity not only among ourselves and with the gods, but also with unreasoning
animals. For a single pneuma pervades the whole world . . . , [and] unites us
with them.”31 The Stoics turned Aristotle’s notion of pneuma into a fiery
source of life and movement. It is striking that the general features of Leib-
niz’s creation story in the New Physical Hypothesis bear a resemblance to the
Stoic account. For the Stoics, fire and air permeated the cosmos in the form
of pneuma; because these components were in a constant state of tension,
they were the active force in the cosmos. Depending on their proportions

. On the Generation of Animals, a–. In the creation story offered by Leibniz in the New
Physical Hypothesis, the original source of activity in the created world is also the sun.
. Quoted in M.R. Wright’s Cosmology in Antiquity, . I am greatly oversimplifying the
fascinating details of the ancient views about pneuma and World Soul. I have been aided
in my summary by Wright’s helpful book, esp, –, by the account of these topics in
ancient and early modern thought in A.J. Pyle’s Atomism and Its Critics, –, and by
discussions with Eyjólfur Emilsson.


 

and specific tensions, fire and air could produce the nourishment and
growth of plants, the perception and locomotion of animals, or the intelli-
gence of humans. The tension between fire and air was also responsible for
the cohesion and unity of bodies, and hence for corporeal features. As a re-
cent scholar writes: “Pneuma was thus the vital ingredient of the Stoic cos-
mos, maintaining the whole as well as the bodies within it. . . . The conse-
quence of this way of thinking was a literal sympatheia or ‘being affected
together’ in the interaction of the parts, and between the parts and the
whole.”32 According to the classic work of Sambursky, for some Stoics:
The idea of the existence of forces continuous in space and time merged in the Stoic
doctrine with the conception of the ever-present and all-permeating Deity. Pneuma
became a concept synonymous with God, and either notion was defined by the
other. . . . This way of looking on God and the active force of the pneuma as two as-
pects of the same agent clearly brings out the gist of the physical world of the Sto-
ics. The cosmos is formed and ruled by forces which activate matter in a similar way
to the activation of the living body by the soul.33
On the basis of such assumptions, some philosophers went on to theorize
that the cosmos itself is a living entity in its own right, while others devel-
oped a notion of a World Soul (Anima Mundi). Not surprisingly, Thoma-
sius gives a thorough account of such ideas in his Exercitatio de Stoica
Mundi Exustione. Indeed, these ancient ideas about the pneuma as the
World Soul or vital ingredient of nature were well known and frequently
used by early modern philosophers.
As Thomasius was happy to insist, there is much that is heretical here.34
But for someone like Leibniz, who in  was keen to explain creaturely
activity in general and the reality of the constituent parts of substances in
particular, there was much of value. Of additional help to Leibniz was the
Renaissance and early modern idea that there were vital spirits that were
somehow intermediate between the material and immaterial. Animal spir-
its, for example, were considered by many philosophers to possess a power
of activity not normally associated with bodies although they were not en-
tirely immaterial.35 In short, on the hierarchy of being, some of these spir-
its were supposed to stand between soul and body, between the immaterial
and the material. Among the early modern thinkers who made interesting
use of this notion and with whom Leibniz was familiar, the most important
is Francis Bacon. Writing in  about the mistakes of his predecessors,
Bacon discusses the invisible things of nature: “And yet these be the things
that govern nature principally; and without which you cannot make any true
analysis and indication of the proceedings of nature. The spirits or pneu-
maticals, that are in all tangible bodies, are scarce known.” According to
Bacon, these “are the most active bodies” in nature, which are sometimes

. Wright, Cosmology, –. . Sambursky, Physics, –.

. See esp. Dissertationes, xiv.
. For a discussion of the role of spirits, esp. in Renaissance and early modern medicine and
chemistry, and citation to other literature, see Pyle, Atomism, –.


 , ,   , –

considered natural heat and sometimes called the souls of “plants and
living creatures,” but “are nothing else but a natural body, rarified to a pro-
portion, and included in the tangible parts of bodies.” They “are in all
tangible bodies whatsoever, more or less; and they are never (almost) at rest;
and from them and their motions principally proceed . . . concoction, mat-
uration, putrefaction, vivification, and most of the effects of nature; . . . for
tangible parts in bodies are but stupid things; and the spirits do (in effect)
all.”36 For Bacon, spirits take gross matter, which is inert or “stupid,” and
then move and direct it.
When Leibniz wrote to Thomasius in December , he had come to be-
lieve that such “stupid” and inactive things in nature were inconsistent with
the harmony of the world, and moreover that nature was constituted of ac-
tive, non-stupid spirits or mind-like beings. Once again, Leibniz takes an
ancient notion with modern currency and changes it to suit his particular
needs. With wonderful flair, he transforms the ancient notions of pneuma
and World Soul so as to satisfy perfectly his new metaphysical demands.
Let’s be clear. By December , Leibniz has decided to rid the world
of all “stupid,” inert stuff and to fill it with active vital beings. That is, he
has decided to construct the passive principle in nature out of mind-like be-
ings. These vitalistic beings are best thought of as mind-like sources of ac-
tivity which themselves have no spatial dimensions but which exist at a point
in space, and whose emanative causal power can be more or less expansive.
In section  of chapter , we saw that as early as , Leibniz conceived of
minds as unities per se which constantly acted through emanation. In chap-
ter , I showed that in the theological writings of –, he takes it for
granted that minds are the only active things in the created world. With the
help of the Platonist assumptions articulated in chapter , it is possible to
discern both Leibniz’s assumptions about activity and the motivations be-
hind his vitalism. In chapter , I offered evidence to show that Leibniz mod-
eled the active things in nature on the infinite and perfect divine mind. It is
now apparent that by late  he has come to find untenable any ontology
that includes inert stuff. The ancient theory of a vital World Soul gave him
a way to fill the world with divine-like active entities which could add to the
variety in the world while also explaining passivity.37
In some of the texts of the period, Leibniz proposes a creation story ac-
cording to which God emanates the World Soul, which is something like an
undifferentiated vital spirit that is then organized into harmonious arrange-
ments. Similar to the story told by some mechanical philosophers about the
creation of corporeal things from matter, Leibniz proposes that in the be-
ginning there is undifferentiated vitality spread throughout everything. As

. Bacon, Works, vol. , –.

. Independently of Leibniz, Anne Conway developed metaphysical views that are strikingly
similar to his. In her The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy, published
posthumously in , Conway claims that it “is contrary to the wisdom and goodness of
God” for there to be creatures in the world that are not active; and she insists that each
creature is “a world” with an infinity of creatures. See ch. , sects.  and .


 

we will see below, he describes this original vitality as “the spirit” of God.
The idea seems to be that God first emanates this undifferentiated spirit and
then organizes it into arrangements of mind-like beings which constitute
the substances of nature: each has a nature constituted of an active princi-
ple and a collection of subordinate beings. The brilliance of the new posi-
tion is that Leibniz has simply extracted material passivity from his meta-
physics and replaced it with mental passivity where the idea is that the
arrangements of mind-like substance assume the tasks of the passive prin-
ciple in corporeal substance. For the details of this mental passivity, we will
have to wait until the next chapters, but it is important to understand here
that although there is nothing strictly corporeal in these substances, they are
modeled on the Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, contain a passive
principle, and hence are appropriately called corporeal substances: each has
an active principle (the dominant mind-like form) and a passive principle,
where the latter is a coordinated collection of subordinate substances, each
of which is itself a corporeal substance. There are corporeal substances
within corporeal substances in infinitum, although mental passivity has
taken the place of material passivity. Each substance at each level has its own
form and its own collection of subordinate substances. This sort of arrange-
ment among corporeal substances is often called ‘panorganism’ by scholars
of Leibniz’s later thought since each substance is an organism that is itself
constituted of other organisms, and so on.38
Let’s turn to some texts for more explicit evidence of this panorganic vi-
talism. There are four letters that range from vaguely suggestive to rela-
tively explicit in their account of the World Soul. All of these were written
either as advertisements for Leibniz’s newly published Theory of Abstract
Motion and New Physical Hypothesis or as attempts to clarify and expand on
those published views. The first and most vague is a letter to Hermann Con-
ring, an important scholar and well-known Aristotelian of Helmsted.39
This letter of February  is one of Leibniz’s first attempts to present the
metaphysical and theological importance of his new physics to someone in
Germany. As he explains to Conring, his work on motion led him to dis-
cover “a certain new light” about God and mind. According to Leibniz, he
“has shown there to be a certain ultimate Ratio of things (i.e. God), Uni-
versal Harmony, a most wise and most potent Mind.” Although he suggests
that his view has ancient roots, he insists that his “doctrine has not before
now been put in scientific form.”40 As I suggested in the last chapter, Leib-
niz’s work in ethics and jurisprudence proved to be very important to this
phase of his metaphysical development. Most particularly, it led to the ar-

. In other words, I take the later doctrine of panorganism to be virtually identical with the
position that Leibniz develops in late , though the term ‘organism’ is not used by the
young Leibniz. See n. .
. On Conring, see Wundt, Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik, . I discussed another letter to
Conring at length in ch. , sect. .
. II i .


 , ,   , –

ticulation of his theory of Reflective Harmony, which is crucial to the

proper functioning of the mind-like substances in their panorganic collec-
tions and which I discuss in the next two chapters. It is noteworthy that he
promotes his new physics and philosophy to the relatively conservative Con-
ring by emphasizing the interrelations between the legal work, the physics,
and the metaphysics, which he suggests are all closely tied to “sacred mat-
ters.” Because of its lack of details, the letter to Conring is an inappropri-
ate base on which to build any grand interpretative claim. But its vague
metaphysical proposals are full of clues. Leibniz insinuates that he has taken
the ancient theory of God as the ultimate ratio of things and the source of
Emanative Harmony, and turned that theory into a scientific one that an-
swers questions in jurisprudence, ethics, and physics. But how? One possi-
ble answer is that the world is constituted of elaborately arranged emana-
tions of the divine mind, some of which are human and some of which are
the organized collections of the vitality of the World Soul. In fact, such a
theory would connect Leibniz’s work in physics and his work in ethics and
jurisprudence: concerning the former, it would offer an account of motion;
concerning the latter, it would both explain the motivations and goals of hu-
manity and add to the variety in the world.
Lest we think Leibniz dared promulgate his radical proposals only to con-
servative Germans, consider a letter that he wrote to the Secretary of the
Royal Society. In his letter to Oldenburg of June , Leibniz makes the
same general points that he made to Conring, but he also adds some details.
He writes: “philosophers of all nations and times have discussed a certain
universal Spirit or world Soul from which comes the life [vita] of things
lacking reason and motion.” According to Leibniz, “there is no one known
to me who has explained mechanically the motion of this spirit, and the
cause and effects of motion.” He then proceeds to offer Oldenburg some of
the details of the physical proposals in the New Physical Hypothesis. That
Leibniz intends to erect his physics on a notion of the World Soul seems
clear, as does the fact that he seeks approval from Oldenburg and the other
members of the Royal Society. He writes: “You would be doing me a great
favor if you write down the opinions of, and obtain favorable notice of those
men in your society, not only those [men] who pour forth new light unto na-
ture, but also those who brilliantly labor at natural theology and ethics.”41
In another letter of June , this time to Pierre de Carcavy, Royal Li-
brarian in Paris, Leibniz is even more explicit. He writes: “it is not possible
to reconcile the Phenomena of the World with the abstract laws of motion,
[or] Experience with reason, unless a certain universal Spirit is admitted.”
Leibniz equates this with “the soul of the World or subtle matter,” which he
says that many ancients (e.g., Plato and the Stoics) and moderns have ac-
cepted. However, according to Leibniz, “there is no one so far as I know who
has explained adequately the origin of motion, in this spirit and the mode

. II i .


 

of doing everything in everything.”42 The notion of World Soul also helps to

solve a number of theological problems, like “the nature of miracles.”43 The
basic idea here is consistent with the account of World Soul offered above:
the World Soul is a subtle vitalistic “matter” whose organized arrangements
constitute the non-human substances of the world and explain “the mode of
doing everything in everything.” But a question arises at this point about
Leibniz’s use of the word “matter.” Is this a wholly spiritual being and in that
sense immaterial, or not? In the remainder of the letter, Leibniz does not wa-
ver from his basic assumption that anything that is genuinely material cannot
be a source of activity. He explains that the Soul is similar to “an invisible fire
that permeates all the things in our world”44 and to the “spirit of God.”45
The fourth and final letter to which I want to call attention is one to Otto
von Guericke, a natural philosopher from Magdeburg. A significant feature
of this letter of August  is that von Guericke has his own version of a
World Soul which is more material than spiritual and against which Leib-
niz vehemently argues. According to Leibniz, his correspondent intends to
populate the world with “World-Bodies [Welt-Cörporen]”46 which com-
bine with space to create “worldly powers [virtutes mundanas]” and which
are supposed to explain phenomena like gravity. While it is clear that Leib-
niz is perfectly content to take seriously another version of a World Soul, it
is equally evident that he takes von Guericke to have failed in his account.
The criticisms that Leibniz offers are revealing:
But above all one must take care not to use – in the manner of the Scholastics – such
words as can be well said, but not explained or understood. For . . . what an earthly
power [virtus mundana] might be, is as incomprehensible, without further explana-
tion, as substantial form, sympathy and antipathy, magnetic force, immaterial species,
and the like. And even if My highly esteemed Sir should then prove such earthly
powers with a nice experiment, still this would not explain [ercläret] them, for it re-
mains just as obscure from where . . . such powers originate.47
This criticism displays two of Leibniz’s most basic assumptions. Before ar-
ticulating these, let’s remind ourselves of the September  letter to Old-
enburg and the severity of the Reality Problem as Leibniz presented it in
that letter. What plagued Leibniz about the problem was that he could of-
fer no complete explanation of significant corporeal features because mate-
rial passivity in its nature could not act as the cause and explanation of those
features. In other words, in September , he had no explanation of cor-

. II i . The Academy editors are not certain about the month this letter was written. See
II i . The Latin is: qui tamen originem motus in hoc spiritu, modumque agendi om-
nia in omnibus explicuerit satis, est, quod sciam, nemo.
. II i . . II i . . II i .
. We have here an excellent example of what Leibniz does in all his German letters, i.e., to
convert a Latin word (corpus) into a hybrid of German and Latin to produce a term that
is found in neither. The combination of Leibniz’s Baroque German and these termino-
logical monsters make his letters in German obscure. I would like to thank Peter Schwartz
and Silvia Beier for help with this one.
. II i .


 , ,   , –

poreal or “earthly powers.” However, when he writes to von Guericke in Au-

gust , he seems to have solved this critical problem. In the passage
quoted, Leibniz insists that a theory of World Soul reach both the highest
standards of clarity and the deepest levels of explanation. He criticizes his
correspondent for failing to offer a complete explanation of the origin and
nature of corporeal powers. To put it another way, von Guericke’s theory
has failed to include the complete ratio of the workings of the World Soul.
But why? Since for Leibniz it is impossible for something that is genuinely
material to be active, von Guericke’s theory has not explained the corporeal
power in the world because it has attempted to ground such powers in ma-
terial stuff. As Leibniz dramatically insists, whether the theoretical entity is
substantial form, sympathy, or magnetic force, there will be an insufficient
explanation of the source of its power unless something mind-like is as-
sumed. Leibniz’s recommendation to his correspondent is to turn to
“Mind” for a proper and complete explanation of such “powers.”48
Let us summarize the cumulative effect of these letters. By the winter of
– Leibniz has developed a theory of a World Soul according to which
there is a spiritual vitality that is organized by God and that functions as the
complete ratio of the movement of non-human substances. According to
Leibniz, the theory has important implications for his work in ethics, theol-
ogy, and law. Although Leibniz is not explicit in the letters about exactly how
the World Soul is supposed to do all these things, I have offered an inter-
pretation that is consistent with these demands. So far, so good. But before
we admit such a radical transformation in Leibniz’s ideas about the world,
it would be helpful to consider a more explicit presentation of the theory.
The two-part New Physical Hypothesis and Theory of Abstract Motion of
early  is the first and most public presentation of Leibniz’s position.
The former text contains the most complete articulation of the creation
story that underlies Leibniz’s new theory of panorganic vitalism. I will
avoid the details of the physical proposals in this complicated work and fo-
cus only on two points that are particularly relevant to our concerns here.49
First, at the beginning of the text, Leibniz offers an elaborate account of
creation, which he proudly proclaims to be “marvelously consistent with the
teachings of the sacred scripture.”50 In keeping with the Biblical account,
Leibniz’s story maintains that the Supreme Being brings life and activity to
its original creations which include light, a heavenly body (the sun), and the
earth. What is particularly striking is that Leibniz assigns the divine role of
the production of life and activity to an aether without which “all things will
return to inert, incoherent, dead dust.” Leibniz describes the aether as “the
Spirit of the Lord,” which “will pervade within all things and, in every di-

. II i .
. Unlike most of the other early works, the New Physical Hypothesis has now been examined
by scholars. For the most recent general accounts and citations to earlier literature, see Gar-
ber, “Leibniz: Physics and Philosophy,” sect. , and Beeley, Kontinuität, chs.  and .
. VI ii .


 

rection, will be transformed into corpuscles [bullae].”51 Few commentators on

New Physical Hypothesis have paid much attention to the Biblical under-
pinning of this creation story, and when some recent scholars have described
the story, they have missed its theological overtones.52 I propose, however,
that Leibniz is engaged in something much more interesting than just an-
other account of a material aether. Although the aether is extended and the
physics is mechanical, there is little reason to interpret the aether as mate-
rial stuff. Once again, my interpretative approach is to place Leibniz’s
comments within a wider textual and philosophical context. It seems rea-
sonable to take Leibniz at his word and to interpret this aether as “the Spirit
of the Lord” emanated by its divine source so that its vital power will per-
meate all of creation. Consistent with the Biblical story, Leibniz’s proposal
is that the vital power of God fills the world and makes order out of chaos.53
When put in their proper historical situation, his comments imply that this
Spirit is an undifferentiated vitality which, as it pervades the expanse of cre-
ation, is transformed into arrangements of vital beings.
The second point I want to emphasize about the New Physical Hypothe-
sis is that these corpuscles are panorganic collections of corporeal substances
as well as substantial atoms. As atoms, they are the real unities out of which
everything else is made and in terms of which everything else will be ex-
plained. As Leibniz vividly explains: “These corpuscles now are the seeds
of things, the stamens of species [stamina specierum], the receptacles of
aether, the basis of bodies, the cause of consistency and the foundation of
such great variety as we admire in bodies. . . . If they were absent, every-
thing would be . . . dead and condemned.” However, each of these substan-
tial atoms is itself a world. He asserts: “any atom will be of infinite species,
like a sort of world, and there will be worlds within worlds to infinity.”54
These two points from the New Physical Hypothesis may be summarized as
follows. There is a spiritual and expansive vitality that the Supreme Being
emanates and then organizes into the individual beings of nature. When or-
ganized, this vitality constitutes worlds-within-worlds of vital and various be-
ings. Some of these beings are substantial atoms in that they are the ingredi-
ents out of which other creatures are made. These constitute the subject
matter of mechanical physics. It is important to emphasize that each of these
atoms is itself both variable and a world constituted of other atoms. It is also
noteworthy that these vital individuals contain “the seeds of things.”55 That
is, consistent with the Causal Seed Doctrine, these atoms are constructed by
God to remain dormant until it is time for them to be causally efficacious.

. VI ii . The Latin is: AETHER (is enim fortasse est ille Spriritus Domini . . .) et intus
omnia pervadet, passimque in bullas intercipietur. . . .
. For example, Beeley assumes the aether to be material, but thinks that this is consistent
with Leibniz’s account of it as the spirit of God. See Kontinuität, esp. –.
. Some of Leibniz’s comments echo those of Augustine in the Confessions, X, esp. v–x.
. VI ii .
. For a discussion of the theological importance of this doctrine and its use by Augustine,
see ch. , sect. .


 , ,   , –

Panorganic vitalism and the passivity problem

My argument for Leibniz’s early rejection of material passivity and his ac-
ceptance of panorganic vitalism has relied on relatively few textual clues.
While it is not surprising that Leibniz retains his characteristic restraint in
explicating his views, his reserve is nonetheless frustrating. Besides the
textual evidence displayed in the previous sections, are there other reasons
to believe that he made such a radical ontological shift in the winter of
–? In section , I articulated two particularly grave problems which
I called versions of the Passivity Problem and which faced Leibniz’s orig-
inal conception of the passive principle in corporeal substance. My claim
was that he was led to rethink his original theory because of these prob-
lems: he was persuaded to reject material passivity because passive mate-
rial stuff could neither add to the variety and goodness of the world nor
could it contribute to the causal and explanatory self-sufficiency of cor-
poreal substances. In particular, I maintained that by September 
Leibniz had become acutely aware of the need to respond to the Reality
Problem. If I am right in my analysis of Leibniz’s philosophical develop-
ment, then we would expect the theory of panorganic vitalism to solve
these problems.
First, let’s consider the Plenitude Problem. In the last chapter, we saw
that between late  and late , Leibniz’s views about Emanative and
Reflective Harmony develop in dramatic ways. In this context, it is not sur-
prising that he would have begun to find the utter sameness of inert matter
particularly irksome. I propose that the more he came to see variety as a
good-making criterion, the more frustrated he became with material pas-
sivity. For someone who believes that creaturely variety is a good thing, the
possibility of reinventing the passive principle in nature must have been en-
ticing. It is significant that Leibniz says in a passage quoted earlier from the
New Physical Hypothesis that “any atom will be of infinite species.”56 By
ridding the world of brute passive stuff and populating it with an infinity
of various mind-like vital beings, Leibniz was simply making the world
more divine. As we will see in chapters  and , by the end of , he was
prepared to add even more significantly to the variety in the world: in some
texts from the second half of , all the minds in nature perceive all the
others in their own unique way.
There is an obvious sense in which panorganic vitalism solves the Re-
ality Problem. In the letter to Oldenburg of September , Leibniz sug-
gests that the passivity of matter makes it impossible to offer a proper ac-
count of the unity, reality, and nature of a body; and he also implies that
there cannot be a complete ratio for corporeal features due to the fact that
there is nothing in passive extended matter that can act as the source of
those features. One way of making the point is that the material passivity
in corporeal substance S does not contribute to the complete ratio of the
corporeal features of S, and therefore (given the Principle of Causal Self-
. VI ii .


 

Sufficiency) those features do not strictly belong to S. Mental passivity

solves both of the problems neatly: the passive principle in corporeal sub-
stance consists in perfectly unified and fully real beings whose nature it is
to act constantly. Although we will have to wait for details until chapters
 and , Leibniz reduces the suffering of substances to the perceptions of
mind, and thereby rids the world of any brute passive stuff. For Leibniz
in , everything in nature is an unique instantiation of the essence of
God, and hence is active, unified, and good.
What about the problem of the continuum? As recent scholars have
noted, the New Physical Hypothesis and its companion Theory of Abstract
Motion contain the “first systematic account of the continuum.”57 As we
have seen, in the letters to Hobbes of July  and to Oldenburg of July
and September , Leibniz offers an account of the cohesion of bodies
that is similar to the one found in his two-part published work. Although
during this period he tinkered with the details of his solution, he seems to
have been relatively satisfied with his response. According to Leibniz, for
some body B, there will be an infinity of substantial atoms which have mo-
mentary minds, and whose momentary endeavors constitute the cohesion
among the atoms and hence the cohesion among the parts of B. The fact
that Leibniz is relatively content with his account of cohesion throughout
our period lends strong support to the claim that it was the Passivity Prob-
lem and not the problem of the continuum that led him to despair about
material passivity. What Leibniz came to see in the autumn of  was that
as long as there was “stupid,” inert stuff in corporeal substances, there could
be no unities or “wholes” out of which to constitute the reality of bodies
and in terms of which to explain its features.

. Other evidence
The position for which I am arguing is dramatic. If I am right, then Leib-
niz has denied the existence of passive primary matter and populated na-
ture with mind-like substances very early in his philosophical career. Given
the importance of the point, it will be worth presenting all the evidence in
favor of my conclusion, and then raising some questions. As far as I can
tell, there are at least five reasons which are independent of the textual ev-
idence given in sections – for believing that in the winter of –,
Leibniz replaced material passivity with panorganic vitalism.
For our first reason, let’s return to the letter to Oldenburg of September
. In that text, Leibniz first presents his solution to the Problem of Co-
hesion and then calls attention to the Reality Problem. I argued that as long
as nature is filled with inert extended matter, there will be no unities or
“wholes,” and the explanation of cohesion or any other property will be in-
complete. As the letter to Oldenburg makes clear, Leibniz recognized that
the solution to the Problem of Cohesion would not be entirely successful

. Arthur, Labyrinth, Introduction; also see Beeley, esp. chs.  and .


 , ,   , –

without a solution to the Reality Problem. It is striking therefore that in

– Leibniz was proud of this account of cohesion and in his letters of
the period announced it widely. Since it seems unlikely that Leibniz would
have broadcast his solution to the Problem of Cohesion unless he had solved
the Reality Problem, I propose that his satisfaction with his solution to the
Problem of Cohesion implies that he had solved the Reality Problem by the
means articulated above.
The second reason for accepting my interpretative conclusion about
material passivity is that if the passive principle in nature is not consti-
tuted of mind-like substances by the winter of , then the account of
human mind in the Theory of Abstract Motion entails that inert matter
plays a part in thinking. Leibniz offers for the first time in the Theory of
Abstract Motion an account of human thinking. As explained in chapter ,
section , a human mind is a harmony of endeavors, where an endeavor is
what results from an active principle or mind acting through its passive
principle or matter. As Leibniz summarizes one of the crucial points in a
letter to Johann Friedrich of May , thinking or “the actions of mind
consist in endeavor.”58 He intends to show that “thinking is an endeavor
or minimum motion, and there can be several endeavors in the same
[space]. . . . Therefore, minds can think . . . unlike bodies.”59 In an essay
of  entitled On endeavor and motion, on perceiving and thinking, he ex-
plains that “incorruptibility” is part of “the nature of mind” as “was first
demonstrated by me.” Because bodies also “possess” incorruptibility in-
sofar as they contain minds, it is important to distinguish between the
minds in bodies and conscious minds. Leibniz concludes: “Therefore, the
retention of all endeavors, or rather the arrangements among them, that
is, of all their states, this constitutes mind.”60 If we take matter here to be
passive inert stuff, then such stuff is involved in the activity of human
thinking. Leibniz could not have held any such view. Such an account of
conscious mind would stand in contradistinction to Platonist assumptions
like the Doctrine of the Hierarchy of Being and the Supreme Being As-
sumption: if inert matter were involved in thinking, not only would the
self-sufficiency and unity of the conscious mind be contaminated, so
would the ontological superiority of mind. In fact, if such inert stuff were
the passive constituent in thinking, then the same instability that contam-
inates the “wholes” in Leibniz’s letter to Oldenburg of September 
would taint the constituents of thinking minds. That Leibniz takes human

. II i . In ch. , I argued that a conatus or endeavor must involve the incorporeal or pas-
sive principle. According to Leibniz in texts like On the incarnation of God, the active prin-
ciple must act through the passive. See ch. , sects.  and .
. II i . Leibniz is explicit about the fact that thinking involves the passive principle. One
of the central claims of On the incarnation of God was that thought (cognitio) requires a
union because to render the thing thought is itself an action of the mind on the the body
(i.e., the formation of a thought requires an action of mind on body). See VI i –. For
other citations, see ch. , sect. .
. VI ii .


 

minds to be divine-like during the period is clear. As we have seen, he

claims that the only difference between divine and human mind is the fini-
tude of the latter. Nor was he alone in this. For example, in some com-
ments that he made in May  for Johann Friedrich on the resurrection
of the soul, Leibniz explains that, for Digby: “the mind is something that
is neither in time nor in space” and in that sense is “something just shy of
God.” Although Leibniz insists that the nature of mind cannot be so eas-
ily grasped, he does not oppose Digby’s general point about the close
affinity between divine and created minds.61 For Leibniz, it would have
been inconceivable that something as divine as the activity of human
thinking would be rooted in material passivity.
The third reason that we have for accepting my interpretative story
about passivity is a theological one. In the last section, I noted that the
transformation of the theory of passivity added significantly to the vari-
ety in the world and therefore increased wordly goodness. This is not the
only theological benefit of Leibniz’s theory of panorganic vitalism. Al-
though in , Leibniz actively seeks solutions to problems in physics
and jurisprudence, he does not abandon his theological project. In partic-
ular, for the first time he focuses on some specific theological difficulties
that the standard mechanical conception of matter poses, and then pres-
ents a solution that avoids these problems. His solution to the problem of
resurrection and his new-found response to the problem of the Eucharist
offer significant evidence that by the winter of  – , Leibniz has
turned the passive principle in corporeal substance into a collection of
mind-like entities.
I have discussed a part of the May  letter to Johann Friedrich in this
chapter and will return to it and its attachments in the next chapter. For now,
let’s consider at greater length the essay that Leibniz enclosed with the let-
ter and entitled On the resurrection of bodies. This is a long-winded and odd
text that discusses, among other things, cannibalism and the bones of
Lazarus. The question that concerns Leibniz is how to make sense of the
Christian doctrine of resurrection, which demands that the soul be rejoined
with its original body at resurrection even though the parts of that body may
be “scattered all over the world.”62 Leibniz insists that the standard ac-
counts of matter as passive stuff poses grave difficulties for the doctrine. He
argues roughly as follows. For someone who accepts the existence of body
qua matter, either there is some kind of general material stuff or there are
material atoms. In the former case, because the matter of bodies will be in
“continuous flux,” there is no single identifiable thing to be resurrected. In
the latter case, while it is true that atoms (by definition) persist and there-

. II i . For further evidence of Leibniz’s views, see ch. , sect. . It is striking that, in a
letter to Elisabeth, Descartes makes the same sort of criticism of Digby’s grand proposals
about mind. Descartes writes in November : “As regards what relates to the state of
the soul after this life, I certainly have less knowledge about it than M. Digby.” AT IV .
. II i . In his discussion, Leibniz cites Paul, Ephesians .


 , ,   , –

fore that the atoms of a particular body can be reassembled, a number of

questions arise as a result of the persistence of these basic material elements.
It is at this point in the text that Leibniz indulges in a number of thought
experiments involving cannibilism. He points out, for instance, that if one
person ingests the body of another and absorbs those atoms, then it is un-
clear to whom the atoms belong. Although Leibniz thinks that come judg-
ment day, they would probably belong to the first person to have them, his
point is that the standard theory of atoms cannot easily explain resurrec-
tion. For our purposes, the important moral to the story is that there is more
to a body than organized matter. But what? As Leibniz writes to Johann
Friedrich: “I am of the opinion that in a body, whether of a human being
or animal, vegetable or mineral, there is a core [Kern] of its substance. . . .
This core is so subtle that it remains also in the ashes of burned things and
can, so to speak, draw itself into an invisible center.”63
In the general context of my account of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Sub-
stance, the view promulgated in the letter to Johann Friedrich and its at-
tached essay seems very strange.64 He proposes that there is a substantial
core in a substance that is constructed out of a substantial form and a pas-
sive principle or collection of subordinate substances. The oddity of this is
clear: Leibniz has dared to give the fundamental constituents of nature
(namely, substances) something that is apparently even more fundamental.
What is going on? The short answer is that Leibniz was deeply concerned
to construct a metaphysics that would solve two of the most difficult prob-
lems posed by Christian orthodoxy, namely, the doctrines of the Eucharist
and resurrection. In order to construct a metaphysics that would be consis-
tent with these doctrines, it was necessary to offer a coherent account of the
identity of the body of a human being. In the case of resurrection, for ex-
ample, Wanda wants to rest assured that come judgment day, it is her body
(and not someone else’s) that accompanies her soul through the pearly gates.
In the case of the Eucharistic transfer, it must be the body of Christ (and
not someone else’s) that is present in the bread. As noted in chapter , sec-
tion , it was Leibniz’s opinion that the identity of a corporeal substance is
determined by its substantial form, which is the combination of its princi-
ple of activity and the ontological correlate of its complete concept. It will
be helpful here to call this the dominant mind or F of the substance. Ac-
cording to Leibniz’s Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, in every cor-
poreal substance S, there is a passive principle P that F organizes.
But what exactly is the passive principle P in the core of substance? As
Leibniz writes to Johann Friedrich: “in everything there is a certain semi-
nal center that is diffused throughout the thing.” This center is “the foun-
tain of life” and that “in which the very soul is implanted.” The “subtle

. II i .
. In fact, its strangeness has led some commentators of the early works to reject the view as
a passing fancy. See Beeley, “A Response to Arthur, Mercer, Smith, and Wilson;” Kabitz,
Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz, –.


 

spirit or substance” cannot be destroyed but will survive through fire and
other changes as “the flower of substance.” Leibniz insists that his theory
has many benefits. Besides solving the problem of resurrection, it explains
“the generation of plants from seeds,” the development of the seed in the
uterus, and “the essences of chemicals.”65 Moreover, Leibniz is proud that
his theory agrees with “the Jews”: “Indeed, the Jews maintain that in a cer-
tain little bone, which they call Luz, the soul with this flower of substance
remains unconquered by anything that happens.”66 Whether it is the de-
velopment of a crystal, the generation of a plant, the movement of an ob-
ject, or the resurrection of the body, the same process occurs: there is a core
of substance that diffuses the thing. I propose that the only way of making
sense of Leibniz’s claims in his letter to Johann Friedrich and its related es-
say is to recognize that he assumes panorganic vitalism. As described above,
panorganism entails that P is constituted of a collection of corporeal sub-
stances, each of which has a dominant mind or substantial form F organiz-
ing a passive principle P which is itself a collection, and so on in infinitum.
With this assumption in hand, let’s construct the long answer to the ques-
tion about Leibniz’s distinction between a substance and its core. As sug-
gested before, the theological doctrines of resurrection and the Eucharist
demand that certain substances retain the same body or passive principle P
over time, and moreover that P can retain its identity while also changing
radically. Let me explain. Once we grant that the identity of a corporeal sub-
stance is determined by its dominant mind, it follows that the identity of a
collection of such substances will be determined by their dominant minds.
Since P is a collection of corporeal substances, say, p, p, . . . pn+, it fol-
lows that the identity of P will be equivalent to the set of dominant minds
in p, p, . . . pn+. Leibniz’s notion of a core of substance is constructed so
that each human substance will retain both its soul and its body from its
birth to its death and for all eternity. As a substance, for example, Wanda is
constituted of her soul or dominant mind F and her body or passive prin-
ciple P. Since Wanda’s P will be equivalent to the set of substances w, w,
. . . wn+ and since the dominant minds in w, w, . . . wn+ will determine
the identity of P, Leibniz has cleverly constructed the core of Wanda to in-
clude exactly what is necessary to retain both the identity of her body and
the identity of her soul through the various changes in a human life. That
is, the core of Wanda will contain her F, the dominant minds in w, w, . . .
wn+, and some passive principle for each of the dominant minds in w, w,
. . . wn+ to organize.
But what about the dramatic changes that every human being suffers in
the eternity of existence? In the letter to Johann Friedrich, Leibniz ac-
knowledges those changes. He explains that the core is like “an embryo or
seed of an animal [dem foetu oder frucht der Thiere],” which contains “the
core of the whole body.” He insists that “this core of the substance of a hu-
man being neither increases nor decreases although its clothing and casing

. II i . . II i . For more on this point, see ch. , n. .


 , ,   , –

[Kleidt und Decke] are in constant flux.” These fluctuations are extreme.
Not only is “the core of the whole body” able to spread throughout the body,
it is also able to “retract itself back to its source and fountain,” where it is
in a state of such subtlety that “neither fire nor water nor any visible force
is able to harm it.”67 Leibniz’s suggestions here are both difficult and im-
portant. To understand how a substance is able to remain the same and yet
change dramatically is to grasp Leibniz’s new conception of passivity and
the key to his account of the Eucharist and resurrection. Not surprisingly,
it is the core of the substance that remains eternally constant in the sense
that the core is always constituted of its own dominant mind F and the dom-
inant minds of the substances that constitute its passive principle P. Leib-
niz’s point is that as long as the core retains F and the dominant minds in
p, p, . . . pn+, then the core remains constant regardless of how much the
passive principles in p, p, . . . pn+ may increase and decrease. In case the
passive principle in p varies, the casing of S will have changed; in case the
passive principles in each of p, p, . . . pn+ vary, the casing of S will have
changed dramatically. But regardless of the modifications in the passive
principles in p, p, . . . pn+, such changes are part of S in that they occur
within its passive principle. Leibniz’s theory of a core of substance is enor-
mously clever: it explains how a substance is able to remain fundamentally
the same and yet undergo the changes of growth and death. In the case of
Wanda, for example, she grows from infant to adult, then dramatically
shrinks and expands between the moments of death and resurrection. Al-
though all of these modifications are part of her substance, underneath
these variations in her passive principle stands her unchanged core. Because
the core just is her soul and body, it is ripe for life, death, and resurrection.
It is also distinct from every other. Returning to the topic of cannibalism,
Leibniz makes the point quite clearly: “Therefore, when one man is eaten
by another, the core of each one remains what and how it was.” Neither core
is “nourished” or affected by the other.68
But an important question remains. What exactly is the causal relation be-
tween the eternally contant core and the fluctuating “casing”? The answer
to this is the key to the theory of Metaphysical Cohesion that Leibniz con-
structs to conform to his theory of panorganism and that I will discuss in
section  of the next chapter. Before turning to Leibniz’s new account of the
Eucharist, it is worth emphasizing that a month after sending this lengthy
presentation of his panorganic vitalism to Johann Friedrich, Leibniz wrote
the letter to Pierre de Carcavy about the World Soul. In this letter of June
, Leibniz compares the Soul both to “an invisible fire that permeates
all the things in our world”69 and to the “spirit of God,” that has “impreg-

. II i –. Leibniz also asserts that “the salient point [punctum saliens]” is in the core.
As Joseph McAlhany has pointed out to me, this was a medical term used to designate the
first beginning of life or motion. The source of this use is Aristotle’s On the Generation of
Animals (VI iii).
. II i . . II i .


 

nated individuals with a sort of seminal fertility.”70 It seems clear that by

the late spring of , Leibniz is committed to the idea that the world is
diffused with vitalism.
The fourth reason I want to offer for the transformation of Leibniz’s
conception of passivity also concerns a theological topic. In his letter to Ar-
nauld of November , although Leibniz offers a summary of his recent
work, by far his lengthiest presentation concerns his views on the Eu-
charist. Similar to his analysis of the problem of resurrection (in his com-
ments for Johann Friedrich of May ), Leibniz begins this discussion
by showing that the standard accounts of matter pose severe difficulties for
the doctrine. Leibniz insists that the views of “the moderns,” who would
have us believe that “the essence of body consists in extension or [seu]
quantity,” are incompatible with the miracle of the Eucharist.71 In an at-
tempt to reveal the disastrous consequences that this conception poses for
the doctrine, Leibniz offers two penetrating criticisms of a Cartesian ac-
count of body. First, Leibniz asserts: “A single thing can change into a new
entity . . . mutation being the passage of the same thing from one state to
another.” Leibniz’s point is insightful and similar to part of the argument
used in the discussion of resurrection: if each body is constituted of ex-
tended stuff, and if all extended stuff is essentially the same, then it be-
comes enormously difficult to give any particular body (say, the body of
Christ) a stable identity. It would seem that the identity of the body would
change when there was the least change in its matter. Since the doctrine of
the Eucharist requires the body of Christ to be present in the bread of the
mass, this is a particularly devastating point. As Leibniz writes: “one can-
not say . . . why it is called the body of Christ rather than bread, to which
it is similar in every respect.”72 Although Leibniz’s second argument is in-
terspersed with the first (and less than perspicuous) he seems to offer a sec-
ond devastating criticism of the Cartesian account of body. He notes: “the
same thing is made by the whole and by a part, and the whole is equal to
the part,” and moreover “the same thing is made by many different
things.” Here the argument seems to be that since bodies are everywhere
the same and since the identity of a body will be defined by its extension,
it will be impossible to explain how the body, which occupies the place of
the bread and which was a moment ago the substance of the bread, is now
the substance of the body of Christ. That is, there will be no way to dis-
tinguish between the substance of the bread and the substance of Christ.
Leibniz’s argument here seems to employ a version of the Reality Prob-
lem. He writes: “For a person who believes that the essence of a body con-
sists in extension, how could it ever be believed that the body can be sub-
ject to another extension and preserve its substance?”73 Because there are
no “wholes” or real unities in mere extended stuff, there is neither a sub-

. II i . . II i . . Ibid. . II i .


 , ,   , –

ject to underlie change nor a reality (or collection of realities) out of which
to construct something real. In the end, “one cannot say . . . what is real in
the Eucharist.”74
It is significant that the criticisms Leibniz offers here against the Carte-
sian account of body are similar to the ones made in the letter to Oldenburg
of September . In the letter, Leibniz worried about the fact that on his
account, the parts of the body were constantly changing and therefore
lacked both a stable identity and a persistent reality. In the letter of No-
vember , these are no longer difficulties for Leibniz’s position but only
for “the moderns.” In fact, in the letter to Arnauld, Leibniz promotes his
own account of the Eucharist as one that avoids just such problems. In-
deed, according to Leibniz, he has been working on the metaphysics of the
Eucharist for four years, but has only recently hit upon an explanation that
satisfies him. Let’s put this new explanation in its proper developmental
context. As I explained in chapter , Leibniz’s proposals about transub-
stantiation in – rely on a notion of Idea which, as the substantial form
of a non-human substance, is supposed to transubstantiate at the relevant
moment. It follows from this account that the body qua matter remains the
same while the Idea changes. In other words, Leibniz’s original explanation
of the Eucharist faces exactly the problems described in the letter to Ar-
nauld. To understand why Leibniz became dissatisfied with the earlier
solution, and to grasp the full significance of the change in his views about
the Eucharist, we need to remind ourselves of some of the issues sur-
rounding the debate.
As noted in chapter , section , one point of contention between the
Catholics and Protestants was the Catholic commitment to transubstantia-
tion. In The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther argues against the
Catholics. He insists that “Transubstantiation . . . must be considered as an
invention of human reason, since it is based neither on Scripture nor sound
reasoning.” Moreover, Luther suggests that the Catholic position is incon-
sistent: on the one hand, Catholics maintain that the body of Christ can ex-
ist alongside the accidents of the bread; on the other, they assert that the
substance of the body cannot exist alongside the substance of the bread.
Luther proposes that in the same way the substances of fire and iron are in-
termingled as “red-hot iron [ferro ignito],” so the substance of the body of
Christ is able to exist alongside the substance of the bread.75 For someone
like Leibniz who wanted to reconcile the churches, there were therefore two
goals: first, to show that transubstantiation need not conflict with sound rea-
soning; second, to offer an account of the Eucharist that was consistent with
the claims made by both the Catholics and the Lutherans. The point of
Leibniz’s essay, On transubstantiation, was to give a coherent account of the
metaphysics of the Catholic doctrine and thereby to accomplish the first

. II i .
. Henry Bettenson, ed. Documents of the Christian Church, . I would like to thank Char-
lotte Methuen who discussed these theological points with me.


 

goal. This Leibniz did to his satisfaction. But he does not even attempt to
achieve the second goal. Because during –, Leibniz was at the height
of his interest in this theological project, it is odd that he does not under-
take a more complete explanation of the Eucharist during this period. The
letter to Arnauld explains why: Leibniz’s theory of substance at the time
could not have accomplished the second goal exactly because it contained
the problematic notion of material passivity.
Let’s be more precise. According to the official pronouncement of the
Council of Trent:
Since Christ our Redeemer said that that which he offered under the appearance of
bread was truly his body, it has therefore always been held in the Church of God,
and this holy Synod now declares anew, that through consecration of the bread and
wine there comes about a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the
substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine
into the substance of his blood. And this conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church
conveniently and properly called transubstantiation.76
Moreover, in the Canons on the Holy Eucharist, the Council writes: “in the
venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under
each appearance and in each separate part of each appearance [species].” As
the theologians proclaim, “if anyone denies” this account, “let him be
anathema.”77 According to the Catholic doctrine, the substance of the bread
is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, and moreover the body of
Christ is contained under each appearance. What Luther finds odd is that
the Catholics allow that the substance of Christ exists alongside the acci-
dents of the bread and yet deny that the substance of Christ can exist along-
side the substance of the bread. For Luther and orthodox Lutherans, Christ
is literally present in the bread and wine. As the doctrine is presented in the
official Augsburg Confession of : “the body and the blood of Christ are
truly present, and are distributed to those that partake in the Lord’s Sup-
per.”78 Although some Lutherans interpreted this presence as a spiritual
and not a physical one, Leibniz was keen to explain the physical presence of
the body of Christ.
These theological facts help to explain the importance of the shift be-
tween the views in On transubstantiation and those in the letter to Arnauld.
In the former, Leibniz does not try to show how the same body can be in
many places at the same time; in the latter, he does. That is, in November
, Leibniz is prepared to explain how the body of Christ can be in sev-

. Council of Trent, Session XIII (October ), ch. : Bettenson, Documents, .
. Bettenson, .
. Bettenson, . The Augsburg Confession of  consists of twenty-eight articles that
were written by Philipp Melanchthon and that set forth Lutheran doctrine. Of particular
importance here is the doctrine of real presence according to which the body of Christ is
really present in the Eucharist. Thus, the Lutheran doctrine does not go as far as the
Catholic one of transubstantiation, which asserts that the substance of the bread is replaced
by the substance of Christ.


 , ,   , –

eral places at the same time. He gives Arnauld a description of the devel-
opment of his new position:
I understood that the essence of body does not consist in extension (as Descartes
thought) . . . , but in motion and therefore that the substance of a body or [seu]
nature, by all means consistent with the definition of Aristotle, is the principle of
motion (for there is no absolute rest in bodies); moreover [I understood that] the
principle of motion or [seu] the substance of a body lacks extension.
In short, Leibniz came to realize that the substance, nature, or essence of
body just is its principle of motion or activity and therefore that the sub-
stance, nature, or essence of body lacks extension. Leibniz continues:
Not until then was it most clearly apparent how substance differed from appearances
and in particular that there is a ratio in terms of which God is able to be understood
clearly and distinctly to bring it about that the substance of the same body is in many
different places or, what is the same thing, under many appearances [sub multis
speciebus].79
In the next chapter, I will use this passage as evidence for Leibniz’s accept-
ance of Preestablished Harmony in the second half of . For our pur-
poses now, it is especially important to identify the dramatic difference be-
tween Leibniz’s new account of the Eucharist and his earlier one. Both in
the letter to Arnauld and in On transubstantiation, the substance of the body
of Christ can be in different places at the same time. The point of On tran-
substantiation applies with equal force in the letter to Arnauld: because the
principle of activity of Christ is not in space, it is able to act on different
passive principles at the same time. The dramatic difference between the
earlier and later account of the Eucharist is that the latter lacks the compli-
cating factor of material passivity. According to the doctrinal demands, the
appearances must remain the same, and therefore, on the earlier view, there
could be no change of body: since the organized extended matter was sup-
posed to cause the appearances of the bread, the body or organized matter
had to remain unchanged as well. In the new conception, since the bread
just is a collection of mind-like substances (and, as I will argue in chapter
, since the body of the bread is not the cause of the appearances), there is
no longer a problem in replacing it with the body of Christ. As Leibniz
proudly proclaims to Arnauld: “For I will also show what no one has pre-
viously thought, [namely,] that in the ultimate analysis Transubstantiation
and real multipresence do not differ. . . . And consequently Transubstantia-
tion, as most cautiously expressed in the phrase by the Council of Trent,
and [which] has been illustrated by me based on Saint Thomas, does not
contradict the Augsburg Confession; indeed it follows from it.”80 We will
not be able to unpack the full force of this passage until the next chapter. In
particular, two questions have to be answered: how exactly does the body of
Christ become present in the bread and how exactly does Leibniz’s answer
to that question entail transubstantiation? What is important to understand
. II i . . Ibid.


 

now is that when Leibniz boasts that he will do what no one has done be-
fore, he is asserting that he can show how a single body can be in different
places at the same time. That is, he is not just claiming the multipresence of
the same substance, he is claiming the multipresence of the same body. That
Leibniz thinks he can explain how the same body (say, the blood of Christ)
is able to be in many different places at the same time bears witness to a ma-
jor change in his views since On transubstantiation. In the earlier view, the
substance in the bread is removed and replaced by the substance of Christ,
whose active principle is thereby present in the bread. But this does not get
the body of Christ into the bread. Because the body of Christ contains a pas-
sive principle, the body will not be in the bread unless the passive principle
is. Since, according to the Original Theory of Corporeal Substance, the pas-
sive principle is extended matter, it was impossible for the body of Christ
to be in more than one place at the same time. The reason that Leibniz is
prepared to announce in  that he has satisfied the requirements of the
Augsburg Confession is that he has transformed body into the kind of thing
that can be so scattered about. In , Leibniz can easily satisfy the de-
mands of the Augsburg Confession that both the body of Christ and the
body of the bread be present. By reducing body to a collection of mind-like
substances, the body of Christ can be in many different places at the same
time and be present alongside the body of the bread.
My final reason for believing that by the winter of –, Leibniz has
replaced material passivity with panorganic vitalism concerns the definition
of body that he offers throughout the period. Sometimes he defines a body
as a momentary or “instantaneous mind.”81 Sometimes he claims that the
essence of body is motion. As he writes to Arnauld in November : “the
essence of body does not consist in extension . . . rather the essence of body
consists in motion.” The underlying assumption is that motion is the activ-
ity of body that itself arises from a momentary mind. As Leibniz continues
in the letter to Arnauld, “the philosophy of motion is a step toward the sci-
ence of mind.”82 The basic assumption here is that what is entirely passive
does not exist except as a state of mind. In the letter to Johann Friedrich of
May , he explains: “Neither will it be possible to explain what Exis-
tence is nor will it be possible to explain how Existence corresponds to any-
thing unless a Mind is supposed.” What Leibniz suggests here and else-
where is that something exists if and only if it is a mind-like being or a state
of such a being.83 In the next chapter, I will offer significant evidence that
by the summer of , Leibniz is committed to the view that the percep-
tions of minds arise from the minds themselves and that those perceptions
perfectly parallel the underlying activities of real mind-like substances. My
claim now is that Leibniz’s definition of body during our period is consis-
tent with his attempt to explain all corporeal features in terms of the activ-
ities of mind-like substances and to remove material passivity from the cre-
ated world.

. II i . . II i : L ; see also II i . . II i ; see also VI ii .


 , ,   , –

I have offered a number of reasons for believing that by the winter of

–, Leibniz had rejected the reality of inert passive matter and re-
placed it with a passive principle constituted of mind-like substances in
panorganic collections. In chapter , I will present the details of how minds
are supposed to form a corporeal substance and how they are supposed to
communicate. Before turning to this material, it is appropriate to discuss the
two most obvious problems facing my claim that prior to his departure for
Paris Leibniz did not reject the reality of extended passive matter.
First, in the period – (and indeed throughout the s), Leibniz’s
views about cohesion, continuity, motion, and matter are in flux. He tries
out positions, rejects them, and then picks them up again. His physics is not
yet stable, nor will it be so for some time. The very different explanations
promulgated between  and  for the movement of bodies offer a
striking example of the inconstancy of his physical views. Sometimes he in-
sists that vacua are necessary to explain movement; sometimes not. Some-
times he declares that there are very different kinds of bodies; mostly he
does not. In the Hypothesis of the system of the world of , for example,
vacua are necessary to explain “the action of one body on another,”84 and
Leibniz proposes a complicated physical scheme in which there are minds,
vacua, and three grades of bodies. It is striking that in this text written soon
after the New Physical Hypothesis, he claims that the most fundamental of
these bodies are atoms, which are themselves invariable and indestructi-
ble.85 In On prime matter of , however, there are no atoms: “matter is
actually divided into an infinity of parts. There are in any given body an in-
finity of creatures. All bodies cohere within themselves. Certainly all are divis-
ible from the others, but not without resistance. There are no Atoms, or bodies
whose parts are never divisible.”86 Sometimes during the period, he relies
on vortices and circular motion to explain cohesion; sometimes he does not.
In a letter of May , he writes: “I will expose the ratio as to how God
can make a body which is produced by motions of a certain sort so that it is
naturally indissoluble with no continuity of special concurrences, even if all
strengths in the world join together.” The ratio here includes matter “on
which a mind has been grafted” and a mind that propagates itself.87 In an
essay of , entitled On the nature of things, Leibniz emphasizes that the
basic elements in nature are worlds with vacua between them.88
Such frequent changes in ideas about the constituents of reality suggest
that Leibniz’s entire system is in flux. The fact that Leibniz’s account of
body, motion, and the problems of continuity vary throughout the s has
inclined most scholars to believe that he had no developed philosophy dur-
ing the period. While I fully admit that Leibniz was not absolutely secure

. VI ii . . VI ii , .

. VI ii : W . The Latin of the last sentences is: Omnia corpora inter se cohaerent. Dis-
trahuntur quidem omnia ab omnibus, sed non sine renisu. Nullae sunt Atomi, seu corpora quo-
rum partes nunquam distrahuntur. Leibniz’s emphasis.
. II i . . See VI ii –.


 

in his metaphysics in  and that he continued to think and rethink his
views, it remains true that from that time forward, the basic features of his
system never came under genuine doubt. In chapters  and , I trace the
further articulation of some of his doctrines in , and in chapter , I
show how he tinkered with the details of his metaphysics during the Paris
years. But as a thorough survey of the texts make clear, he remained com-
mitted to his Aristotelian and Platonist assumptions and the general struc-
ture of what I have called his Second Theory of Corporeal Substance. In
short, while he continued to work and rework the interconnections among
his ideas and think through their implications, he never wavered from the
core features of the metaphysics that he developed between late  and
early .
But it is important to emphasize that my interpretative stance is perfectly
consistent with Leibniz’s continued bewilderment about important matters
in physics. According to the interpretation offered here, in the winter of
–, Leibniz decided to transform the passive principle in nature into
an infinity of mind-like substances. I have argued that Leibniz’s newly de-
veloped principle solved the most severe problems which faced his earlier
position and which are primarily metaphysical. I also noted that Leibniz was
apparently satisfied with his solution to the Problem of Cohesion. But he
would not be for long. In fact, for several years after , Leibniz worked
very hard to resolve this and other difficulties related to the continuum.
Many of the changes in his physical proposals are motivated by the desire
to find an adequate resolution to these difficulties. That Leibniz continued
to think of these problems as labyrinthine bears witness to the extreme dif-
ficulty he had in solving them. Despite his continued uncertainty about the
Problem of Cohesion and despite his varied attempts to solve the problem,
the texts composed between  and  make it clear that each of these
accounts is consistent with the notion of panorganic vitalism articulated
here. Sometimes the mind-like substances that constitute the passive prin-
ciple in nature are indivisible but variable; sometimes they are indivisible
and invariable; sometimes they are accompanied by vacua; and sometimes
they float in a plenum. They are given different names (e.g., bullae and ter-
rellae) and different explanations (e.g., they are the result of vortices) and
sometimes they are sorted into different kinds (e.g., different sorts of
atoms). But despite the almost constantly changing details, the mind-like
substances are fundamentally the substantial unities in nature in terms of
which corporeal things are explained. That is, none of these shifts in Leib-
niz’s views, either about motion or about the details of cohesion, had any
significant bearing on his metaphysics.89 I propose that Leibniz was clever
enough to develop a metaphysics that was consistent with all the most likely
physical options and, moreover, that as his physical views developed (e.g.,
his notion of force), they sat neatly on those metaphysical foundations. In

. For a different approach to some of the questions discussed here, see Catherine Wilson’s
interesting paper, “Atoms, Minds and Vortices in De summa rerum.”


 , ,   , –

sum, Leibniz was smart and lucky: with remarkable skill he constructed a
metaphysics in – whose core features did not change dramatically
over the years despite the fact that he continued to struggle with a number
of extremely difficult problems. In the end, he developed solutions that
were perfectly consistent with the notion of passivity proposed here.
The second problem that faces the account of passivity for which I have
argued in this chapter is that it appears to contradict some of Leibniz’s own
comments about his philosophical evolution. There is a much cited passage
from A New System of the Nature and Communication of Substances of 
in which Leibniz describes his philosophical development:
In the beginning, when I had freed myself from the yoke of Aristotle, I accepted the
void and atoms, for they best satisfy the imagination. But on recovering from that
after deep meditation [après bien des meditations], I perceived that it is impossible
to find the principles of a true unity in matter alone, or in what is only passive since
everything in it is only a collection or aggregation of parts to infinity. Now, a multi-
tude can derive its reality only from true unities, which have some other origin. . . .
Therefore, in order to find these real entities, I was forced to have recourse to a for-
mal atom, since a material thing cannot be both material and, at the same time per-
fectly indivisible, that is, endowed with a true unity.90
Scholars have used this passage as evidence that at some point during the
s Leibniz accepted Gassendian atomism. According to some commen-
tators, the young Leibniz accepted a conception of material atoms which he
abandoned by the time of the Theory of Abstract Motion and the New Phys-
ical Hypothesis of .91 According to others, Leibniz flirted with material
atomism in the s and s.92 In my account of his philosophical de-
velopment during the s, I have argued that Leibniz considered a num-
ber of mechanical options, but I also claimed that throughout the period, he
clung tenaciously to an Aristotelian theory of substance. For Leibniz, there
can be neither unity nor motion in a created thing unless it is caused by a
mind-like active principle, whether finite or infinite. On the other hand, for
Gassendi, atoms are material and yet have unity and motion.93 Therefore,
if scholars are accurate in asserting that Leibniz accepted Gassendian atom-
ism during any part of the s or s, then it follows that at least part
of my story about Leibniz’s development is inaccurate.
Fortunately for my interpretation, there appears to be no textual evidence
that Leibniz ever seriously considered material atomism. Not only did
Leibniz not embrace Gassendian atomism in the s, he criticized it fre-
quently both in letters and in published texts.94 As he proclaims in the New

. G IV : AG /L .

. See, e.g., Brown, Leibniz, sect. .; Rescher, Leibniz: An Introduction to his Philosophy, ;
Capek, “Leibniz on Matter and Memory,” –; Belaval, Initiation, –.
. See, e.g., Arthur, Labyrinth, Introduction, sect. .
. I noted in ch.  that according to Gassendi, atoms are “infused” with motion by God (see
n. ). As I also said there, the idea of a wholly material thing with motion as a funda-
mental property is a violation of the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency.
. In the Confession of nature against the atheists of , Leibniz is adamant about his op-


 

Physical Hypothesis of : “I have always believed that whatever may be

said about various figures of atoms, . . . about hooks, crooks, globules . . . is
too far removed from the simplicity of nature and completely removed from
experiments, or is too inadequate to be connected in any obvious way with
the phenomena.”95 Thus, when Leibniz writes in the s that he was se-
duced by atoms and the void, he does not mean material atoms. As recent
scholars have rightly noted, Leibniz’s A New System of the Nature and Com-
munication of Substances was written primarily for a Cartesian audience.96
The full force of Leibniz’s comments about his metaphysical mistakes will
be missed if we read this part of his intellectual autobiography as focused
primarily on Gassendian atoms. Although Leibniz’s criticisms are explic-
itly directed at atomism, they apply to any account of substance that has ex-
tended matter as a component. That is, A New System of Nature is rhetor-
ically clever and nicely exemplifies the Rhetoric of Attraction that I
attributed to Leibniz in chapter . In the text, he describes a metaphysical
option that is both an accurate description of his own published views about
substance (e.g., the view in the preface to his edition of Nizolio97) and a de-
scription general enough to apply to many of his readers. What he intends
to suggest in the passage just quoted is that severe problems face any ac-
count that defines the basic constituents of nature in terms of arrangements
of inert stuff. Once we recognize that Leibniz’s criticisms apply to his Orig-
inal Theory of (non-human) Corporeal Substance and to Cartesian corpo-
real substance as powerfully as they apply to material atomism, we can dis-
cern the rhetorical subtlety of this passage.
Moreover, when we combine the textual evidence of the s with the
quotation, we discover strong support for my account of Leibniz’s philo-
sophical development. First, as I noted in chapter , he freed himself from
the Aristotelian model of physical explanation in favor of the mechanical
one. At this point, the position that so satisfied his imagination was not the
material atoms of Gassendi but his own Original Theory of Corporeal Sub-
stance, according to which a non-human corporeal substance is constituted
of material passivity and an active principle. In On transubstantiation, for
example, the bread and wine of the Eucharist are supposed to be corporeal
substances. That is, according to the Original Theory of Corporeal Sub-
stance, anything that has an organized corporeal nature has an organizing

position to the atoms of Gassendi and others. See VI i : L . In one of his first let-
ters to Oldenburg, Leibniz criticizes Gassendi’s account of the cohesion within material
atoms. See II i .
. VI ii ; my emphasis.
. See, e.g., Brown, “Leibniz’s ‘New System’ Strategy” and Rutherford, “Demonstration and
Reconciliation: The Eclipse of the Geometrical Method in Leibniz’s Philosophy,” esp. .
. As noted in ch. , n. , the edition that Leibniz did of Nizolio’s text was published in 
and under a slightly different title again in . For our purposes here, it is important
that in the published letter to Thomasius, Leibniz says that “neither a vacuum nor plenum
is necessary,” he disagrees with Aristotle’s denial of vacua (VI ii : L ), and he states
that “when the parts are pulled apart . . . a vacuum is left” (VI ii : L ).


 , ,   , –

active principle and is therefore a substance. As we will see in chapter ,

beginning in the Paris period, Leibniz is often inclined to describe a corpo-
real substance as an atom, where the point is that it is indivisible though not
invariable. Once we apply this later terminology to the period –, it
would seem to follow that every corporeal substance is an atom; surely, the
core of a substance is. Although Leibniz is undecided about vacua during
the period, he sometimes suggests that they exist, and he importantly does
so in his published letter to Thomasius.98 Therefore, at moments during the
period –, Leibniz was committed to the existence of vacua and to
substantial atoms, where the latter are constituted of an active principle and
passive extended stuff. Moreover, the next section of the passage from the
A New System of Nature neatly conforms to a major part of the interpreta-
tive story offered here. As noted above, it was primarily the Reality Prob-
lem that drove Leibniz to reject material passivity. He realized that “a mul-
titude can derive its reality only from true unities,” and moreover that there
will be no true unities either in anything passive or – what is the same thing –
in what is wholly material. In other words, Leibniz was led to reject his orig-
inal theory of material passivity and accept his new notion for exactly the
reasons given here: he came to see that there is no real unity in inert mate-
rial stuff because any such stuff, regardless of its organization, “is only a
collection or aggregation of parts to infinity,” and he sought true unity in
“some other origin.” What origin was that? As Leibniz writes just after the
quotation: “Hence, it was necessary to restore, and, as it were to rehabilitate
the substantial forms which are in such disrepute today, but in a way that
would render them intelligible.” According to Leibniz, these substantial
forms must be conceived “on the model of the notion that we have of souls”
and “contain . . . an original activity.”99 There is nothing in this passage that
conflicts with anything in the developmental story that I offer.100

. E.g., in A New Method for the Learning and Teaching of Jurisprudence of . See VI i
: L .
. G IV : AG . Leibniz also notes the next major step that he made in the develop-
ment of his conception of substance, one that we will mention in the next chapter, namely,
that of force.
. Nor do the other passages that the mature Leibniz wrote about his early years and that
are sometimes given to support his early material atomism conflict with my account once
we realize that the atoms under discussion are substantial atoms. For example, in a pas-
sage brought to my attention by Richard Arthur, Leibniz writes: “There is a great dif-
ference between my old opinions, which were pleasing to an adolescent, and those of
which I approve now that I am more mature. At first, when I had wandered out of the
prickly thornbrakes of the scholars into the pleasanter pastures of the more recent phi-
losophy, I was extremely taken by the flattering ease with which things could be under-
stood, through which it seems that everything that had previously been shrouded in dark-
ness could be comprehended by lucid imagination. Thus after deliberating on this long
and hard, I came to condemn forms and qualities in material things, and reduced every-
thing to purely mathematical principles. . . . But although when I became a Geometer I
relinquished these opinions [e.g., about points in the continuum], atoms and vacua held
out for a long time.” While this is not a wholly accurate account of Leibniz’s develop-
ment in that it leaves out some of the twists and turns in the evolution of his thought, the


 

In this chapter, I have argued for the three-part conclusion that by the
winter of –, Leibniz has decided to reject the reality of inert ex-
tended matter, to conceive the passive principle in corporeal substance as a
collection of mind-like substances, and to describe the interrelations among
the latter in panorganic terms. According to the story told here, Leibniz be-
came increasingly troubled in  by a number of topics related to mate-
rial passivity. By December of the year, he had decided that he could avoid
these difficulties by ridding reality of inert matter. As early as the winter of
– he was prepared to conceive the passive principle in corporeal sub-
stance as a collection of mind-like substances. Despite this genuinely radi-
cal shift in Leibniz’s views, the general outline of his Metaphysics of Sub-
stance remains unchanged. The world continues to be constituted of
corporeal substances, each of which has a nature constituted of a union
forged out of active and passive principles. Although the passive principle
contains nothing genuinely material, it nonetheless functions as the passive
principle within substance. In brief, the account of substance here is per-
fectly consistent with the Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, accord-
ing to which the nature of a corporeal substance S is constituted of a mind-
like substantial form F that acts constantly so as to organize and create a
unity with its passive principle P.101 The only difference between Leibniz’s
views before and after the transformation in the winter of – is that
the passive principle has been redefined and Leibniz has invented the idea
of a core of substance. Whereas before there was just an active principle act-
ing constantly on its inert passive stuff, by late  there is a core of sub-
stance that connects the active principle to the passive, where the latter is a
panorganic collection of vital substances. In brief, among the various prin-
ciples and assumptions that I have attributed to Leibniz, only the following
requires revision:
• The (early ) Passive Principle Assumption claims that, for every pas-
sive principle P that forms a unity with a mind-like substantial form F, P
consists in a panorganic collection of substances, each of which is itself
constituted of a substantial form and passive principle, and so on in in-
finitum and, moreover, the identity of P is determined by the dominant
minds or substantial forms of the corporeal substances in P so that the
core of substance that results from the unity of F and P is such that P is
F’s instrument of acting.102

salient features of the story conform to the one offered here: Leibniz rejected the scholas-
tic explanatory model in physics (based on “occult” forms and qualities), embraced the
mechanical explanatory model (based primarily on a geometrical analysis of extended
matter), and then tended to rely on (substantial) atoms and vacua in order to explain cor-
poreal features.
. For a full account of the Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, see the conclusion of
ch. .
. See the Appendix II, ch.  for earlier versions of the assumption.


 , ,   , –

In the next two chapters, I will explain exactly how this collection of
mind-like substances performs all the tasks assigned to the passive princi-
ple in corporeal substances. During the spring of , Leibniz constructed
a theory of Metaphysical Cohesion that maintained the structure of his Sec-
ond Theory of Corporeal Substance and accommodated this newly con-
structed passive principle. As we will see in the next chapters, the result is
Preestablished Harmony.


 8
Phenomenalism and Preestablished Harmony, 

Sometime between May and November of , Leibniz invented Pre-

established Harmony. It did not come to him suddenly as the ultimate truth
in metaphysics; rather, it grew gradually out of his attempt to solve the
theological and philosophical problems that most interested him. As he re-
flected on topics in ethics, law, theology, physics, and metaphysics, he used
materials from his Metaphysics of Substance and Metaphysics of Divinity
to compose solutions to the prominent problems that arose. Preestablished
Harmony resulted from the convergence of these solutions. This elaborate
metaphysical doctrine was the most elegant way to solve a diverse group of
difficult problems, to capture the rationality and goodness of God, and to
combine ancient and modern ideas. Obviously there are no passages in
which Leibniz is both clear and explicit about this weighty metaphysical
commitment: if there were such texts, then scholars would have recognized
its early development long ago. But when a thorough survey of the writings
of  is made within the context of the sundry problems that concerned
him, there emerges convincing evidence that by the end of , Leibniz
had accepted the doctrine.
In , Leibniz wrote a number of letters to some of the most promi-
nent intellectuals in Europe and several series of notes on topics as diverse
as justice, resurrection, refraction, solidity, and the Trinity. Many of these
texts are enormously difficult. In his letters, Leibniz sometimes puts his
metaphysical cards on the table, but mostly only insinuates his views; in his
personal notes, he often attempts to formulate his new ideas, but is rarely
explicit about his underlying concerns. In fact, the writings of  are very
much like the texts of – which were discussed in chapters , , and
. Like the earlier writings, many of Leibniz’s most interesting beliefs are
the unspoken commitments behind his arguments, which emerge only after
a good deal of textual analysis, although he is relatively explicit about his
views when he discusses specific theological problems. It is in the theolog-
ical contexts that he is prepared to give the most details and be the most ex-
plicit about the implications of his underlying beliefs. As in the earlier
works, the pieces of the metaphysical puzzle are strewn across a number of
texts. Leibniz’s evolving metaphysics emerges from the writings of 
only if we take the widest possible textual scope and place them against their
correct historical, theological, and philosophical background.
In the last chapter, I argued that by the winter of –, Leibniz had
rejected the reality of extended inert matter and transformed the passive


    , 

principle in nature into a collection of mind-like substances. With matter

out of the picture, Leibniz faced the daunting task of explaining exactly how
the fundamental realities of nature are related to one another and to our per-
ceptions. It is by no means clear in what manner the extended and causally
related objects that we perceive are supposed to correspond to the underly-
ing unextended realities, nor is it obvious how those mind-like entities are
themselves related. In this chapter, I show that once we piece together clues
scattered across texts written between May  and the beginning of ,
it is possible to discern a commitment to (well-founded) phenomenalism
and Preestablished Harmony. I postulate that Leibniz developed the origi-
nal versions of these doctrines partly in response to his denial of the real ex-
tension of passive (primary) matter.
Before turning to the evidence for this conclusion, let’s be perfectly clear
about the presuppositions and implications of these doctrines. There are
three preliminary points to emphasize. First, the Metaphysics of Divinity is
presupposed by and helps to explain Preestablished Harmony. According to
Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Divinity, God emanates the (selected) divine
essence to creatures, which stand in sympathetic union with one another and
which are themselves inferior manifestations of God. It is important to rec-
ognize that Preestablished Harmony is a version of Emanative Harmony. It is
an account of how the entirety of the created world and each creature in it can
be seen to be a manifestation of the divine essence. The second point to em-
phasize is that, as I interpret it, Preestablished Harmony consists of two sep-
arate theses: the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance, which claims that the
complete ratio for all the states of an individual substance is contained in the
nature of the substance; and (Strong) Parallelism, which maintains that al-
though the substances do not causally interact with one another, their states
correspond perfectly.1 The third point to emphasize is that Preestablished
Harmony is intimately related to a desire on Leibniz’s part to save the phe-
nomena while denying the reality of passive matter. As a theory, therefore,
Preestablished Harmony is closely related to the development of Leibniz’s
phenomenalism.
The phenomenalism of the mature Leibniz, which is sometimes called
“well-founded phenomenalism,” has been interpreted to include three claims:
bodies are phenomenal objects and our perceptions of them arise from our
own internal nature; our perceptions nonetheless correspond to the activities
of real (unextended and mind-like) substances and in that sense are “well-

. In ch. , sect. , I presented the Speculative Creation Story and noted that its fourth part
contains a version of parallelism. According to that version, the activity of one substance is
perfectly coordinated with the activity of those substances with which it causally interacts.
The mature doctrine (which I call (Strong) Parallelism) differs from the original version
(which I called (Weak) Parallelism), so as to conform to the absence of intersubstantial in-
teraction. It is noteworthy that the two versions are similar in that each substance has been
prearranged by God to act in perfect coordination with all the substances in its causal
purview. For more details about parallelism, see Appendix II, ch. .


 

founded;” and we are justified in doing physics, although the objects of our
study are phenomenal objects.2 For the sake of convenience, I will call the
first of these claims Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism. The Complete-Ratio
Theory of Substance entails Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism: if the com-
plete ratio for all the states of a substance S is contained in its nature, then it
follows that the complete ratio for its perceptual states are contained there as
well. Moreover, I want to emphasize the fact that (Strong) Parallelism, when
properly understood, entails the second of these claims, namely, that our per-
ceptions of bodies correspond to the activities of real substances: if all the
states of all substances are in perfect correspondence with one another, it fol-
lows that the perceptual states of a conscious substance will correspond to the
states of mind-like substances and in that sense will be well-founded. This
brings us to the intimate relation between Preestablished Harmony and phe-
nomenalism. In the sections that follow, we will see that the development of
Preestablished Harmony and Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism went hand-
in-hand and that Leibniz’s conception of parallelism assumed the close cor-
respondence between the perceptions of conscious minds and the activities of
mind-like substances. It is important to understand that in a world consti-
tuted entirely of minds and their thoughts, Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism
entails the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance. Therefore, in a world con-
stituted of minds and their thoughts, Preestablished Harmony is equivalent
to the conjunction of Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism and (Strong) Paral-
lelism.
In this chapter, I display some of the concerns that motivated the inven-
tion of Preestablished Harmony. In section , I investigate the problems that
arose from Leibniz’s newly developed ideas in physics and theology and I
exhibit texts that reveal a fundamental change in his thinking about the re-
lation between the apparent and the real. In section , I analyze essays in
which we observe Leibniz struggling to articulate the proper relation be-
tween our experiences of the world and the underlying realities. By the sec-
ond half of , these texts reveal a radical Platonist epistemology, an orig-
inal version of Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, and a commitment to the
Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance. In section , I turn to the theory of
Metaphysical Cohesion that Leibniz developed in the (late) spring of 
and explore its sophistication as a solution to the theological problems of the
Eucharist and resurrection. I argue that the solution to both theological
problems depends on a (Strong) Parallelism among substances. From the
evidence displayed in sections  and , we can infer Leibniz’s early accept-
ance of Preestablished Harmony. Finally, in section , I summarize some of
the changes that occurred in Leibniz’s metaphysical views between early
and late  and discuss the role that the Principle of Sufficient Reason
might have played in these revisions.

. See Adams, “Phenomenalism and Corporeal Substance in Leibniz” and Leibniz, ch. .


    , 

. Gap between the apparent and the real

Between early  and late , Leibniz was developing his views on a
number of topics. As his opinions in the areas of ethics, epistemology, and
physics began to fall into place, he was more and more encouraged to think of
the gap between the apparent and the real as unbridgeable. There were two
distinct sources for his increasing concern about how to explain the relation
between the sensory appearances of the perceiving mind and the underlying
reality of things. In chapter , section , I identified some of the problems
that arose in his work in physics (e.g., the Reality Problem and the Problem
of Cohesion). In chapter , section , I suggested how his investigations in
ethics encouraged him to think of the appearances of things as barriers on the
road to knowledge and goodness. Emanative Harmony itself implies that the
world is really consonant regardless of how dissonant it may appear, while the
conception of a mind as a mirror entails that every human being is related to
every other regardless of how parochial each may feel. Once the gulf between
the apparent and the real has widened to this extent, two serious questions
arise: what epistemological value can appearances have and what causal rela-
tion can there be between the real nature of things and the appearances? That
Leibniz debated these topics quite seriously for several months is clear. It is
also evident that he saw them as closely related since his discussion of one is
almost always mingled with his analysis of the other. Although he offers no
consistent answer to either question until the second half of , from the
essays written between early  and late , we can discern a developing
set of responses. There is reason to believe that in May , Leibniz decided
to reconsider intersubstantial causation in general and the causal source of our
sensory phenomena in particular. Let’s consider the evidence for this claim.
From the time of the Confession of nature against the atheists, Leibniz was
inclined to distinguish between the phenomena or the sensory qualities of
things and the underlying physical natures that were supposed to cause
them. The title of Part I of this  essay is “That a ratio of Corporeal phe-
nomena cannot be rendered, without an incorpreal Principle, that is, God.”3 In
, Leibniz makes the distinction in a dramatic fashion. It is in the letter
to Thomasius of April  that we find the first use of an image to which
Leibniz will return throughout his philosophical career. Concerning the dif-
ference between an essence and its perceived qualities, he writes:
Just so, the same city presents one aspect if you look down upon it from a tower
placed in its midst; this is as if you intuit the essence itself. The city appears other-
wise if you approach it from without, which is as if you perceive [percipias] the qual-
ities of a body. And just as the external aspect of a city varies as you approach it dif-
ferently. . . , the qualities of the body vary with the variety of our sense organs.
In section  of chapter , we noted a distinction between an essence as some-
thing conceived and as the nature of the thing from which its properties

. VI i : L .


 

were said to flow or emanate. In the first sentence of our passage, Leibniz
is concerned with the former where the idea is that a body has an essence
that can be intuited. In the second sentence of the passage, he is concerned
with the latter where the point is that the nature can be perceived through
any one of its external aspects or qualities. From the context it is clear that
the external aspect and the nature are closely related in the sense that a
change in the one implies a change in the other. Leibniz asserts: “Now if the
qualities are changed . . . , the substance will also be changed.”4
By late , the same image is used to make a different point. In the let-
ter to Arnauld of November , it exemplifies the radical distinction be-
tween the appearance and substance of the Eucharistic bread. Leibniz tells
Arnauld that “the substantial form differs from the qualities” of a substance
like “the true nature [figura] of a city, when seen from a tower in its midst,
[differs] from the infinite variations which appear,” such as when the town “is
seen” from “an area on the outside” of the town.5 Here the emphasis is on the
difference between the substance or nature and the appearances: the appear-
ances of the bread remain the same while its nature or substance is radically
altered. In a pair of essays written in the second half of , the image is
used to the same effect. According to Leibniz, in these essays, entitled An ex-
ample of demonstrations about the nature of corporeal things, drawn from phe-
nomena, his goal is to obtain sound conclusions about perfection, happiness,
God, and mind;6 his method, which he considers to be innovative, is to as-
sume “nothing except what might be deduced from what is known on the ba-
sis of perception [sensu].”7 In these essays, Leibniz distinguishes clearly be-
tween the nature of a thing and its appearance and he explores what can be
known about the nature on the basis of its appearance. He explains that a thing
is “that which appears [apparet]” whereas “[t]he Nature of the thing is the
cause [causa], in the thing itself, of its appearances [apparentia].” With this
distinction clearly drawn, Leibniz announces: “Hence the Nature of a Thing
differs from its Phenomena as a distinct appearance [differs] from a confused
one.”8 Leibniz’s suggestion in An example of demonstrations about the nature
of corporeal things, drawn from phenomena is that the nature of the thing is not
grasped from the “outside,” although it is somehow related to its “appear-
ances.” In an attempt to explain more fully the relation between the nature
and the appearance, Leibniz returns to the image of a town. He claims that
the nature differs from the appearance:
like a plan of a town, looked down upon from the top of a great tower placed up-
right in its midst differs from the almost infinite horizontal perspectives with which
it delights the eyes of travelers who approach it from one direction or another. This
analogy has always seemed excellently fitted for understanding the distinction be-
tween nature and accidents.9
Let’s be clear. All the uses of the analogy have two points in common:
they all distinguish between the nature of a corporeal substance and the ap-
. VI ii : L  . II i . . VI ii –.
. VI ii . . VI ii : L . . VI ii : L .


    , 

pearance of it; and yet they all maintain that there is a relation between the
nature and the appearance. The point to emphasize here is that in –
Leibniz began to rethink the status of that relation. Whereas in the letter to
Thomasius of April , the relation between the nature and the appear-
ance is such that a change in the one is reflected in a change in the other, by
the end of  the close causal connection between the two has been sev-
ered. In the later versions of the analogy, there is a nearly infinite number
of appearances which can be seen by “the eyes of travelers,” and where each
of these appearances seems only distantly related to the nature.10 This shift
in the use of the town image implies that something happened between the
published letter to Thomasius of April  and the letter to Arnauld of
November  to convince Leibniz to reconsider the relation between the
appearance and the reality of things. I would now like to propose two sep-
arate motivations for Leibniz’s change of mind.
According to Leibniz’s original Metaphysics of Substance, the world is
populated by individual corporeal substances whose natures are composed
of a passive principle and an organizing principle of activity. In the April
 letter to Thomasius in which we find the first use of the town anal-
ogy, there is in theory a precise causal story to tell about how the nature
of a substance – whether a chimpanzee or kitchen table – interacts with
the nature of the perceiver to produce the appearances. By the September
 letter to Oldenburg, which we discussed at length in section  of
chapter , a physical object like a kitchen table is no longer a single thing
but an infinity of moving substances that momentarily constitute the na-
ture of the object. As much as the kitchen table may look like a single ob-
ject that persists through time, it is really a constantly changing collection
of an infinity of creatures. As Leibniz puts it to Oldenburg: “And many
things which seem to be one body are nothing but an accumulation of
many bodies.”11 Beginning in the fall of , Leibniz was no longer pre-
pared to believe that there was a straightforward causal story to tell about
the relation between the appearance and the reality of an object. On the
contrary, the nature of the corporeal object is not able to offer a neat ex-
planation of its sensory qualities or appearances. As Leibniz suggests to
Oldenburg, the very nature of such a quality (say, smoothness) is impor-
tantly different from the coordinated bits of matter that are supposed to
cause it. The well-known idealist, George Berkeley makes a similar point
some years later: “But how can that which is sensible be like that which is
insensible?. . . . I find it is impossible for me to conceive or understand
how anything but an idea [that is, a sensory phenomenon] can be like an

. VI ii : L . Later in this essay, entitled Specimen of demonstration concerning the na-
ture of corporeal things based on phenomena,Leibniz suggests that the only means to knowl-
edge is by turning inward in order to search for the Ideas “within.” After discussing
Descartes’ argument for the existence of God based on “the Idea of God,” he agrees that
“it proceeds from an Idea in our mind to the truth of things” in that “whatever the mind
perceives within itself it perceives truly.”VI ii  L .
. II i .


 

idea.”12 That Leibniz was committed in the autumn of  to reexam-

ining the relation between the apparent and the real is clear. As he pro-
claims to Oldenburg, we must learn more “about the principles and causes
of the appearances of things.”13 For someone committed to the Principle
of Sufficient Reason, these problems must have seemed particularly trou-
bling. The very dramatic difference between the real object (as a collec-
tion of an infinity of momentary mind-like substances) and the apparent
one (as a relatively permanent object with a certain shape and color) must
have cast doubt on the possibility of a complete explanation for the ap-
parent object.
In , Leibniz also had important theological reasons to distinguish
sharply between the real and the apparent. There are two closely related
points. First, at least since the time of Augustine, Christian philosophers
have wrestled with the seemingly obvious fact that the world is full of chaos
and evil. The basic question was how the omniscience and omnipotence of
a perfectly good God could be made consistent with this worldly fact. Pro-
posed solutions to the problem varied greatly, but most thinkers assumed a
distinction between how the world appeared and how it really was. It was
common for philosophers to say that underneath the apparent disorder and
evil lay harmony and goodness. For most theists, there were three basic as-
sumptions: the world was genuinely good despite appearances to the con-
trary; it was possible for human beings to struggle against their inferior na-
tures, escape the world of appearances, and glimpse the truth; human
goodness required a turning away from worldly appearances.14 Leibniz ap-
proaches the problem of evil for the first time in a systematic way in the es-
says of the Elements of natural law, written between the autumn of  and
the end of . In these texts, he implies that beneath the apparent disor-
der of the world is a genuine beauty and harmony that human beings can
come to know. In chapter , I attributed to Leibniz the theory of Emana-
tive Harmony, according to which each creature is an instantiation of the
same divine essence. This theory finds its first expression in the Elements of
natural law. In fact, the whole point of Leibniz’s ethics as outlined there is
that the good person is one who escapes the world of appearances to con-
template the divinity in everything. In order to discover the unity beneath
the diversity and the consonance within the dissonance, one must seek the
realities beneath the appearances. In the course of these essays, the gap be-
tween the real and the apparent increases. By the end of , to become ac-
quainted with the real requires a thorough rejection of the apparent. For ex-
ample, in an argument against the atheists who explain “the confusion of
human affairs” by insisting that “the earth is ruled by unknown chance,” he
insists that in the same way pictures differ from globs of color and songs
from discordant noises, so “the harmony of the world” differs from “the
confusion of human affairs.” According to Leibniz, for those who examine

. Berkeley, Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, –.

. II i . . See Romans :.


    , 

the world more thoroughly, “to them the confusion of six thousand years
(although not even this lacks its own harmony), when compared to eternity,
will seem like a single dissonant beat, which when brought into consonance
with the whole by the compensation of other dissonances, increases the ad-
miration for the ruler who embraces the infinite.”15
But there was another theological reason for Leibniz to distinguish sharply
between the apparent and the real. As Leibniz began to construct some of the
details of his Metaphysics of Divinity, he had to compose a coherent story
about how created substances, rooted as they were in the world of becoming,
could contain the divine. In chapter , section , I also attributed to Leibniz
a theory of Reflective Harmony according to which there is an interrelation
among human minds that consists in the fact that each mind thinks or reflects
all the others in such a way that a change in one is reflected by a change in an-
other. According to the Creaturely Inferiority Complex, every product of the
Supreme Being contains all the attributes that constitute the divine essence,
though the product instantiates each of these attributes in a manner inferior
to the way in which they exist in the Supreme Being. These Platonist as-
sumptions imply that underneath the sensory world of becoming is a real
world of divine-like human substances which both instantiate the divine
essence and mirror all the other substances. In , Leibniz was motivated
to explain both how the underlying divine essence was related to our con-
scious perceptions of constantly changing things and how our Reflective
Harmony was related to the parochialism of our individual existence.
A brief summary is in order. In  and , Leibniz was concerned
with a number of problems which pertain to the distinction between the ap-
parent and real, where the former are roughly the objects of perception and
the latter the fundamental realities in nature. That the gap between the two
widens for Leibniz during this period is clear. I suggested earlier that once
the gap between the apparent and the real widens to this extent, two ques-
tions arise, namely, what epistemological value can the appearances have and
what causal relation can there be between the appearances and the underly-
ing realities? That the appearances of things do not get at the real becomes
a leitmotif in Leibniz’s writings of . Assuming that he has rejected the
reality of extended inert matter, it is not surprising that he would empha-
size the radical difference between the appearance and reality of things.
Moreover, while his commitment to the theory of mind-like substances in
the winter of – forced him to explain the appearances in terms of
such substances and their states, it also offered him a convenient way around
the problem: the minds that had the appearances could easily cause them.
May  is a pivotal moment in Leibniz’s intellectual development.
Among other things, beginning that month, he proposes an argument whose
point is that there is something rotten at the core of mechanical physics.16

. VI i . For the Latin, see ch. , n. .

. As we will see in section , the first hard evidence for Preestablished Harmony occurs in
a letter of May.


 

The argument, which is misleadingly simple and which first occurs in a

letter to Conring of May ,17 makes interesting use of the modern de-
vice of a clock. Leibniz’s decision to build his argument around one of the
more spectacular inventions of his era is clever. His general rhetorical point
is that we should not let the breathtaking results of modern science seduce
us into thinking that their findings are more important than they are. While
science has made real breakthroughs in many areas of knowledge, it has not
revealed the most important of truths. In particular, Leibniz hopes to show
that the explanations which the mechanists offer of the phenomena are en-
tirely inept. There is a particularly vivid instance of the argument in a note
written in the second half of . In this essay, in which Leibniz responds
to criticisms of his Schediasma, he applauds the advances made by his con-
temporaries in describing the phenomena, especially the progress made in
medicine and chemistry,18 but he adds that “the World Machine” of the
mechanical philosophers “has conveyed little” about “the nature of things”
and has made no advance in either “the art of living” or “human wis-
dom.”19 According to Leibniz, the failure of the mechanical philosophy is
due to the fact that the phenomena do not disclose “the innermost nature
of things.” That Leibniz uses an invention as important as a clock to make
his point is striking: from the appearances of a clock, we “cannot reach . . .
its innermost ratio” because “the same effect . . . can arise from various
causes.” Leibniz argues that in the same way a square can arise from the
conjunction either of two triangles or of two rectangles, the appearances of
things in the world can be explained by different means. No appearance or
group of appearances can by themselves reveal the nature of their material
causes.20 By such means, Leibniz thinks that he has offered a penetrating
criticism of the mechanical philosophy.
There are two points to make about Leibniz’s argument. At the begin-
ning of this chapter, I presented claims which have been taken to constitute
Leibniz’s mature doctrine of well-founded phenomenalism. Following my
terminology, these are Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, (Strong) Paral-
lelism, and the view that physics studies the phenomenal objects. The first
point to emphasize about the clock arguments of  is that they assume
that the mechanical physics treats phenomenal objects. The arguments ac-
knowledge that it is entirely appropriate to do such science and even claim
that helpful knowledge (especially in medicine and chemistry) has been ac-
quired by such means. But Leibniz insists that physics concerns “the par-
ticular phenomena of bodies” and “conveys little” about the underlying re-
alities.21
The second point to emphasize about these clock arguments is more com-
plicated. In chapter , I explicated a criticism that Leibniz made against the
mechanical philosophers in the Confession of nature against the atheists, and
noted that although it fails miserably as an argument against his mechani-

. II i . . VI ii . . VI ii .

. VI ii –. See also VI ii . . VI ii , .


    , 

cal opponents, it reveals one of Leibniz’s deepest assumptions, namely, the

Principle of Self-Sufficiency. A variation of the same point can be made
about Leibniz’s argument based on the clock. While it fails as a criticism
against the standard mechanist, it exposes one of Leibniz’s newest insights
about the relation between appearances and reality. Let me explain. While
the mechanical philosophers differed both about human physiology and
about the constituents of reality (for example, whether there are atoms and
vacua or aether and a plenum), they agreed that for any appearance or ex-
perience, there was in theory a causal story to tell about how those con-
stituents caused the perceiver to have the experience. However, they did not
believe that for a particular experience, there could be only one causal story.
On the contrary, they believed that the phenomena by themselves do not
disclose the underlying reality, nor did they demand that for any particular
experience, there could be only one explanation. Once again, Leibniz’s crit-
icism of the mechanical philosophy is both inadequate as an argument
against his opponents and revealing about some of his deepest concerns.
But let’s be very clear about the radical nature of Leibniz’s position. We
are concerned here with the appearance, say, the shiny rectangular blueness,
that a conscious mind has of the object, say, the kitchen table. While each
mechanical philosopher believed that his or her version of mechanical
physics in theory could explain the appearance, each would have agreed that
the appearance was underdetermined by that theory. That is, for the
standard mechanical philosopher, the same appearance could be caused by
several equally plausible though mutually exclusive circumstances. For
example, the shiny rectangular blueness might have been caused by the
kitchen table, a cleverly constructed replica of the table, or a well-placed
mirror image of it. As reasonable as the mechanical position may seem,
Leibniz could agree to no such thing. Because he was committed to the
Principle of Sufficient Reason and to the idea that every state in the world
has a complete ratio, he demanded that for each and every appearance, there
be a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for exactly why it and no other
occurred. For Leibniz, the underdetermination of the mechanical theories
was utterly unacceptable. One of the motivations behind Complete-Ratio
Phenomenalism was his desire to construct a properly sufficient explana-
tion for the phenomena.
The general moral to the story of this section is that in  – , Leib-
niz perceived an increasingly wide gap between the apparent and the real.
Even taken by themselves, the development of the clock argument and the
shift in Leibniz’s use of the town image make one thing clear: something
significant happened between the letter to Thomasius of April  and the
letter to Arnauld of November  to convince Leibniz that the appear-
ances of things are radically different from the underlying substantial real-
ities. I suggest that one of the main motivations behind Leibniz’s Complete-
Ratio Phenomenalism in particular and Preestablished Harmony in general
was an attempt to anchor the appearances of things in the appropriate way,
while maintaining a close correspondence among substances.


 

. Thinking about Preestablished Harmony

In this section, I offer evidence that by the second half of , Leibniz had
invented Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism and the Complete-Ratio Theory
of Substance. The notes and essays of the second half of the year reveal that
in the summer or early autumn, Leibniz began to investigate more thor-
oughly than he previously had the relation between the sensory phenomena
and the underlying realities. The results of Leibniz’s investigations are dra-
matic: not only does he place the complete ratio for the sensory phenomena
in the perceiving mind, he develops his account of mind and knowledge
along related lines.
Between the spring of  and the spring of , Leibniz corresponded
with some of the most powerful people in Europe. The most important of
these letters summarize his intellectual achievements and frequently offer an
account of his two-part Schediasma, namely, Theory of Abstract Motion and
New Physical Hypothesis. In chapter , I discussed a few of the letters in de-
tail and showed that they contain evidence that minds act through emanation,
that substantial forms contain the ontological correlate of a complete concept,
and that the proper objects of knowledge are the internal Ideas. In present-
ing the basic features of Leibniz’s Platonist epistemology, I also noted in
chapter  that the Schediasma and related physical works take the goal of sci-
ence to be the discovery of the divinity in things. These same texts assume
that the divine truths lie beyond the appearances. Two closely related features
of the works of  to  are particularly relevant to us now. First, there
is an apparent tension in Leibniz’s claims about the place of sensory phe-
nomena in the acquisition of knowledge. On the one hand, Leibniz insists that
the goal of his philosophical enterprise – even in natural philosophy – is
knowledge of God, the acquisition of which ultimately requires the rejection
of the apparent; on the other hand, he proclaims that his own work in physics
has aided in the pursuit of that knowledge. In the letters of the period, when
Leibniz introduces or summarizes his physical work to a correspondent, he
often proclaims that it is only a part of a grander philosophical project and
that the most important part of that project is his work on theological and eth-
ical topics. He expresses his general point succinctly in a letter of  when
he explains that he began his work on jurisprudence and ethics because he was
more concerned to establish “the rule [regula] of the soul than the rule of
moving bodies.”22 He insists that as important as his work in physics is, his
primary concern has always been with the good of humanity and “peace of
mind.”23 In his letters and notes, Leibniz distances himself from those con-
temporary philosophers who focus on the “Great Machine” of nature, attend
too much to the sensory appearances, and thereby lose sight of the true goal
of physics, namely, knowledge of God.24 At the same time, however, he pro-
claims that unlike most of his contemporaries, his work in physics has con-

. II i . . II i ; see similar comments at II i , 

. E.g., II i , 


    , 

tributed to the “light of the true Philosophy”25 and has aided us in our search
for the “ultimate Ratio of things (i.e., God).”26
The second feature of the texts of our period that is especially significant
to us now should not come as a surprise: the works dating between spring 
and spring  are almost entirely silent about the precise epistemological
value of the phenomena. They offer no attempt to explain how the study of
nature can contribute to an understanding of God given that knowledge of
divine matters requires turning away from the sensory phenomena. The one
exception occurs in a note written sometime between late  and late .
In this text, entitled On the power of persuasion, on dreaming and wakefulness,
Leibniz makes some remarks on the unconscious activities of mind and the
relation between the phenomena and God. In his outline for the Catholic
demonstrations, Leibniz included a list of topics which were supposed to be
relevant to the immortality of the soul and which all have to do with the ac-
tivity of mind. One of these topics, “the wonderful construction of
dreams,”27 is the subject of On the power of persuasion, on dreaming and wake-
fulness. In my discussion of the Conspectus in section  of chapter , I showed
that for Leibniz, the immortality of the soul was closely tied to its active na-
ture, where the assumption was that an active thing is naturally indestructi-
ble. The essay on dreams acknowledges the fundamental activity of mind and
emphasizes the fact that we are conscious neither of the principles nor the
mechanisms at work in mental activity. Leibniz writes:
There is one very remarkable thing in dreams, for which I believe no one is able to
render a ratio, namely, the formation of visions by a spontaneous concurrence [con-
cursu] carried out in a moment, more elegant than . . . in wakefulness. . . . I wish I
could remember what marvelous discourses . . . I have read in dreams without my
shaping them at all, just as if they had been composed and offered to my sight.28
Leibniz concludes: “Therefore, it is necessary that there is some architectural
and harmonious principle, I know not what, in our mind.”29 Our mind, as the
subject of such visions, is capable of producing elaborate objects for itself
while the mental mechanism behind the production remains wholly hidden.
We are conscious of the object but not of its source. Moreover, according to
Leibniz in this essay, the objects of mind differ in the degree to which they
reveal the nature of that source. He insists that waking appearances, as objects
of the mind, differ from dreams in terms of their interconnections: whereas
in dreams there are few connections among things, when we are awake we can
grasp “by what ratio we have come to the present place and state, and we see
the fitting connection between those things, which are appearing to us, and
the preceding ones.”30 According to Leibniz, the more we attend to the con-
nections among waking experiences, the more we are able to discern the ratio
behind them. He writes: “in dreaming there is no relation to the greatest of
things [summam rerum]”; among waking appearances, “everything is di-

. II i . . II i . See also II i , , .

. VI i . . VI ii : L . . . VI ii : L . . VI ii : L .


 

rected, at least implicitly, toward the ultimate end.”31 Leibniz’s point seems
to be that the appearances of waking experience (unlike those in dreams) help
us to glimpse the unity and harmony among things and ultimately to recog-
nize their end; in that sense, they are the first step to knowledge of “the great-
est of things.”
A summary of On the power of persuasion, on dreaming and wakefulness
will put its relevance to our present concerns in clearer focus. Leibniz was
encouraged to write an essay on dreaming as part of his attempt to prove
the immortality of the soul, where the basic assumption was that dreaming
offers insight into the fundamental activity of mind. Given our present in-
terest in the development of Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, Leibniz’s
analysis of dreaming implies three important points. First, Leibniz believes
that mind has an “architectural and harmonious principle” of which we are
unconscious and yet which is capable of producing elaborate objects for it-
self. In this way, the mind unconsciously offers materials to itself. It is im-
portant to recognize that such a “harmonious principle” seems different
from the set of instructions that we attributed (in chapter , section ) to the
active principle in corporeal substances. The latter is the “special ratio” that
instructs the mind or active principle on how to act. The new proposal about
mind goes further and suggests that there is a principle in mind that offers
up objects to itself. The second point in the essay that is particularly rele-
vant to our concern here is that because waking appearances are connected
to the “ultimate end” in a way that dreaming appearances are not, only the
former offer a means to knowledge. Leibniz implies that the epistemologi-
cal value of perceptions arises from their interconnection. That is, insofar
as waking experiences are thoroughly connected, they display the organiza-
tion and harmony that God emanates in the world. Finally, it is significant
that Leibniz is utterly silent about the precise path from the appearances to
God. Except for a provocative comment about the activity of mind, he of-
fers no help on how to attain the knowledge that we seek. About mind, as
the active thing in nature, he writes: “For there are many things which we
know, but do not seek, because we do not attend to the acting thing. How-
ever, attention is nothing other than reflection.”32
In the spring of , Leibniz was in a difficult position. He was com-
mitted to his Second Theory of Corporeal Substance. He was convinced
that the ultimate objects of knowledge were the Ideas and God, that the sen-

. The Latin here, summam rerum, is ambiguous. In classical Latin, the phrase standardly re-
ferred to the universe as a whole. In response to Leibniz’s argument in the essay, Loemker
translates the phrase as “the whole of things” (L ). Within both the general context of
Leibniz’s Platonism and the specific context of the argument of this essay, I think that it
is more reasonable to read the Latin as referring to God, who is “the greatest of things.”
Another reason to interpret the text in this way is that while he was in Paris it became very
common for Leibniz to refer to God by such means. As we will see in ch. , the Academy
editors have given a whole group of texts whose topics cluster around theological issues
the title De summa rerum, where the reference is to God as creator.
. VI ii : L .


    , 

sory phenomena had to be rejected in order to attain such knowledge, and

that there had to be a complete ratio or sufficient condition for each phe-
nomenon. He had widely broadcast in his Schediasma and in numerous let-
ter that his physics helps lead to knowledge of God. As impressive as his
proclamations must have seemed to his correspondents, he offers no precise
explanation of how we are supposed to move from the phenomena to knowl-
edge of “the ultimate ratio of things.” Nor does he offer an account of ex-
actly what the phenomena are such that they need to be rejected or denied
so that we might attain genuine knowledge. Against the background set in
the last section, we can speculate that the reason behind his silence on such
an important metaphysical and epistemological topic was that he had not yet
decided what sort of an account to give. Nor is that all. By the spring of
, Leibniz had transformed the passive principle in nature into mind-
like substances. Since the sensory phenomena were entirely unlike the un-
derlying mind-like realities, the realities themselves could not offer any di-
rect explanatory support. Given our concerns here, the point to emphasize
is that in the spring of , Leibniz had to construct a complete ratio for
every phenomenon without the help of extended corporeal things, but in a
way that was consistent with his theory of substance, his Platonist episte-
mology, and his Aristotelian assumptions.
It is also important to recognize how tightly Leibniz’s hands were tied: fol-
lowing his Aristotelian assumptions, the cause and explanation of the per-
ceptions of a substance S had to be contained within the nature of S. That is,
given the extreme difference between the appearances of extended corporeal
things and the reality of panorganic collections of mind-like substances and
given Leibniz’s Aristotelian assumptions, there was really only one plausible
option for explaining sensory perceptions: Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism.
It is important to be perfectly clear about this. Because of Leibniz’s denial of
the existence of extended inert matter and because of his commitment to the
Principle of Sufficient Reason, unless he had been prepared to reject the Prin-
ciple of Causal Self-Sufficiency, he could not explain the phenomena from
outside the perceiving mind and so he had to explain it from inside: given the
Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, the cause of the perceptions in the mind
had to be in the nature of S. Moreover, because of Leibniz’s commitment to
Emanative Harmony, God somehow had to be intimately involved in the per-
ceptions. Since Emanative Harmony entails that every creature is an instan-
tiation of the divine essence, the perceptions of every created mind would
somehow have to contain at least some instantiations of the (selected) divine
essence. That is, every mind had to be the cause of its own perceptions, and
yet those perceptions would somehow have to include all the instantiations of
the (selected) divine essence within its prearranged perceptual purview. Fur-
thermore, given Leibniz’s commitment to Reflective Harmony, at least
among human minds, each human mind also had to include (at least) an un-
conscious awareness of the morally relevant states of all other human minds.
In the spring of , Leibniz had his work cut out for him: he had to tell
a coherent story about how a perceiving mind could be the cause of its own


 

perceptions, and he had to offer an account of how the phenomena could

both contain God and (at least) the morally relevant states of other human
minds. In the remainder of this section, we will see that in the second half
of , Leibniz found a way to accomplish these tasks. His investigations
concerning these topics occur mostly in the context of an analysis of the
epistemological value of the phenomena. I claimed in the last section that
there are two questions that needed to be answered about the relation be-
tween the appearances and the nature of things, namely, how are the ap-
pearances of things supposed to have any epistemological value whatsoever,
and how exactly are those appearances supposed to be causally related to the
natures of things? Let’s now turn to some of the writings of  in search
of Leibniz’s answers to these questions. It is noteworthy that in the second
half of the year, Leibniz was concerned to explore the epistemological role
of the perceptions of mind.

Sixth note from the Elements of natural law

In chapter , I made much use of the early notes from the Elements of nat-
ural law. Not only do these essays contain Leibniz’s first explicit comments
about harmony and his original uses of the image of a mind as a mirror, they
also offer evidence of his Platonist epistemology. For Leibniz’s original at-
tempt to explain the precise epistemological function of perceptions, I turn
to the sixth (and last) of these notes, written in the summer or fall of .
In an attempt to explain how a (conscious) mind might be led to “the na-
ture of things” through the contemplation of its own perceptions, Leibniz
distinguishes between what is prior in time and prior in nature. He claims
that if A is prior to B in time, then A is perceived before B, and moreover
that “we come upon” what is prior in time “by perception [sensu].” If A is
prior to B in nature, then the essence of A is thought before the essence of
B; he writes that “we come upon” what is prior in essence “by thinking.”33
He uses the distinction between priority in nature and priority in time to
imply a distinction between what conscious minds think or understand and
what they perceive. The suggestion is that the perceptions can be a means to
an understanding of the natures. He writes:
Whatever is Prior in Nature is not [prior] temporally, but is something that is able
to be understood clearly before the other, not the other before it. In this way what is
prior in Time is something that is able to be perceived before the other, but not the
other before it. What is prior in nature is prior essentially, what is prior in time is
prior in terms of existence.34 We arrive at the essence by thinking, we arrive at the

. VI i . The Latin here is cogitatio, which I have generally translated as ‘thinking.’ I will
continue to do so here, but it should be emphasized that the English “to think” is slightly
misleading. When Leibniz insists that A is “prior in thinking” to B, he probably means
that A is understood before B.
. In the Conspectus, Leibniz claims that God the father is prior in nature but not in time to
the other persons of the Trinity. See VI i .


    , 
existence by perception. So the efficient [cause] is prior to the effect temporally, but
the action is not prior to the passion unless in nature.35
Leibniz clearly distinguishes here between thinking and perception, where
the objects of the former are the essences that are prior in nature and the
objects of the latter are the perceptions that are prior in time. According to
Leibniz, in experiencing the world, what we come upon first are the objects
of perception. These are prior “temporally” and “in terms of existence,”
but they are not prior essentially. Rather, what is prior in nature is what is
prior essentially and what we arrive at by thinking.
So far, so good. But at this point in the essay things become a bit tricky.
Leibniz writes:
A Cause is a producing thing prior in nature to what is produced. There are pro-
ducing things which are after the things produced. For an effect often produces a
cause. When I say: given that there is A, then surely there is B; A is the thing Pro-
ducing, B is the thing Produced.36
This passage is not perspicuous. Given its grammar, the most obvious read-
ing is as follows: a cause is a producing thing that occurs prior to the effect
that it produces, and moreover sometimes an effect produces a cause. There
are (at least) two reasons to reject this reading. First, in no other writings of
the period does Leibniz offer any such account of causation. In fact, as we
will see later, his theory of causation in related texts seems quite different
from the one this reading entails. Second, the context of the passage is very
clearly that of the activity and changes within a mind or thinking thing. Im-
mediately before this passage, Leibniz offered definitions of the terms
‘thinking,’ ‘action,’ and ‘change,’ and immediately after the passage he dis-
cusses what is “Prior in Nature” (see previous quotation), where the crucial
distinction is between what is prior in nature and prior in time. In this con-
text, it seems reasonable to think that the point of the problematic passage
is primarily to disclose the epistemological relation between a perception
and its cause or nature. This epistemological point is difficult to discern in
the essay because Leibniz uses the same verb to refer both to a causal and
to an epistemological relation. He appears to play with the subtle ambigu-
ity of the Latin verb infero, which means in this context to occasion, bring
about, or produce. In the causal relation, A produces or occasions B in the
sense that A leads to the existence of B; in the epistemological relation, A
produces or occasions B in the sense that A leads to an understanding of B.
An effect can lead to an understanding of its cause, and therefore the effect

. VI i . The Latin is: Natura prius est licet non tempore, quicquid ante alterum clare cog-
itari potest, non alterum ante ipsum. Quemadmodum Tempore prius est quicquid ante al-
terum sentiri potest, non alterum ante ipsum. Natura prius est essentiâ, tempore existen-
tiâ. Cogitatione essentiam sensu existentiam metimur. Ita efficiens est tempore prius
effecto, sed actio non est nisi natura prior passione.
. VI i . The Latin is: Causa est inferens natura prius illato. Dantur inferentia illatis pos-
teriora. Nam effectus saepe infert causam. Quando dico: si A est etiam B est, A est Infer-
ens, B Illatum.


 

can be said to produce or occasion its cause in the epistemological sense.

Once the passage is seen in light of the distinction between the causal and
epistemological relation, a different interpretation suggests itself: although
a nature is prior in understanding to any perception it produces or occasions
(in the causal sense), the perception is experienced prior to the nature.
Therefore, the nature of “producing things are given after” the perception
in that we will “arrive at” the nature after the perception. It is in this sense
that the perception or effect produces the nature or cause: the effect or per-
ception occasions an understanding of its cause.37 A Leibnizian example
may help to clarify the point. We experience the world before we experience
God and in this sense the world is temporally prior to God, who nonethe-
less is prior in nature. Our relation to the Supreme Being is such that we
will be led to an understanding of the divinity only once we have experi-
enced the world. When our experience of the world has led us to contem-
plate its source, then what is prior temporally has occasioned an under-
standing of what is prior in nature. In the note under analysis, Leibniz
intends to suggest that our relation to the essences and natures of things is
analogous to our relation to God: we first experience the appearances and
then we are able to understand the underlying natures.
I said above that there were two questions that needed to be answered
about the relation between the perceptions and the nature of things, namely,
how exactly are the perceptions supposed to have any epistemological value
whatsoever, and how exactly are those perceptions supposed to be causally
related to the natures of things? The implication of Leibniz’s sixth note
from the Elements of natural law is that, for any perception and nature, the
former can lead to an understanding of the latter, and moreover the latter is
the cause of the former. Apparently, the epistemological value of an ap-
pearance is that it leads us to the thing that caused it. But how exactly is this
supposed to work? We need to know more. For example, we need to know
what the nature or essence is that is supposed to cause the perception, and
how the perception can lead us to its cause. Leibniz’s sixth note offers some
direct help with these matters. In describing real knowledge, he tells us ex-
actly what an inner nature is. His account of knowledge is significant, and
lends support to the epistemological reading of the passage quoted above.
He writes:
The Good is what is sought by one who has real knowledge. . . . To have real knowl-
edge is to know what things are able to act or to suffer. . . . [N]o one is able to have
real knowledge of a single thing, unless he is most wise, that is [seu], has real uni-

. The epistemological reading offered here is consistent with what Leibniz says in another
text. See VI ii . It is also consistent with a long line of Platonists who want to distin-
guish between our experience of the world and its underlying reality; and it is similar to
other seventeenth-century Platonists who discuss the relation between our experience of
the world and God as its underlying cause. For example, see Plotinus, Enneads IV.. and
Conway, Principles, ch. V, sects. –.


    , 

versal knowledge. What it is to have real knowledge, what is called in Latin intelli-
gere, is to read the inner natures.38
In this unusually direct passage, Leibniz puts his radical epistemological
cards on the table. Before one can have any genuine knowledge, it is neces-
sary to have universal knowledge, that is, it is necessary to understand the
inner nature of things; moreover, such knowledge entails seeking the Good.
But what exactly is the relation between the knowledge of an individual
thing and universal knowledge? Against the background of Leibniz’s Meta-
physics of Divinity set out in chapter , the underlying point is clear: since
each creature is an instantiation of the (selected) divine essence, it follows
that to understand that nature is to grasp the essence of God. In this case,
the nature of things and the objects of knowledge are the same: they are the
Ideas or the attributes of God. To put it another way, because the Supreme
Being is immanent in all of its products in such a way that they ultimately
contain the same thing, to know one thing just is to know everything. Thus,
when the appearances lead us to knowledge of the inner natures, they lead
us to the essence of God in creatures and hence to God.
A brief review will help to highlight the importance of Leibniz’s posi-
tion. In the sixth note from the Elements of natural law, he wonders about
the epistemological relation between the perceptions that are prior in time
and the natures or essences that are prior in nature. Somehow the former
are caused by the latter and can lead to knowledge of them. But how? Ac-
cording to Leibniz, each nature is the Supreme Being insofar as the latter is
immanent in the world. To know a nature is to know God. But this account
of the nature of things makes the answer to our questions about the episte-
mological role of perceptions even more unfathomable. Once we know what
the inner nature is, it is all the more difficult to understand how our per-
ceptions are supposed to be related to it.
We will have to turn to another text for a complete answer to the episte-
mological questions, but before doing so, let’s consider a related remark that
Leibniz makes in his sixth note and that offers some clues. He writes:
Harmony is diversity compensated by identity. That is, the Harmonic is uniformly
deformed. [Seu Harmonicum est uniformiter difforme.] Variety delights but when
it is reduced to unity, elegance, conciliation. Conformity delights, but [it must be]
new, wondrous, unexpected; . . . it is most appreciated in things . . . where no one
would suspect a connection.39
In the philosophical context set by Emanative Harmony, the following in-
terpretation of this passage suggests itself. When a mind perceives, what it
perceives is harmony. For each mind, its perceptions constitute the variety

. VI i . The Latin here is: Bonum est quicquid appetetur à pernoscente. . . . Pernoscere
est nosse quid res agere aut pati possit. . . . [N]eminem posse unius rei esse pernoscentem,
nisi idem sit sapientissimus, seu pernoscens universalis. Quod pernoscere, id latinius dice-
tur intelligere id est intima legere.
. VI i –.


 

in the world. The epistemological value of the perceptions consists in the

fact that through the proper contemplation of its perceptions, a mind can
be led to the unity and elegance of things. Leibniz concludes the note with
a passage that we have seen: when we compare “the confusion of six thou-
sand years . . . to eternity,” we recognize that it is like “one dissonant beat”
that when counterbalanced “by other dissonances,” can lead to “the admi-
ration” of God. In other words, our unanalyzed perceptions, which are prior
in time, are merely various. They become “delightful” and offer an episte-
mological payoff only once we glimpse the unity and elegance within them.
Once we delight in the “conformity” and recognize the “wondrous” inter-
connections among things, we can be led to “the ruler who embraces the in-
finite.”40
For Leibniz, in the Elements of natural law, it is a good thing that the world
first appears to a mind in such a confused way. In the second use of the im-
age of the mind as mirror, part of which I quoted in section , chapter ,
Leibniz writes:
Thus, if there are many mirrors, that is, many minds recognizing our goods, there
will be a greater light, the mirrors blending the light not only in the [individual] eye
but also among each other. The gathered splendor produces glory. This is part of
the reason for the deformity in mind: otherwise there would be nothing in the
shadow to be magnified through the reflection of the mirrors.41
The claim here is remarkable. According to Leibniz, the goodness of the
world is increased because minds can be “in the shadow.” The argument
seems to go as follows: there would be no reason either for Reflective Har-
mony or for the mirroring of minds if there were no deformed minds to be
enlightened; both Reflective Harmony and the good that comes from it are
good things; therefore, the deformity of mind contributes to the goodness
of the world. For our purposes here, the point to emphasize is that deformed
minds are those that are not yet enlightened and so presumably attend only
to the variety of things.42 Following the distinction between what is prior
in time and prior in nature, the point seems to be that we will approach the
nature of things only once we abandon the sensory phenomena and apply
our understanding to harmony. In the sixth note from the Elements of nat-
ural law, Leibniz seems to assume that the perceptions of each mind, which
are prior in time, can lead it to knowledge of what is prior in nature because
they contain the harmony of the world within them. The suggestion is that
the perceptions can offer knowledge of what is prior in nature but only once
we abstract from the senses and approach them through the intellect.
I said above that in  Leibniz had to offer an account of the sensory
phenomena that was consistent with Emanative Harmony. By the time he

. VI i . Also see VI i , .

. VI i : L . Unfortunately, the date of this text is not clear; it was written sometime
in –.
. Also see VI i , , .


    , 

composed the sixth note from the Elements of natural law in the summer or
fall of the year, he had done this. The note implies that what a mind per-
ceives when it perceives the world is always harmony, understood to be di-
versity compensated by unity. The mind can think its perceptions in one of
two ways. If it is “deformed,” it will see them as mere variety and “disso-
nance,” where the underlying unity of things is hidden. In this case, the
mind sees the world as a world of becoming. However, for a mind that has
become (somewhat) enlightened through the help of other reflecting minds,
it can recognize the unity within the diversity, and gradually understand the
inner nature of things. One of the remarkable things about Leibniz’s pro-
posals in the sixth note is that everything seems to be internal to the per-
ceiving mind: each contains the world, the means to the truth that under-
lies that world, all the objects of knowledge, and hence the Supreme Being
insofar as that being is immanent in the world.

On perceiving and thinking

In section  of the Introduction, I maintained that one of the terrifying
things about working on Leibniz is that no single work can be trusted as hard
evidence for an interpretative point. Before we make any grand claims either
about Leibniz’s epistemology or about his metaphysics in , we surely
need to consider other texts. For confirmation of the interpretative claims
just made, let’s turn to a note entitled On endeavor and motion, perceiving and
thinking.43 Although it is unclear precisely when in  Leibniz wrote this
essay, given both its content and the unusually large number of additions
and deletions he made to the text, I submit that it was written after the com-
position of the sixth note of the Elements in natural law, and that it consti-
tutes his first attempt to articulate both Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism
and the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance. In this obscure text, Leib-
niz makes several assertions that are particularly relevant here. According to
On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking, the world is constituted of
finite created minds, their actions and thoughts. The sensory world exists
as a representation in such minds, where each representation is different
from the others. To exist is to be a (clear and distinct) perception: a body
exists as a perception of mind, while a mind exists as a perception of itself.

. Although the title was given to the text by the Academy editors, it was the content of the
piece that encouraged them to do so. The Latin title is De conatu et motu, sensu et cogita-
tione. Both in this essay and in related texts, I translate the Latin verb ‘sentire’ and noun
‘sensus’ with the English, ‘to perceive’ and ‘perception.’ Although it is a bit awkward not
to use the English terms ‘to sense’ and ‘sensation,’ the latter are in fact more problematic
than the former because they connote a closer connection to the senses than Leibniz in-
tends in the relevant essays. For example, in the text under discussion, Leibniz emphasizes
the fact that the mind “is able to perceive [sentire] itself thinking.” In a related text, he
writes “every perception [sensus] of our thinking [cogitationis] is true” (VI ii ). More-
over, Leibniz uses the Latin verb ‘percipere’ to describe this activity of mind in some re-
lated notes. See, e.g., VI ii , .


 

One of the underlying assumptions in this essay is that since to exist is to be

perceived, all minds – even momentary ones – must be capable of perceiv-
ing themselves. It follows that all minds – whether momentary or not –
think. The last of these claims should not come as a surprise. In the discus-
sion of On the incarnation of God in chapter , we noted Leibniz’s claim that
all minds think constantly. Indeed, according to the () Substantial Form
Assumption, all minds act constantly and their acting is a form of thinking
that produces thoughts. What is striking about the view presented in On en-
deavor and motion, perceiving and thinking is that Leibniz is prepared to claim
that the created world is constituted entirely of minds and their thoughts,
where the former are the cause and explanation of the latter. This is impor-
tant. If the world is so constituted, then, for any mind-like substance S,
there is no state of S that is not a thought; and if every state of S is a thought,
then the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance will apply to S just in case
the thoughts of S are caused by S itself.
Let’s consider these claims as they appear in On endeavor and motion, per-
ceiving and thinking. About existence, Leibniz first wrote: “Everything that
exists is perceived [sentiri]. To be perceived is to be according to the prin-
ciple of harmony.” He was finally satisfied with the claim: “Whatever exists
is perceived.” He clarifies his position: “Whatever is perceived exists. . . .
Whatever exists is perceived clearly and distinctly.”44 For Leibniz here, to
exist is to be perceived clearly and distinctly. He goes on to explain that we
are able to be certain that we exist as thinking things because we perceive
ourselves thinking. A body on the other hand “is perceived, but does not
perceive.” The implication is that minds exist insofar as each perceives it-
self, whereas bodies exist insofar as they are perceived by minds. In a fasci-
nating discussion about the proper way to express these matters in language,
Leibniz makes clear his intention to reduce the entirety of the corporeal
world to the perceptions of minds. He poses a question about how to ex-
press grammatically the relation between “that which is [id quod est]” and
the “I [ego]” where the former is the object perceived and the latter is the
subject perceiving. He finds the use of the Latin accusative case unsatisfac-
tory; that is, he does not want “the proposition the body is perceived [corpus
sentitur]” to be substituted by “the Body is what I perceive [Corpus est id
quod ego sentio].” He prefers instead to interpret the “I” as “I perceive, I am
[a thing] perceiving [sentio, sum sentiens],” and to place the object in the gen-
itive case. Let’s be clear about the radical nature of Leibniz’s proposal. As
an answer to the question about the proper grammatical expression of the
relation between the subject and object of perception, Leibniz opts for the
use of the Latin genitive case. For Leibniz, the correct rendition of the re-
lation is: “The Body is something of which I am the thing perceiving [Cor-
pus est aliquid cuius ego sum sentiens]” where the point (which is not as
perspicuous in English as in Latin) is that the body is something that be-
longs to me as a thing that perceives. Leibniz is perfectly clear about his de-

. VI ii . He makes the same point in a text that I discuss in the next chapter: VI ii .


    , 

sire to capture in language the fact that the relation between the perceived
object and the perceiving subject is “a conjunction between the attribute and
the subject.” That is, for Leibniz in On endeavor and motion, perceiving and
thinking, bodies are attributes of minds. To make the point another way,
bodies are intentional objects of perceiving minds.
That Leibniz is a phenomenalist is clear. But we need to know how the
mind as subject of thinking comes to have the objects it thinks. Let’s first
consider exactly what the mind thinks. Leibniz is explicit in the essay about
the fact that what the mind thinks is harmony and that thinking is roughly
equivalent to perceiving. After writing “Thinking is nothing other than the
perception [sensus] of harmony,” Leibniz changed his account to “Think-
ing is nothing other than the perception [sensus] of a relation or more
briefly, the perception of many things at the same time or the one in the
many.”45 The proposal here is consistent with the account of Emanative
Harmony and Reflective Harmony presented in section  of chapter . Con-
cerning Emanative Harmony, the point is that insofar as God is immanent
in the world, God is what we see. Since everything in the world just is an
instantiation of the divine essence, when we perceive the world, what we see
is the divine essence variously instantiated. Concerning Reflective Har-
mony, the point is that insofar as each conscious mind reflects all the others,
it contains them. As explained in section  of chapter , a being can be said
to contain another just in case it thinks or understands it. I will discuss this
topic in greater detail in the next chapter.
In On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking, Leibniz tells us more
about the harmony that minds think.
It is necessary that, in thinkable things themselves, there is a ratio why they should
be perceived, that is, why they should exist. The ratio is not in the thinking of sin-
gular things, and therefore will be in [the thinking of] many things. Therefore in all
things. Therefore in Mind, that is, in the one in the many. Therefore, in Harmony,
that is, in the unity of many things, that is, in diversity compensated by identity.
Moreover God is the one that is all things.46
Let’s look closely at this passage. The argument of the first two sentences
seems to run as follows. For some finite mind F and for some thinkable thing
T, F may think T. For every case in which F thinks T, there will be a ratio.
One way in which F may think T is to perceive T in which case T exists for
F. For every case in which F perceives T (and therefore for every case in
which T exists for F), there will be a ratio. The ratio for the thinking of T
by F will not be found in any single case of thinking T. Rather, the ratio for
the thinking of T by F will be found in an analysis of all the thinking that

. VI ii .
. VI ii . We saw a part of this passage in ch. , sect. . The Latin is: Necesse est in cog-
itabilibus ipsis rationem esse cur sentiantur, id est cur existant, ea non est in singulorum
cogitatione, erit ergo in pluribus. Ergo omnibus. Ergo in Mente, id est uno in multis. Ergo
in Harmonia id est unitate plurimorum, seu diversitate identitate compensata. Deus autem
est unus omnia.


 

F does. That is, we will be able to grasp the ratio for the thinking of T by F
only through an analysis of all the thinking that F does. It seems fairly ob-
vious that, according to Leibniz here, the thinking of T by F is not caused
by T’s doing something to F (say, appearing in F’s perceptual purview).
Rather, the ratio for the thinking of T by F and for all the other thoughts
had by F is to be found somehow in F. But how? In the second half of the
passage, the suggestion is that an analysis of F’s thinking will lead us to the
divine mind, which Leibniz identifies here with each of the following: the
one in the many, harmony, the unity of many things, and diversity com-
pensated by identity.
But what exactly is the source of this harmony? As we have noted, Leib-
niz in the second half of  both equates harmony with God and main-
tains that what a mind perceives is harmony.47 Before we can justifiably at-
tribute either Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism or the Complete-Ratio
Theory of Substance to Leibniz, we need to be perfectly clear that when he
claims that the mind perceives harmony, the immediate source of the per-
ceived harmony is the mind itself. The question is: when an individual mind
F perceives harmony, does the perception come directly from God (in which
case the source of the perception lies outside the mind) or does the percep-
tion of harmony come directly from F (in which case the source of percep-
tion lies inside the mind)? Since Leibniz equates God with harmony and in-
sists that minds perceive harmony, it would seem to follow that the Supreme
Being is itself the source of the perception. In fact, in On endeavor and mo-
tion, perceiving and thinking, we can discern Leibniz’s original attempt to
place the immediate cause of the thoughts of a mind squarely in the think-
ing mind itself. He writes: “To think is to be the ratio of change, or [seu] to
change oneself” and moreover “To think something is to think a thought.”48
These comments suggest that when a mind thinks, there are at least three
things involved: there is a thinking mind, a ratio of change that somehow
exists in the mind, and a change that occurs in the mind and that is pre-
sumably a (new) thought. It would seem to follow, therefore, that the mind
contains a ratio by means of which it produces its series of thoughts, the to-
tality of which constitute a representation of the world for the mind per-
ceiving them. In other words, the mind as the subject of thinking comes to
have the objects it thinks because it produces them.
But how exactly is this supposed to work and how are these thoughts
equivalent to the harmony of things? The Substantial Form Assumption of-
fers help with this two-part question. The relevant part of the assumption
claims that, for every mind-like substantial form F, F acts constantly by a
set of instructions given it by God and moreover F acts through emanation.
Following the Theory of Emanative Causation, if F acts through emana-
tion, then F emanates its attributes to its products continually and yet is not

. Besides the textual evidence displayed in the previous subsection, see, e.g., II i , VI ii
.
. VI ii .


    , 

depleted in any way, and the products of F have those attributes in a man-
ner inferior to the way they exist in F. When we apply these assumptions to
the account of thinking in On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking,
we obtain something like the following. F acts constantly without depleting
itself according to a set of instructions given it by God, and in doing so pro-
duces its thoughts. In this case, F is the unchanging emanative source of its
changing thoughts and its thoughts are the inferior instantiations of what F
contains in its nature. Following the Emanative Creation Story, F is itself
an instantiation of the (selected) divine essence, which means that (as a
product of God) it contains an inferior instantiation of the divine attributes.
But it also follows from the Theory of Emanative Causation that the prod-
ucts that F produces through emanation are themselves (even more) infe-
rior instantiations of those attributes. The answer to our two-part question
is that each mind F contains the ratio for its thoughts which are themselves
equivalent to harmony in that the sequence of discrete thoughts is an infe-
rior instantiation of the (selected) divine essence.
This analysis of the role that the mind plays in perceiving the world of-
fers some important clues about the epistemological journey from the sen-
sory phenomena to the underlying truth. What Leibniz implies in On en-
deavor and motion, perceiving and thinking is that the epistemological value
of our perceptions depends entirely on what they reveal about the divine
mind that ultimately caused them. The suggestion is that, from the per-
spective of conscious minds, the world exists as a harmoniously constructed
appearance whose proper contemplation is able to lead us to its transcen-
dent source. Although the source of the appearance is the perceiving mind
itself, the appearance nonetheless contains the world. In order to acquire
knowledge of the underlying reality, we must abstract from the petty sin-
gularity of things, contemplate the unity within the variety, and thereby be
led to “the one that is all things.”
The implications of On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking are
important. The centrality of mind and its activities is clear. There are two
points to emphasize. The first concerns the precise relation between an in-
dividual created mind and its perceptions or thoughts. Concerning the dis-
crete thoughts of a mind F, Leibniz is clear about the fact that God consti-
tutes the ratio for the thinking of a thing T by a mind F where the point is
that God has given each mind the means to produce each of its thoughts.
Concerning the totality of thoughts of a mind F, what F perceives is har-
mony which is F’s own representation of the world, in which the divinity
can be observed. Although the ultimate source of harmony is God, when F
perceives harmony, the immediate source of the harmony that F perceives
is F itself. The underlying assumption is that the mind offers itself each of
its thoughts, the totality of which is a version of the world given it by God.
On the basis of the textual evidence presented here, it seems reasonable to
attribute Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism to Leibniz. Moreover, given that
in On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking the created world is con-
stituted of minds and their thoughts, there is also good reason to attribute


 

the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance to him. If the only states had by

a mind-like substance S are thoughts and if the complete ratio for all the
thoughts of S is contained in the nature of S, then the Complete-Ratio The-
ory of Substance is true of created mind-like substances.
In a related text, written sometime between early  and the autumn of
that year, Leibniz is explicit about the fact that the source of the thinking
that a mind does is the mind itself. As he explains in Trinity, mind: “Just as
God thinks things . . . because they follow from his nature, so does Mind. . . .
Mind and God do not differ except that one is finite and the other infinite.”
In the remainder of this brief note, Leibniz explains that infinite and finite
minds are similar in that each thinks itself “in act.” The difference lies in
the fact that God thinks creatures while created minds think existing
things.49
The second point to emphasize about the implications of On endeavor and
motion, perceiving and thinking is closely related to the first. In this essay,
Leibniz significantly redescribes the role assigned to the mind as the active
principle in nature. Prior to the second half of , when Leibniz talked
about the active principle or substantial form F in a substance, the empha-
sis was on the fact that it acted through its passive principle P and thereby
produced with P a substantial feature. All of the assumptions that we dis-
covered in On the incarnation of God and the related writings of the period
–early , namely, the Second Theory of Corporeal Substance, the
() Passive Principle Assumption, and the (early ) Substantial Form
Assumption, focus on the active principle insofar as it acts on the passive
principle. For the first time, in On endeavor and motion, perceiving and think-
ing, Leibniz focuses on the active principle insofar as it produces its own fea-
tures or states. In order to grasp how significant this development is, let’s
note precisely the changes in the role assigned the active principle in the sec-
ond half of . As argued in chapter , in the period –early ,
Leibniz accepted the Emanative Creation Story according to which created
substances interact with one another so that the active principle F in a sub-
stance S contains the necessary though not the sufficient conditions for the
features of S. Following that account, there is a complete ratio for each fea-
ture of S, but the ratio need not be contained in the nature of the active prin-
ciple or substantial form, F. The instructions in F tell F how to act through
its passive principle so that, because all the instructions in all the active prin-
ciples correspond to one another perfectly (that is, because of (Weak) Paral-
lelism), the relevant feature of S results. For example, the complete ratio for
the stain on Wanda’s hand consists in the perfect coordination between the
activity of the coffee and that of Wanda: the coffee must spill and Wanda’s
hand must move in just the right way at just the right time. Thus, for Leib-
inz in the period –early , a substantial feature of a substance S
arises in the following way: the F in S acts through the P in S according to
F’s instructions and thereby creates with P the nature of S; as an active cor-

. VI ii –.


    , 

poreal thing, S interacts with other corporeal substances whose activities

have been similarly prearranged by their active principles with the result
that S acquires the relevant (non-essential) feature. For our purposes here,
it is especially important that F acts as the necessary but not sufficient con-
dition for the feature.
The work assigned the active principle in On endeavor and motion, per-
ceiving and thinking is different. Unlike the writings of –early ,
Leibniz is here concerned to explain the features and states of F and exactly
how F produces its own thoughts. More specifically, for the first time Leib-
niz attributes to F what I will call a Production Rule. In the earlier account,
the primary role of the set of instructions was to tell F how to act on P. As
Leibniz makes the point in On the incarnation of God, mind “acts constantly
by a special ratio” on body.50 The primary job of the Production Rule, how-
ever, is to tell F how to produce its own states. In fact, the Production Rule
has much in common with the “architectural and harmonious principle”
that we discovered in On the power of persuasion, on dreaming and wakeful-
ness in that it offers objects to itself. In On endeavor and motion, perceiving
and thinking, Leibniz suggests that there is a Production Rule in each mind
F that constitutes the source for every state of F. I postulate that by the
autumn of , Leibniz had changed his account of the active principle
in corporeal substances because he had decided to explain both the activi-
ties of substances and their interrelations wholly in terms of the perceptions
of minds. We will have to wait until the next chapter for a complete account
of Leibniz’s original proposals, but it is important to recognize exactly why
the perceptions of minds are so important to Leibniz in the second half of
.
When the active principle in a corporeal substance S offers thoughts to
itself, following the (early ) Substantial Form Assumption, those
thoughts are produced by emanation. In this case, God emanates the divine
attributes to each mind, which then emanates its thoughts. Such an account
goes beyond Leibniz’s Emanative Creation Story in explaining the relation
between God and the thoughts or perceptions of the minds in nature.
According to the creation story told in section , chapter , the Supreme
Being emanates its (selected) divine essence to every substance, which is
thereby an instantiation of the essence, and moreover the complete concept
of every substance has an ontological correlate in the substance. Each sub-
stance contains the divine essence but in a different way from every other.
Once we attribute a Production Rule to every active principle F, we can bet-
ter understand the relation between the divine essence and the activities of
F. The nature of F is such that it contains the (selected) divine essence,
which God emanates to it, and moreover F contains a Production Rule for
exactly how it will emanate that essence. What Leibniz implies in On en-
deavor and motion, perceiving and thinking is that each of the thoughts of a
perceiving mind F is the result of F’s emanating its divine essence in a man-

. VI i –. For the discussion of this point, see ch. , sect. .


 

ner consistent with its Production Rule. In this case, the Supreme Being
emanates its essence to F, which then emanates that essence to its products,
which are its thoughts.
For help with this account of thinking, let’s return to our analogy of nar-
rative options. In section , chapter , I compared the divine essence to a
set of well-defined characters that could be used in various narrative options
and the (selected) divine essence to a selected narrative within which the
characters act out their natures in a particular manner. Further, I compared
each individual substance to a translation of the selected story, where the
idea was that each translation was a version of the complete story, though a
version different from all the others. Analogously, each individual substance
is an instantiation of the (selected) divine essence, though a slightly differ-
ent version from all the others. For our purposes here, think of F as a mind
that first grasps the story and think of the Production Rule in F as the rules
of the language in which the story will be translated. In this case, F has the
story and the means to translate it into the relevant language. Therefore, F
is exactly like every other active principle (in that it contains the (selected)
divine essence) and yet is different from all the others (in that it expresses
the essence in a different way from all the others). The nature of F is like
the (selected) story, its Production Rule is like the rules of the language, and
its thoughts are like the sequence of translated sentences that result from
applying the rules of the language to the story. We arrive at a subtle revi-
sion of Emanative Harmony. Following the analogy, the Supreme Being
gives every active principle the same (selected) divine essence, but it gives
each a different Production Rule for how to express or translate that essence.
The result of F applying its Production Rule to the (selected) divine essence
are the thoughts of F, the totality of which constitute F’s version of the
world. It is important that the thoughts of F change, although F remains
the unchanging emanative source of them. It is also important that the
thoughts are the emanative products of the nature of F and hence an infe-
rior expression of that nature.51
With this said, we are now prepared to understand the comments in On
endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking which are among the most ex-
plicit about Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism and the Complete-Ratio The-
ory of Substance. Leibniz writes: “To be is for all the requisites to be per-
ceived. A requisite is what, when it is not thought, another thing cannot be
thought.”52 Since, according to Leibniz, to be is to be perceived, the point
seems clear: F perceives a thing R and hence R exists for F because F has

. In an earlier note in the Elements of natural law, Leibniz struggles with how to describe the
changing states of minds, where the question is how something that is fundamentally un-
changing can have changing states. He writes: “There is even change in GOD, because
there is Action” (VI i ). As some of the (deleted) text suggests, he wants to model cre-
ated minds on God in that he intends for minds to remain the same and yet have changing
states. For the additions and deletions to the text, see VI ii .
. VI ii .


    , 

perceived all the requisites of R. With the notion of a Production Rule in

hand, we can see how this might work. The Production Rule of F is a rule
for the continuous production of the discrete states of F so that it instructs
F about exactly what to think at every moment of F’s existence. Following
Leibniz’s suggestion, if F exists from t to tn and has a different thought at
each moment of its existence, then at every moment, there will be an in-
struction about what to think next. The present thought occurring at t, to-
gether with the Production Rule, will determine what F will think at t. In
this case, the complete ratio for each thought of F will be contained in the
nature of F. To put it another way, the necessary and sufficient conditions
for each thought of F will be constituted of the conjunction of the princi-
ple of activity in F, its Production Rule, and the previous thought. By such
means, the Production Rule helps to produce the set of instructions which
is the ontological correlate of the complete concept in F. As it turns out,
however, the states of F will themselves act as instructions for P. We will re-
turn to this point in the next section.
I said above that in the spring of  Leibniz had his work cut out for
him. He had to explain how a perceiving mind could be the cause of its own
perceptions and how the phenomena could contain God and include (at
least) the morally relevant states of other human minds. The achievement
of On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking is that it offers just such
an explanation. The general story is that the thoughts of a mind F follow
from its nature, which itself follows from God, and moreover, because the
ultimate cause of the thoughts is God, as the emanative source of every-
thing, the thoughts contain their divine source. Leibniz has constructed
Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism so that the phenomena contain God in
that they are caused by the perceiving mind, which is itself caused by God.
There is a neat hierarchy of emanation and explanation: the Supreme
Being emanates the (selected) divine essence to every mind, which then em-
anates its thoughts. Given the nature of emanative causation, the thoughts
contain God because ultimately the Supreme Being is their source.
Leibniz concludes his discussion of thinking in On endeavor and motion,
perceiving and thinking with an obscure comment that suggests such a hier-
archy of emanative causation and explanation. He writes: “There is a ratio
why something is, [namely,] because it already is; or because there is a prin-
ciple of harmony. From the first [follow] the actions of bodies; from the lat-
ter [the actions] of minds.”53 When we place this comment in the context
of Emanative Harmony and the account of thinking offered earlier, the fol-
lowing interpretation suggests itself: for any particular body that a mind
perceives, there is a complete ratio for why the mind perceives the body now.
This complete ratio is in the nature of the mind that has the perception.
More specifically, according to the interpretation offered here, the ratio is
the conjunction of the activity of the mind, its Production Rule, and its pre-
vious thought. Leibniz’s comment also suggests that this ratio itself has a

. VI ii .


 

ratio, which is harmony. That is, God constructs the world so that each mind
has a sufficient reason to perceive what it perceives. Although minds are
causally responsible for what they perceive, the minds themselves follow
from God who is the principle of harmony.
By such means, we finally obtain answers to the two epistemological ques-
tions posed at the outset of section : what epistemological value do the ap-
pearances have and what is the causal relation between the appearances and
the underlying realities? The answer to our questions is that each mind is
both the source of its own appearances and the means to escape from them.
As the clock arguments discussed in section  clearly show, no single ap-
pearance or group of appearances can by itself lead us to the truth.54 The
sixth note from the Elements of natural law displays why this is the case. The
epistemological journey from the appearances and the world of becoming
will only begin when one has abstracted from the singularity of things so as
to notice their vast interconnections. Then, we can apply our intellect to the
unity within things and eventually grasp the inner nature and divinity of all
things. In brief, the journey to the truth consists in learning how to reflect
on oneself in the right way.
In the second half of , as we have noted, Leibniz claims that minds
act on themselves and that, in so doing, they perceive the world, which is
equivalent to harmony. It is important that by the autumn of , he also
insists that to act is “to change by changing oneself” and claims that “the
essence of Mind [consists] in action on itself.”55 Concerning the mind as
the subject of perceptions, he implies that the mind contains an internal
“architectonic principle” that is its Production Rule and that causes it to
perceive as it does. The objects of perception are both the variety in the
world in that each perception contains all the variations of the essence of
God, but they are also the unity in the world in that the rational mind can
begin to glimpse the unity within the variety. From the glimpsing of unity,
it is possible for the mind “to acquire real knowledge,” which is to under-
stand or “read the inner natures.”56 Consistent with the claims of section
, chapter , the journey to truth is an internal one, where the mind turns
itself upon itself in order to discover the Ideas within. It is significant that
in the second half of , the entire epistemological journey, from begin-
ning to end, is internal in the sense that the rational mind is the cause of its
perceptions. But, despite its internal nature, the journey of the individual
mind is not isolated: God has arranged things so that all minds are in Re-
flective Harmony. To put it another way, since each mind is itself an in-
stantiation of the divine essence and since what each mind perceives when
it perceives harmony contains all the other instantiations of that essence,
each mind perceives all the others and hence all the others play some part
in its epistemological journey.
It is important to be perfectly clear about the radical implications of this

. See n. . . VI i , .

. See the Elements of natural law, VI i .


    , 

section. Let us summarize the claims that we have discovered in some of the
essays of  and revise some of our former assumptions accordingly.
• Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism claims that for every mind-like form F,
there is a complete ratio in F for all its thoughts (i.e., its states), where the
complete ratio is best understood in terms of a Production Rule.
• The Production Rule of a mind-like form F contains instructions for the
production of the states of F in the sense that the necessary and sufficient
conditions for each state of the substantial form F consists in the con-
junction of the principle of activity in F, its Production Rule, and its pre-
vious state.
• (mid-) Emanative Harmony claims () that God is the variety in the
world in that every substance, although it contains the same (selected)
divine essence as every other substance, also contains a Production Rule
according to which it instantiates that essence in a way different from
every other substance, and () that God is the unity in the world in the
two-fold sense that each individual creature and the totality of creatures
instantiate the divine unity so that each individual is a unity and the to-
tality is an interrelated whole.
• (mid-) Reflective Harmony extends the relation of Reflective Har-
mony to all thinking creatures, that is, it claims that every thinking sub-
stance thinks or reflects the entire world. It follows that every thinking
substance thinks all other substances, and therefore contains them.

. Metaphysical cohesion and Preestablished Harmony

I now turn to some of the theological motivations behind the development
of Preestablished Harmony. According to Leibniz’s Second Theory of Cor-
poreal Substance, the substantial nature is constituted of an active and pas-
sive principle; according to the Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency
and the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, a substantial state will not
strictly belong to the substance unless the state results from a genuine union
created by the two principles. With the development of Leibniz’s panor-
ganism and his theory of mind-like substance, some difficult questions arise
concerning the Metaphysical Problem of Cohesion as suggested in section
, chapter . The basic question here is: how do the active and passive prin-
ciples in a corporeal substance relate so as to form a union? Once Leibniz
decided to construct passivity out of mind-like entities, two new questions
arise: how do the mind-like substances that constitute the passive principle
in corporeal nature contribute to the unity within that collection and how
does the state of a substance result from a collection of mind-like sub-
stances? In this section, I offer answers to these questions. During the
second half of , Leibniz made significant headway in constructing an
account of Metaphysical Cohesion consistent with his new theory of the
passive principle in corporeal substances. It seems likely that key features
of his account evolved so as to solve more thoroughly the theological prob-


 

lems of the Eucharist and of resurrection. The result is Preestablished Har-

mony.
Before analyzing Leibniz’s new theory of Metaphysical Cohesion, let’s
review his former accounts. For Leibniz, the most fundamental feature of
mind is that it acts constantly. Prior to , Leibniz says very little about
the activity of created minds either on themselves or on bodies. In one of
the few pre- texts in which he discusses the activity of mind, he ac-
knowledges that “we cannot explain . . . what it is to think;” nor are we able
“to explain the mode [modum] of causing . . . which concerns the actions of
incorporeal Beings on external things.”57 Despite Leibniz’s silence about
the details of the actions of minds, we can piece together the general fea-
tures of a theory about Metaphysical Cohesion. I argued in chapter  that
Leibniz’s original conception of the principle of activity was conceived
along Platonist lines. As the (early ) Substantial Form Assumption sug-
gests, the causal model is one of emanative causation where the states flow
from the mind without the mind changing in any way. According to Leib-
niz during the mid-s, one of the results of this activity is that a mind is
a vital unity that is naturally indestructible. It follows from this account of
mental activity that the mind organizes the parts of its body and thereby
produces a single, unified corporeal substance because its power emanates
to all the parts of the matter. For example, according to Leibniz in the April
 letter to Thomasius, extended matter and primary mind combine to
constitute the corporeal nature, which is the complete ratio of the primary
features of the body; these primary features (magnitude, figure, and mo-
tion) interact with the perceiving subject and thereby cause the appearances.
Wanda’s organized matter interacts with the organized matter of the kitchen
table so that she feels the coolness of the formica. According to this picture
(which is implicit in the first use of the image of the town quoted in section
), there is in theory a precise causal story to tell about how the appearances
are caused by the nature of the substance that is itself a single unified thing.
This causal story assumes that each of the objects which interact with one
another is a single thing constituted by a mind organizing a specific chunk
of matter. Although there is a divine mind for non-human substances and
human minds for human substances, the Metaphysics of Cohesion is the
same.
In chapter , I showed that Leibniz’s edition of Nizolio’s text, which was
published in early , contains the first signs of the radical transforma-
tion in his theory of substance. I argued there that Leibniz developed a con-
ception of non-human mind that could accommodate his metaphysical and
physical requirements. As I suggested in chapter , the model for the ac-
count of Metaphysical Cohesion was the hypostatic union of the incarnation
of God. According to the () Substantial Form Assumption, there will
be a proper substantial union if and only if the active principle in a corpo-
real substance acts on its passive principle and the latter is the “instrument

. VI i –: L . This text dates from .


    , 

of acting” of the former. The states of the corporeal nature of a substance

S will strictly speaking belong to S only if the active and passive principles
in S are unified in this way. Therefore, the account of Metaphysical Cohe-
sion in On the incarnation of God depends on the constant activity of the ac-
tive principle on its passive principle. In chapter , I argued that by the pub-
lication of his two-part work, the Theory of Abstract Motion and New
Physical Hypothesis, Leibniz had accepted a conception of the passive prin-
ciple of corporeal substance, according to which that principle was consti-
tuted entirely of mind-like substances. The Hobbesian notion of endeavor
(conatus) gave Leibniz a way of conceiving the activity of mind that was
strikingly like the activity of body. It follows that the substantial union
somehow involves the activity of one mind (namely, the active principle) on
an infinity of other mind-like substances (namely, the passive principle).
Once Leibniz developed his Second Theory of Corporeal Substance and re-
jected the reality of passive extended matter, he had to reconsider the exact
relation between the active and passive principles within such substances.
According to Leibniz in the Theory of Abstract Motion, the goal of his
philosophy is to posit something sound about God, mind, perfection, and
happiness.58 After publishing his Schediasma, he applied himself more se-
riously to ethical topics in general and to the happiness of humans in par-
ticular. In his early notes for the Elements of natural law, he explores the de-
tails of his Platonist epistemology and ontology in an ethical context. In
working through his ethical views, which entail that each conscious mind is
like a mirror, he began to expand on his account of conscious mind as a har-
mony of endeavors. By the middle of , the standard definition of the
activity of conscious minds has become “action on itself.” What awoke
Leibniz from his Hobbesian slumber and motivated him to reconsider his
views about Metaphysical Cohesion in general and about conscious minds
in particular was the development of his theory of Preestablished Har-
mony.59 Let’s consider a letter of May  that treats Leibniz’s new views
about mind and the cohesion between the active and passive principles in
nature.

Resurrection, core of substance, and Prearranged Diffusion

In an important letter to Johann Friedrich which we considered in chapter
, section , and to which Leibniz attached the essay On the resurrection of

. VI ii .
. I do not mean to suggest that Leibniz stopped using the notion of endeavor. He most cer-
tainly did not. But I do mean to claim that starting in May , he began to reconsider
his views about thinking. Although in the important May  letter to Johann Friedrich –
which I have previously discussed and will return to below – he explores the foundations
for a new account of thinking, he also presents his former one. He writes: “In the same
way that the Actions of bodies consist [bestehen] in motion, so do the actions of mind con-
sist in endeavor” (II i ). For Leibniz’s new account of the activity of mind as “action
on itself,” see VI ii , , .


 

the body, he offers his new account of Metaphysical Cohesion. As he writes

in this letter of May : “I am of the opinion that in a body, whether of
a human being or animal, vegetable or mineral, there is a core [Kern] of its
substance. . . . This core is so subtle that it remains also in the ashes of
burned things and can, so to speak, draw itself into an invisible center.”60
In the last chapter, I emphasized the fact that according to Leibniz, this
“flower of substance” or “seminal center . . . remains unconquered by any-
thing that happens.”61 According to my account, the core of a substance S
consists in the dominant mind or substantial form F of S and the dominant
minds in each of the substances which constitute the passive principle P of
S. As long as the core retains F and the dominant minds in p, p, . . . pn+,
then the core remains constant regardless of how much the passive princi-
ples in p, p, . . . pn+ may increase and decrease. In keeping with the panor-
ganism articulated in the last chapter, each of the substances p, p, . . . pn+
will itself have a core, and so on in infinitum. For Leibniz in his letter to
Johann Friedrich, whether it is the movement of an object, the generation
of a plant, or the resurrection of the body, the same process occurs: there is
a core of substance that diffuses the thing.62
In chapter , I acknowledged that before we could understand the proper
functioning of the core, we would have to explain exactly how F and P are
related. As the letter to Johann Friedrich makes clear, F has causal power
over a greater or lesser expanse of P; moreover, following the (early )
Passive Principle Assumption, F has that power (somehow) through the
dominant minds in the substances p, p, . . . pn+ which constitute P. But
how exactly does F act through those minds? The answer to this question
brings us to the theory of Metaphysical Cohesion, which Leibniz constructs
to conform to his theory of panorganism and which constitutes important
evidence of Preestablished Harmony.
Following Leibniz’s use of the verb “to diffuse [diffundere],” let’s call the
relation between the active and passive principles one of diffusion. From
Leibniz’s comments, we can interpret the relation as follows. For a domi-
nant mind F of a substance S, F diffuses its passive principle P just in case
F has constant causal power over P. Since P is constituted of substances p,
p, . . . pn+, and since the dominant minds in p, p, . . . pn+ determine the
identity of P, F will diffuse P just in case it has constant power over the
minds in p, p, . . . pn+. Moreover, F is able to diffuse P regardless of how
much the passive principles in p, p, . . . pn+ may vary. For example, as
baby Wanda grows to adulthood, the core of her substance remains unaf-
fected in the sense that F and the dominant minds of w, w, . . . wn+ re-
main constant, but the passive principles in w, w, . . . wn+ expand. And
as those passive principles expand, so does the expanse of the power of dif-
fusion of the dominant minds, w, w, . . . wn+. But it is crucial to under-
stand that while each dominant mind of each of these substances diffuses
its passive principle, those minds are themselves diffused by their dominant

. II i . . II i –. . II i .


    , 

mind. To put it another way, there is a hierarchy of diffusion. The domi-

nant mind in Wanda diffuses the minds in w, w, . . . wn+, while each of
those minds diffuses the dominant minds in its passive principle, and so on
all the way down.
That the diffusion relation between F and P is one of causal power is clear.
But we need to know more about exactly how it works. Although there is no
explicit textual evidence in the letter to Johann Friedrich to support this
claim, there are good reasons to believe that the relation is one of Preestab-
lished Harmony. Before considering those reasons, let’s take stock. At the
beginning of this section, I said that Leibniz’s theory of panorganism of
early  posed some difficult questions. The questions were: how do the
active and passive principles in corporeal substance interact so as to form a
union, how do the mind-like substances that constitute the passive princi-
ple in the substance contribute to the unity within that collection, and how
does any state or feature of a substance result from the combination of
minds? The letter to Johann Friedrich offers answers to these questions: the
union formed between the active and passive principles in corporeal sub-
stance occurs when the former diffuses the latter; each of the mind-like
substances in the passive principle contributes to the unity of the whole by
being so diffused; and the state of a substance is the result of this diffusion
and is itself a substantial state. But an even more fundamental question
arises at this point: when the dominant mind or F in a substance S diffuses
its passive principle P, what exactly does it do? Somehow, when F acts on P,
it forms a unity with P and begins a cascade of diffusion where F diffuses
the dominant minds in the substances of P, which themselves diffuse the
dominant minds in their passive principles, and so on, in infinitum. But how?
For help with this question, let’s turn to Leibniz’s Aristotelian and Pla-
tonist assumptions. It follows from the Principle of Substantial Self-Suffi-
ciency that each of the substances in P will be causally responsible for its
own activities and states. That is, for each of the substances in P, only the
nature of the substance can be causally responsible for its actions and states.
It follows that the diffusion relation between F and the substances in P
(namely, p, p, . . . pn+) cannot be one in which F acts as an efficient cause
of the actions of any of the substances p, p, . . . pn+. In fact, the causal
dominance that F has over p, p, . . . pn+ must be such that F in no direct
way contributes to the actions of any of the substances: for each of these
substances, the nature of the substance must constitute the source of its ac-
tions or the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency is violated. But then what
sort of causation is it? How can F have causal power over P without con-
tributing directly to the actions of the substances in P?
It would appear that the diffusion relation assumes Preestablished Har-
mony. In order to ensure the self-sufficiency of each of the subordinate sub-
stances, each must have a complete ratio for all its states. In order to ensure
the proper correspondence between F and P, they must be perfectly paral-
lel. That is, each substance contains the complete ratio for all its states and,
moreover, the states of the substances correspond perfectly. In the next


 

chapter, we will consider a text that reveals a number of details about the
nature of the diffusion relation and about exactly how the union between F
and P is formed. For now, an analogy will help to explain some of the fea-
tures of the relation between F and P. Think of each dominant mind in a
substance as the conductor of an elaborate symphony orchestra. Although
the conductor has a complex score that contains instructions for each musi-
cal state, each of the musicians in the orchestra has a score that specifies ex-
actly what contribution she or he is supposed to make to that state. Although
the conductor waves the baton appropriately and in that fashion instructs
the musicians, each musician is nonetheless responsible for her or his indi-
vidual contribution and the members of the orchestra as a whole are re-
sponsible for the production of the music. Further, let’s assume that the mu-
sicians would cease to play were the conductor to stop conducting. In this
case, the conductor is responsible for the persistence of the music although
every single musical state is produced by the musicians; moreover, both the
conductor and the musicians contribute to each musical state. The diffusion
relation between F and P resembles the one described here between con-
ductor and orchestral members, except that in the diffusion relation there is
no genuine interaction. In the diffusion relation between F and P, as long as
F acts and offers instructions to the subordinate substances in P, each of
those substances will follow its own instructions. In this case, each state of
S is the result of the activity of F and the activity of p, p, . . . pn+. For
the sake of convenience, let’s offer a tentative summary of this relation:
• The (tentative) Prearranged Diffusion Relation between F and P in a sub-
stance S creates a core of substance which is constituted by F and the dom-
inant minds in P and which can be more or less expansive. The Diffusion
Relation is such that although each of the subordinate substances in P acts
out of its own nature, F emanates instructions for the activity of each of
those substances and, moreover, the activity of F and of the substances in
P is each a necessary condition and all are sufficient for any substantial
feature f of S.
An obvious question arises at this point: since there is no genuine causal
interaction between substances in a world of Preestablished Harmony, it is
not clear how F can act as a requisite for the activity of the substances in P.
In fact, F cannot be such a necessary condition unless we assume (Strong)
Parallelism. I will discuss the relation between F and P in much more
detail in the next chapter. Suffice it to say here that the perceptions of the
substances in P correspond perfectly with the instructions of F. Underlying
Leibniz’s new conception of Metaphysical Cohesion is the commitment to
a world of Emanative and Reflective Harmony where the constituents of a
substance S are in perfect correspondence. Once we assume (Strong) Paral-
lelism between F and P and once we combine Complete-Ratio Phenome-
nalism, (mid-) Reflective Harmony, and the Production Rule, we can
piece together an answer to our question. Given that F emanates its states
and given that each mind-like substantial form in p, p, . . . pn+ is con-


    , 

structed so as to reflect and contain the states of F, the Production Rule ex-
plains in what sense F is a requisite for the activity of the substances in P.
Because the proper functioning of the Production Rule of any form F de-
pends on the preceding thought or state of that form, and because the Pro-
duction Rule will cease to function if F does not have the relevant thought,
it follows that each of the substantial forms in p, p, . . . pn+ will act in the
prearranged fashion only if each perceives the relevant state of the domi-
nant mind. In brief, F acts as a necessary condition for the activity of P be-
cause the subordinate substances in P will follow their Production Rule only
if each perceives the states or instructions in F. Although there is no inter-
action between F and the subordinate substances in P and although the
complete ratio for each substantial state lies in the substance, God has con-
structed the world so harmoniously that the states of F and the states of the
subordinate substances in P correspond perfectly. Each constituent of S be-
haves as it does only because God has arranged things to parallel each other
so thoroughly.
It is important to grasp the close similarity between the account of sub-
stance offered in the letter to Johann Friedrich and the Second Theory of
Corporeal Substance, which we discovered in the texts of –early 
and articulated in chapter . The theory claims that for each corporeal sub-
stance S, whether human or non-human, the nature of S is constituted of a
passive principle P and a mind-like substantial form F, which in uncon-
scious substances is a momentary mind. Moreover, consistent with the
() Substantial Form and the (early ) Passive Principle Assump-
tions, it asserts that F is permanently attached to some P so as to produce
an organization with it. Leibniz’s proposals in the May  letter are con-
sistent with this account. According to both accounts, F is permanently
rooted in a body on which it acts to produce an organization. By May ,
the permanent connection between F and P has become the core of the sub-
stance, and, on my interpretation, the relation between F and P has become
one of Prearranged Diffusion.

Eucharist, core of substance, and Prearranged Diffusion

The other text of the period that contains evidence of Preestablished Har-
mony is also a letter that discusses a theological topic. This time, the theo-
logical problem is that of the Eucharist and the letter is to Arnauld. There
are two important points to make about the theological proposals in this text
of November . First, Leibniz explains to Arnauld that his work in
physics led him “to the science of mind” and to the insight that the “true
locus of our mind is a certain point or [seu] center.”63 In the texts of the pe-
riod, Leibniz emphasizes the importance of putting mind or substance in
an unextended place. There are good reasons to believe that both in the let-
ter to Arnauld and in the other texts in the period, when Leibniz refers to

. II i : L ; my emphasis.


 

“the locus of our mind” or “the center” of the substance, he has in mind the
core of substance. Throughout the period, Leibniz makes grand claims
about the great theological importance of his account of substance and
mind, and he often asserts that the account allows him a neat explanation
for immortality. As Arnauld and Leibniz’s other correspondents would have
known, it was standard for philosophers in the seventeenth century to ar-
gue for the immortality of the soul based on its lack of extension.64 It seems
unlikely that Leibniz would have claimed innovation for such a well-used
argument. Therefore, it is probable that the argument for immortality that
he claimed to be innovative is not one based on the indestructibility of a
non-extended mind, but rather on the indestructibility and subtlety of the
core of substance. It is on the basis of such hypotheses, Leibniz says, that
he plans to defend “the mysteries of Trinity, Incarnation, Predestination,
and the Eucharist.”65
The second point to emphasize about the theological proposals in Leib-
niz’s letter to Arnauld is the new sophistication of his account of the Eu-
charist. I now want to display the subtlety of Leibniz’s position and show
that it assumes (Strong) Parallelism, Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, and
the Prearranged Diffusion Relation. Two questions were left unanswered in
our discussion of the letter to Arnauld in section  of chapter : how exactly
does the body of Christ become present in the bread, and how does Leib-
niz’s answer to that question entail transubstantiation? We are now prepared
to give answers to these questions. Let’s reconsider a passage, part of which
we saw in chapter :
For I will also show what no one has previously thought, [namely,] that in the ulti-
mate analysis Transubstantiation and real multipresence do not differ; that a body is
not able to be in many places except when its substance is understood under diverse
appearances. For only substance is not subject to its extension and consequently (as
it will be shown distinctly that where a thing is, is explained by the substance of the
body) to the conditions of place. And consequently Transubstantiation, as most
cautiously expressed in the phrase by the Council of Trent, and [which] has been il-
lustrated by me based on D. Thomas, does not contradict the Augsburg Confession;
indeed it follows from it.66
In this difficult passage, Leibniz boasts that he will offer a never-before-
seen explanation of how the same body can be in different places at the same
time and that he will show how transubstantiation and real presence reduce

. For example, Kenelm Digby had offered an extended version of such an argument in his
Two Treatises. Although Leibniz thought well of Digby, he criticizes Digby’s proposals
about mind. See II i .
. II i : L .
. II i . The Latin in the crucial part of the passage is: Nam hoc quoque ostendetur . . .
nec corpus aliter in multis locis dissitis esse posse, quam ut substantia sua sub diversis
speciebus intelligatur. Sola enim substantia eius extensioni ac proinde (ut distincte osten-
detur ubi quod hoc rei sit, substantia corporis, explicabitur) loci conditionibus subiecta
non est. . . .


    , 

to the same thing. Whereas the goal of Leibniz’s essay, On transubstantia-

tion, was to explain the multipresence of the same substance, the point in
the letter to Arnauld is to offer an account of the multipresence of the same
body. Leibniz’s explanation of the multipresence of the body of Christ de-
pends on a distinction between the apparent and real body and on the newly
developed details in his account of substance. There are two main parts of
his explanation. The first concerns the real change that underlies the Eu-
charistic transfer. Leibniz has constructed the core of substance and devised
the Diffusion Relation so that the core of a substance S is present wherever
the Diffusion Relation between the core of S and any collection of sub-
stances occurs. That is, following the Prearranged Diffusion Relation, S will
be present in a collection of substances R just in case the core of S contains
the instructions for the activity of the substances that constitute R. In other
words, the core of S (which consists of the F of S and the dominant minds
of the substances in P) will diffuse a collection of substances R (which then
become the subordinate substances of P) just in case the activity of those
(subordinate) substances depends in the relevant way on the instructions in
the core of S. Since there is no genuine causal interaction between S and R
and since the dependence of R on S reduces to (Strong) Parallelism, the core
of Christ can diffuse a number of diverse collections of substances at the
same time. As Leibniz suggests in the quoted passage, because neither the
substance nor the body of Christ is subject “to the conditions of place” and
because “where a thing is, will be explained by the substance of the body,”
the body of Christ (i.e., its core, which contains the dominant minds of its
body) can be in many different places at the same time. Since the core of
Christ will be present wherever there is a collection of substances which act
according to the instructions in the core, the substance and body of Christ
can be present simultaneously in Rome and in Augsburg.
But Leibniz’s explanation of multipresence gives rise to a problem. Both
the church goers in Augsburg and the participants of the Roman mass will
want to know how this metaphysical hocus pocus has anything to do with
the bread they taste and the wine they drink. Their eating and drinking will
not have the proper religious significance unless there is a direct correspon-
dence between the phenomenal experience and the underlying body and
blood of Christ. Here the difficulty is to explain exactly how the core of the
body of Christ relates to the apparent bread. This brings us to the second
main part of Leibniz’s new account of the Eucharist, which depends on
Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism and (Strong) Parallelism. As suggested in
the quoted passage, although the phenomenal body is subject to extension,
the underlying reality is not. According to Leibniz, his explanation of “mul-
tipresence” depends on the fact that “the substance of a body” can be “un-
der” diverse appearances. But how? Let’s return to the passage from the let-
ter to Arnauld that was quoted in section . According to Leibniz, “the
substantial form differs from the qualities” of a substance like “the true na-
ture [figura] of a city, when seen from a tower in its midst, [differs] from the
infinite variations which appear” when the town “is seen” from “an area on


 

the outside” of the town.67 In order to solve our problem, we need to ex-
plain exactly how the same body can be “under” infinitely diverse appear-
ances and yet be related to them. In a passage quoted in section  of chap-
ter  Leibniz offers some help. After explaining to Arnauld that the solution
to the problem of the Eucharist depended on his realization that the nature
of body just is its principle of motion or activity, Leibniz writes:
Not until then was it most clearly apparent how substance differed from appearances
and in particular that there is a ratio in terms of which God is able to be understood
clearly and distinctly to bring it about that the substance of the same body is in many
different places or, what is the same thing, under many appearances [sub multis
speciebus].68
In the last section, we saw that according to Leibniz in On endeavor and mo-
tion, perceiving and thinking: “There is a ratio why something is, [namely,]
because it already is; or because there is a principle of harmony.”69 As I in-
terpreted this claim, for each mind, there is a complete ratio for all its per-
ceptions, and moreover, the ratio is in perfect coordination with every other
in that it is consistent with Emanative Harmony. Within this context, the
quoted passage can be interpreted as follows. God has constructed things so
that the substance of Christ and the participants in the mass thoroughly cor-
respond. The experience of each participant is in perfect harmony with the
activities of the core of Christ.
In fact, (Strong) Parallelism, Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, and the
Prearranged Diffusion Relation seem perfectly constructed both to solve the
metaphysical difficulties posed by the Eucharistic transfer and to capture its
religious significance: the substance and body of Christ are present wher-
ever his core is present; the core is present when it is in a Diffusion Relation
with the relevant subordinate substances in the bread; and the experience of
the faithful perfectly parallels the reality of the underlying changes. Al-
though the underlying metaphysics is complicated, the genius of Leibniz’s
solution is clear. The demands of transubstantiation and real presence are
satisfied with equal ease: consistent with Lutheran and Catholic doctrine,
the bread keeps its body or passive principle and all its appearances while
being “joined” by the substance and the body of Christ. By such means,
Leibniz hopes to bring Lutherans and Catholics more closely together.70
In an essay written a few years later, Leibniz is explicit about the advan-
tage that his account of the Eucharist has over that of other mechanical
philosophers and about the crucial role that the active principle or sub-
stantial form plays in his account. In this important text, which is entitled
On the true method in philosophy and theology and which I discussed briefly
in section  of chapter , Leibniz criticizes the ineptness of the mechanists
in treating such theological difficulties, and then reveals the exact source of

. II i . . II i . . VI ii .

. I do not mean to suggest that Leibniz’s solution would have convinced members of either
faith. His solution apparently did not convince Arnauld, who was not even impressed
enough to respond.


    , 

his own success: because he has grasped the proper role of “what the
scholastics called . . . substantial form,” he has been able to “illuminate Nat-
ural Theology and the mysteries of faith.” He writes in this essay of –:
The result [of his analysis] is that . . . neither the same body in several places nor . . .
several bodies in the same place contains anything contradictory . . . ; all [theologi-
cal] fallacies can be avoided once the true and inevitable concept of substance is un-
derstood. Of what great significance these theorems are for the firm foundations of
religious faith and for peace among the churches, those who have understood will
appreciate.71
For the sake of clarity, let’s summarize some of the most important conclu-
sions of this section, all of which concern “the true and inevitable concept
of substance.” In chapters , , and , I presented (and sometimes revised)
the metaphysical tenets discovered in the texts of –. It is noteworthy
that each of the new ideas that we have discovered in the works of May –
November  is merely a revised version of one of those original meta-
physical tenets.72 What is new in the second half of  is the Prearranged
Diffusion Relation and the clarity of the relation between the active and
passive principles in a corporeal substance. That the relation stands at the
center of Leibniz’s revised account of substance is clear. It is important to
understand that this account is both similar to the Second Theory of Cor-
poreal Substance (articulated in chapter ) and a significant break with it.
While the mid- version has exactly the same structure as the earlier one,
it denies intrasubstantial causation and assumes that the infinite panorganic
constituents which it contains are related by Preestablished Harmony. In
other words, the mid- account of substance is both a revised version of
the earlier conception and the original articulation of Leibniz’s mature no-
tion of corporeal substance. While acknowledging its roots in the past, let’s
call the revised version the Theory of Corporeal Substance.
• The (mid-) Theory of Corporeal Substance maintains that for each
corporeal substance S, whether human or non-human, the nature of S is
constituted of a mind-like substantial form F and a passive principle P,
where F and P have a Prearranged Diffusion Relation with one another.
For the nature of P, see the (early-) Passive Principle Assumption in
chapter .
• The (mid-) Substantial Form Assumption claims that, for every mind-
like substantial form F in a corporeal substance S, F acts constantly
through emanation and therefore can neither be created nor destroyed by
anything other than God; F contains the (selected) divine essence and a
Production Rule where the latter specifies how F will emanate the former;
F emanates its states which are its thoughts and which are the ontological
correlates of the predicates in the complete concept of S; F is permanently
rooted in its passive principle P with which it forms a core of substance,

. VI iii –: W –.

. For the earlier versions, see the Appendix, Part II, chs. , , and .


 

where the relation between F and P is one of Prearranged Diffusion and

where the unity is indissoluble.
• The () Prearranged Diffusion Relation between F and P in a substance
S creates a core of substance which is constituted by F and the dominant
minds in P and which can be more or less expansive. The Diffusion Rela-
tion is such that, although each of the subordinate substances in P acts out
of its own nature, F emanates instructions for the activity of each of those
substances and each perceives its instructions; moreover, the activity of F
and of the substances in P is each a necessary condition and all are suffi-
cient for any substantial feature f of S. The Diffusion Relation assumes
Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, the Complete Ratio Theory of Sub-
stance, and (Strong) Parallelism.
• (Mid-) (Strong) Parallelism is the view that the constituents of a sub-
stance S are in perfect correspondence with one another.

. Preestablished Harmony and the Principle

of Sufficient Reason
In early , Leibniz was on the threshold of his mature philosophy. In the
essays and letters written between May  and the end of the year, there
is evidence that he was prepared to use each of the sub-theses of Preestab-
lished Harmony to solve specific theological, epistemological, and meta-
physical problems. Neither Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism nor the Com-
plete-Ratio Theory of Substance nor (Strong) Parallelism popped
full-grown from his head. Rather, these doctrines developed piecemeal out
of his original Platonist and Aristotelian assumptions as the best solutions
to the problems left unsolved in the spring of .
The evidence for Preestablished Harmony in sections  and  has been
mostly circumstantial. None of the texts analyzed is either clear or com-
plete. The notes are a hodgepodge of reflections and reformulations, and
even the letters cannot stand on their own. For example, in the letter to Jo-
hann Friedrich on resurrection and related topics, Leibniz makes some baf-
fling remarks about substance; he presents some equally abstruse comments
about the Eucharist in a letter to Arnauld. Because neither of these letters
is explicit about Leibniz’s underlying assumptions, it is not surprising that
scholars have discarded such texts as “provisional” juvenilia.73 What I have
attempted to show in this chapter is that when we place these writings in
their appropriate philosophical and textual circumstance, we are able to see
Leibniz struggling to formulate his original version of Preestablished Har-
mony. To be precise, I do not intend that any single text be used as evidence
to stand on its own as proof of Preestablished Harmony. In each case, the
text is too obscure and its doctrines too underdeveloped. But I do propose
that when we take seriously the problems that most interested Leibniz dur-
ing the period, make a close comparison of the texts with one another, and

. Beeley, “A Response,” .


    , 

apply the full weight of the Metaphysics of Substance and Metaphysics of

Divinity to these writings, they give us good reason to believe that Leibniz
had invented all the sub-theses of Preestablished Harmony by the summer
and autumn of .
In his mature writings, Leibniz constantly emphasizes the importance of
the Principle of Sufficient Reason to his philosophy. He frequently de-
scribes it, along with the principle of contradiction, as one of his “two great
principles.”74 In , although the Principle of Sufficient Reason has not
yet acquired its prominence among his assumptions, Leibniz begins to take
it more seriously as a central tenet in his thought. I would like to speculate
now that as Leibniz began to rethink the details of his philosophy in an at-
tempt to solve the problems that he faced in early , he became more in-
clined to see the Principle of Sufficient Reason as a means to resolve these
difficulties. Let me explain. According to my account of Leibniz’s philo-
sophical development, there were two prominent difficulties to overcome in
early . First, because he had transformed the passive principle in na-
ture into collections of mind-like substances, he had to conceive a way to
make such substances interrelated. The conjunction of (Strong) Parallelism
and the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance provides such a conception.
Second, because he had come to see that there was not a tidy causal story to
tell about the relation between the real objects in the world and our experi-
ence of them, he was keen to construct a sufficient cause of the sensory phe-
nomena. Both of these solutions promote the importance of the Principle
of Sufficient Reason in that each makes the individual substance the suffi-
cient reason for all its states and features.
Let’s briefly consider the place of the Principle of Sufficient Reason in
Leibniz’s thought in . At the end of chapter , I noted a tension be-
tween the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Principle of Causal Self-
Sufficiency. While Leibniz was committed to the Principle of Sufficient
Reason and the fact that for every substantial feature f of a substance S,
there was a complete ratio, he was not ready to assert that the complete ra-
tio had to exist in the nature of S. That is, he was not ready to accept the
Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance. A problem arose because, following
the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, if the complete ratio for every f of
S was not contained in S, then f could not be said strictly to belong to S. In
the discussion of Leibniz’s Emanative Creation Story in chapter , I noted
that it was possible to hold the Principle of Sufficient Reason, to assign a
complete concept to every substance and yet to think that substances
causally interact. But I also noted that the coherence of this position de-
pended on the perfect coordination among substances. That is, there could
be a complete concept for every substance, although each interacts causally
with others, just in case the set of instructions that God gave each substance
was in perfect coordination with the instructions given all the other sub-
stances with which it corresponds. In this case, each substance could act out

. For example, see G VI , –, ; G VII .


 

its set of instructions and yet interact with other substances. To make the
point another way, the complete concept will apply to the substance (that is,
the predicates contained in it will be truly predicated of the substance) if
and only if the instructions in that substance are perfectly parallel to the in-
structions in all the substances with which it interacts. Nor did the devel-
opment of the Second Theory of Corporeal Substance in  change any
of this. Although the active principle in the corporeal substance was radi-
cally transformed in , Leibniz continued to accept the Principle of Suf-
ficient Reason, the completeness of the concept of every substance, inter-
substantial causation, and (Weak) Parallelism among substances. To make
the point dramatically, prior to mid-, although Leibniz was committed
to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, he was not prepared to make each cor-
poreal substance the sufficient reason for all its features; in the second half
of the year, he was.
Leibniz’s views about the activity of mind went through a similar revi-
sion between early and late . In , he defines the thinking of con-
scious minds in terms of a harmony of endeavors. As explained in section
 of chapter , the difference between conscious and unconscious minds is
that the endeavors of the former persist so as to form a harmony. Accord-
ing to Leibniz, the thinking of conscious minds consists in this harmony.
Moreover, as noted in section  of chapter , Leibniz articulates a theory of
Reflective Harmony in  according to which each human mind reflects
all the others. For our purposes here, it is especially important that prior to
, Leibniz is almost silent about the close unity among non-human sub-
stances. That is, he does not extend the Platonist views about universal sym-
pathy and Reflective Harmony to all substances. There are no texts that at-
tribute Reflective Harmony to non-human substances, nor are there any
that discuss the sympathy among creatures. In fact, except for his notes on
Bisterfeld, Leibniz’s comments about sympathy are restricted to the use of
the notion in medical and chemical contexts.75 As interesting as these com-
ments are, they do not apply to the interrelations among all creatures. By
the second half of , however, the activity of substances has shifted and
expanded. There are three noticeable changes: the activity of minds is now
primarily described in terms of “action on itself,” minds are suddenly sup-
posed to perceive harmony, and a version of Reflective Harmony has been
extended to all substances. The point that I want to emphasize here is that
at the center of these changes stands the Principle of Sufficient Reason. By
the end of , each mind contains the sufficient reason for all its activi-
ties, perceptions, and states.
As evidence for the new status that the Principle of Sufficient Reason had
for Leibniz at that time, I offer a note entitled Demonstration of first propo-
sitions. In this essay, which was written between the autumn of  and
early , Leibniz discusses some of his first truths and then offers demon-
strations of them. We find Leibniz’s first reference to the Principle of Suf-

. See VI i .


    , 

ficient Reason as a primary principle, his first use of “sufficient” in de-

scribing it, and his first demonstration of it. He writes:
There is nothing without a ratio, or [seu] everything that is has a sufficient ratio.
Definition : A sufficient ratio is that which having been given the thing is.
Definition : A requisite is that which having not been given the thing is not.
Demonstration: Everything that is has all its requisites. For when one requisite has
not been given, the thing is not (by def. ). When all requisites have been given, the
thing is. For if the thing is not, then something will be absent by which it is less, that
is, the requisite. Therefore all the Requisites are the sufficient reason (by def. ).
Consequently, everything that is has a sufficient ratio. Q.E.D.
For every created thing, whether a substance or a state of substance, it has
a set of necessary and sufficient conditions. In other words, “[t]here is noth-
ing without a ratio, or everything that is has a sufficient ratio.”76
It is noteworthy that there is neither causal language nor any reference to
activity in Leibniz’s original argument for the Principle of Sufficient Rea-
son. The entire argument is presented in terms of the necessary and suffi-
cient conditions for the existence of something. In section , we discovered
Leibniz’s Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism in an essay entitled On endeavor
and motion, perceiving and thinking. According to Leibniz there, for exam-
ple, “Whatever exists is perceived,”77 where the idea seems to be that there
are two sorts of things in the created world: those that perceive and those
that are perceived. If we apply this ontology to Leibniz’s demonstration of
the Principle of Sufficient Reason, it would seem to follow that for every-
thing in the world that is perceived, there is a sufficient reason for it and
moreover, that the sufficient reason must be in the perceiving thing. If we
place this conclusion within the context of Leibniz’s Emanative Harmony
in general and his Emanative Creation Story in particular, then it would fol-
low that for every thing that perceives, there is a sufficient reason for it and,
moreover, the sufficient reason must be in God. Once the Principle of Suf-
ficient Reason is applied to the products of the active principle in nature,
the two-level emanative hierarchy noted in section  follows easily.
As a conclusion to these comments about the role of the Principle of Suf-
ficient Reason in Leibniz’s philosophy in , I want to note what a re-
markably small step it was from his original metaphysics to Preestablished
Harmony: the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance amounts to the appli-
cation of Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency to all substantial features,
while the (Strong) Parallelism discovered here is itself closely related to
Leibniz’s original understanding of Emanative and Reflective Harmony. In
brief, Leibniz’s original assumptions contain all the necessary materials for
Preestablished Harmony. When Leibniz brought the full force of his Aris-
totelian and Platonist assumptions to bear on the problems that most con-
cerned him, he seems to have chosen to solve those problems by placing the
sufficient reason for every state and activity of a substance in the substance

. VI ii . . VI ii .


 

itself and by making the totality of substances a perfectly harmonious em-

anation of God.
In summary, none of the texts that I have discussed in this chapter con-
tains hard evidence of Preestablished Harmony. If there were clear and ex-
plicit evidence, then scholars would have noticed the development of the
doctrine long ago. But when a thorough survey of the writings of  is
made within the context of the sundry problems that concerned Leibniz
during the period, and when we place the discussion of those problems
against the background of his Metaphysics of Substance and Metaphysics
of Divinity, the result is an impressive amount of evidence for the conclu-
sion that, by the second half of , Leibniz had invented his original ver-
sion of Preestablished Harmony.


 9
Preestablished Harmony, late  – early 

Sometime between the middle of  and his departure for Paris in March
, Leibniz took notes on a book written by the English philosopher, John
Wilkins. The book, entitled Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosoph-
ical Language, is a hodgepodge of various topics concerning language, with
a final section on the universal characteristic. As the title page announces, the
author is Dean of Ripon and a member of the Royal Society; in his book, he
intends to give a “general Scheme of things.” The notes that Leibniz took
on the book and that the Academy editors have entitled Studies on the uni-
versal characteristic bear little resemblance to anything in Wilkins’ text. Al-
though Leibniz accepts the classification scheme used in the first chapter of
the Essay,1 his proposals have nothing else in common with those of its au-
thor. Whereas Wilkins begins by defining ‘Genus’ and ‘Species,’ Leibniz be-
gins with ‘Something (Aliquid)’ and ‘Nothing (Nihil).’ Whereas the former
offers lists of synonyms and only the briefest of explications, the latter gives
relatively carefully wrought definitions. Nor do the proposals in the remain-
der of Wilkins’ book bear any similarity to those of Leibniz. The claims in
Leibniz’s notes are entirely his own and owe nothing to Wilkins.
The definitions in the Studies on the universal characteristic are important:
they offer a fascinating survey of Leibniz’s metaphysics at a crucial point in
his philosophical development; they imply a commitment to Preestablished
Harmony, and they suggest an elaborate metaphysics based on that com-
mitment.2 In this chapter, section  contains a brief commentary on the
most important of the definitions in the Studies on the universal characteris-
tic, while section  offers speculations on the metaphysical implications of
these proposals. In section , there is a discussion of why Leibniz was not
more explicit about his dramatic metaphysical doctrines in the months be-
fore his departure for Paris.

. Studies on the universal characteristic

The text of the Studies on the universal characteristic consists of more than
a hundred definitions that cover a variety of areas and that define somewhat
mundane terms like ‘augmentation,’ ‘reparation,’ and ‘judge.’ For our pur-

. Nor is this scheme highly original. Wilkins’ section headings are General Notions, Differen-
tiae, Modes, and so on.
. It is striking that none of the recent studies of Leibniz’s thought, even those that analyze


 

poses here, I have gathered together the definitions and related marginal
comments of nineteen of these.3 For the sake of convenience, these have
been numbered and placed in an order that makes their interrelations as per-
spicuous as possible. In other words, among the many proposals that are or-
ganized under several separate headings, I have culled and arranged those
that deal with metaphysical topics. These are worth an in-depth analysis.
Because much of the terminology in Leibniz’s definitions is unfamiliar and
because my strategy is to unpack only the most obvious implications of his
proposals, the definitional dissection in this section will be rough going. In
the next section, however, I will use the results of this analysis both to an-
swer the questions that surround the definitions and to construct the dra-
matic details of Leibniz’s original theory of Preestablished Harmony.
It is striking that Leibniz begins this long list of definitions with a dis-
tinction between something and nothing,4 and very quickly turns to the def-
inition of existence:
[] “An Existent Thing is the distinct sensibility of something.” In the margin, Leib-
niz adds: “that is, an Existing Thing is what is able to be sensed or perceived distinctly
. . . in much the same way that Being is able to be conceived distinctly.”5
Leibniz appears to distinguish here between being and existence, where the
former concerns what is conceivable and the latter concerns what is sensi-
ble. Within this context, he offers two different ways of defining substance:
[] “A substance is something of which there is either action or passion. Or rather: it
is whatever is thought absolutely and completely.”6
In chapter , section , I attributed to Leibniz the Emanative Creation
Story, which I summarized in five parts.7 In brief, the second part claims

Leibniz’s early works, pays any attention to the definitions listed here (see e.g. Wilson, Leib-
niz; Adams, Leibniz; Beeley, Kontinuität und Mechanismus). Nor, as far as I know, do any
earlier studies.
. According to the Academy editors, the marginal notes on this text date from the same pe-
riod as the text itself, except for a few which may have been added later and which they mark
as such (as do I here). See VI ii .
. I ignore some interesting material here. But part of Leibniz’s account of the difference be-
tween something and nothing on the one hand and the real and apparent on the other is
worth quoting. He writes: “Something is whatever can be thought. Nothing is whatever can
be named, but cannot be thought,” that is, where there is “a name without a thing.” In the
margin, he adds: “If A is B or C or D, and so on, then it is called Something. . . , if N is not
A and N is not B and N is not C and so on, then N is said to be Nothing. . . .” Among the
things that can be thought, some are “merely apparent” and some are not. “The real is what
is not merely apparent,” while “[t]he apparent is that of which the sensibility is not distinct.”
. VI ii . For the sake of simplicity, I want to avoid a discussion of Leibniz’s notion of dis-
tinctness here, and so I have omitted part of the definition in my translation. However, the
entire definition as it appears in the Academy edition is: (Existentia) est alicuius sensibili-
tas distincta seu Existens est, quod distincte sentiri sive percipi potest[,] distincte id est ad-
hibitis distinctis conceptibus quemadmodum Ens est quod distincte concipi potest.
. VI ii . The Latin is: Substantia est cuius aliqua actio vel passio est. An potius: quicquid
cogitatur absolute sive complete.
. For a summary, see the Appendix. Part II. ch. .


  ,  – 

that for every created substance, there is a complete concept, while the third
part attributes the ontological correlate of the concept to the substantial
form of the substance. That is, the second part treats the conceived essence
of the individual substance and the third concerns the existing active na-
ture. Similarly, definition [] contains an account both of the concept and
of the active thing. Leibniz offers no details in his notes on Wilkins’ text,
but against the background set in chapter  it is reasonable to assume that it
is the complete concept that is absolutely and completely thought. But what
about substance as the active thing in nature? The suggestion of the first
claim in [] is that each state of substance is either an action or a passion.
Leibniz asserts in some marginal notes that “passion is variation which by
its nature diminishes perfection” from which it is supposed to follow that
God is the only substance that does not participate in passivity. Accordingly,
[] “there is an uniquely active thing, namely, God.”8
Among the substances in the world, only God lacks passivity and imper-
fection. That is, God is the only substance that merely acts and never suf-
fers. Given Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance, this suggests that only
God does not contain a passive principle. By such means, Leibniz confirms
one of the claims in the (early ) Passive Principle Assumption as well
as in the (mid-) Substantial Form Assumption, namely, that every cre-
ated active principle is attached to a passive principle.
In Studies on the universal characteristic, Leibniz suggests that the perfec-
tion of a substance is intimately related to whether it acts or suffers.9 But
how? Leibniz defines action and passion:
[] “An action is a state of one thing that a change in another follows,” while “a Pas-
sion is the change itself.” In marginal notes Leibniz says: action “is the conservation
or the increase of the perfection of the thing or rather it is variation that occurs with
the perfection perserved,” while “passion is variation that by its nature diminishes
perfection.”10
The implications of definitions [], [], and [] are important. One of the
claims of the Supreme Being Assumption is that each of the features of
unity, self-sufficiency, perfection, and reality is a function of the other. Leib-
niz is explicit here about the close relation between the perfection of a sub-
stance and its activity. The suggestion is that the Supreme Being is the only
purely active substance because it is the only perfect substance. All other
substances partake in imperfection, which is rooted in passivity and is some-
how the opposite of activity. The definitions also suggest that the single
most important feature of a substance is its level of perfection, that its level
of perfection can fluctuate from moment to moment, and moreover that
those fluctuations are (somehow) related to whether the substance is active
or passive. That is, the perfection of a created substance is variable and the
degree of its perfection is somehow related to its degree of activity and pas-

. VI ii . . See VI ii . . VI ii .


 

sivity. Confirmation of the close relation between perfection on the one

hand and activity and passivity on the other occurs in a passage from the
sixth note from the Elements of natural law, which we quoted in section  of
chapter :
To have real knowledge is to know what things are able to act or to suffer. . . . [N]o
one is able to have real knowledge of a single thing, unless he is most wise, that is
[seu], has real universal knowledge. What it is to have real knowledge, what is called
in Latin intelligere, is to read the inner natures.11
Placing the interpretation of this passage offered in chapter  next to defi-
nitions [], [], and [], something like the following emerges. The essence
of the Supreme Being constitutes the inner nature of every substance, and
this is what we know when we know that nature. However, the divine essence
in each substance is able to be instantiated more or less clearly, and the clar-
ity of the instantiation of a substance is related to its perfection, which it-
self is related to its activity and passivity. Among other things, it follows that
to know the nature of an individual thing is to know its perfection and hence
whether it is “able to act or suffer.” We have here a position that looks very
much like a combination of the Supreme Being Assumption and the Crea-
turely Inferiority Complex: each individual substance, as an inferior in-
stantiation of the divine essence, can express or instantiate that essence
more or less clearly and, moreover, in some yet unspecified way, its level of
perfection and clarity is related to its activity and passivity.
But how? Within the context just set, definition [] suggests one of the
most importants points in Leibniz’s Studies on the universal characteristic,
namely, that the actions and passions of a substance ultimately reduce to
fluctuations in the clarity of its instantiation of the divine essence. That is,
for any substance S, its actions and passions are entirely explicable in terms
of shifts in the clarity of its instantiation of the (selected) divine essence.
For help with this idea, let’s return to the analogy of propositions in a story.
If we think of the divine essence instantiated in the world as a set of propo-
sitions in a story that may be translated into different languages and if we
think of each substance as a translation of the story in some language, then
it makes sense to evaluate the relative clarity of a translation. While each
translation is a rendering of the story, some versions will catch its nuances
and some will not. Further, let’s suppose that there can be radical differ-
ences in the clarity of translations so that the clearest will be very clear and
the least clear will be very obscure. Let’s assume also that the sentences
within a translation will vary in clarity so that one sentence will render its
corresponding proposition very accurately while another sentence in the
same story will render its proposition less accurately. In this case, each sen-
tence can be judged both objectively (where the question is: how clear is it
really?) and relative to other sentences in the same story (where the ques-
tion is: how clear is it relative to the others?). It would follow that the least

. VI i . For the Latin, see ch. , n. .


  ,  – 

clear sentence in one translation could be clearer than any of the sentences
in another translation. For example, if we assume that the Norwegian ver-
sion is a clear translation of the story while the English is entirely unclear,
then it is possible for the least clear of the Norwegian sentences to be much
clearer than the clearest of the English ones. Following this analogy, each
substance is like a translation in that it is a more or less clear rendering of
the divine essence; and moreover, each state of a substance is like a sentence
in the story in that it is a more or less clear instantiation of that aspect of the
divine essence. Like the translation of the story, the perfection of the sub-
stance will be determined by its overall clarity. But also like the translation,
the perfection of the substance will vary: in the same way that each sentence
can be more or less clear relative to others in the same story, so can each state
of a substance be more or less perfect compared with other states. Further-
more, like the translations, the substances might differ radically in clarity or
perfection, so that a substantial state that is unclear relative to other states
of its substance might still be clearer than any of the states in another sub-
stance.
In order to make explicit another point about the perfection of sub-
stances, let’s push the analogy a bit and pretend that clarity is less vague a
predicate than it is. Let’s suppose that, for each sentence, it is possible to
categorize it as definitely in the clear range or not. In this case, each sen-
tence falls either in the clear or in the unclear category, although in each cat-
egory there are degrees. Following this idea, each state of a substance falls
either in the acting or suffering category. The implication is that the per-
fection of each state is a function of its level of clarity, whereas the perfec-
tion of the substance overall is a function of the level of clarity of each of
its states. But there is an important disanalogy between the sentences of a
translation and the states of a substance. Whereas the level of clarity of the
sentences in a story would not (in any obvious way) be dependent on one
another, definitions [] and [] imply that the states of a substance are so
dependent. That is, for every state f of a substance, the perfection of f will
depend both on the level of perfection of the previous state and on whether
f is an active or passive state. So, for a substance S with a state f, the
degree of perfection of its next state, f, will depend (at least) on the per-
fection of f and whether or not f is a state of acting or suffering. We will
return to some of these points later.
Besides divulging some of Leibniz’s ideas about the relation between per-
fection, clarity, activity, and passivity, definitions [], [], and [] are also im-
portant because they suggest a number of details about how the correspon-
dence relation between corporeal substances is supposed to work. In other
words, these definitions in the Studies on the universal characteristic go well
beyond the textual materials discussed in the last chapter. They describe
how the states of a corporeal substance S might be understood to parallel
those of a substance S without there being any real causal interaction be-
tween S and S. The definitions are explicit about the following. Each sub-
stance is capable of acting and suffering. An action in S is a state of S that


 

is followed by a change in S, which is (as will be clear below) also a state.
There is no mention of direct causal interaction. Rather, S and S are con-
structed so that their states correspond to one another, where the corre-
spondence relation is explained entirely in terms of degrees of perfection.
But some questions arise. According to the Principle of Substantial Ac-
tivity, anything that has a principle of activity is itself a substance and there-
fore the dominant mind or substantial form F in S is a substance. In this
case definitions [], [], and [] would seem to imply that F by itself is able
to act and suffer and to have states as well as a level of perfection. How are
we to understand these features of the substantial form or dominant mind
in a corporeal substance? The next definitions offer some help.
[] “A state is an aggregate of accidents or [seu] contingent predicates.”12
[] “An accident is a mode of substance by which it can be thought.”13
[] “A mode is a state of change or [seu] of action or passion.”14
[] “A quality is a mode by which a thing is thought changeable or [seu] is able to act
and to suffer [pati]. It is that by which a thing is thought not in relation to sense, but
to intellect.”15 In a marginal note, Leibniz adds: “There is a principle of things that
concerns change or Quality, [namely], nothing exists [esse] without a ratio.”16
It is impossible to explicate the precise interrelations among these provoca-
tive definitions since their key notions are defined in terms of each other.17
Yet, as a group, they say a good deal about Leibniz’s general approach to
causation and change. They suggest that in the period of late  to early
, he is interested in constructing a logical conception of substance.
More precisely, he is interested in defining substance as what is in theory
intelligible and as what contains the necessary and sufficient conditions for
all its states or features, whether active or passive. In section  of chapter ,
I discussed an essay entitled Demonstration of first propositions, which was
also written between the autumn of  and early , which contains
Leibniz’s first demonstration of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and
which suggests that a substance contains the necessary and sufficient con-
ditions for all its states. One of the striking things about Leibniz’s argument
for the Principle of Sufficient Reason in that essay is that there is neither
causal language nor any reference to activity. The entire argument is pre-

. VI ii 
. VI ii . In the text, Leibniz offers an account of substance and then describes accident,
quantity, and quality in terms of mode, where the idea clearly is that they are modifica-
tions of substance. We have to wait for several pages until he defines ‘mode.’ In an attempt
to make more perspicuous the exact relations among these definitions, I have put them in
their present order.
. VI ii 
. VI ii . Leibniz went on to add ‘imagination’ to ‘intellect’ here.
. VI ii . Leibniz’s account of quality here parallels his definition of quantity, which is
my definition [].
. That is, a state is defined in terms of accident, which is defined in terms of a mode, which
is defined in terms of a state. Nor do the other parts of the text offer an easy escape from
this circle. As I will argue, however, there is a coherent metaphysics that underlies these
definitions.


  ,  – 

sented in terms of the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence
of something. In chapter , I claimed that the conjunction of the Complete-
Ratio Theory of Substance and the Logical and Intelligibility Assumptions
entails that, for every state of a substance S, one could in theory articulate
and understand the necessary and sufficient conditions of that state and,
moreover that those conditions are in the nature of the substance. This is
one of the assumptions of the Studies on the universal characteristic.
Despite their genuine imprecision, definitions []-[] also offer a rough
sketch of substantial change. Since it would be helpful to simplify our ter-
minology and since it is evident that the states, modes, and accidents all be-
long to and exist in S, let’s refer to all of these as states of S.18 The general
picture seems to be that each action and passion of a substance S, whether
S is a substantial form or corporeal substance, constitutes a change in S and
can be thought. Definition [] implies that a quality somehow underlies the
changes in a corporeal substance, and the general suggestion is that the
changes in a corporeal substance are somehow caused or produced by some-
thing internal to the substance. Other definitions help to fill in the details.
[] [a] “Form is the principle of qualities or of changeables [seu mutabilium].”19
[b] “Form is the aggregate of requisite sufficient qualities.”20
It is important that in [][a], Leibniz first wrote that form is “the aggregate
of qualities” but then scribbled ‘principle’ above ‘aggregate.’ Later in the
text, he proposes [][b]. He also offers a two-part account of essence. The
first part appears in the text alongside [], while the second appears in the
text with [][b]:
[] “An essence is the distinct thinkability of something;”21 “Essence is the aggre-
gate of requisite predicates.”22
In spite of the unclarity about the exact relation between a mode, a state, a
quality, and an accident, we can construct a fairly precise story about the pro-
duction of the states of a corporeal substance. Leibniz insists in definition []
that “there is a principle of things that concerns change or Quality,” namely,
that “nothing is without a ratio.” He asserts in definition [] that qualities are
“changeables” and, moreover, that the form is the principle of such change-
ables. The fact that Leibniz corrected himself in definition [] [a] and insisted
that the form is the principle and not the aggregate of changeables is signifi-

. It is at this point that the imprecision of []-[] is especially problematic in that there is a
genuine unclarity about what is most basic. Of course, one way out of the circle is to as-
sume that there are two different kinds of states, but there is no textual evidence for this.
. VI ii  . VI ii 
. VI ii . The Latin as it appears in the Academy text is: (Essentia) est alicuius cogitabil-
itas distincta. Compare this with the definition of existentia in []: (Existentia) est alicuius
sensibilitas distincta.
. VI ii . In the text, Leibniz adds a point about affections, but he does not define the lat-
ter, so it is not clear what he means. The Latin is: Essentia est aggregatum praedicatorum
requisitorum, vel affectionum, scil. sufficientium.


 

cant: as an aggregate of changeables, the form would itself be a changing

thing; as the principle of changeables, the form is able to remain their un-
changing source. The (mid-) Substantial Form Assumption claims,
among other things, that the substantial form F in a substance acts through
emanation. It is consistent with [][a] that F is able to remain unchanged and
yet be the (emanative) source of its qualities. A slight difficulty arises from
the assertion in [][b] that the form is also “an aggregate of requisite suffi-
cient qualities.” It is not immediately obvious how F is supposed to be both
the unchanging source or principle of qualities and the collection or aggre-
gate of the changing things themselves, but it is seems clear that each form
contains the necessary and sufficient conditions for its all its qualities or states.
But what about corporeal substance? Much of the material in definitions
[]–[] concerns the substantial form, which is a substance itself and a con-
stituent of corporeal substance. How exactly do its actions relate to those of
the corporeal substance? Definition [] suggests that every state of a sub-
stance is either an action or a passion, while definitions [] and [] imply
that every state of a substance is a mode by which it can be thought. Finally,
definition [] proclaims that the essence of a substance contains “the ag-
gregate of requisite predicates.” Against the background set in section  of
chapter , this claim is particularly interesting. According to the Substan-
tial Form Assumption articulated there, each form contains the ontological
correlate of the complete concept; moreover, according to the Prearranged
Diffusion Relation, the activity of the substantial form in a corporeal sub-
stance S is a necessary condition for the states or features of S. Definition
[] suggests something very similar. The idea seems to be that the form is
the ontological correlate of the individual essence or complete concept that
contains the predicates which, once instantiated in the form, function as the
necessary conditions for the features of S. As we will see later, this is in fact
what Leibniz has in mind. For now, it is important to note that the defini-
tions imply a two-tiered explanatory hierarchy with a distinct subject at each
level: first, there is an active principle or form that emanates qualities and
is such that, for every quality, there is a complete ratio that is somehow
grounded in the form; second, there is a corporeal substance that is consti-
tuted of the form and a passive principle, that has actions and passions, and
whose form contributes (somehow) to its substantial states. The general
suggestion is that, for each substantial state f of a corporeal substance S,
there is a complete ratio that is (somehow) in the nature of S (which is con-
stituted of a form and passive principle); and, moreover, for each quality of
the form, there is a complete ratio in the form itself. Why would Leibniz
construct such a two-tiered hierarchy within a single corporeal substance?
What motivated him to do so, and how does this work? We will return to
these questions in the next section, but first more definitions.
Leibniz defines causation as follows:

[Tentative []] “An efficient cause is a cause through action. A cause through ema-
nation is an efficient cause without a change of itself.”


  ,  – 

We need to proceed carefully here. We know from definitions []–[] that

all created substances both act and suffer. Definition [] tells us that among
created substances, there are two sorts of causes. In emanative causation,
there is no change in the subject. As Leibniz explains, emanation cannot in-
volve a change in the subject since to do so would be to change “its destined
journey.” But in efficient causation, the subject is so changed. In order to
emphasize the difference, Leibniz argues that because an efficient cause in-
volves a change in itself, an emanative cause cannot strictly be an efficient
cause. He concludes: “Therefore there is not an [efficient] cause through
emanation.”23 It will be helpful to emendate [] appropriately:
[] “An efficient cause is a cause through action. A cause through emanation is an ef-
ficient cause without a change of itself” [and therefore a cause through emanation
is not strictly an efficient cause].
More questions arise: which substances act through emanation, which act
efficiently, and how are the two sorts of active things related? Significantly,
the example that Leibniz gives of an efficient cause is that of a moving body,
where the idea is that when one body causes another to move, there is a
change in the former as well as in the latter. The suggestion is that corpo-
real objects act as efficient causes, while minds emanate. When we combine
[] and [], the idea seems to be that for two corporeal substances S and
S where S acts (efficiently) on S, there is a state in S that is followed by
a change of state in S and, moreover, there is a conservation (or increase)
of the perfection of S and a diminishing of the power in S. But we have
to wonder exactly how this is supposed to work: definition [] demands that
when S acts efficiently, the perfection of S be preserved or increased, and
definition [] claims that there is some sort of change in S. There are other
relevant definitions:
[] “Acting is in relation to an object, making in relation to an effect, effecting is in
relation to each of the two, it is making one thing from another.”24 Moreover, Leib-
niz writes: “An actuality [actus] is a present effect” to which he adds in a marginal
note “or [seu] the existence of change.”25
The process of making an effect is one of moving from “the possibility of
change” to its “actuality.” Furthermore,
[] “Producing” is “making a thing exist, and therefore sensible. Therefore it adds
a relation to sense by effecting.”26
As a group, definitions []-[] are remarkable because, although their sub-
ject matter concerns the activity, causation, and production of things, they

. VI ii 
. Ibid. The Latin is: Agere refertur ad objectum, facere ad effectum. Efficere ad utrumque,
est enim facere aliquid ex aliquo.
. VI ii 
. VI ii . The Latin is: Producere . . . Est facere rem existere, ac proinde sensibilem. Ad-
dit ergo effectioni relationem ad sensum.


 

seem carefully constructed to avoid any suggestion of real causal interaction

among substances. While they do not explicitly deny such interaction, they
suggest that the relation among substances is that of (Strong) Parallelism.
There are other definitions that concern the activity and interrelations
among things and that are consistent with both (Strong) Parallelism and
Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism. Let’s consider Leibniz’s account of
thinking. It is noteworthy that after first writing what had become his stan-
dard definition of thinking in the second half of , namely, that think-
ing “is action on itself,” he added some words of emphasis in the margin to
produce the following:
[] “Thinking is internal action on itself, perception with reflection.”27
In the discussion of On the incarnation of God in section , chapter  and of
On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking in section , chapter , we
saw that for Leibniz, minds always think. We also noted in the latter dis-
cussion that Leibniz’s description of thinking as “the perception of har-
mony” strongly suggests Reflective Harmony, where the idea is that every
perceiving mind reflects all the others. In Studies on the universal character-
istic, Leibniz commits himself to the intercommunication of non-human
minds. But what sort of perceptions or interrelations do unconscious minds
have? In an attempt to answer these questions, we enter the thicket of Leib-
niz’s Platonism and discover his first definitions of sympathy, perfection,
and simplicity:
[] “Sympathy is when through the insensible acting or suffering of one thing, the
other thing acts or suffers. That is, it is a change of the one in relation to the state of
the other, in an insensible way” or, as Leibniz added in a marginal note, “an insen-
sible communication.”28
[] “Perfection is whatever is able to do as much as it can.” Or, as Leibniz adds in
the margin, “Better: Perfection is a grade of reality.”29
[] “Simplicity is without the diversity of parts.” There are “different grades” of
simplicity: “one kind lacks any kind of part” and is “entirely indivisible;” another
“lacks dissimilar parts” and can be “more or less” indivisible.30
In definition [], Leibniz explicitly embraces the unconscious interaction
among substances, which was called sympathy in the Platonist tradition. As
we summarized the doctrine in section  of chapter , the Relation of Sym-
pathy is such that each created thing (insensibly) corresponds to the states
of all the others. As noted, the relation can be more or less strong. Follow-
ing the Platonist doctrine, Leibniz intends to forge a close link among sub-

. VI ii 
. VI ii . The Latin is: Sympathia est eorum, quorum uno agente vel patiente insensi-
biliter alterum agit vel patitur. Seu est mutatio unius ad statum alterius, modo insensibili.
In the marginal note, Leibniz writes: Commercium insensible.
. VI ii . The Latin is: Perfectum est quicquid tantum potest, quantum potest posse. The
marginal note is one that acccording to the Academy editors, may have been added after
Leibniz’s arrival in Hanover in .
. VI ii 


  ,  – 

stances. Before summarizing Leibniz’s position, let’s remind ourselves that

for many Platonists, the close sympathetic relation among created things was
supposed to follow from the fact that all products of the Supreme Being are
rooted in the same emanative cause whose perfect unity was immanent in
each individual thing and in the totality of created things. In a sense, the re-
lation between the One and its products was supposed to entail the relation
of sympathy. As Philo so nicely makes the point: by filling “the whole world
with himself. . . , he has connected every portion with another portion.”31
In the Studies on the universal characteristic, Leibniz embraces this position.
According to definition [], when a substance acts (or suffers), every other
substance with which it has a relation of sympathy acts (or suffers). But def-
inition [] exceeds mere sympathy. The marginal comment adds another
level of connection. According to it, the substances in a relation of sympa-
thy not only insensibly interact, they insensibly communicate as well. By such
means, Leibniz goes beyond the traditional notion of sympathy. For the first
time, he explicitly endorses Reflective Harmony, where the idea is that for
any substance in a relation of sympathy with another, it communicates all of
its states to the other and in that sense, each substance in this relation re-
flects the others. A question arises at this point about how expansive we
should consider the relation of sympathy or Reflective Harmony. That is,
for a substance S, how far do its sympathetic and reflective relations extend?
I will answer this question and discuss the importance of this doctrine in the
next section.
In definition [], Leibniz embraces the Platonist tenet that there are
grades of reality and, moreover, that the grade of a being is entirely due to
its perfection. He also connects perfection and power. We will discuss this
point in section . We also witness Leibniz expanding on a fundamental
Platonist notion in definition []. According to the Supreme Being As-
sumption, each of the features of unity (or simplicity), self-sufficiency, per-
fection, and reality is a function of the other. In definition [], Leibniz
appears to be setting aside unity or simplicity as a feature that is different
from the others. According to the Principle of Substantial Activity, the
dominant mind or active principle in a corporeal substance is itself a sub-
stance. According to panorganism, each corporeal substance is constituted
of a substantial form, which is a substance, and a collection of subordinate
corporeal substances, each of which is itself a form and collection of sub-
ordinate substances. It follows that there are two sorts of substances,
namely, mind-like substantial forms and corporeal substances. Moreover,
according to the Prearranged Diffusion Relation articulated in section  of
chapter , the corporeal substance is able to shrink and expand in a way that
maintains its core and hence its unity. It would appear that Leibniz’s defi-
nition of simplicity is designed to accommodate these two sorts of sub-
stances. In the context of the other definitions, it would be reasonable to
suppose that the substantial forms are the things that lack all parts and are

. Philo, On the Posterity of Cain V.: Yonge .


 

entirely indivisible, while the corporeal substances are the things that have
similar parts (namely, the subordinate substances that constitute the passive
principle) and that are more or less indivisible. In short, in the second half
of , there appear to be two sorts of (created) unities: the unity of minds,
which have no parts, and the unity of corporeal substances, which are vari-
able because they have parts or constituents.
There is much more to be said about []–[] and their relation to the
earlier definitions. We will turn to some of their implications in the next sec-
tion. For now, it will be helpful to complete the presentation of the relevant
definitions in Studies on the universal characteristic. Our final two definitions
concern the phenomenal body and its relation to the underlying active real-
ity. According to Leibniz in his notes on Wilkins’ book, there are two aspects
to every corporeal thing. As active things, bodies are substances. Definition
[] asserts that a substance is “something of which there is either action or
passion,” while definition [] claims that an efficient cause is “a cause
through action.” Leibniz offers a (moving) body as a paradigm case of an ef-
ficient cause. Therefore, a body is a substance whose actions and passions
are motion. But bodies are also phenomenal objects. Leibniz claims:
[] [a] “Matter is that by whose change, [although] it remains, something is made.
[b] Because matter is the effect, it is the object of acting. The manifestation [of the
acting] is that whose representation is the object of the thinking. The subject [of
the acting] is of the form.”32
This definition is less than perspicuous and there are various ways to inter-
pret it. Part [a] implies that there are two aspects to matter: one aspect is
such that, by changing, something is made; the other is such that it remains
despite the changes. Part [b] also suggests that matter is (somehow) both the
subject of acting and the effect, object, and manifestation of acting. But
how? I propose that matter is the effect or the object of acting in the sense
that it is the phenomenal matter that is produced by the mind that perceives
it (consistent with Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism) and that is the subject
of acting in the sense that it is the underlying active corporeal substance
which itself acts and parallels the phenomenal matter (consistent with
(Strong) Parallelism).
In section  of chapter , we saw that for Leibniz in , a body was a
collection of extended corporeal substances whose coherence was due to the
harmony of their endeavors. By the time Leibniz wrote to Oldenburg in
September of that year, he had come to recognize a number of difficulties

. VI ii . The Latin is: Materia est cuius manentis mutatione fit aliquid. Quod materia
est effectus, est objectum agentis. Argumentum est cuius repraesentatio cogitantis objec-
tum est. Subjectum est formae. The Latin is less than clear. As support of my translation,
I would like to note () that the context suggests that Leibniz is using ‘argumentum’ in the
sense of a sign or manifestation of something, and () that, by placing ‘argumentum’ and
‘subjectum’ in the same place in the sentence and by highlighting them both in the same
way, Leibniz intends to suggest that the argumentum and subjectum are related in the way
the translation suggests.


  ,  – 

clustering around that conception. One of these difficulties is especially rel-

evant here, namely, that the underlying collection of corporeal substances
constantly changes while the phenomenal object remains the same. In the
letter to Oldenburg, Leibniz fretted about the gap between the underlying
reality and the phenomena and proclaimed his desire to analyze more satis-
factorily “the causes of the appearances of things.”33 As noted in chapter ,
this set of difficulties must have seemed particularly severe to someone
committed to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. In this context, consider
the proclamation that Leibniz made to Johann Friedrich in May :
Neither will what Existence is be able to be defined, nor will it be possible to explain
how Existence corresponds to anything unless a Mind is supposed. Oh our abused
philosophy! . . . But what Existence is, what has to be superadded to Essence, no one
up until now has defined.34
By the time of his notes on Wilkins’ book, Leibniz has worked out a neat
solution to the problem. In part [a] of definition [], he cleverly transforms
a standard Aristotelian account of matter as what underlies change and ap-
plies it to the phenomenal object. Roughly speaking, for Aristotle and his
followers, matter underlies change in the sense that each of the two sorts of
change (that is, substantial and accidental) requires a matter “in which” or
“from which” change occurs.35 In late , Leibniz reinterprets this rela-
tion between matter and change to suit his present metaphysical needs. For
Leibniz, the underlying corporeal substance can undergo constant change
and yet the corresponding phenomenal object will remain relatively stable.
Moreover, Leibniz explains away the gap between the changing substance
and the (relatively) stable phenomenal object by giving each substance its
own complete ratio. As definition [] claims: “Acting is in relation to an ob-
ject. . . . An actuality [actus] is a present effect.” Within this context, we can
take the first claim in part [b] of definition [] to maintain that the ex-
tended phenomenal object is the effect or manifestation of the acting by the
perceiving mind. That is, the matter or extended phenomenal object is a
present actuality that the perceiving mind causes. Following this interpre-
tation, the second claim in part [b] of definition [] refers to the underly-
ing acting substance that acts out of its form and whose activities parallel
the perceptions of the perceiving mind. On this reading of definition [],
Leibniz is committed to interpreting the phenomenal body as caused by the
mind perceiving it and yet in close correspondence to the underlying active
corporeal substance. Because he is prepared to sever the causal relation be-
tween the changing corporeal substance and the (relatively) stable phenom-
enal object and then to place the complete ratio of the latter in the perceiv-

. II i 
. II i . The Latin here suggests more than the English that mind must be made the sub-
ject or support of the existence: “ne Existentia quidem quid sit definiri nec quomodo cui-
quam competat explicari potest, nisi supposita Mente.” Compare this with definition [].
. Surely one of the most concise statements of this point appears in Aquinas, De Principiis
Naturae, cap. .


 

ing mind, he can explain the changes both in the underlying substance and
in the phenomenal object in a way consistent with the Principle of Suffi-
cient Reason. On the side of the active corporeal substance, there is a com-
plete ratio for each state of the substance and the Principle of Sufficient
Reason is preserved; on the side of the phenomenal object, there is a com-
plete ratio for each of the objects perceived in the nature of the perceiving
mind-like substantial form and the Principle of Sufficient Reason is main-
tained.36
But definition [] is obscure. Are there independent reasons to accept
that Leibniz is taking matter to be a phenomenal object which, although
caused by the mind perceiving it, corresponds perfectly to an actual corpo-
real thing? Consider our final definition.
[] “Quantity is a mode, by which a thing is thought determined, or rather a mode
by which a thing is thought a whole.” He explains that a particular figure may change
but throughout the changes “quantity remains and the thing can be considered no
less a whole.” In other words, he says, “quantity is the very thisness, by which a thing
is thought to be a this.” In the margin, he adds: “There is a principle of things which
concerns existence or [seu] quantity: [namely] What is is what exists.”37
Again, the definition is less than clear. Let’s proceed carefully. There are
three closely related points. First, Leibniz claims that a quantity is a means
by which a thing is thought determined, and that it is a mode. Following
definitions []–[], a mode is somehow an action or passion and a means
by which something is thought. But how? According to definition [], there
are two ways in which something can be thought: it can be thought either
“in relation to sense” or in relation “to intellect.” This distinction, along
with definitions [] and [] brings us to the well-founded phenomenal-
ism of the Studies on the universal characteristic. The idea is that for every
corporeal substance R, it can be approached in two ways: there is the real R
or the R qua active thing, which is the underlying changing thing; and there
is the phenomenal R or R qua sensory object, which corresponds to the R
qua active thing. The real R qua active thing has an essence that can be ap-
proached by the intellect. The R qua sensory object is a mode that is related
to R qua active thing and that can be approached “in relation to sense.” Fol-
lowing the uses of the town analogy in the second half of , there is only
one real R, although there are “infinite variations which appear.”38 I take it
that each of these variations is a mode that is related to the real underlying
R, but it is a mode that is “thought” by the perceiving substance. That is,
for any substance S that thinks R in relation to sense, R qua sensory object
is a state of the mind in S that parallels the underlying active R. For exam-
ple, when Wanda perceives the kitchen table, the phenomenal object is a
state of her mind and was caused by her mind; at the same time, the phe-

. Also see VI ii .

. VI ii . The Latin of the marginal note is: Principium eorum quae tractant de existen-
tia seu quantitate est: Quod est id esse.
. II i . For a discussion of this analogy, see ch. , sect. .


  ,  – 

nomenal object is a mode that is related to the real changing table in that the
phenomenon is what the table is in relation to sense.
The second point to emphasize about definition [] is closely related to
the first. In the marginal note on his definition, Leibniz insists that there is
a principle or source of things that concerns existence or quantity. The full
force of this claim is most easily felt when we place definition [] next to
definition [] and compare the marginal claims of each. According to defi-
nitions [] and [], which appear together in Leibniz’s notes, there are two
principles of things. Leibniz writes in []: “There is a principle of things
that concerns existence or [seu] quantity: [namely] What is is what exists
[esse].” Whereas, in [], he claims: “There is a principle of things that con-
cerns change or Quality, [namely] nothing exists [esse] without a ratio.”39
These claims are less than clear and can be read in several ways. Definition
[] offers some help: it proclaims that producing something “is making a
thing exist, and therefore sensible”; it is to add “a relation to sense.” Fol-
lowing this suggestion, we can read the claims as follows: the perceiving
mind F itself functions as the principle or source of what has existence in
the sense that what exists for F is what is sensible to F; and, moreover, there
is a ratio in F for what F senses. We can turn to our discussion of On en-
deavor and motion, perceiving and thinking for support of this interpretation.
In the discussion of that essay in section , chapter , we found a similarly
obscure comment: “There is a ratio why something is, [namely,] because it
already is; or because there is a principle of harmony. From the first [fol-
low] the actions of bodies; from the latter [the actions] of minds.”40 I in-
terpreted this claim in the following way: for any particular body that a mind
perceives, there is a complete ratio for why the mind perceives the body now.
This complete ratio is in the nature of the mind that has the perception. In
brief, by the second half of , it is Leibniz’s view that for some existing
object, it exists for F just in case F perceives it (according to definition [],
F must sense it “distinctly”); moreover, there is a complete ratio in F for why
F perceives what it does.
The third point to emphasize about our final definition is also relevant to
definitions [] and []. In his Studies on the universal characteristic, Leib-
niz sets his definitions of matter, quantity, and existence against his defini-
tions of form, quality, and essence. I propose that each of the former con-
cerns the phenomenal object, while each of the latter treats the underlying
active substance. According to definition [], what exists is what is capable
of being “sensed or perceived distinctly,” and, following definition [],
what exists is what is sensible. When we piece together definitions [], [],
[], [], [], and [], we uncover the fact that for perceiving minds, the
underlying and real mind-like substances exist only as extended phenom-
ena. That is, although a corporeal substance R exists as a panorganic col-
lection of mind-like changing realities, the only access that any mind F has

. VI ii . . VI ii .


 

to R is as a phenomenal object produced by F. It follows that for Leibniz in

late , matter, quantity, and existence are first and foremost notions that
apply to phenomenal objects which are produced by the perceiving mind
but which nonetheless stand in close correspondence with the underlying
active substances. Every created substance is both an active mind-like real-
ity in the world and a phenomenal object in the mind of some perceiving
subject.
Before turning to a more thorough-going explication of the metaphysical
implications of Studies on the universal characteristic, it is important to in-
sist that these definitions not be taken to be hastily written thoughts that
were soon discarded. On the contrary, most of the claims made in defini-
tions [] through [] should be seen as the culmination of one of Leibniz’s
major projects in the second half of . According to my developmental
story, it was May  when some of Leibniz’s metaphysical ideas about
substantial matters began to shift. It should not come as a surprise to dis-
cover, therefore, that over the next few months he tinkered with a set of def-
initions that attempt to define precisely the activity and interaction among
substances. The main part of this work appears in the Elements of natural
law where the context is an ethical one and where the concern is primarily
to explain goodness, justice, and wisdom. The definitions in Studies on the
universal characteristic are the result of Leibniz’s earlier attempts to formu-
late such claims. These definitions are more carefully wrought and more
complete than the earlier versions.41 Furthermore, Leibniz must have been
relatively pleased with this final set of definitions: he did not attempt an-
other version. Instead of significantly revising them, he chose instead to re-
fine the ones in his notes on Wilkins’ book. Given how rarely Leibniz re-
turns to edit his personal notes, it is striking that he made (at least) two sets
of emendations on these definitions and that one of these slight revisions
might have been made several years later (that is, after his arrival in Hanover
in late ). Nor do his emendations suggest a desire to alter the sense of
the original claim; rather, Leibniz’s changes are mostly marginal additions
which clarify or develop his original point. These facts suggest that there is
good reason to take these nineteen definitions in Studies on the universal
characteristic as a summary of Leibniz’s metaphysical views in early .

. Metaphysics of Studies on the

universal characteristic
There is good reason to believe that Leibniz composed the Studies on the
universal characteristic within weeks of his departure for Paris. In the last
chapter, we uncovered evidence strewn across a number of texts that by the
second half of  he had embraced the Complete-Ratio Theory of Sub-

. Compare the definitions presented here to those at VI i , , ff. While the Acad-
emy editors place the latest of the notes for Elements of natural law (i.e., the sixth note) at the
end of , they think that the Studies on the universal characteristic might have been written


  ,  – 

stance, Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, and (Strong) Parallelism. Before

his journey to Paris, it would not be surprising for Leibniz to attempt to
tie together the various strands of his newly developed doctrines. That he
does this in his notes on Wilkins’ book seems clear. Despite their obscurity,
the nineteen definitions articulated in section  lay the groundwork for a
metaphysics that comfortably contains all the sub-theses of Preestablished
Harmony.
In this section, I offer an interpretation of that metaphysics. Some of
what I say here is speculative in the sense that my claims exceed what is
strictly implied by the definitions. It is undeniable that for several of the
nineteen definitions displayed, there is more than one plausible interpreta-
tion. But it is equally clear that when we place Leibniz’s definitions as a
group next to other important writings of the period (especially the letters
to Johann Friedrich and Arnauld of ) and when we situate them within
the philosophical context of Leibniz’s Aristotelian and Platonist assump-
tion, an elegant system emerges with Preestablished Harmony at its core.
My goal here is to construct an interpretation that is consistent both with
all nineteen definitions articulated in the last section and with the textual
and philosophical context displayed in previous chapters. While I fully ad-
mit that some of this textual material might be explained in other ways, I
submit my interpretation as the hypothesis that best explains the (textual)
phenomena. The speculations that I make are attempts to fill in the gaps left
by Leibniz. Two facts lend support to the general account offered here: it
successfully explains all the important textual material and its main features
can easily be seen as an original version of the mature philosophy of
Preestablished Harmony.
Before indulging in details, it will be helpful to offer a general picture of
the most important metaphysical implications of our definitions. The on-
tology of the Studies on the universal characteristic is straightforward: there
is God, who is the only fully active thing; there are created corporeal sub-
stances which both act and suffer; and within those corporeal substances are
mind-like substantial forms which are also substances. Each creature can be
approached as an essence available to the intellect or as an existing thing
available to the senses. The conceived essences are the equivalent of com-
plete concepts in Leibniz’s mature writings in that they contain all the pred-
icates that can be truly predicated of a subject. Each substantial form or
dominant mind is an active principle and an instantiated (selected) divine
essence. Each substance, whether a mind-like substantial form or corporeal
substance, has constantly changing states. Some of these changes are ac-
tions; some are passions. There are two sorts of causes, namely, emanative
and efficient, and apparently, the former is available to God and minds,
while the latter is the exclusive capacity of corporeal substances. There is a
relation of sympathy and Reflective Harmony among all creatures. The pas-

just before Leibniz’s departure for Paris in March . It is also important that Leibniz re-
turns to some of these definitions throughout the period –. See VI iv [A] –.


 

sion or suffering in a substance is roughly the opposite of action: what is ac-

tive conserves or increases its perfection; what suffers decreases its perfec-
tion. When a substance acts as efficient cause, there is a change in it although
its perfection is preserved; when it suffers, its perfection is diminished. That
is, the correspondence relation between an efficient cause and its effect is as
follows: when a substance S in state f acts efficiently on a substance R, in
state r, the perfection of f is preserved in f, while the perfection in r is
diminished in r. There has been no genuine causal interaction between S
and R and yet their states have corresponded.42 However, in the correspon-
dence relation of sympathy, the substance does not change in acting, but in-
sensibly communicates its present state of acting or suffering to every other
substance.
It is appropriate to consider the general account just offered as the most
important data on which the interpretation of this section is based. But there
are some questions that need to be addressed before a full account of the
metaphysics of the Studies on the universal characteristic can be offered. In
section , the analysis of the definitions was incomplete in that it left some
matters unresolved. Let’s consider the most important of these in turn.

Purity of mind and changeability of substance

One of the more curious questions to arise in the analysis of Leibniz’s def-
initions involved the fact that definitions []–[] implied a two-tiered ex-
planatory hierarchy with a different subject at each level. Roughly the idea
seems to be that for each state f of a corporeal substance S whose nature is
constituted of a form F and a passive principle, the complete ratio for f is
somehow contained in the nature of S; moreover, for every quality of F, the
complete ratio for the quality is contained in F. Concerning definition [],
there was a closely related question about how the form can be both a prin-
ciple and an aggregate of qualities. Let’s answer these questions now. As it
turns out, this two-tiered theory of substance is a more detailed version of
Leibniz’s Theory of Corporeal Substance, as articulated in chapter . It is
also an enormously clever way of constructing a Complete-Ratio Theory of
Substance that comfortably accommodates Leibniz’s Platonist and Aris-
totelian assumptions. Let me explain.
It follows from the Principle of Sufficient Reason that there will be a
complete ratio for each state of a corporeal substance S, and it follows from

. In an attempt to explicate “the common sense” notion of cause, Leibniz acknowledges that
a cause must pre-exist its effect, but only in a limited sense: because the cause and effect
can be simultaneous, the cause is prior only in nature. Leibniz explains in a marginal note
that the cause is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. The reason for this, he suggests,
is that the efficacy of the cause depends on “this state of things, here and now.” In some
cases, he notes, homicide will lead to punishment, in other cases it will not. The implica-
tion is that, in this common sense notion, the cause is only one of a number of factors that
contribute to the effect. The latter he defines provocatively as “the requiring thing itself
[ipsum requirens]” (VI ii ).


  ,  – 

the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency that a state f of S will not strictly

belong to S unless the cause and explanation of f is grounded in the nature
of S. According to Leibniz in late , the states of corporeal substances
change constantly. If we suppose that Leibniz intends to construct a Com-
plete-Ratio Theory of Substance, then it will be necessary for him to con-
struct the nature of S so that it can function as the complete ratio for all of
its states. Some grave difficulties arise at this point, which concern a tension
between Leibniz’s Platonist and Aristotelian assumptions. I propose that
Leibniz was motivated to construct this two-level theory of substance partly
in order to resolve this tension.
Since it follows from the Principle of Sufficient Reason that there will be
a complete ratio for each of the changing states of a corporeal substance S
and since it follows from the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency that the
complete ratio will be contained in the nature of S, it also follows that in or-
der to construct a Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance, Leibniz must ex-
plain how the complete ratio for every state of S is contained in the nature
of S. However, as I argued in section  of chapter , f will not belong to the
nature of S unless f results from the genuine union of the active and pas-
sive principles, where the active principle somehow organizes the passive
principle. Since, according to Leibniz in the Studies on the universal charac-
teristic, the states of S constantly change, it would seem to be necessary
for the mind or active principle in S to act constantly through the passive
principle so as to produce those states. To be precise, for every state f of S,
there has to be a related action or change in S’s mind-like substantial form.
On such an account, the mind would have to be changing constantly. But
given Leibniz’s Platonist assumptions, this consequence is untenable. As I
argued in section  of chapter  and as the (mid-) Substantial Form As-
sumption suggests, created minds are like the divine mind in that they are
self-sufficient unities whose actions are modeled on divine emanation. It
follows from this assumption and the Theory of Emanative Causation that
such beings are supposed to remain as perfectly unified, self-sufficient, and
unchanging as any created thing can. That is, although created minds are
supposed to act constantly, they are not supposed to change.43
In the Studies on the universal characteristic, Leibniz persists in his belief
that the activity of minds is one of emanation, but he also expands upon his
earlier view and explains exactly what finite minds emanate. Definitions [],
[], and [] suggest that minds emanate qualities which are “thought by
the intellect” and which are both “requisite” and “sufficient.” That is, each
mind emanates qualities which can be thought, which (as a collection) are
equivalent to what I have been calling a set of instructions, and which, along
with the pure activity of mind, constitute (at least) the necessary condition

. In the second half of  Leibniz worked on a series of definitions that attempt to for-
mulate the relation between the underlying active thing and its changing states. The ac-
count of the relation between form and qualities in his notes on Wilkins are the results of
this labor. For an earlier version, see VI i .


 

for the states of the corporeal substance. This description of the activities of
mind is consistent with the Prearranged Diffusion Relation described in
chapter , section , where the idea is that F emanates instructions for the
activity of P. It is also worth noting that each quality plays the same role in
the metaphysics of the Studies on the universal characteristic that the Idea did
in the metaphysics of On transubstantiation, except that the quality is much
more limited in its causal efficacy than was the Idea. As I argued in chapter
, section , the Idea of a substance S contains the blueprint of S and func-
tions as a conduit of activity between God and the passive corporeal
principle. The metaphysical goal of the Idea is first to organize the passive
principle into a substantial nature and then to sustain that organization. In
the metaphysics of the Studies on the universal characteristic, a quality func-
tions in much the same way: it contains an instruction for S and acts as a con-
duit between the mind and the passive principle. However, its causal goal is
much more limited. Its role is merely to instruct the passive principle about
how to organize itself so as to constitute a particular substantial state.
Leibniz’s two-tiered explanatory hierarchy is a brilliant way to safeguard
the immutability of mind while explaining the changes of corporeal sub-
stance. It allows mind to remain unchanged while emanating its qualities
which function as its thoughts and as the instructions for each state of the
corporeal substance. The relation between a created mind and its qualities
is like the relation between the Supreme Being and its products: in each case,
the emanative source remains immutable while the emanated product
changes. In a sense, the qualities of the mind function as a metaphysical
buffer zone between the pure activity of the mind or substantial form in a
corporeal substance and its passive principle.
But what about definition [] and the fact that the form is supposed to be
the principle of qualities as well as the aggregate of them? For help, let’s
turn to the Production Rule. As explained in section  of the last chapter,
for each substantial form F, there is a Production Rule for the continuous
production of the discrete states of F. The idea is that if F exists from t to
tn and has a different thought or state at each moment of its existence, then
at every moment there will be an instruction about what state to have next.
The state occurring at t, together with the Production Rule, will determine
the state that F will have at t. That is, the necessary and sufficient condi-
tions for each state of F consists in the conjunction of the principle of ac-
tivity in F, its Production Rule, and its previous state. The two parts of def-
inition [] suggest the same basic idea: as the principle or source of its
qualities, F will contain both a principle of activity and a Production Rule;
but as the subject or bearer of its qualities, F will also contain all the qual-
ities, each one of which has been the requisite sufficient condition for the
quality that followed it. Part [][a] accurately describes the form in that it
contains the Production Rule or plan for all its states, but part [][b] also
correctly notes that the form has all its past qualities, each of which has func-
tioned as the requisite sufficient condition for the next state. This interpre-
tation of definition [] reveals what appears to be the original version of the


  ,  – 

doctrine of marks and traces. Consistent with Leibniz’s mature doctrine,

the form contains in its nature the marks of everything that will happen to
it and the traces of everything that has happened to it.

Activity and passivity in the passive principle

But Leibniz was motivated to construct the two-tiered explanatory system
for other reasons. In brief, the two-tiered system gave him a way to resolve
difficulties concerning the interaction of the active and passive principles in
a Prearranged Diffusion Relation. As noted above, if state f of a corporeal
substance S does not belong to the union of form F and passive principle P
in S, then following the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency f will not
strictly belong to S. If we suppose that Leibniz intends to construct a Com-
plete-Ratio Theory of Corporeal Substance, then it will be necessary for
him to construct the nature of S so that it can offer a complete ratio for each
of its states, whether active or passive. Three difficulties arise at this point
concerning the role of the passive principle in the Diffusion Relation be-
tween F and P. In order for f to belong to S, the passive principle in S must
play some part in the production of f; that is, it cannot be the case that the
dominant mind or form of S is wholly responsible for f. Here the question
is: how exactly does the passive principle in S contribute to the substantial
nature so as to create the appropriate sort of union with F? Furthermore, in
order for the nature of S to offer a complete ratio for all its states, S must
contain the complete ratio for every passion of S (that is, for every state in
which S suffers). Here the question is: how is a wholly active thing like the
dominant mind F supposed to contribute to the passion of S? Finally, the
passive principle in S contains substances, say, p, p, . . . pn+, which are
supposed to be subordinate to the dominant mind in S and yet, following
the Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency, are supposed to be self-suffi-
cient. The question here is: how can the subordinate substances in S retain
their self-sufficiency and yet be appropriately subordinate?
In order to answer these questions, we need to expand upon our account
of the Prearranged Diffusion Relation between the form F and the passive
principle P in a corporeal substance S. In my analysis of Leibniz’s letter to
Johann Friedrich of May , I described the Diffusion Relation as one
where the substantial form F diffuses its passive principle P just in case F
has constant causal power over P, where P is a collection of subordinate cor-
poreal substances. I argued there that the Diffusion Relation reduces to that
of Preestablished Harmony, where F and the substances in P act out a pre-
arranged plan, and I speculated that F emanates instructions for the activ-
ity of each of those subordinate substances. By piecing together the clues
contained in the Studies on the universal characteristic, we can construct a
more thorough account of exactly how Prearranged Diffusion is supposed
to work. The general idea is that for each state f of substance S, there is
a quality q of F that is the instruction for the subordinate substances in
P such that f results. Thus, each quality of F is the instruction for the pro-


 

duction of the state of the corporeal substance. However, in order not to

violate the Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency, it is crucially impor-
tant that each of the subordinate substances in P (namely, p, p, . . . pn+)
acts out of its own nature and contains its own instructions about how to
contribute to that general plan. In other words, although q contains the in-
struction for f, f will not occur unless all the substances in P (namely, p,
p, . . . pn+) act accordingly. Moreover, the same Diffusion Relation must
obtain between the dominant mind in, say, p and the substances that con-
stitute its passive principle, and so on, in infinitum.
Let’s apply this expanded version of the Prearranged Diffusion Relation
to our questions. Concerning the causal contribution made by the passive
principle to the nature of S, because both the dominant mind or substantial
form F and all the substances in P act in the prearranged fashion and there-
fore contribute to the nature of S, every state f of S strictly belongs to S,
and the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency is not violated. Concerning the
issue of how something wholly active can produce a passion, Leibniz’s trick
is to leave mind uncontaminated by change: F emanates its qualities or in-
structions and the subordinate substances act accordingly. A state of suf-
fering results when the substances in P behave in the prearranged manner.
Since suffering is equivalent to the loss of perfection, the suffering of P
means that the substances of P all lose perfection in the relevant fashion.
Concerning how each of the subordinate substances can remain self-suffi-
cient while being subordinate, each acts according to its own nature while
simultaneously following the instructions of its F, in a manner consistent
with (Strong) Parallelism. When the quality of F demands state f, the sub-
stances humbly comply, but they do so by acting according to their own na-
ture, that is, by acting out their own Production Rules. Let’s return for a
moment to the symphony analogy, where the idea is that the conductor is
responsible for the persistence of the music although every single musical
state is produced by the musicians. Similarly, the quality and the subordi-
nate substances in S are responsible for every substantial state. Each is a nec-
essary condition for the state, but neither by itself is sufficient. The state
will occur if and only if the active and passive principles act as they do.
Leibniz’s two-tiered explanatory hierarchy offers a neat way to protect
the purity of mind while summoning the contribution of the passive prin-
ciple. It thereby explains the features of corporeal substance in a manner
consistent with the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency. In what follows, we
will need to say more about what exactly substantial states are and about
how the states of the subordinate substances in P contribute to the states of
S. Although such questions remain, we are making headway in unpacking
the implications of Leibniz’s definitions.

Emanation, instantiation, and clarity

One of the central theses of the interpretation offered in this book is that at
the center of Leibniz’s thought stands the idea that every created thing is a


  ,  – 

mind-like substance that both instantiates and emanates the divine essence.
We are finally in a position to display Leibniz’s first attempt to construct
a complete metaphysics around this assumption. Although we will have to
reconstruct some of its details, the definitions of the Studies on the univer-
sal characteristic offer significant clues about how he originally understood
this idea.
What are the facts? On the basis of a quick survey of our definitions, we
see that minds engage in (at least) three activities: following definition [],
they perceive; following definition [], they sympathize; and following def-
initions [] and [], they emanate qualities. Moreover, according to defini-
tions [] and []–[], substances act, suffer, produce, and function as ef-
ficient causes. How exactly are these activities related? In order to
understand Leibniz’s views about the emanations and instantiations of the
divine essence, we will have to distinguish among these activities. Some of
Leibniz’s definitions are either incomplete or in tension with one another.
For example, they offer no explicit help with the relation between emana-
tion and sympathy. Definitions []–[] and [] suggest that the activities
of a substance reduce to fluctuations in its perfection which are somehow
internally caused; they therefore suggest that each substance is a world to
itself. But at the same time, definition [] implies that every substance is
intimately connected to every other. In an attempt to sort these matters out,
let’s first explain exactly how each created substance is supposed to instan-
tiate and emanate the divine essence. In the next subsection, we will con-
sider perception and sympathy.
There are four points to make concerning the role of emanation and in-
stantiation in the Studies on the universal characteristic. First, following Em-
anative Harmony, the assumption is that each substance is itself an instan-
tiation of the (selected) divine essence. This means that given the Creaturely
Inferiority Complex, each creature contains all the divine attributes though
in a manner inferior to the Supreme Being. In the discussion of On endeavor
and motion, perceiving and thinking in section  of chapter , I speculated
that God emanates the same (selected) divine essence to every substantial
form, and I proposed that we think of each substantial form as containing
the entirety of that (selected) essence much like a mind might contain the
entirety of an elaborate narrative. Given Leibniz’s panorganism and the fact
that a corporeal substance is itself a collection of mind-like substantial
forms, it follows that each corporeal substance is a collection of instantia-
tions of the (selected) divine essence. Given our concerns now, the point to
emphasize is that each mind-like substantial form is an instantiation of the
(selected) divine essence and each corporeal substance is a panorganic col-
lection of such forms.
The second point to emphasize about Studies on the universal characteris-
tic concerns the fact that the activities of substances, whether corporeal sub-
stances or substantial forms, are also instantiations of the divine essence:
when a substance acts through emanation, it emanates its essence (which it-
self is an instantiation of the divine essence) and thereby produces another


 

instantiation of that essence. Following the (mid-) account of Emana-

tive Harmony, although every substantial form contains the same (selected)
divine essence as every other, each also contains a Production Rule accord-
ing to which the form instantiates that essence in a way different from every
other form. According to the interpretation offered in chapter , section ,
the Production Rule specifies the exact manner in which the (selected)
divine essence will be instantiated and moreover, the results of the instan-
tiation are thoughts of the mind. That is, each of the thoughts or states of
F is the result of F’s emanating the (selected) divine essence in a manner
consistent with its Production Rule. The definitions in Studies on the uni-
versal characteristic confirm this interpretation and go beyond it. According
to definitions []–[] and [], mind-like forms emanate qualities which are
the states or changeables of the form and which have varying degrees of per-
fection. According to definitions [] and [], every state of a substance is ei-
ther an action or a passion and, moreover, the difference between them re-
duces to a difference in levels of perfection. For help with this idea, let’s
return to the analogy of the translations of a story. In the discussion of the
Production Rule at the end of section , chapter , I compared the nature
of F to a story selected by an author, its Production Rule to the rules of the
language, and the states of F to the sequence of translated sentences that re-
sults from applying the rules of the language to the story. In such a case,
each sentence in the translated story is a partial instantiation of the selected
version of the story. Analogously, the Supreme Being gives every substan-
tial form the same (selected) divine essence and a different Production Rule
for how to express or instantiate that essence. The result of F applying its
Production Rule to the (selected) divine essence are the states or thoughts
of F, each of which is a partial instantiation of the (selected) divine essence.
As implied by Leibniz’s definitions as well as by the Creaturely Inferiority
Complex, each state emanated by F will have a degree of clarity. In section
 of this chapter, I speculated about how to understand the clarity or ob-
scurity of a state of a substance. What is important for our purposes here is
that the emanations of an individual mind-like form are themselves an in-
stantiation of the divine essence with its own level of clarity, and therefore
that each state of a substance is a partial instantiation of the divine essence
with its own degree of clarity.
The third point to emphasize about the metaphysics implied by Leibniz’s
definitions is that all the relations among substances reduce to fluctuations
in the clarity of these states. This is the new radical point at the heart of
Studies on the universal characteristic. Definition [] admits that there are
degrees of perfection, while definitions [] and [] imply that for any sub-
stance S, its features and activities reduce to fluctuations in perfection. In
his definitions, Leibniz seems to explain all substantial interaction in these
terms. As noted in section , the clarity of both substances and states is able
to differ radically in degree, so that it is possible for the least clear state of
one substance to be clearer than the most clear state of another. For every


  ,  – 

state of a substantial form F, that state has an objective degree of perfection

or clarity and it has a degree of clarity relative to others in it. Following def-
inition [], for some substance S, with (general) clarity level C, S will be
said to suffer when its level of clarity drops to C, while it will be consid-
ered active as long as its level stays roughly at C or C. For another sub-
stance S, with (general) clarity level C, S might be said to suffer when
its level drops to C although it will be thought active as long as it hovers
around C or C. In the case of these substances, for example, a state of
S and a state of S could have the same level of clarity, although the former
constitutes suffering in S while the latter is a case of acting in S. Follow-
ing this analysis, the difference between the acting and suffering of a sub-
stance (whether the substance is a substantial form or a corporeal substance)
is entirely a question of the degree of perfection of the relevant state com-
pared with previous states of the substance. Given that for a substance S,
each state is a more or less clear, partial instantiation of the divine essence,
it is easy to reduce the actions and passions of S to fluctuations in the in-
stantiation of the divine essence.
The final point to emphasize here concerns a tension between Leibniz’s
account of activity and his definition of efficient causation. On the one
hand, the definitions imply that the states of substances result from the
emanation of mind-like forms and that all activity in the created world is
emanative; on the other, the distinction in definition [] between efficient
and emanative causation suggests that besides emanative activity, there
might be efficient activity as well. The fact that efficient causation (some-
how) involves a change in itself suggests that the acting on the part of an ef-
ficient cause is importantly different from that of an emanative one. What
are we to think? A careful analysis of the definitions reveals that efficient
causation is itself the result of emanative activity. Definitions [] and []
maintain that substances have actions or passions and that each of these is
a state that is followed by another. Definitions [] and [] claim that when
a substance S has an action (or passion), it moves from a state f to a state
f. When S has an action, the state that results is roughly equal in perfec-
tion to the previous state (that is, f has roughly the same amount of per-
fection as f); when it has a passion, the state that results has less perfection
than the previous one (that is, f has less perfection that f). According to
definition [], efficient causation is such that there is a change in the act-
ing subject and, moreover, there is a passion in the effected object. When
substance S is the efficient cause of an effect in substance S, there is a
diminishing of perfection in the latter and a change in the former, although
not a change in degree of perfection. Although Leibniz’s example of effi-
cient causation is that of one moving body striking another, there presum-
ably will be lots of other sorts of efficient causation. For example, when
Wanda is hit by the ball, her bruise is the effect and the ball is the cause. In
such a case, the perfection of the ball remains constant while the perfection
of Wanda diminishes. As this analysis reveals, the activity involved in effi-


 

cient causation is like all other activities: it is an action or passion on the part
of a substance and hence an emanation on the part of a mind-like substan-
tial form.
However, before we can be entirely satisfied with this response, we need
to explain exactly how an efficient cause involves “a change in itself.” The
answer to our question is to be found in the two-tiered explanatory hierar-
chy. According to Leibniz, there are two sorts of substances and hence two
sorts of subjects, namely, mind-like substantial forms and corporeal sub-
stances. It follows from the (mid-) Substantial Form Assumption and
the Theory of Emanative Causation that the former cannot act as an effi-
cient cause because a mind-like substantial form cannot change. In his notes
on Wilkins’ text, Leibniz implies that minds remain immutable although
they emanate qualities which are constantly changing. When Leibniz writes
that “there is not an [efficient] cause through emanation,” the point is that
emanative activity is not itself in the business of changing anything: when
a mind emanates, it remains steadfast although its states do not. But the
other kind of subject, namely, the corporeal substance, can change and
hence can act as an efficient cause. It follows from the Prearranged Diffu-
sion Relation between F and P that the activity of F and of the substances
in P is each a necessary condition and all are sufficient for any substantial
feature f of S. In this case, S is a unified collection of subordinate substances
whose states are constantly changing, and therefore each state of S (some-
how) consists in the states of the subordinate substances. Since every action
of S is the result of this Prearranged Diffusion Relation between F and P,
it follows that every action of S will result from a change in itself. In other
words, the two-tiered theory of substance is based on a two-tiered hierar-
chy of subjects, one of whose actions requires immutability, the other of
whose actions demands constant change.
The results of this analysis are important. Before offering a summary,
let’s return to some questions left unanswered in the previous subsection.
Those questions were: what exactly are substantial states and how do the
states in the subordinate substances of S contribute to the states of S? We
now have a rough answer to the former question, namely, that each sub-
stantial state is a partial instantiation of the divine essence. But this answer
makes the second question all the more difficult. Let us put it into clearer
focus. The Prearranged Diffusion Relation is such that although each of the
subordinate substances in P acts out of its own nature, F emanates instruc-
tions for the activity of each of those substances. Moreover, according to
panorganism, each passive principle is itself constituted of corporeal sub-
stances. The result is a hierarchy of diffusion, where F diffuses the subor-
dinate substances in its passive principle P and where each of those sub-
stances, say, p, p, . . . pn+, has its own dominant mind and passive
principle, and so on all the way down. We now know that all activity is em-
anative, so that the Diffusion Relation between F and P somehow consists
in the coordinated emanations among minds. There is no genuine causal in-


  ,  – 

teraction either between F and P or among the subordinate substances in P.

Rather, the idea seems to be that the infinite constituents of a corporeal sub-
stance sit calmly emanating the divine essence. Following this analysis, the
important question is: how do substantial states result from the Diffusion
Relation between F and P?
According to the Theory of Corporeal Substance and the Prearranged
Diffusion Relation at its core, each state of a corporeal substance is the re-
sult of a Diffusion Relation that holds between F and P: the substantial
state f of S is supposed to result from the coordinated contribution of all
the states of all the subordinate substances of S. It seems obvious that each
substantial state f will somehow be a summation of the emanations of the
constituents of S, and also that each of the states of each of the con-
stituents of P, namely, p, p, . . . pn+, will be such a summation. What we
now need to explore is how these emanations might be combined. Let’s re-
turn to our analogy of a symphony for a rough idea of how this is supposed
to work. Each musician produces a series of musical states according to the
instructions of the conductor, with the result that the orchestra produces
a series of musical states, each of which is the summation of the musical
states of the individual musicians. Each musical state of the orchestra is
the harmonized result of all the musical states of all the musicians. Like
the orchestra, each subordinate corporeal substance in S emanates a series
of states according to the instructions of F, with the result that the nature
of S consists in the summation of the states of its individual components.
Although we will need to say more about what a substantial state is, the
idea seems to be that it consists in the summation of the states of its con-
stituents. Therefore, each state of S is a coordinated summation of the
states of all the subordinate substances in P insofar as they act according
to the instructions of F.
In this subsection, we have made good progress in our attempt to explain
the activities of substances. According to the metaphysics of the Studies in
the universal characteristic, all activity is emanative. God emanates the (se-
lected) divine essence to the mind-like substantial forms so that each is
like all the others. Because each form contains a different Production Rule
than every other, each emanates that essence differently. Forms act con-
stantly through emanation and thereby produce a continuous series of
states. Each series is a more or less clear instantiation of the (selected) di-
vine essence, each series is different from every other, and each state in each
series is both a thought and a more or less clear partial instantiation of the
divine essence. All the relations among substances reduce to correspond-
ing fluctuations in the clarity of the instantiations of the divine essence. On
this account, the world becomes a collection of substances that emanate its
states and thereby instantiate the essence of God. From the perspective
of an infinite being, the world would be very much like the symphony just
described: each substance would be busily playing its part in an elaborately
harmonized composition.


 

Perception and unity; sympathy and difference

But as harmonious as this world might seem to the run-of-the-mill infinite
listener, the God of the Platonists would not be pleased. It is important to
understand the source of the displeasure: according to the account of sub-
stantial activities offered earlier, although there are emanations of the divine
essence, there appear to be no direct perceptions of them. Given the Pla-
tonist assumptions about unity, reflection, and plenitude, such a world
would have significantly less harmony and goodness than one in which there
was communication and connection. We are now in a position to recognize
the critical importance of the other activities of mind, namely, perception
and reflection. Each increases significantly the unity and harmony in the
world; each contributes importantly to its proper inner workings. Let’s con-
sider these other activities.
The genius of Leibniz’s proposal about perception in the second half of
 is that the same mind-like substantial form is both the subject and the
object of its perception. While this position conforms neatly to the denial of
causal interaction, what we need to grasp now is how it adds to the unity and
harmony in the world. This brings us back to one of the radical points dis-
covered in On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking, namely, that for
each perceiving mind, the world exists as an elaborately constructed ap-
pearance whose source is the perceiving mind itself. In the Studies on the
universal characteristic, Leibniz expands upon this idea. Before the articula-
tion of his new position, let’s review the facts. When the substantial form F
emanates, it emanates qualities which are themselves the instructions for the
activity of the subordinate substances in P although each of the latter acts
out of its own nature. By so acting, each of these subordinate substances
emanates an instantiation of the divine essence; the coordinated summation
of these substantial emanations (somehow) constitutes the substantial state
f of S. That is, F emanates quality q, all the subordinate substances in P act
accordingly, and state f of corporeal substance S is the result. One of the
things we have not been able to explain is exactly what f is and how F is re-
lated to it. On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking offers significant
help. As I argued in the discussion of that essay in section , chapter , Leib-
niz promulgates for the first time a version of Complete-Ratio Phenome-
nalism. The discussion there focuses on the thinking and perceptions of
mind, where the idea is that the perceiving mind produces its own thoughts.
When we combine this position with that of the Studies on the universal
characteristic, it becomes clear that the qualities or states produced by each
mind-like form, when it acts according to its Production Rule, are thoughts.
What I now want to show is that each substantial state f of a corporeal sub-
stance S is a thought that belongs to mind-like F.
Let’s turn to the Prearranged Diffusion Relation between F and P for fur-
ther help with this idea. According to that relation, the activity of F and each
of the subordinate substances in P is a necessary condition and together they
are sufficient for the substantial state f. It is important that although F and


  ,  – 

P do not genuinely causally interact with one another, their activities are in
perfect correspondence. The unity between F and P is the result of the Pre-
arranged Diffusion between them. We are now in a position to see more
precisely how this works: the special correspondence between F and P is
just that each state f of S is a thought that F has and that it produces. The
relation between F and P consists in the fact that P acts according to the
instructions in F and F perceives the result of P’s acting. Thus, the unity
between F and P consists in the following: F emanates an instruction or
quality, say, q; each of the subordinate substances in P perceives the equiv-
alent of q, which arises from the nature of each; each subordinate substance
acts accordingly, which means that each emanates a partial instantiation of
the divine essence; in perfect correspondence with this emanative activity
on the part of the subordinate substances, F perceives f. Given that what
a mind-like form perceives is caused by its own nature, that is, given Com-
plete-Ratio Phenomenalism, the relation between F and P depends crucially
on (Strong) Parallelism. Let’s be perfectly clear about this. When F em-
anates q and each of the subordinate substances in P perceives it, there is
not causal interaction between F and P. Rather, the perception of q on the
part of p, p, . . . pn+ follows from the Production Rule in each. Similarly,
when F perceives f, there is no causal interaction between F and P. Rather,
the perception of f follows from the Production Rule in F. There is no gen-
uine causal interaction and yet F and P are intimately related.
By such means, Leibniz explains the features of S while remaining con-
sistent with his most basic Aristotelian assumptions. For example, F and P
do not strictly cause one another, and yet they form a perfect union; F is a
substance by itself, and yet the (early ) Passive Principle Assumption is
not violated; F contributes to the activity of S, and yet each subordinate sub-
stance in P remains self-sufficient and hence conforms to the Principle of
Substantial Self-Sufficiency; and each subordinate substance in P is self-
sufficient, and yet the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency is not violated.
In summary, the unity of a corporeal substance S is grounded in the Pre-
arranged Diffusion Relation between F and P, and the Diffusion Relation
between F and P consists in the following: F contains the instructions
for the activity of all the subordinate substances in P and emanates those
instructions; each of the subordinate substances in P acts out of its own
nature though entirely consistently with those instructions; F perceives f,
which perfectly corresponds to the activity of those subordinate substances.
F has the instruction for each state of S, but it also has the perception that
corresponds to that state. This is the point of definition []: when a mind
acts, it brings about a change which means it moves from one state or qual-
ity to another; the result of this change is a present actuality that is the
effect of this acting. Among other things, it follows that F and P will con-
stitute a substance and a unity just in case the instructions or qualities in F
perfectly parallel the activity of the subordinate substances in P and, more-
over, the perceptions of F perfectly parallel the activity of P.
It is now time to turn our attention to reflection. Although Leibniz offers


 

his first explicit account of the relation in his notes on Wilkins, his com-
mitment to the doctrine should not come as a complete surprise. As noted
in chapters  and , the Theory of Emanative Harmony that his teachers
bequeathed to him assumed the doctrine. In chapter , there was ample ev-
idence of a Reflective Harmony among conscious minds in the writings of
. As I suggested in the last chapter, once Leibniz transformed the pas-
sive principle in nature into a collection of mind-like substantial forms
which are constantly thinking, the step to universal Reflective Harmony was
not difficult. Moreover, we found the relation lurking in some texts of .
According to Leibniz in On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking,
each mind-like substantial form perceives or thinks harmony, and in that
sense perceives the entire world. In the discussion of that essay in section 
of chapter , I postulated that each mind perceives harmony in the sense
that each perceives all the instantiations of the (selected) divine essence and
that this position is equivalent to Reflective Harmony, where the idea is that
each mind reflects all the others and in that sense contains them. In Stud-
ies on the universal characteristic, Leibniz offers clues about how this is sup-
posed to work.
As noted in section , Leibniz’s explication of the relation of sympathy
in definition [] goes beyond the traditional version of the doctrine and as-
sumes Reflective Harmony. In the discussion of that definition, a question
arose about the expansiveness of the relation of sympathy and reflection:
for a substance S, how far do its sympathetic and reflective relations extend?
In order to answer this question and to recognize the full importance of
Leibniz’s use of the ancient doctrine, we need to understand more about the
similarities and dissimilarities among substances. Before considering Leib-
niz’s position, it would be helpful to remind ourselves of the unity and di-
versity among the Plotinian Ideas. As noted in section , chapter , for Plot-
inus, there is an interrelation among the mind-like Ideas such that each
reflects and contains all the others. The difference among the Ideas is that
each reflects the others from its own perspective and each offers what might
be considered a slightly different entrance into the unity that they all form.
By the end of , Leibniz has begun to apply this combination of reflec-
tive similarity and reflective difference to creatures. Like the Plotinian
Ideas, each mind-like form reflects all the other minds, but does so from its
own perspective. In a sense, each substance is a different entrance into the
same underlying thing.
Concerning the similarity among substances, each contains the others and
is identical to them in two ways. In order to make the point here as clearly
as possible, let’s remind ourselves of the two kinds of divine instantiation
in the world: first, God emanates the (selected) divine essence to every sub-
stance so that each creature is most fundamentally an instantiation of the
(selected) essence; second, each substance has its own unique Production
Rule according to which it emanates the (selected) divine essence and
thereby produces its states and thoughts which constitute another instanti-
ation of that essence. It is important to recognize that substances are iden-


  ,  – 

tical to one another at both of these levels: not only does each substance con-
tain the same (selected) divine essence, each emanates and perceives the
same world. As Leibniz makes the latter point in a passage we have seen
from On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking: “Thinking is noth-
ing other than the perception [sensus] of . . . many things at the same time
or the one in the many.”44 Like the Plotinian mind-like Ideas, each Leib-
nizian mind thinks all the others and, in that sense, thinks the same thing as
all the others.
Concerning the dissimilarity among minds, each mind offers a different
perspective on the same underlying thing. That is, like the Plotinian mind-
like Ideas, each substance offers a different perspective or approach to the
same underlying harmony. For help with this idea, let’s return to our anal-
ogy of the translations of a story. Most relevant here is the fact that each
translated version of the story is a translation of exactly the same series of
propositions, but each differs from every other in the way in which it in-
stantiates or expresses those propositions. Analogously, each substance em-
anates the same (selected) divine essence, but does so in a manner different
from every other. This brings us to an important point entailed by (mid-
) Emanative Harmony, namely, that the fundamental difference be-
tween a substance R and a substance Q is that each has a Production Rule
according to which it instantiates the (selected) divine essence in a way that
is different from every other substance. This also helps us to grasp the sense
in which each substance, by thinking or reflecting the others, can be said to
contain them. When a substance R perceives or thinks Q, it perceives or
thinks the version of the (selected) divine essence that Q emanates. Since
what mind-like substances emanate are states that can be thought, it follows
that when R perceives Q, R thinks Q’s states. In short, since the difference
between R and Q consists in the different means by which they emanate the
divine essence and since what they emanate are states which can be thought,
it follows that when R perceives or thinks Q, it thinks the thoughts of Q and
hence contains Q.
With this said, we can better understand Leibniz’s account of Reflective
Harmony in the Studies on the universal characteristic. According to defini-
tion [], sympathy is when “through the insensible acting or suffering of
one thing, the other thing acts or suffers. That is, it is a change of the one
in relation to the state of the other, in an insensible way.” According to the
interpretation of substantial states offered here, each state is a partial in-
stantiation of the (selected) divine essence and is something that can be
thought. Once we assume that every mind-like substance both emanates the
(selected) divine essence and perceives the world, it follows that every mind
will perceive or think the states of every other. Since every action or passion
of a substance is such a state, it follows that every substance will contain
every other. It is not surprising that Leibniz adds in the margin that sym-
pathy is “an insensible communication.”

. VI ii .


 

Let’s review. According to the definitions in Leibniz’s Studies on the uni-

versal characteristic, all substantial states reduce to fluctuations in the clar-
ity of the instantiation of the (selected) divine essence, and all substantial
interaction is explained in such terms. The created world consists in an in-
finity of mind-like substantial forms which continually produce their states.
Every substance contains the same (selected) divine essence and each con-
tains a Production Rule which directs the mind about how to instantiate that
essence. We now know that each mind contains all the others in the sense
that each thinks all the states of all the others. By such means, we arrive at
the full-blooded Platonist doctrine of Reflective Harmony. Every substance
perceives or thinks every other; each contains the whole created world.
A question arises at this point about the precise difference among minds.
There seems to be a tension in Leibniz’s position. It can be expressed in two
ways. On the one hand, every mind-like substantial form is a continuous
series of partial instantiations of the (selected) divine essence; on the other
hand, every substance is supposed to instantiate that essence differently
from every other. On the one hand, each mind thinks all the others and,
therefore, like them, perceives harmony; on the other hand, each is supposed
to approach harmony from a slightly different perspective. In short, given
that every substance instantiates the same thing (namely, the (selected) di-
vine essence) and given that every substance perceives the same thing
(namely, harmony) it is reasonable to ask for a fuller account of their differ-
ence. That each is supposed to be different from the others is clear, but it
remains unclear exactly how to explain that difference.
Definitions [] and [] suggest that the difference among substances is
set from the beginning: first, the Supreme Being “distinctly” thinks an
essence and then it instantiates the essence in an active form. That is, first
the Supreme Being thinks “the aggregate of requisite predicates,” which is
equivalent to a fully articulated individual essence or complete concept, and
then it creates the form or “the principle of qualities,” which is the Pro-
duction Rule. Leibniz’s definitions suggest that there are three closely re-
lated ways in which each substance differs from every other: although each
mind is similar to every other as an immutable and active thing, each is dif-
ferent in what it emanates, in what it perceives, and with what it is unified.
How are these differences related? How are they to be explained?
These questions bring us to the importance of the principle of passivity
in Leibniz’s thought. Throughout his long philosophical career, he insists
that the active principles in nature are rooted in passivity. We are now in a
position to explain one of the motivations behind this persistent claim. It
follows from the conjunction of definitions [] and [] that every created
substance participates in passivity. According to the (early ) Passive
Principle Assumption, a substantial form F is permanently attached to a
passive principle P whose identity is determined by the dominant minds of
the subordinate substances in P so that the core of substance that results
from this relation between F and P is such that F will only act outside itself
through those minds. Despite the lack of genuine causal interaction between


  ,  – 

F and P, it remains true that for every substantial form F, F’s perspective on
the world is intimately tied to P. The crux of the matter is that for each di-
vine-like mind, its passive principle determines the level of clarity of its per-
ception and hence of its instantiation of the divine essence. Our expanded
account of the Prearranged Diffusion Relation helps to explain this point.
Given that all the activities of mind-like forms reduce to fluctuations in the
clarity of the instantiation of the divine essence and given that the relation
between F and P is one of perfect correspondence, what F perceives is thor-
oughly coordinated with the activities of P. Once we assume that every mind
perceives the same thing, namely, harmony, and that the difference among
minds is due to their perspective on that harmony, it is relatively easy to ex-
plain how F’s perspective on the world is due to its relation to P: the ob-
scurity or clarity with which F perceives the world is precisely matched by
the obscurity or clarity with which P instantiates the divine essence. If P in-
stantiates the divine essence obscurely, then F perceives the world accord-
ingly. For help with this idea, let’s turn to our analogy of the musical score,
conductor, and orchestra. Imagine a number of entirely separate orchestras,
each with its own conductor conducting the same score. Further suppose
that although the conductors have the same amount of talent and experi-
ence, the musicians differ greatly in ability: orchestra A contains qualified
muscians, orchestra B mediocre ones, and orchestra C totally incompetent
beginners. In this case, it is possible for orchestra A to produce beautiful
music while C results in cacophony. Despite the similarity among scores and
the equality of talent among conductors, the conductor of A will hear some-
thing significantly different from what the conductors of B and C experi-
ence. Analogously, each mind-like substantial form contains the same (se-
lected) divine essence and each is equally divine-like, but the perceptions of
each will differ radically, where the difference is in direct correspondence to
the passive principle of each. Mind A will perceive or think harmony clearly
while mind C does so obscurely, where the difference between the percep-
tions of A and C is intimately tied to the clarity or obscurity of its passive
principle. However, it is important to note the disanalogy between the
orchestra and the substance. In a way that does not apply to the orchestral
case, the clarity level of F and P are perfectly coordinated. That is, while
the clarity of F is closely tied to P, the clarity of P is similarly tied to F. The
Prearranged Diffusion Relation between F and P requires that F and P be
uniquely suited for one another. The level of clarity or obscurity of F
matches P perfectly.
By such means, we arrive at the fundamental difference between the unity
involved in Reflective Harmony and the unity of substances. According to
the definitions in the Studies on the universal characteristic, every substance
has the same relation of Reflective Harmony with every other: each mind-
like substantial form reflects and hence contains all the others. It follows
from this full-blooded Reflective Harmony that every creature is intimately
related with every other. However, the relation between the active and pas-
sive principles in a corporeal substance is intimate in a different way, and


 

produces a different sort of unity. Although all the substances in God’s

world are perfectly prearranged to correspond to one another, the active and
passive principles in every corporeal substance are prearranged to corre-
spond to one another in a more direct fashion. For help with this topic, let’s
turn to the (mid-) Substantial Form Assumption. Particularly relevant
here is the idea that a substantial form F of a substance S contains a Pro-
duction Rule that is such that the necessary and sufficient conditions for
each state of F consists in the conjunction of the principle of activity in F,
its Production Rule, and its previous state. I propose that the correct func-
tioning of the Production Rule in S depends on the fact that the states of F
are related to the states of P in a way different from the states of all the other
substances in the world. To be precise, F is constructed so that each of the
perceptions that it has of P is a necessary condition for its next state. The
perceptions that it has of the rest of the world do not function in this way.
That is, the proper functioning of F’s Production Rule does not rely on the
states of any substances other than those in F’s passive principle, but the
proper function of the Production Rule does rely entirely on the states of
p, p, . . . pn+. We find the same basic idea, approached from slightly dif-
ferent directions, in the Theory of Corporeal Substance and the (early-
) Passive Principle Assumption. The Prearranged Diffusion Relation,
which stands at the center of the former, entails our point. It claims that the
activity of each of the subordinate substances in P is a necessary condition
of any substantial feature f of S.45 Following the interpretation of this re-
lation offered at the beginning of this subsection, f is what F perceives just
in case it emanates quality q; and each activity of each of the subordinate
substances, p, p, . . . pn+ is a state of p, p, . . . pn+ that corresponds to
f. It follows that each state of each of the subordinate substances in P is a
necessary condition for the thinking of f by F. Nor is that all. The (early
) Passive Principle Assumption also implies that F is tied to the domi-
nant minds of p, p, . . . pn+ and hence to its perception of them in a way
that it is not connected to any other substances. In brief, every mind-like
substantial form F and all the dominant minds in the subordinate sub-
stances in P perceive and hence contain all the states of all the substances in
the world; but F and each of the minds in p, p, . . . pn+ bears a special re-
lation to one another: for each, the perception of the states of the others is
a necessary condition for the proper functioning of its Production Rule.

Unity, diversity, and Preestablished Harmony

There is a lovely elegance to this system, which handsomely combines the
demands of the Platonist assumptions about unity and diversity with the
insistence of the Aristotelian assumptions about causal self-sufficiency.
Each substance contains the same (selected) divine essence, but instantiates

. For an account of how P can be a necessary condition of F, see the discussion in ch. , sub-
section ‘Resurrection, core of substance, and Prearranged Diffusion.’


  ,  – 

that essence in its own unique fashion. Because each substance is different
from every other, it will instantiate a different version of the divine essence;
because each substance perceives what it emanates or instantiates, it will per-
ceive a different version of the world. Therefore, each substance is entirely
causally autonomous and thoroughly intelligible in that each contains the
complete ratio for everything it does and everything it thinks. But each is
also intimately connected to every other. Because all substances perceive the
same harmony – that is, because they perceive the Supreme Being insofar as
it is immanent in the world – each contains all the others. But each differs
from every other in its perspective on harmony. In section  of chapter , I
noted the remarkable idea that according to Leibniz in the Elements of nat-
ural law, the “deformity” of mind is a good-making feature. It now seems
that such deformity is rooted in passivity in the sense that the clarity of the
perceptions of each mind-like form is a function of the clarity of the in-
stantiation of the (selected) divine essence of its passive principle. Although
each substance is intimately related to every other, the constituents of a cor-
poreal substance are constructed so that the perception of the activities of
each functions as the necessary conditions for the activities of all the others.
One of the most striking features of the Studies on the universal charac-
teristic is its successful attempt to explain substantial activity entirely in
terms of degrees of perfection. There are two important results. The re-
duction of substantial activity to emanations of the (selected) divine essence
gives Leibniz the means to sever the causal connections among substances.
Each creature sits autonomously producing its own world: the activities and
perceptions of each are nothing more than an instantiation of the (selected)
divine essence, which follows from the Production Rule given it by God.
But this total autonomy is neatly coupled with a perfect unity among all
creatures. Every action and passion of every substance is reflected in every
other. Each contains and responds to the fluctuations in the levels of per-
fection of all the others. This account of substantial activity has several ad-
vantages. Among other things, it is an elegant way to increase the variety in
the world. One of the claims of the Theory of Harmonized Plenitude is that
the goodness of the world is partly a function of the variety of creatures
within it. By making difference a matter of the clarity of the instantiation
of the divine essence, Leibniz has added significantly to the variety of good-
ness in the world. The result is an elaborate hierarchy of perfection.
This brings us to a dramatic break that Leibniz makes with some of his Pla-
tonist predecessors. According to the Supreme Being Assumption, each of
the features of self-sufficiency, perfection, reality, and unity is a function of
the other. According to Leibniz in the Studies on the universal characteristic,
there is a hierarchy of perfection, but there is neither a hierarchy of unity
nor self-sufficiency. As noted in the analysis of definition [] in section ,
there are two kinds of unities that conform to the two kinds of substances:
whereas the mind-like substantial forms cannot be divided in any way, the
corporeal substances in the world have constituents and are divisible. In this
case, there is not a hierarchy of degrees of unity, but there are two different


 

kinds of unity. According to the definitions in the Studies on the universal

characteristic, each substance seems to be self-sufficient in exactly the same
way: each has a nature that contains the complete ratio for all its features.
But it seems reasonable to assume that the same sort of division between
kinds of unity would apply to the feature of self-sufficiency as well. That
is, the self-sufficiency of mind-like forms differs from that of corporeal
substances since the latter depends on the former. The important point for
us here, however, is that the metaphysics of the Studies on the universal
characteristic lacks a hierarchy of degrees of unity and self-sufficiency. By
the end of , Leibniz has transformed the Platonist hierarchy so that
the difference among the levels of being reduces to one of perfection. He
has constructed an elaborately harmonized world within which there are
unities within unities, all the way down. Each corporeal substance both
contains a unity and is itself a component of one. Preestablished Harmony
consists of an infinity of causally autonomous beings in perfect communi-
cation with one another. The only thing more causally autonomous and
more unified than the world itself is its perfectly self-sufficient and wholly
unified creator.
For the sake of convenience, let’s summarize those assumptions whose
details need revising on the basis of Leibniz’s Studies on the universal char-
acteristic:

• (Early ) Reflective Harmony claims that every substance thinks or re-
flects the entire world and contains every other substance in the sense that
it perceives all the states or thoughts of all the others.
• The (early ) Substantial Form Assumption claims that for every mind-
like substantial form F in a corporeal substance S, F acts constantly
through emanation and therefore can neither be created nor destroyed by
anything other than God; F contains the (selected) divine essence and a
Production Rule where the latter specifies how F will emanate the former;
F emanates its states which are its thoughts, which change constantly,
which are the ontological correlates of the predicates in the complete con-
cept of S, and which are a more or less clear instantiation of the (selected)
divine essence; F is permanently rooted in its passive principle P with
which it forms a core of substance, where the relation between F and P is
one of Prearranged Diffusion and where the unity is indissoluble.
• The (early ) Theory of Corporeal Substance maintains that, for each
corporeal substance S, whether human or non-human, the nature of S is
constituted of a mind-like substantial form F and a passive principle P,
where F and P have a Prearranged Diffusion Relation with one another.
For the nature of F, see the (early ) Substantial Form Assumption;
for the nature of P, see the (early ) Passive Principle Assumption.
• The (early ) Prearranged Diffusion Relation between F and P in a sub-
stance S creates a core of substance which is constituted by F and the dom-
inant minds in P and which can be more or less expansive (for details, see
chapter , section ). The Diffusion Relation is such that, although each


  ,  – 

of the subordinate substances in P acts out of its own nature, F emanates

instructions for the activity of each of those substances and each of those
substances perceives those instructions: the activity of F and of the
substances in P is each a necessary condition and all are sufficient for any
substantial feature f of S; and moreover, f is a perception or state whose
source is F. The Diffusion Relation assumes Complete-Ratio Phenome-
nalism, the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance, and (Strong) Paral-
lelism.

. Method and metaphysics, –

For decades, scholars have argued that Leibniz’s primary goal in the period
– is to construct the details of his first physics. For years, they have
disagreed about whether the pre-Paris years contain any coherent meta-
physics at all. Recently, when commentators have attempted to reevaluate
the early work, they have been content to focus on a few related texts.46 In
this and the last two chapters, I have attempted to show that once we place
the entire range of Leibniz’s writings of – in their proper historical
and philosophical context, a fascinating and consistent developmental story
emerges. This story shows that Leibniz’s elaborate metaphysics is an at-
tempt to combine ideas from the major philosophical traditions as a way of
solving the metaphysical, physical, and theological problems that interested
him. In chapter , I amassed a good deal of circumstantial evidence that by
the autumn of  Leibniz had developed all the sub-theses of Preestab-
lished Harmony. Because much of that textual evidence was both obscure
and incomplete, I had to stitch together my interpretative account. Al-
though the definitions in Studies on the universal characteristic are also ob-
scure, when we combine them with the evidence of chapter , I do not think
we can avoid the surprising conclusion that by the autumn of , a full
fifteen years before the Discourse on metaphysics and eighteen years before
the First truths, Leibniz promulgates a version of Preestablished Harmony.
There is no smoking gun here, but the texts suggest that when Leibniz went
to Paris in March , his favorite metaphysical option was the collection
of claims constituting Preestablished Harmony.
I have argued throughout this book that the young Leibniz intends to
weave a seamless garment out of borrowed threads. I offer as further sup-
port of this claim that the metaphysics promulgated in Studies on the uni-
versal characteristic is itself a culmination of Leibniz’s earlier philosophical
commitments. That is, we should see the metaphysics proferred by Leibniz
in the period –early  as the result of his attempt to build a coherent
system out of his Metaphysics of Substance and Metaphysics of Divinity.

. For example, in his helpful book on Leibniz’s early philosophy, Beeley does not consider
most of the texts that I discuss in this and the last chapter because they seemed to him to
constitute “the innumerable drafts” of ideas that Leibniz did not take seriously but only
considered “in the workshop of ideas.” See “A Response,” .


 

Among the texts of the period, we find scattered clues of how the Aris-
totelian and Platonist assumptions underlying the Metaphysics of Sub-
stance and Divinity encouraged Leibniz in the evolution of his thought.
Concerning his commitment to Aristotelianism, Leibniz applauds the ele-
gance of Aristotle’s “integrated system,” and throughout  acknowl-
edges his debt to Aristotelian ideas.47 Concering his commitment to Pla-
tonism, Leibniz is sometimes even more explicit. For example, in some of
the notes that he sent to Johann Friedrich in May , he describes a part
of his philosophical evolution. In the essay, Concerning the use and necessity
of demonstrations of the immortality of the soul, Leibniz explains that he has
developed a system that will provide answers to the most profound ques-
tions. At the center of his philosophy, says Leibniz, stands a divine-like
mind that can accomodate all essences. Although he does not explain what
these essences are, he suggests that his views about mind are Platonist in ori-
gin. According to his own account, he took this obscure and “inflated Pla-
tonism,” clarified it, and then used it to explain (among other things) “by
what ratio” mind “is effected by the body, or [seu] perceives, [and] by what
ratio on the other hand, it acts on the body.” At the basis of his answers to
these and other questions stand “the Elements of Mind.” These elements
“are small in mass [mole], but great in worth, since they contain the first
principles of affections, virtues, the Republic, happiness, Jurisprudence,
and natural Theology.” Besides solving problems in theology and law, Leib-
niz insists that these elements “offer an Hypothesis by which all phenom-
ena and mysteries of faith are able to be preserved.” He proclaims in a text
part of which we have seen, “Neither will what Existence is be able to be
defined, nor will it be possible to explain how Existence corresponds to any-
thing unless a Mind is supposed. Oh, our abused philosophy! . . . But what
Existence is, what has to be superadded to Essence, no one up until now has
defined.”48 It is among the definitions in Studies on the universal character-
istic that we find a clear account of essence, existence, and their precise re-
lation to mind. In short, when we stand back from the texts of the period
–early  and survey their elaborate and difficult details, we can wit-
ness Leibniz edging toward the basic doctrines of his mature philosophy by
way of his Metaphysics of Substance and Divinity.
Before turning in chapter  to the final phase in the evolution of those
doctrines and their surrounding metaphysics, let’s briefly consider one ob-
vious question: if Leibniz has developed such a significant metaphysical po-
sition by the end of , why doesn’t he explicitly announce it? I addressed
a version of this question in chapter  where I suggested that Leibniz
thought it unwise to preach to his interlocutors and hoped instead to lead
his reader to the truth by slow but steady steps. Is there evidence of his
Metaphysics of Method and Rhetoric of Attraction in the texts of the pe-
riod –early ?

. See, e.g., VI ii –, . . II i –.


  ,  – 

Throughout the period, Leibniz proclaims his commitment to concilia-

tory eclecticism, and energetically attempts to enlist other philosophers in
its service. In his letters of , some of which we have discussed in chap-
ters , , and , Leibniz calls attention to the success of his conciliatory
method, although he never explicitly presents the details of his system. To
a Dutch doctor and defender of Copernicus, Lambert van Velthuysen, he
insists in May that “the ancient and new experiments agree” and that “the
greater part of hypotheses [of ancient and new philosophers] are able to be
reconciled.”49 In his November letter to Arnauld, he implies that his suc-
cess in solving the problem of the Eucharist was helped by his conciliatory
means. In other texts, he compares his physical views to those of Aristotle,
Descartes, Digby, Hobbes, Galileo, and Thomasius.50 To the German Aris-
totelian, Hermann Conring, Leibniz proclaims the virtues of the modern
philosophers and insists that his own views are consistent with the philos-
ophy of Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, Digby, Descartes, and others.51 Leibniz
seems especially keen to enlist Conring in his methodological project. Dur-
ing their correspondence, Conring endorses a conciliatory approach and
proposes “to steer a middle path between the ancient and new philoso-
phers.” In a letter to Leibniz of February  Conring recognizes the im-
portance of Leibniz’s contribution:
I myself agree with you that because of recent experiments certain things can be
taught or done more happily than we are accustomed in the field of medicine. But
if you were well-versed in the books of the ancient doctors, you would realize how
many things known to the ancients are not known today. Yet there is error in both
ways: the moderns know and admire only the new, they haughtily disdain anything
old, betraying their own ignorance to the learned; others, incurious of recent mat-
ters, embrace only the ancient. I agree with neither, but it is my desire to combine
the old and the new. Our age is most greedy for the new alone, and is ignorant of the
ancient, with both insolent arrogance of others and stupid self-love. But what grieves
me most is that however much knowledge increases on one side, an equal amount is
diminished from the other. I do not doubt however that you will tread each path with
profit and an increase of learning.52
But at the same time that Leibniz was inspiring philosophers with his
Metaphysics of Method, he was also cleverly engaged in his Rhetoric of At-
traction. Throughout the texts of , we find ample evidence of his cau-
tion. His introductory letter to Arnauld, for example, reads like an elabo-
rate coded message: instead of articulating his underlying metaphysics,
Leibniz merely drops clues as to its nature and makes enticing promises of
its enormous benefits. Even in his letters to Thomasius, he notes the simi-
larity of the views of his mentor to those of the moderns.53 In some notes
on prime matter, he compares his views to those of Aristotle and Descartes.54
That is, consistent with the Rhetoric of Attraction, Leibniz seems to have

. II i . On Van Velthuysen, see the Academy editors’ introduction, xxi.
. II i –, ; VI ii . . II i . . II i .
. E.g., see II i . . VI ii .


 

no intention of divulging the underlying assumptions of his system. For ex-

ample, after summarizing the general features of his metaphysics, he warns
Wedderkopf55 in May: “But this is said to you; I should not like to have it
get abroad. For not even the most accurate remarks are understood by
everyone.” In one of his essays for Johann Friedrich, Leibniz goes even far-
ther. After presenting a general account of the development of his views
and their importance, Leibniz announces that he has the basic elements of
his ideas entirely “prefigured, connected, and expressed” in his mind. While
he admits that he has not had the time to present these views in detail, he
insists that such matters deserve “perseverance of attention” and not “a
hasty lecture.” In an unusually frank moment, in an essay entitled Concern-
ing the use and necessity of demonstrations of the immortality of the soul, Leib-
niz explains:
The idea is not to present these demonstrations so that entering [people’s] ears with
a favorable speech, they strike with a sort of temporary rapture, but the idea is to
have them enter minds and remain there for good, and to be considered in acting. It
is like the demonstrations of the Geometry of Euclid, which ought not to be quickly
looked at, but rather examined and explained up to their first elements, until they
are clear and can be denied by no one. These things are so important to life and hap-
piness that they do not deserve to be torn from their own defenses by which they de-
fend themselves mutually as an armour of perpetual connections; they do not de-
serve to be born and exposed to the laughter or the neglect of those who still do not
grasp the whole ratio of the system.56
In , Leibniz was naive enough to think that he had arrived at the first
elements of the true philosophy and that those elements were potentially
the source of happiness and peace. But he was also realistic enough to be-
lieve that their persuasive power crucially depended on their proper pres-
entation. For the student of Leibniz, this combination of naivete and real-
ism is disastrous. Instead of exposing his system to laughter, Leibniz chose
to insinuate it bit by bit. His tragic mistake was assuming that these piece-
meal presentations of his thought would be sufficient to lead his readers to
his “first elements” and eventually to the ratio behind his system. The goal
of chapters  through  has been to piece together the clues which he left
in the texts of – in an attempt finally to discern that system. In giv-
ing this “history of his discoveries,” we have been following Leibniz’s own
recommendation. As he wrote to Louis Bourguet in : “it is good to
study the discoveries of others in such a way that allows us to detect the
source of their inventions.” According to Leibniz, we will “better profit”
from the proposals of other thinkers when we identify “the process by
which they arrive at” their ideas.57 It is now time to turn to the final chap-
ter in our account of Leibniz’s metaphysical “discoveries.”

. II i : L .

. II i .
. G III . A longer version of this text was quoted in the Introduction. See n. .


 10
Final steps toward the mature philosophy, –

When Leibniz went to Paris in , he was on a secret diplomatic mission

for the Baron Johann Christian von Boineburg of Mainz. Leibniz and his
employer sought to maintain peace in Europe despite the aggressive inten-
tions of Louis XIV. When Leibniz reached Paris in March , England
had already declared war on Holland; France would do so within the week.
By the time Leibniz had settled in the French capital, political peace in Eu-
rope was no longer attainable. But the young man remained in Paris to pur-
sue philosophical peace instead, and as a means to that goal, to educate him-
self as thoroughly as possible. It is striking that in , after a period of
enormous productivity, he struggled to stay in Paris, arguing that his pur-
suit of science in the service of humanity could be better achieved there than
in the court of Hanover, whose duke had recently employed him.1
During the four years Leibniz spent in France, his intellectual energies
were focused primarily on mathematical and technical problems. The re-
sults include the construction of a calculating machine that was successfully
demonstrated in early  and the invention of the calculus in the autumn
of that year. However, despite his overriding concern with such projects,
Leibniz did not neglect the metaphysical system that he worked so hard to
develop during the period –early . He found time to reexamine his
ideas and to enlarge upon key elements of his system.2 For the sake of con-
venience, let’s call the metaphysics that Leibniz either developed or con-
firmed between early  and early  his core metaphysics. I take it that
this system contains (at least) the doctrines articulated in chapters  through
. But it is important to be perfectly clear about the exact relationship be-
tween these doctrines and his more basic underlying assumptions. The
methodological, Aristotelian, and Platonist assumptions articulated in
chapters , , and  constitute the materials out of which Leibniz developed
his Metaphysics of Method, Substance, and Divinity. These assumptions
form the bedrock of Leibniz’s thought for the rest of his very long life. Be-
tween  and , his core metaphysics evolved out of the application of
these assumptions to the grand theological, physical, and metaphysical
problems that interested him. This metaphysics consists of (at least) the fol-

. Aiton, Leibniz: A Biography, .

. Leibniz arrived in Paris in March  and left in October . Between early  and
late , he applied most of his energies to mathematics; nearly all of his philosophical
work falls on either side of this period.


 

lowing doctrines: (mid-) Emanative Harmony, (early ) Reflective

Harmony, the (mid-) Passive Principle Assumption, the (early )
Substantial Form Assumption, and the (early ) Theory of Corporeal
Substance along with its related Prearranged Diffusion Relation and Pro-
duction Rule; moreover, these doctrines entail Complete-Ratio Phenome-
nalism, (Strong) Parallelism, and the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance.3
During his Paris period, Leibniz remains committed to all these tenets,
although he expands upon some of them.4 As I will show here, when he
leaves the French capital in the autumn of , he has either reconfirmed
or refined all the doctrines contained in his core metaphysics. As we will see,
his doctrine of marks and traces and the Principle of the Identity of Indis-
cernibles are more securely in place; his Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism,
(Strong) Parallelism, and Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance are more
fully articulated; and he is prepared to distinguish between complete and
incomplete beings. Upon leaving Paris, the only one of his prominent ma-
ture doctrines that has not yet evolved is his account of truth. Because this
theory did not develop until , the discussion in this chapter will cover
the period between Leibniz’s arrival in Paris in March  and the devel-
opment of the concept containment account of truth in .
There are three main stages in the evolution of Leibniz’s ideas during our
period. His interest in mathematical problems surrounding the calculus
reached a highpoint in –. During that period he produced only a few
essays of metaphysical importance. Almost all of the writings that interest
me here fall neatly on either side of that divide. In section , I survey the
early Paris writings and uncover ample evidence of the core metaphysics.
Although Leibniz works energetically in the areas of physics and theology
in –, the core metaphysics does not evolve in any significant way. In
sections  and , I turn to the difficult and enormously rich philosophical
writings of  where Leibniz makes important advances in the details of
his views. However, as I show, these fall neatly within the confines of the
core metaphysics. In section , I turn briefly to some of the motivations be-
hind the development of Leibniz’s concept containment theory of truth. It
is important to recognize that the theory is a relatively direct descendant of
the Metaphysics of Substance and Divinity. Finally, in section , I consider
some questions that arise for my interpretation. For example, there has re-
cently been a good deal of speculation about the degree to which Leibniz

. For a summary of these, see the Appendix II, chs. –. In the discussion that follows, I will
drop the dates from my references to these doctrines, but it should be understood that I
mean the last revised version of the doctrine.
. None of the relatively few studies of the Paris years has recognized its importance. For the
most helpful recent work, see Wilson, Leibniz’s Metaphysics, ch. ; Fouke, “Leibniz’s Op-
position to Cartesian Bodies during the Paris Period, –;” G.H.R. Parkinson, De
Summa Rerum: Metaphysical Papers, –, Introduction; Mark Kulstad, “Causation
and Pre-established Harmony in the Early Development of Leibniz’s Philosophy;” Robi-
net, Architectonique disjonctive, passim; Belaval, Leibniz, chs. –; Hans Poser, “Leibniz’
Parisaufenthalt.” Wilson, Poser, and Kulstad include references to the preceding literature.


      , –

was influenced by the metaphysics of Spinoza’s Ethics. The developmental

story offered in the previous chapters shows that however much Leibniz was
shocked and enthralled by Spinoza’s metaphysical proposals, they could not
have had any serious influence on the development of his thought.
I have claimed that when Leibniz arrived in Paris in March , he car-
ried with him the set of metaphysical doctrines attributed to him in the pre-
vious chapters. Before turning to the further evolution of some of these
views, it will be helpful to say something about the status that these doc-
trines had in Leibniz’s thought at that time. On the basis of a thorough
analysis of the texts of –, there can be little doubt that Leibniz main-
tained his commitment to the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance, Com-
plete-Ratio Phenomenalism, (Strong) Parallelism, and the other major
tenets articulated above. As I show in this chapter, we find evidence for these
claims throughout our period; as I claim in the Conclusion to this book, they
form the bedrock of Leibniz’s mature thought. But I want to make it per-
fectly clear that during the s, Leibniz was in the process of testing and
reevaluating these commitments. Between  and , Leibniz met and
corresponded with many of the leading intellectuals in Europe. This must
have been a thrilling and sometimes disturbing period. That Leibniz first
applied himself fully to mathematics in  and had developed the calcu-
lus four years later attests to his enormous intellectual energies at the time.
In these years of intellectual growth, it should not be surprising that his per-
sonal notes are sometimes vague and convoluted. That Leibniz was trying
out ideas and testing his theories is clear. As the cautious thinker he was, he
would of course work and rework his ideas. But we must not let the diffi-
culty of these texts mislead us. Throughout these years, sometimes with
greater clarity, sometimes with less, the core metaphysics is consistently dis-
cernible.
There is ample textual evidence that although he remained undecided
about a few of the details of his system, he did not waver from the meta-
physical commitments that he brought with him to Paris. It is important to
understand, however, the exact nature of his commitment. While Leibniz
took the tenets that constitute the core metaphysics to be true, there is rea-
son to believe that he was prepared to be convinced otherwise. That is, if his
doctrines had failed to solve the new problems that he confronted, or if his
old solutions had come to seem unsatisfactory, he would have changed his
views. Previous chapters of this study offer significant examples of Leib-
niz’s willingness to revise his views dramatically as soon as he became con-
vinced of a good reason to do so. Once we see Leibniz’s writings of –
within the context of the developmental story presented here, it becomes
possible to glimpse his profound intellectual honesty. Leibniz was neither
prepared to produce a grand account of his ideas nor willing to proclaim the
truth of his system because he had not yet submitted them to the full bat-
tery of tough philosophical tests. When other scholars have examined the
Paris texts in general and Leibniz’s personal notes in particular, they have
seen indecisiveness and confusion. I suggest that these texts reveal the op-


 

posite. In the midst of his intensive work in mathematics, Leibniz’s main

philosophical goal was to see if the doctrines developed in – would
survive such careful dissection and thorough reexamination. Especially in
his personal notes, which Leibniz wrote for himself and never intended to
publish, he applies his metaphysical tenets to a wide variety of problems,
some of which are old and many of which are new. For example, he con-
fronts for the first time both the difficulties of skepticism and the dangers
of Spinozism. In his notes, we discern a mind eager to reformulate familiar
proposals and test ideas. In the end, Leibniz remained devoted to his doc-
trines because they continued to offer the most plausible solutions to the
sundry problems that concerned him. Let’s now consider the texts.

. Early Paris years, –

I have suggested that during his stay in the French capital, Leibniz sub-
mitted his core metaphysics to a grueling series of philosophical tests. If I
am correct in my interpretation of Leibniz’s philosophical development and
in my account of his interests in Paris, then we would expect him to turn his
attentions to some of the grand philosophical problems for which he had not
yet developed adequate solutions. Chapter  contained a brief account of
Leibniz’s concern with the problem of the continuum, while chapter 
noted his early interest in the problem of evil and the closely related diffi-
culty of divine freedom. It is well-known that the mature Leibniz consid-
ers these problems to be labyrinths from which it is difficult for human rea-
son to escape. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, to discover that it
was exactly these problems to which Leibniz turned his philosophical ener-
gies in .
The main thesis of this section is that during his first months in Paris,
Leibniz maintained the metaphysical status quo. The details of his system
did not develop significantly, but they were put to use in solving the prob-
lems that most interested him. In March , Leibniz wrote a letter to
Johann Friedrich in which he describes his intellectual activities during his
first year in Paris: “I have made important demonstrations in the difficult
areas of religion and the true philosophy,” and have also made contribu-
tions concerning “the inner nature of things.”5 That God stands at the cen-
ter of this “true philosophy” and that the evolution in Leibniz’s thinking
about mind and matter during the period is encouraged by his reflections
on the nature of God is clear from his notes. Leibniz arrived in Paris with
the basic outline of both his Metaphysics of Substance and his Meta-
physics of Divinity; the next step in his metaphysical investigations was to
examine more precisely the relation between these two aspects of his
thought.

. II i .


      , –

The Philosopher’s confession

It was during the winter of – that Leibniz wrote what is probably the
best known of his Paris writings, the Philosopher’s confession. In this dia-
logue, he discusses for the first time at length a problem that would engage
his attention for the next forty years. In –, when he wrote the Con-
spectus for his grand Catholic demonstrations, he lists a number of topics that
he intends to discuss, including the relation between God and evil.6 We can
only guess at his reasons for taking up this topic in the winter of –,
but it is at least possible that he was motivated to do so because he had
developed a clear conception of his Metaphysics of Divinity just before
departing for Paris, and in the autumn of  was settled enough in the
French capital to take up such a difficult project.
Although Leibniz’s proposed solution to the problem of evil in the dia-
logue is fascinating, what concerns me here are its background assump-
tions.7 The text constitutes important evidence of the Metaphysics of
Divinity attributed to Leibniz in chapters , , and . It also suggests the
way in which he intends to build on these previously laid foundations. But
the Philosopher’s confession is also a nice example of the very tight rein that
Leibniz keeps on his metaphysical doctrines. In the course of the dialogue,
he never preaches about his metaphysical views, nor does he offer any more
details than are absolutely required by his argument. Moreover, when he
does display a few of his metaphysical tenets, he tosses them out without ex-
planation. From the text itself, it is nearly impossible to discern what I have
described as the underlying assumptions of his Metaphysics of Divinity.
And yet throughout the text, Leibniz scatters clues which might have
piqued the interest of his contemporaries, thoroughly educated as they were
in Platonism. In other words, the dialogue offers an excellent example of the
Rhetoric of Attraction that I attributed to Leibniz in chapter : in the
process of solving a grand theological problem, he offers a few hints which
were supposed to engage the average reader and thereby to encourage in-
terest in the underlying metaphysical system.
But we are not the average seventeenth-century reader. In order to deci-
pher even the most obvious clues in the dialogue, we need to turn to the Pla-
tonist assumptions which were first presented in chapter  and then dis-
covered in Leibniz’s writings of –. Roughly speaking, the dialogue
contains evidence of the following: the major parts of the Emanative Cre-
ation Story attributed to Leibniz in chapter , the Platonist epistemology
and its related account of mind described in chapters  and , and the dis-
tinction between the phenomenal world and the underlying world of active
things presented in chapter . Let’s consider the evidence in the Philoso-
pher’s confession for each of these in turn.
. VI i . I capitalize only the first word in the title of unpublished texts. See xiii.
. For an account of Leibniz’s views, see Sleigh, Confessio Philosophi, Introduction. In my
study of the Philosopher’s confession I have been greatly helped by Sleigh’s translation. The
translations that follow are (mostly) Sleigh’s.


 

In section  of chapter , I offered the following summary of the Ema-

native Creation Story:
() Among an infinity of emanative options (each of which is a version of
the divine essence), the Supreme Being chooses one. God emanates this
(selected) divine essence so as to create and sustain the world. Each in-
dividual created substance S is an instantiation of the (selected) divine
essence.
() For every created individual substance S, there is a complete concept in
God’s mind which contains all the predicates of S and that is a version
of the (selected) divine essence.
() For every individual substance S, there is a substantial form F that con-
tains a set of instructions that tells F how to activate and organize its
passive priniciple P at every moment of S’s existence and that therefore
functions as the ontological correlate of the complete concept in that
every true predicate in the complete concept of S has a correlate in the
set of instructions, and the instructions constitute the necessary condi-
tion for the true ascription of those predicates.
() There is intersubstantial causation among substances and (Weak) Par-
allelism where the latter is understood as follows: for every substance S,
the set of instructions in the substantial form F of S is constructed so
that the actions of S will perfectly correspond to those of all the sub-
stances with which S interacts, with the result that all the predicates
contained in the complete concept of S will be true of S.
() Every instantiation of the (selected) divine essence is different from
every other; that is, there are no two created substances with the same
individual essence.
Leibniz is most explicit in the Philosopher’s confession about claim (), and
even goes beyond what he said in the pre-Paris texts to offer an account of
the relation between the Ideas and their instantiation in the created world.
According to Leibniz, the essence of God consists in “the eternal and im-
mutable . . . Ideas”8 which are “contained in the divine intellect,”9 where
they “subsist from all eternity.”10 These Ideas are “the nature of things,”
“the first source” of the world, and “the cause of this course of things.”11
The view here is that the divine intellect has in it an unspecified number of
Ideas which are eternal and immutable, which constitute the divine essence,
and which God wills to instantiate in the world: “the nature of the things
themselves . . . is contained in the ideas themselves of these things, i.e., in
the essence of God.”12 Leibniz goes beyond the texts of – to insist

. VI iii . . VI iii .

. VI iii . As far I know, there has been no thorough discussion in the secondary litera-
ture of the metaphysical assumptions, what I have called the Metaphysics of Divinity, that
stand behind the Philosopher’s confession. Although Catherine Wilson offers a (beautifully
written) story of Leibniz’s development and glimpses some of his sources, she does not go
into the details of the period. See her Leibniz’s Metaphysics, chs. –.
. VI iii –. . VI iii .


      , –

that God chooses this “series of things” among other alternatives because it
is best or most harmonious. He also offers his first example of a possible,
unactualized essence: “Therefore, if the essence of a thing can be conceived,
provided that it is conceived clearly and distinctly (e.g., a species of animal
with an odd number of feet, also a species of immortal animals), then surely
it must be held to be possible.”13 Although he is not explicit about the em-
anative relation between God and creatures, what he says entails that God
is immanent in the world. For Leibniz, “the series of things . . . is due to . . .
the divine understanding, or, what is the same, to the well known eternal
ideas, or the nature of things,”14 and moreover the series of things could not
have been otherwise because it necessarily reflects or instantiates that
essence. He argues that since God is “a sufficient and entire ratio . . . with
respect to the universe,” it is impossible that “there there should result op-
posed consequences, that is, that diverse things should follow from the same
thing, is as impossible as the same thing being diverse.” In a marginal note,
Leibniz adds: “In a certain way the universe is the image of God.”15
Because the Philosopher’s confession has no explicit discussion of Leibniz’s
Theory of Substance, there are few comments which are directly relevant
to parts () and () of the Emanative Creation Story. But those available
clues suggest that he remains committed to the account of substance en-
tailed by these claims. Most relevant are the comments that Leibniz makes
about the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Although most of these are di-
rected toward God as the cause of the world, a few relate to individual cre-
ated things. For example, Leibniz explains:

There is nothing without a ratio. . . . [N]othing ever exists unless it is possible (at
least for one who is omniscient) to assign a sufficient ratio why it is rather than not,
and why it is thus and not otherwise. . . . Whatever exists, at any rate, it will have all
the requisites for existing; however, all the requisites for existing taken together at
the same time are a sufficient ratio for existing. Therefore, whatever exists has a suf-
ficient ratio for existing.16

For everything that exists, whether an individual corporeal substance or a

feature of such a substance, there is a complete ratio that is in theory intel-
ligible.17 Leibniz continues by explaining that “the proposition, nothing is
without a ratio, is the foundation of physics and morality,” which are “the
sciences” that deal with “acting and suffering.” In another part of the dia-
logue, he discusses the requisites of action where the point is that it is im-
possible for all the requisites of an action to exist and yet for the action not
to exist. According to Leibniz, this amounts to saying “at one and the same
time it exists and does not exist.”18 In brief, although Leibniz does not pres-
ent his Theory of Corporeal Substance in the Philosopher’s confession, he

. VI iii . . VI iii . . VI iii . . VI iii .
. Among other things, this amounts to an implicit endorsement of the Intelligibility As-
sumption noted in ch. . See the Appendix II or the end of ch. .
. VI iii .


 

endorses the Aristotelian assumptions that underlie that notion and that are
assumed in parts () and () of the Emanative Creation Story.
By far the most extended discussion of a topic related to individual sub-
stance occurs at the end of the dialogue. The context here is as follows:
“since minds are in themselves similar to each other or, as they say in the
schools, they differ only numerically,” a question arises as to “why this mind
rather than that one is exposed to circumstances which will corrupt the will”
or, in other words, “what reason for diversity can there be in universal har-
mony?”19 It is important to understand that the theological puzzle assumes
“the greatest similarity possible” among souls so that “not even an angel” or
God can tell them apart. Leibniz is perfectly clear about the fact that the
theological difficulty “touches upon the very thorny problem of the princi-
ple of individuation, that is, of the discrimination of things differing solely
in number.” In other words, the puzzle that Leibniz faces is based on an as-
sumption that stands in contradistinction to some of his own most basic
views about substance. Neither the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency nor
the Principle of Self-Sufficiency is consistent with the claim that the prin-
ciple of individuation of a substance “stands outside the thing itself.”20 In
fact, part () of the Emanative Creation Story claims that each substance
differs from every other while the conjunction of claims (), (), and () im-
plies that each mind contains a set of instructions that individuates it from
every other substance. Within this context, Leibniz’s response to the theo-
logical difficulty bears witness to his conciliatory talents: he offers an ac-
count of individuation that is consistent with his own views and yet falls
within the restriction posed by the puzzle. He explains: “souls, or as I pre-
fer to call them, minds” are all fundamentally the same and become indi-
viduated by things external to them in the sense that it is “the series of
things” that produces individuation:
For to ask why this soul rather than another is subjected from the beginning to these
circumstances of time and place (whence arises the entire series of life, death, sal-
vation or damnation), and, consequently, why it passes from one circumstance to an-
other, the series of things external to itself bringing forth things in this manner, is
to ask why this soul is this soul. Suppose another soul began to exist in this same
body (that is, a body of the same time and place) in the same time and place in which
this one began; then this very soul that you call another, will not be another, but will
be this one.21
Once we place this passage in the context set by the previous chapters, the
following interpretation suggests itself. For each mind or substantial form
F, before God gives F its set of instructions, F is just like every other active
principle: it is (something like) a vital force with pure emanative power. F
will acquire its own nature and thereby become distinct from every other
active principle just in case God fully conceives “the series of things,”
chooses where to put F in that series, and then assigns F its place. In other
words, to assign F a place in “the series of things” is equivalent to conceiv-
. VI iii . . VI iii . . VI iii .


      , –

ing the complete concept of F and then giving F a set of instructions. Or to

approach the point from another direction, since each F is perfectly con-
structed to conform to the activities of its body or passive principle P, it fol-
lows that to attribute F to P is just to say that F has been assigned a set of
instructions that corresponds perfectly to P. In Leibniz’s words, “this soul
is this soul” and will have the assigned “circumstances” of “life, death, sal-
vation or damnation” because it has the set of instructions given it; and it
has that set of instructions because it falls where it does in “the series of
things.” Although the Emanative Creation Story is underdetermined by the
text, the various clues that the dialogue contains about substance strongly
support the story. In fact, the following passage can be read as a rough sum-
mary of it:
The present state of things depends on the preceding state of things, the preceding
state on other preceding states and so forth. Therefore, the present state depends on
the series of things. The series of things depends on the universal harmony. The
universal harmony depends on those well known eternal and immutable ideas them-
selves . . . contained in the divine intellect.22
The Philosopher’s confession also includes evidence of the Platonist epis-
temology described in chapters  and . There are clear signs in the dialogue
of the Epistemological Assumption.23 Although Leibniz is explicit neither
about the fact that the Ideas, as objects of knowledge, are internal to the
mind nor about the fact that it is the human understanding that attains
the truth, it follows from what he says. It is clear that knowledge of God is
the goal of life and that the essence of God is “the eternal” and “immutable”
Ideas.”24 He also insists that it is the divine understanding or intellect (in-
tellectus) that grasps the Ideas and that it is through cognition and reflection
that human beings grasp the essence of those Ideas.25 But Leibniz is par-
ticularly explicit in the dialogue about the beginning and end of the episte-
mological journey to the truth. Concerning the need to remove oneself from
the material world and to be aided by divine light, he explains: “if someone
turns to God, or what is the same, withdraws from the senses and draws
back [his] mind to itself, if he seeks the truth with a sincere affection, then
the darkness will be split as with some unexpected stroke of light, and
through the dense fog in the middle of the night the way is shown.”26 Con-
cerning the beatific vision that lies at the end of the epistemological jour-
ney, Leibniz goes well beyond what he said in the texts of –. He ex-

. VI iii . In the Philosopher’s confession, there is no evidence for or against claim () of
the Emanative Creation Story.
. In ch. , sect. , I showed that Leibniz was committed to the Epistemological Assump-
tion, according to which () the mind is the object of knowledge in the sense that it con-
tains the eternal truths or Ideas, () the mind, which is mutable and finite, will become
aware of those objects only if it both turns away from the material world and is aided by
the divine light, and () it is the intellect or understanding that is capable of grasping those
truths.
. See, e.g., VI iii –, –. . VI iii ,  . VI iii –.


 

plains that the blessed are those who have “been admitted to God, i.e, uni-
versal harmony. . . and grasped it as if concentrated in a single stroke of vi-
sion” and who “have delight without end because they multiply it infinitely
by a more distinct reflection on the parts of their joy.”27
The Philosopher’s confession also offers a thorough account of the episte-
mological status of the phenomena or appearances of things. As noted in
section  of chapter , what the mind thinks and perceives is harmony which
can be seen either as mere dissonance and variety or as consonance and
unity. According to Leibniz in the second half of , when the mind is
“deformed” or exists “in shadow,” it only sees the variety in things or the
world of becoming. Once it begins to recognize the “wondrous” intercon-
nections among things, it glimpses the unity that exists within the variety,
and begins its journey to God.28 According to Leibniz in the Philosopher’s
confession: “The nature of mind is to think; therefore, the harmony of the
mind will consist in thinking about harmony; and the greatest harmony of
the mind or happiness will consist in the concentration of universal har-
mony, i.e., of God, in the mind.”29 In the dialogue, Leibniz goes beyond the
earlier account to explain the role that sin plays in keeping the mind in
shadow and in preventing it from recognizing the unity within the variety.
In his discussion of the difference between those who, like Judas, are “ig-
norant of God” and those who are not,30 Leibniz returns to a collection of
images that he first uses in the Elements of natural law and that I discussed
briefly in sections  and  of chapter . In the writings of , Leibniz in-
sists that in the same way that shadows contribute to a painting and that dis-
sonant sounds contribute to a song, so the “dissonance” of human affairs
constitutes a part of the harmony of things.31 In the winter of –, he
returns to these images and develops them. For Leibniz, because Judas and
other lost souls only see the shadows and hear the dissonances, the real
beauty of the painting and the song lies beyond their perception. As part of
Leibniz’s attempt to explain the place of sin in the most harmonious world,
he insists that “the most confused discord fits into the order of the most ex-
quisite harmony unexpectedly, as a painting is set off by shadow, as the har-
mony due to dissonances transforms the dissonances into consonance (just
as from two odd numbers an even number comes about).”32 Judas and other
sinners are trapped in ignorance because they neither see the painting nor
hear the song; for them, there are only shadows and dissonance. Leibniz
continues:
Given that the whole is pleasing, it does not follow that each part is pleasing. Even
if the entire harmony is pleasing, the discordant aspects of it in themselves never-
theless are not pleasing, in spite of the fact that they are mixed together according
to the rules of art. . . . Only the whole is pleasing, only the whole is harmonious.33

. VI iii . . VI i –. . VI iii –. . VI iii .
. See esp. VI i , .
. VI iii . For another use of these images in the dialogue, see VI iii .
. VI iii .


      , –

In chapter , section , I discussed the Platonist Principle of Harmonized

Plenitude and noted the fact that Aquinas and other scholastics embraced
the idea that the goodness of the world is partly a function of the order
among beings.34 In the Philosopher’s confession, Leibniz more fully devel-
ops his rendition of this assumption. As fascinating as his proposals are,
what interests me now is the underlying epistemological point and its close
relation to Emanative Harmony. In chapters  and , I attributed to Leib-
niz Emanative Harmony, whose relevant claims here are that every creature
instantiates the (selected) divine essence and that God is the unity in the
world. I also noted the fact that for Leibniz, before one can recognize the
immanence of God in the world, it is necessary to look beyond the dis-
sonance and variety immediately obvious in the appearances to their in-
terconnections and unity. As noted in section , chapter , the “splendid”
variety of things can be seen either as “the highest consonance” or as the
basest “confusion.” Making good use of the analogy with art, Leibniz in-
sists in  that the world will be better and more beautiful when there is
an “unexpected” unity among things, “where no one would suspect a con-
nection.”35 That is, while variety is a good-making feature of the world and
adds significantly to worldly beauty, it is also a dangerous trap: as long as
the perceiver only focuses on the variety, the unity of things will not be ev-
ident. In his dialogue on evil, Leibniz goes beyond what he said in the ear-
lier texts to display the dangers and delights of worldly variety and to show
how closely related the perils of the appearances are to the joys of “unex-
pected” unity: “Harmony and discord . . . consist in the relation of identity to
diversity, for harmony is unity in many things, and it is the greatest [where
there are the] greatest number of things.” Although the latter are “disor-
dered in appearance [in speciem],” they may be “reduced unexpectedly by
a wonderful ratio to the greatest symmetry.”36 As he vividly writes, the mind
can be “pure or infected” and can “proceed correctly on the royal road of
duties, or stagger through a wasteland.” Although “the means of escaping”
the wasteland “is in our power, many do not use it.” For many, “it does not
even come into their minds” that they are “able to escape,” so that “while
seeing they do not see, while hearing they do not hear.” However, “like a
light in the middle of shadows gliding through a crack, the means of es-
caping is in our power,” and it is possible for each person “as if in the blink
of an eye, by an instantaneous metamorphosis” to become “infallible and
prudent, and happy beyond the wise.”37 For Leibniz, it is impossible for
human beings who are:
not yet purified . . . to grasp with the mind the whole melody, not recognizing that
these particular dissonances interspersed in the melody make the harmony of the
universe yet more exquisite . . . so it is with the essence of harmony that the discor-

. See Appendix II, ch.  for a summary of this and related assumptions.
. VI i –. . VI iii .
. VI iii . Notice the relationship to the Biblical passage that describes the resurrection
from the dead “[i]n a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. . . .”  Corinthians :.


 
dant diversity be redeemed wonderfully by an unexpected unity; which not only
those who write songs, but also those who write stories . . . take as a rule of art.38

By such means, Leibniz confirms and elaborates upon the epistemology of

the earlier texts.
In the Philosopher’s confession, Leibniz says almost nothing about the de-
tails of his Metaphysics of Substance and he offers no direct evidence of
Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, or even of phenomenalism. The absence
of a full-blown discussion of these topics is not surprising given that the
point of the dialogue is the rather grand topic of the problem of evil. But it
is noteworthy that Leibniz does divulge his commitment to a distinction
that we found at the center of his Studies on the universal characteristic and
that is importantly related to Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism. In the dis-
cussion of Leibniz’s notes on Wilkins’ book in chapter , I noted a distinc-
tion between quantity and quality, where the principle of the former “con-
cerns existence” while the principle of the latter is the Principle of
Sufficient Reason. As I suggested there, the study of quantity is the study
of the phenomenal objects that are caused by the perceiving mind, whereas
the study of quality concerns the underlying active mind-like substances
whose actions are instantiations of the (selected) divine essence. We find the
same distinction in the Philosopher’s confession. According to Leibniz, “the
foundations” of the sciences “would be subverted” if it were not the case
that ultimately all reasons go back to something “that is necessary, that is,
has its ratio in itself.” He continues:
For just as the proposition, the whole is greater than the part, is the principle of arith-
metic and geometry, [that is, it is the principle] of the sciences of quantity; similarly,
the proposition, nothing is without a ratio, is the foundation of physics and morality,
the sciences of quality, or, what is the same (for quality is nothing other than power
of acting and suffering [agendi patiendique potentia]) of action, thought, and cer-
tainly motion.39

Against the background set in the last chapter, this passage can be inter-
preted as follows. There are two kinds of science and hence two objects of
study in the world. There is the science of quantity, which studies the ex-
tended phenomenal objects and to which the principle of arithmetic and
geometry applies. And there is the science of quality, which studies the un-
derlying active objects and to which the Principle of Sufficient Reason ap-
plies. The suggestion is that for every quality f of a substance S, whether f
is an action, thought, or motion, there is a sufficient reason for f. It is note-
worthy that the Demonstration of first propositions (which I discussed
briefly in section , chapter  and which contains Leibniz’s first explicit
demonstration of the Principle of Sufficient Reason) also contains a demon-
stration of the “first” proposition, “The whole is greater than the part.” In
the same essay, Leibniz insists that “the essence of mind is action on it-

. VI iii –. . VI iii .


      , –

self”40 and that the Principle of Sufficient Reason constitutes “the founda-
tion of the sciences of mind and motion.”41
In summary, in the course of his first full-fledged discussion of the prob-
lem of evil in the Philosopher’s confession, Leibniz drops a number of clues
about his core metaphysics in general and about his Metaphysics of Divin-
ity in particular. Although these tidbits are brief and undeveloped, they are
consistent with the metaphysical doctrines that I have attributed to him and,
in some cases, display a slight elaboration of those tenets. Among other
things, we have discovered in the dialogue major parts of the Emanative
Creation Story and the Epistemological Assumption; and we have glimpsed
some of the Aristotelian assumptions that underlie the Theory of Corpo-
real Substance.

Physical papers of 

Between his arrival in Paris in March  and the winter of –, Leib-
niz wrote a number of important papers on motion, the continuum, and re-
lated physical topics. As Arthur has rightly shown, these papers contain
much of interest concerning Leibniz’s views about the continuum.42 As
Garber has argued, they also indicate Leibniz’s continued devotion to the
physics of the New Physical Hypothesis and the Theory of Abstract Motion.43
What has not been noticed about these texts, however, is that they contain
well-placed clues to Leibniz’s underlying metaphysics. These papers share
the rhetorical restraint of the Philosopher’s confession: they are silent about
the tenets of the core metaphysics except when the argument requires a brief
account and then, when an account is given, there is as little explanation and
elaboration as possible. But also like the dialogue, once these comments are
placed within the philosophical context set in the previous chapters, they can
be seen to contain a good deal of important material.
Throughout his Paris writings on physical topics, Leibniz offers enticing
glimpses of his core metaphysics. He defines substance as that which acts,
and body as that whose actions and passions are motion.44 He insists that
divine mind is the only mind “devoid of body” or “free of body,” and
thereby implies that created minds are not so “free.”45 As we will see, he in-
sists that all creatures bear a sympathetic relation to all others, regardless of
how “remote” from one another. And he defines the existence of bodies
wholly in terms of the perceptions of minds. Although the evidence is scant
and scattered, it is possible to discern an ontology in which there is (at least):
a divine mind; created minds, which act and are accompanied by a body;
corporeal substances or bodies whose states consist of actions and passions
and whose existence depends on the perceptions of minds; and a world of
creatures who stand in a reflective relation to one another.

. VI ii . . VI ii . . Arthur, Labyrinth, Introduction.

. Garber, “Leibniz: Physics and Philosophy.”
. VI iii . . VI iii –.


 

Unlike the Philosopher’s confession, the physical papers are surprisingly

explicit about Leibniz’s phenomenalism, and even contain evidence of
Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism. In section  of chapter , I claimed that
the increasing gap between the apparent and the real was part of the moti-
vation behind Leibniz’s acceptance of this phenomenalism. It is striking,
therefore, that in his very first Paris note on a physical topic, he demands “a
true and unique cause of the phenomena,” where the cause be “sufficient.”46
In one of his first lengthy essays, entitled Certain physical propositions, he
succinctly presents both his Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism and its related
(Strong) Parallelism. In the midst of this lengthy discussion about body and
motion, he claims that against Descartes, he intends to explain extension in
terms of the perception of existence. He first proclaims that: “To Exist is
nothing other than to be Perceived,” and then goes beyond anything said in
the pre-Paris texts to assert that whether the perception is “by us” or “by the
Author of things,” the point is that “to be perceived is nothing other than to
be pleasing to him or [seu] to be on account of Harmony.”47 Although Leib-
niz does not explain his point in this passage, a few paragraphs later he ex-
claims that “nothing is more wonderful in the whole of Philosophy” than
that diversity depends on mind “from whose nature follows harmony, that
is, diversity compensated by identity.”48 Following the interpretation of
perception and thinking offered in section  of chapter , harmony is what
we think or perceive and, for each mind F, F’s perception of harmony is
caused by F. Once we see Leibniz’s comments in Certain physical proposi-
tions within the context of his earlier account of perception, it would seem
that without elaboration or explanation, Leibniz proclaims Complete-Ratio
Phenomenalism in the middle of this essay on motion.
Nor is that all. In the same part of the text, Leibniz goes well beyond what
he said in the essays of  to emphasize the close parallelism between the
perception of matter and the action or passion of the underlying active sub-
stance. He asserts:
Having already posited that to exist is to be perceived, it is necessary that Body ex-
ists, [since] it is; to effect a perception [is for it] to be moved or at least to endeavor,
because if everything were quiet, not even God could distinguish those things from
nothing. Whence, it is able to be understood that matter and motion or endeavor are
the same, and that their differences are fictions just like between a subject and a char-
acteristic attribute [subjectum adjunctumque]. Therefore, matter is counterbal-
anced by motion, because truly, where there is more motion there is also more mat-
ter although we do not perceive this except by effect.49
In the context of Leibniz’s Studies on the universal characteristic, and espe-
cially definitions [] and [], the following interpretation of this passage
suggests itself. The underlying reality or corporeal substance R constantly
acts, and each of the states that it produces by acting is either an action (that

. VI iii . For a summary of Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism and related doctrines, see Ap-
pendix II, ch. .
. VI iii . . VI iii . . VI iii .


      , –

is, a state of endeavor) or a passion (that is, a state of being moved or acted
upon). For every such “body” R, it can be approached in two ways: there
is the real R or R qua active thing, and there is the phenomenal R or R qua
sensory object. Each sensory R – that is, each phenomenal R – is a mode of
R qua active thing. Moreover, for every perceiving substance S, what the ex-
isting world is for S is just what S perceives. But the passage goes beyond
the definitions in the Studies on the universal characteristic in its account of
the close parallelism between the active underlying thing and the phenom-
enal body. Leibniz is now prepared to tighten the correspondence between
the states of the underlying active thing and the states of the perceiving
mind. Consider the first part of the argument in the passage. Leibniz main-
tains that for a substance R, if R were to cease acting, then R would be en-
tirely imperceptible, even to God. Part of Leibniz’s point here might be that
because S is a substance whose whole nature it is to act, it would follow that
S would cease to be when S ceased to act. But I think that there is more to
Leibniz’s comment than even this suggests. The point is that there is a de-
pendency relationship between R qua sensory thing and R qua active thing.
This relation, which I have called (Strong) Parallelism and which is a ver-
sion of what the mature Leibniz describes as well-founded phenomenalism,
is such that a substance S will have a perception of R qua sensory thing if
and only if R qua sensory thing perfectly corresponds to the actions and pas-
sions of R qua active thing. That is, Leibniz means to claim that (the rele-
vant clear and distinct) perceptions are such that they correspond to the ac-
tivities of real mind-like substances and, moreover, the activities of the
substances perfectly parallel the perceptions. Thus, in the quoted passage,
Leibniz’s point is that for any active corporeal substance R, there must be a
substance S that has R qua sensory thing, and therefore that R exists for S.
The next part of the argument in the passage conforms to this interpre-
tation. Matter and motion or endeavor are the same in that matter (as a state
of a perceiving mind) is perfectly and directly coordinated with motion or
endeavor (as a state of an acting substance). But what does Leibniz mean
when he says that there is no more difference between them than there is
between a subject and a characteristic attribute? For help in deciphering the
point, we need to return to the definitions in his notes on Wilkins. Although
the Latin term adjunctum is ambiguous in a number of ways, Leibniz de-
fines it as “an attributed accident,” and offers “[t]he most eloquent Cicero”
as an example.50 With these clues, we can turn to a seventeenth-century
philosophical lexicon for further aid: “the adjunctum is really distinct from
the subject” although, when the former is given, the latter “necessarily is,”
and moreover the former is “inseparable” from the latter, although not an
essential property of it.51 Making use of Leibniz’s example, the eloquence

. VI ii .
. For the variety of senses of the term, see Micraelius, Lexicon Philosophicum, . The ac-
count that I give here is one among several. Leibniz does not use the term during his Paris
period except when taking notes on another text (see VI iii f).


 

of Cicero is distinct from him, and yet that eloquence requires the presence
of Cicero. The eloquence is inseparable from its subject in that wherever
Cicero is, there is eloquence. How exactly is this relation between Cicero
and his eloquence analogous to the relation between matter and motion or
endeavor? Again, Leibniz’s definitions in Studies on the universal character-
istic offer some help. According to definition [], an accident is a “mode of
substance by which it can be thought.”52 Once these clues are pieced to-
gether, the second part of our argument can be seen to assume (Strong) Par-
allelism between the underlying active thing (R qua active thing) and its
mode (R qua sensory object). R qua sensory object is a mode of R qua ac-
tive thing, and as a mode, can be thought. Like the relation between the elo-
quence and Cicero, there will be no mode of R qua active thing if there is
no R qua active thing and, moreover, there can be no R qua active thing if
there is no such mode. Each perception of R qua sensory thing, that is, each
mode of R qua active thing, is inseparable from the activity of R qua active
thing. It is in this sense that “matter is counterbalanced by motion.”
There is further evidence of this (Strong) Parallelism in other physical
papers of . One of the most striking features of Leibniz’s comments
on this topic is their explanatory restraint. Although the texts offer clues
to his position, these are often nearly incomprehensible on their own. A
case in point is the argument that he offers for the proposition, “If there
were no minds, all bodies would be nothing.” The argument runs as follows:
“to be a body is . . . nothing more than to be moved. If there were no minds,
all bodies would be nothing” because “in the end . . . to be perceived by a
mind is truly what body and motion are.”53 Outside the context provided
by the developmental story of the previous chapters, it is nearly impossi-
ble to grasp Leibniz’s point. For example, from the proposition itself, it is
unclear whether the minds on whose existence bodies (somehow) depend
are the incorporeal substances that endeavor or the minds that perceive
the bodies. Although the first part of the demonstration of the proposi-
tion implies the former, the second part entails the latter. Nor does Leib-
niz offer other clues in the text. In a related paper, he defines body as “that
whose action and passion is motion,”54 but he does not explain how the
active body is related to the phenomenal one. However, once we identify
the assumption that stands behind the first part of the argument, its point
becomes transparent. The assumption is that for every corporeal sub-
stance or body R, which is the real underlying thing whose every action
and passion is motion, there is the R qua sensory thing. Since the phe-
nomenal R will exist if and only if it is perceived, it follows that as Leib-
niz writes, “to be perceived by a mind is truly what body and motion are.”
In order to grasp the full significance of Leibniz’s point, we need to im-
port into this text a version of (Strong) Parallelism. The assumption here
is that for a perceiving substance S, S will perceive R qua sensory object
if and only if R qua active thing acts in the appropriate way. Given this

. VI ii . . VI iii . Leibniz’s emphasis. . VI iii .


      , –

assumption, it follows that there will be no bodies qua real things if there
are no perceiving minds. It is in this sense that “[i]f there were no minds,
all bodies would be nothing.”
Let’s take stock of the metaphysical implications of the physical papers
of . In the essays discussed in this section, we have uncovered evidence
of phenomenalism, Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, and (Strong) Paral-
lelism. In the introduction to chapter , I explained that on my account,
Preestablished Harmony is equivalent to the Complete-Ratio Theory of
Substance and (Strong) Parallelism. But I also noted that in a world consti-
tuted entirely of minds and their thoughts, Complete-Ratio Phenomenal-
ism entails the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance. Thus, in the physi-
cal papers discussed so far, there is evidence of Preestablished Harmony.
Despite Leibniz’s reticence in articulating some of his most basic as-
sumptions, he is not hesitant in proclaiming their theological benefits. In
the conclusion to a text of the winter of –, he offers an argument for
the existence of God based on his Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism. The
implicit premise on which the argument is based is that for a phenomenal
body R, the existence of R depends entirely on the perception of it by some
mind. According to Leibniz, neither the existence of a particular body nor
the existence of “the aggregate” of bodies can depend on any particular cre-
ated mind since “it is known from experience that everything is not per-
ceived any the less by others because I am absent, and the same is true for
every individual.” Rather the existence of bodies depends on God, that is,
a “Mind,” that “exists per se.” According to Leibniz, from this and related
points, “great things” follow about the “necessity of Minds, . . . the mode
of thought and the immortality of the soul.”55
Besides assuming Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism and (Strong) Paral-
lelism, the physical papers of  also presuppose Leibniz’s vitalism,
where the basic idea is that the created world is constituted of vital mind-
like beings. Consider the conclusion to Certain physical propositions, where
he insists on the great theological importance of his physics: “Therefore, it
is necessary that mind be added to Matter, or [seu] that incorporeal sub-
stances be supposed.” There is nothing “more divine in the whole of natu-
ral Philosophy.”56 Passages such as these suggest a story similar to the one
offered by Leibniz in his New Physical Hypothesis and discussed in section
, chapter .57 The point is that the “Spirit” of God (here, “mind”) extends
its power to all of creation, whereupon this undifferentiated vitality is or-
ganized into vital beings (here, “incorporeal beings”). The recognition of
Leibniz’s vitalism in the physical papers of  helps to explain the enor-
mous theological importance that these writings attach to the active incor-
poreal beings in nature. Throughout the texts, he emphasizes the fact that

. VI iii . Leibniz’s emphasis. . VI iii .

. Given the account of matter (in definition []) in Leibniz’s Studies on the universal
characteristic, it does not seem far-fetched to take matter here to be phenomenal. See ch. ,
sect. .


 

the activity, diversity, and harmony of the world depends on these active,
incorporeal substances.58 For Leibniz, “the greatest of all truths,” namely,
harmony, depends on the fact that nature is full of minds. Concerning the
importance of the demonstration that nature must suppose “incorporeal
substances,” he proclaims: “As for me, I dare say with certainty that I have
not been more affected by any other demonstration.”59
In his physical essays of , Leibniz reveals few details about the na-
ture of these mind-like beings, but he is unusually verbose about their in-
terrelations. This is not due to a breakdown in his characteristic explana-
tory restraint. Rather, he has not devised a satisfactory solution to the
problem of the continuum, and he very much needs the Platonist relation
of sympathy to explain cohesion among the parts of a body.60 The relation
plays an important part in his physics: roughly, bodies are more or less con-
gruent and cohesive depending on the degree of sympathy that they have
with one another. Concerning “cohering bodies,” he demonstrates that they
are “sympathetic” by noting that “one cannot be acted on without the
other.” According to Leibniz, “every passion of bodies is to be moved or
impelled by another. Therefore it is necessary that cohering bodies sympa-
thize.”61 The sympathetic relation varies in degrees in that cohering bodies
are “absolutely” sympathetic,62 whereas “non-congruent” bodies are not.
According to Leibniz, there is no “sensible” change in the universe without
an “insensible change” even in its “remote” parts.63 In the last chapter, I re-
vised my account of Reflective Harmony. On the basis of Leibniz’s com-
ments in his Studies on the universal characteristic, I showed that he goes be-
yond the traditional account of sympathy to claim that every substance
communicates insensibly with every other, and I argued that he conceives
the correspondence between the states of the substances as coordinated
fluctuations in the clarity of the instantiation of the (selected) divine essence
contained in every created substance. Although in the physical papers,
Leibniz does not explain exactly what constitutes sympathy, everything he
says is perfectly consistent with the account given in chapter . In other
words, the details of Leibniz’s physics are consistent with Reflective Har-
mony, according to which every substance thinks or reflects the entire world
and contains every other substance in the sense that it perceives all the states
or thoughts of all the others. As Leibniz writes in a physical paper of late
, “There truly is in the world what Hippocrates asserted about the hu-
man Body: everything flows together and engages in harmony.”64
But what exactly does Leibniz’s use of the relation of sympathy tell us
about his vitalism? According to the interpretation proposed in chapter ,
by the winter of –, Leibniz believed that inert matter could have no
positive features and that the passive principle in nature was constituted of

. See, e.g., VI iii , , , , , . . VI iii .
. For the ancient Stoics and for natural philosophers scattered throughout the history of
philosophy, sympathy has been considered a principle of nature. See ch. , sect. .
. VI iii . . VI iii . . VI iii . . VI iii .


      , –

vital mind-like beings. Once we place the physical papers of  in this
light, the vitalism assumed within them becomes fully evident. Since, for
Leibniz, only minds can act, it follows that minds are the only sorts of things
that can have reflective and sympathetic relations. In other words, given the
background assumption about the relation between mind and activity, the
sympathy and Reflective Harmony that Leibniz attributes to all the parts of
the world is proof of his vitalism. As he explains in the winter of –:
“I take as a principle of every science, not only [the science] of motion but
equally [the science] of mind . . . that no endeavors die away, but everything
in the universe is efficacious and perpetual, even though they . . . are not [sen-
sibly] perceived.”65 As a conclusion to this final point about the physical
papers of , I offer one of Leibniz’s many cryptic autobiographical com-
ments. In the late s, he writes to Thomas Burnet: “My views in phi-
losophy . . . take a middle way between Plato and Democritus, since I be-
lieve that everything takes place mechanically, as Democritus and Descartes
would wish, contrary to the opinion of More and the like; at the same time
everything happens according to a vital principle and following final causes,
everything being full of life and perception, contrary to the opinion of the
followers of Democritus.”66
In summary, in the physical papers of , we have found evidence of
Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, (Strong) Parallelism, vitalism, and Re-
flective Harmony. For the sake of convenience, let’s summarize the revised
version of (Strong) Parallelism unearthed in these papers.
• () (Strong) Parallelism is the view that created substances are in per-
fect correspondence with one another. This means, among other things,
that a substance S will have a perception of R qua sensory thing if and
only if R qua sensory thing perfectly corresponds to the actions and pas-
sions of R qua active thing.

On the true method in philosophy and theology

To complete my account of Leibniz’s views in the early Paris years, I turn
to an essay that contains the most thorough presentation in our period
(roughly –) of his core metaphysics. In this essay, On the true method
in philosophy and theology, he describes in detail both his philosophical in-
tentions and his methodological strategy. In an attempt to articulate the goal
of his philosophy, Leibniz returns here to a distinction that we found in the
texts of –. As noted in section  of chapter , Leibniz became in-
creasingly concerned in – with the gap between the apparent and the
real. In the texts of , he is especially keen to emphasize the fact that
while the new mechanical philosophy has allowed greater control of nature,

. VI iii . Leibniz’s emphasis.

. G III . In the same passage, Leibniz recognizes the similarity of his views to those of
Anne Conway.


 

it has “conveyed little” about the “nature of things.”67 In the definitions for
Studies on the universal characteristic, Leibniz described the distinction be-
tween the apparent and the real in terms of quantity and quality, where the
former concerns the objects of perception and the latter the underlying ac-
tive things. In the physical papers, he distinguishes between a science of mo-
tion and a science of mind.68 In On the true method in philosophy and theol-
ogy, written in the period –, he summarizes his present position on a
group of related topics:

For I reflected as follows: Geometry clarifies configurations and motions; as a result

we have discovered the geography of lands and the course of the stars, and machines
have been made which overcome great burdens. . . . But the science which distin-
guishes the just man from the unjust, and through which the secrets of the mind are
explained and the path to happiness is paved, is neglected. We have demonstrations
about the circle, but only conjectures about the soul; the laws of motion are pre-
sented with mathematical rigor, but nobody applies a comparable diligence to re-
search on the secrets of thinking.69

Leibniz is now prepared to place geometry and the mechanical philosophy

in the same category, where the idea is that they constitute the science of the
phenomena. For Leibniz here, geometry is the science that treats the ex-
tended phenomenal object. The other science is the science of mind and of
thinking. It is the latter that Leibniz is primarily interested in studying. In
the remainder of this essay, he describes both the means to and the ends of
this science. In the process, he outlines his intellectual history and summa-
rizes his present metaphysical views and interests. Not only does the ac-
count of his philosophical evolution cohere wonderfully with the interpre-
tative story of chapters  through , the summary that he offers of the
motivations behind his Metaphysics of Method, Substance, and Divinity
nicely conforms to the ones presented in my account.
Concerning method, in On the true method in philosophy and theology,
Leibniz proposes a strategy that combines the best of the scholastic ap-
proach with the mathematical method of recent philosophers. In a sense,
his goal is to create a methodological revolution by combining the best of all
current strategies. As he sees it, neither the scholastic nor the mathematical
approach is adequate and the failure of each has encouraged intellectual
chaos and atheism. According to Leibniz: “It is a wise saying of that dis-
tinguished man Francis Bacon: a little philosophy ‘inclineth man’s mind to
atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.’
I say the same to our century.”70 Leibniz’s contemporaries will avoid athe-
ism and find the truth once they combine the two methodological ap-
proaches. Unlike the new philosophers who have too long ignored theologi-
cal questions and who would allow “the whole of scholastic doctrine”
to be “rejected” and unlike the scholastics whose “admirable reflections” are
. VI ii . . E.g., VI iii . . VI iii : W .
. VI iii : W . My translation often differs significantly from Wiener’s.


      , –
in need of clarification “by a mathematically schooled mind,”71 Leibniz
wants to combine the theological insights and “marvelous subtlety” of
scholastics like Aquinas and Gregory of Rimini with “the mathematical
rigor” of the new science.72 He is concerned to use his method in all areas
of philosophy and especially in theology: “I thought such a task all the more
useful because I saw dangerous expressions slipping into men’s souls; they
are a sort of mathematical larva from which arises a false philosophy, and
with that the whole of scholastic doctrine would be rejected.”73
Leibniz calls his philosophy a “religious” one and promises that it will
lead wayward souls to the truth. His description of this philosophy con-
forms neatly to the epistemological goal of his Metaphysics of Divinity as
I described it in chapters  and . About the relation between God, as the
emanative source of the world, and the world itself, Leibniz writes:
the value of a religious philosophy will be recognized by those who return to it, and
mathematical studies will be used partly as an example of more rigorous judgment,
partly for the knowledge of harmony and of the idea of beauty, experiments on na-
ture will lead to admiration for the author of nature, who has expressed an image of
the ideal world in the sensible one, so that all studies finally will lead to happiness.74
For Leibniz, in On the true method in philosophy and theology, the proper ap-
proach to the fundamental metaphysical and theological questions will lead
to philosophical knowledge and personal happiness.
For our purposes, one of the most striking features of Leibniz’s essay is
the account of his Metaphysics of Substance. Both the theory of substance
that he describes and the description of its development that he presents
conform to the interpretative story of the previous chapters. As Leibniz ex-
plains, although he accepts the mechanical explanatory model in physics, he
is thoroughly aware of the inadequacy of its underlying metaphysics: “The
theory of size and shape” has been properly developed, but “the innermost
nature of motion” is not yet understood. Part of the reason for this failure
is that certain “important philosophers . . . attributed the essence of matter
only to extension.” This conception of corporeal substance, insists Leibniz,
is inconsistent with “the mysteries of faith.”75 By such means, Leibniz sum-
marizes one of the main metaphysical conclusions of chapter , namely, that
the mechanical philosophers have not grasped the Metaphysics of Sub-
stance that must support their physics. Consistent with his claims in the
April  letter to Thomasius, he insists here that the mechanical philos-
ophy has its historical roots in the philosophy of Aristotle. He writes: “It is
an indubitable fact, and one recognized also by Aristotle, that everything in
nature is derived from size, figure, and motion.” In order to correct the mis-
takes of his contemporary mechanical philosophers, Leibniz insists that “it

. VI iii : W . . VI iii : W –. . VI iii : W .
. VI iii : W . In this passage, we find what is almost certainly Leibniz’s first use of the
term expressio to describe the relation between an emanative source and its product. See
sect.  for more on this relation.
. VI iii : W –.


 

is the task of Metaphysics to examine the change, temporality, and conti-

nuity in the universe. For motion is only a kind of change.” By such means,
Leibniz advertises his core metaphysics, where the idea is that the world is
constituted of substances with continually changing states. He explains:
“Insofar as the nature of motion has not been understood, due to the fact
that important philosophers attributed the essence of matter only to exten-
sion, there has resulted a notion of bodies, previously unheard of, which fails
to do justice either to the phenomena or the mysteries of faith.”76 Leibniz
succinctly describes his solution to this problem: “For without doubt it can
be demonstrated that extension is incapable of either action or passion, un-
less qualities are added.”77 But which qualities are these? Consistent with my
account in chapter  of the evolution of Leibniz’s views on matter and the
passive principle in nature, he explains that the Cartesian account of body as
extension evaded the difficulty of “the Holy Eucharist.” Leibniz explains:
“For if body and space are one and the same, how can we avoid the conse-
quence that in different spaces or places there must be different bodies.” Nor
was it acceptable for natural philosophers like Gassendi to add “a certain re-
sistance” to the notion of extension. According to Leibniz, “what is needed
is that some positive notion” be added “to the idea of body.”78
Leibniz goes on to offer an account of extension that is consistent with
the mysteries of the faith and that adds the right positive feature. He writes:
What must we then add to extension in order to complete the notion of body? Noth-
ing except that to which perception testifies. It informs us at once of three things:
we perceive, and that what is perceived is various and composite or extended. There-
fore, action has to be added to the notion of extension or variety. Therefore, body is
an acting extended thing [Agens extensum], and a substance may be said to be ex-
tended if we hold that every substance acts [agere] and every acting thing [agens] is
called a substance. Now we can show from the inner principles of metaphysics that
what is not active does not exist, for there is no such thing as mere potentiality to
act. . . . Moreover, every endeavor is an action.79
In section  of chapter , we saw Leibniz equate the variety in the world
with the appearances of things. In a lengthy discussion of On endeavor and
motion, perceiving and thinking, we discussed Leibniz’s attempt to explain
the existence of bodies in terms of the appearances of mind. In chapter ,
I proposed that Leibniz’s definition of matter in the Studies on the univer-
sal characteristic implied that a body was an apparent object though
grounded in the real. We have just seen the same general ideas expressed in
Leibniz’s physical papers of . In the passage just quoted from On the
true method in philosophy and theology, he equates extension with variety.
The implication is that bodies are apparent objects, which are part of the
variety of things.
But what exactly underlies the extension and variety? In the quoted pas-
sage, Leibniz makes a comment about body that is very difficult to com-

. VI iii : W . . VI iii : W –.

. VI iii –: W . . VI iii : W .


      , –

prehend. It is clear that he wants to claim that body is somehow extended

and somehow active, but it remains unclear in what the extension consists.
There are two alternative ways to read the Latin and interpret the claim: ei-
ther there are extended things that are active or there are acting things that
are extended. The first alternative seems more plausible since it is not clear
how to make sense of the second. But let’s not be hasty. The Prearranged
Diffusion Relation proposed in section  of chapter  neatly explains how
the activity of something can be extended without being material. There the
idea was that a dominant mind F in a substance S could itself be unextended
and yet diffuse a wider or smaller expanse of passivity. When Leibniz first
proposes the theory, he is concerned to solve the problem of resurrection.
In chapter , I showed that in an attempt to solve that problem, he intro-
duces the idea of a core of substance, according to which the core is able to
extend its power of diffusion to a large expanse of body or to shrink down
to an invisible center. In chapter , we noted how neatly this Diffusion Re-
lation solved the theological problems of the Eucharist, where the solution
depended on the capacity of the diffusive power of Christ to apply simul-
taneously to bodies spread throughout Christendom. That is, Leibniz’s
solutions to these difficult theological problems depended on the fact that
the activity of the core could be extended. Does Leibniz have this alterna-
tive in mind in the passage quoted above?
Apparently so, for he goes on to proclaim that among the many benefits
of this conception is the fact that it solves exactly these theological prob-
lems. In fact, I propose that we read Leibniz’s concluding remarks to the
On the true method in philosophy and theology as a summary of his core meta-
physics in general and the Theory of Corporeal Substance in particular. He
writes:
There are certainly many and important things to be said . . . about the principle of
activity or what the scholastics called substantial form, from which a great light is
thrown on Natural Theology and . . . the mysteries of faith. The result is that not
only souls but all substances can be said to exist in a place only through the opera-
tion of their active principle, that souls can be destroyed by no power of body; and
that every power of acting [omnem agendi vim] exists from the highest mind whose
will is the final reason for all things, the cause being universal harmony; that God as
creator can unite the body to the soul, and that in fact, every finite soul is embod-
ied, even the angels are not excepted, in which the true philosophy is in agreement
with the teaching of the church fathers; finally, that the appearances differ from a
substance.80
What Leibniz writes here neatly parallels what he proposed to Arnauld in
November : because of his conciliatory method and, in particular, be-
cause of his resurrection of the scholastic notion of substantial form, his
metaphysics corrects the mistakes of his modernist contemporaries and of-
fers an explanation of the Eucharist that will satisfy Catholics and Luther-
ans alike. On the basis of the distinction between substance and appearance,

. VI iii : W –. Wiener’s translation is incomplete.


 

Leibniz insists that he can explain the multipresence of the same body and
show that the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation follows from the
Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. All the fallacies previously associ-
ated with such theological doctrines “can be avoided once the true and in-
evitable notion of substance is understood. Of what great significance these
Theorems have for the firm foundations of religious faith and for peace
among the Churches, those who understand can estimate.”81
In this section, we have examined a dialogue on the problem of evil, sev-
eral essays on topics in physics, and a lengthy discussion of methodological
matters. In these sundry texts, we have found evidence of Leibniz’s concil-
iatory method, glimpsed the Aristotelian assumptions that underlie the
Metaphysics of Substance, witnessed the careful application of a part of his
Theory of Corporeal Substance, and seen a thorough use of the major
tenets of the Metaphysics of Divinity. As a group, these writings bear wit-
ness to the fact that during his Paris years, Leibniz applies his Metaphysics
of Method, Divinity, and Substance to the philosophical questions that in-
terested him. I claimed in the introduction to this chapter that during his
Paris period, Leibniz submitted the tenets that constitute his core meta-
physics to a number of grueling philosophical examinations. In this section,
there is ample evidence that those core doctrines survived their first battery
of tests.

. Substance and plenitude, 

In the autumn of , Leibniz faced a number of dramatic changes. The
most significant of these were the invention of a major part of his calculus,
the development of a friendship with Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus,
who slowly began to familiarize him with the main features of Spinoza’s
metaphysics,82 and the increasing likelihood that he would soon have to
leave Paris for the philosophical backwaters of Hanover.83 Although we

. VI iii : W .

. The relation between Leibniz and Tschirnhaus is both interesting and important.
Tschirnhaus had imbibed the Cartesianism prominent in Leiden and had been in Ams-
terdam (in –) where he learned about the philosophy of Spinoza. In the autumn of
, Leibniz befriended the young German who was the first to introduce Leibniz to the
philosophy of Spinoza’s Ethics. For a recent account of their relationship, see Kulstad,
“Leibniz and Tschirnhaus.”
. As a Lutheran who was unwilling to convert to Catholicism, Leibniz had been unsuccess-
ful in finding gainful employment in Paris. Although he believed that his intellectual goals
could best be achieved in Paris and very much wanted to remain in that intellectual cen-
ter, it must have been obvious to him by the end of  that there was little chance of
procuring employment. It was a mixed blessing, therefore, when in January  he ac-
cepted an offer to become Counselor to Johann Friedrich, Duke of Hanover. See Aiton,
Leibniz, ch. , esp. –. On the same day that Leibniz accepted the position, he wrote a
letter to a powerful Parisian requesting support for his scientific work. A likely motivation
behind the sudden outpouring of philosophical ideas in early  was to articulate some
of his philosophical ideas so that they might be used to gain recognition and employment.


      , –

cannot be certain, it seems highly likely that the combination of these three
changes in Leibniz’s life motivated him to return to the hard work of meta-
physics in the winter of –.

Theory of corporeal substance84

I have argued that from the beginning of Leibniz’s philosophical career, the
most important feature of substance is that it is active, where the activity in
question is closely tied to self-sufficiency. Most of his Aristotelian assump-
tions are grounded in the relation between substantial activity and self-suf-
ficiency. On the other hand, his Platonist assumptions reveal the connection
between self-sufficiency, unity, and perfection. As the Supreme Being As-
sumption claims, each of these features is a function of the other. Because
of the divine-like nature of mind, Leibniz was also convinced relatively
early that every created active principle must be rooted in a form of passiv-
ity and limitation. The result of the evolution of these views in the pre-Paris
years is the Theory of Corporeal Substance according to which, for each
corporeal substance S, whether human or non-human, the nature (or core)
of S is constituted of a mind-like substantial form F and a passive princi-
ple P, where F and P have a Prearranged Diffusion Relation with one an-
other. The theory assumes the Substantial Form Assumption, the Passive
Principle Assumption, and the Prearranged Diffusion Relation.85 During
, Leibniz confirms the general features of this account of substance and
slightly expands upon some of these doctrines.
The texts of  are often convoluted and sometimes contradictory.
Within these personal notes, we witness Leibniz struggling with formula-
tions and testing his ideas. There is a good deal of intellectual uncertainty.
But behind this uncertainty looms the core metaphysics to which Leibniz
constantly returns. As we will see, the essays of  are strewn with evi-
dence of the main doctrines of Leibniz’s core metaphysics. The active
things in the world are mind-like substances, which are “the true entities”
and “which alone are one.” The nature of created mind is to think or per-
ceive and each mind is attached to some body.86 That is, every mind “is
indissolubly implanted in matter.”87 In one essay, Leibniz returns to the
Aristotelian notion of an active intellect and defines God as “the primary

Leibniz was unsuccessful in finding support in Paris and was forced to leave the city for
Hanover (via London and the Hague) on September .
. I originally summarized my account of Leibniz’s philosophy in the Paris period in the ar-
ticle, co-authored with Robert Sleigh, “Metaphysics: The Early Period to the Discourse on
Metaphysics.” After the completion of that piece, I discovered Leibniz’s early Platonism,
and have significantly altered my views about the pre-Paris period. This has led to a revi-
sion of the details of my account of the writings of .
. See Appendix II, chs. –. . VI iii : Pk . See also VI iii : Pk .
. VI iii : Pk . According to Leibniz, non-human substances exist from the creation of
the world, and never cease to be. Human substances, on the other hand, are created by God
in the course of the world, but then exist eternally.


 

intelligence, in so far as he is omniscient.” This same omniscience is “as-

cribed in a limited way to other things which are said to perceive some-
thing,” namely, to minds.88 Leibniz also maintains that there are “infinitely
many” perceptions of mind which “are not explicable in terms of each
other,” but that follow from mind “as properties result from essence.”89 He
writes: “it can be shown that the mind is continually changed, with the ex-
ception of that in us which is divine or comes from outside. In sum, . . .
there is something divine in mind, which is what Aristotle used to call the
active intellect, and this is the same as the omniscience of God.”90 In the
Studies on the universal characteristic discussed in chapter , we identified a
two-tiered explanatory hierarchy where the mind itself remained im-
mutable while its qualities changed constantly. We find the same basic idea
in the essays of . According to Leibniz, it is important that this divine,
omniscient element in mind comes “from the outside,” remains the same
through its constant changes, and acts as the cause of those changes. Leib-
niz distinguishes between mind and its actions by noting that the former
“remains always the same during change,” while the latter are discrete pro-
ductions of the soul or mind.91
In , Leibniz emphasizes the indestructibility of mind. He writes, for
instance, “whatever acts cannot be destroyed,”92 nor “can [it] be dissolved
naturally.”93 But he goes beyond what he said in the pre-Paris texts. He of-
fers a succinct explanation of his Platonist assumption in some notes that
he took on Plato’s Phaedo. Embracing the view of Plato, he maintains that
whatever “participates in life is not able to be distinguished.”94 Leibniz also
adds to his views about the unity and self-sufficiency of mind in interesting
ways. First, he insists on the indivisibility of substantial unities where the
idea is that for any mind-like substantial form F that organizes a passive
principle P, the unity formed by F and P is indivisible. Although this claim
follows from the Theory of Corporeal Substance, Leibniz insists in 
on the indivisibility of corporeal substance more thoroughly than he had in
the earlier texts, especially in physical contexts. According to Leibniz, what-
ever has one mind will be indivisible: “there comes into existence a body
which is one and unsplittable, i.e., an atom, of whatever size it may be,
whenever it has a single mind.”95 Mind acts as the “cement” of a substance,
and thereby produces a “naturally indestructible” and indivisible atom.96
We should not let the term atom mislead us. For Leibniz, an atom is inde-
structible and indivisible, but it is not invariable: that is, it is equivalent to
the notion of a core of substance. As noted in chapter , section , the core
of a substance S can be more or less expansive while remaining the same in-

. VI iii : Pk . . VI iii : Pk . . VI iii : Pk .
. VI iii . These comments appear in some notes that Leibniz made on Simon Foucher’s
Response. For more about this text, see n. . See also VI iii : Pk .
. VI iii . . VI iii . . VI iii .
. VI iii : Pk . Also see VI iii : Pk .
. VI iii –: Pk –. As this essay makes clear, in  Leibniz was unclear about how
to solve the problem of the continuum and related difficulties.


      , –

destructible thing. We saw that Leibniz developed a theory of diffusion to

help explain how a substance could undergo radical transformations and yet
remain the same thing. The notion of atom is equivalent to that of the core
of substance: as long as S is organized by a mind F, S will remain the same
thing, regardless of the variation in its passive principle. For Leibniz, the
underlying assumption remains that the indivisibility and indestructibility
of the unity of S follows from the divine-like persistence of its form. S will
persist as long as F acts, as it always will, and as long as it is attached to its
passive principle, which it always will be. Thus, each substance has a core
that is indestructible as well as indivisible; in this sense, each substance is
an atom, though a variable one.
In chapter , we witnessed the fact that Leibniz’s notion of a core of sub-
stance, as first articulated in a letter to Johann Friedrich of May , as-
sumed the Diffusion Relation between the F and P in S. According to the
Prearranged Diffusion Relation, although each of the subordinate sub-
stances in P acts out of its own nature, F emanates instructions for the ac-
tivity of each of those substances. Moreover, the activity of F and of the
substances in P is each a necessary condition and all are sufficient for any
substantial feature f of S. In the texts of , Leibniz remains committed
to this relation. For example, in a short note of February  entitled On
the seat of the soul, he refers back to his discussion of resurrection “six years
before” and reconfirms the views expressed in an addendum attached to his
letter to Johann Friedrich of May . In On the seat of the soul, he cites
this earlier essay, On the resurrection of the body, and insists that he still agrees
with “the Rabbis” that “there is a flower of substance diffused through the
entire body, and in a sense contains form alone.” Leibniz claims that the soul
“is firmly planted in a flower of substance,” which “subsists perpetually
in all changes” and which can be “diffused” through the entire body or
only some small part of it. Therefore, “in the same way that individual salts”
become reconstituted after being dissolved in water, so “any human indi-
vidual” can be reconstituted after death.97 Like the earlier account, the
explanation that Leibniz presents in On the seat of the soul of the radical
transformations of death and resurrection applies with equal strength to the
less dramatic transformations of a corporeal substance or substantial atom:
the parts of the passive principle P in a substance S may come and go, but
S will remain the same as long as the Diffusion Relation between the F in S
and the dominant minds in P persists. That is, as long as the F in S contin-
ues to have a Diffusion Relation with the dominant minds in P, the varia-
tions in S are irrelevant to its identity and, moreover, constitute neither its
destruction nor its divisibility.
But we need to say more. Leibniz’s explanation of resurrection requires
that P be constituted of a panorganic collection of substances which are
themselves mind-like. According to the account of the Prearranged Diffu-

. VI iii –: Pk . For the essay on resurrection of May , see II i –. For my
discussion of it, see ch. , sect. .


 

sion Relation given in section , chapter , the core of substance S contains

the body of S in the sense that it contains the dominant minds of P, where
the latter constitute the identity of P. Moreover, the passive principle or
body of S is itself constituted of corporeal substances, each of which has its
own body, and so on in infinitum. Is there evidence in early  of such
panorganic vitalism? The textual evidence exists, although scant and ob-
scure. Leibniz announces in On the seat of the soul, for example, that “the
flower of substance is our body” and he mentions in passing that there are
“bodies in a body.” In a related text, On the secrets of the sublime, also of Feb-
ruary, he writes: “any part of matter, however small, contains an infinity of
creatures, i.e., a world.”98 In a short set of definitions composed at (roughly)
the same time, Leibniz insists “that all things are animated.”99 In Notes on
science and metaphysics of March , he is explicit about the close con-
nection between panorganic vitalism and the Diffusion Relation. Accord-
ing to Leibniz, “[m]atter in some way has its being from form” and each
mind “has a certain relation to some portion of matter” so that “some body
belongs to it” in the way that “every other” body does not.100 In the con-
clusion to this essay, Leibniz insists: “there are as many minds, or little
worlds, or perceptions, as there are vortices in the world” and so “no mind
can be dissolved naturally.”101 In another essay written in the same month
on a similar topic, Leibniz displays further evidence of both panorganic vi-
talism and the Prearranged Diffusion Relation. In this short note, entitled
On the union of the soul and the body, he makes some provocative remarks
about soul-body union: “there is . . . an aetherial substance that diffuses the
entire body and . . . through which the soul perceives.” Against those
philosophers who claim that the diffusive power of the soul is due to its
presence in the body, Leibniz argues that were the soul so diffused, then it
would be in many places; but if it were in many places, then it would be di-
visible and would “have more than one action and passion” (say, one in one
place and one in another place). Leibniz, of course, can accept no such con-
sequences: “we do not act as a simple machine, but out of reflection, that is,
out of action on ourselves.” Consistent with my account of the Prearranged
Diffusion Relation, the mind-body union is based in reflection and action
on oneself. That is, the relation between F and P is such that by acting on
itself so as to produce its own thoughts, F acts in perfect prearranged har-
mony with P. As suggested in chapter , the Diffusion Relation between
the active and passive principles in nature is modeled on that between God
and mind: in the same way that the emanative power of God organizes
and harmonizes created beings, so does the emanative power of F organize

. VI iii –: Pk ; VI iii : Pk . About the latter claim, Leibniz says that “it is true,
provided it is possible.”
. VI iii : Pk . . VI iii :Pk .
. VI iii : Pk . The notes in his De summa rerum are extremely helpful. It is a mark of
Parkinson’s careful scholarship that he recognizes the connection between Leibniz’s com-
ments about atom here and his use of “the flower of substance” in a related text. See
, n. .


      , –

and harmonize P. Following this line of thought, Leibniz wonders at the end
of On the union of the soul and the body whether or not the organization or
“vortex” that our soul makes is like “the whole vortex of the great globe . . .
vivified by a soul of the same kind” in which case “[t]he whole world is one
vortex in God.”102
This image of the world as a vortex in God is remarkable. Among other
things, it offers a wonderful example of Leibniz’s erudition and concilia-
tory tendencies. What he does here is to turn an image, which is prominent
in the writings of Athanasius Kircher, into something consistent with his
own vortex account of cohesion. As noted in chapter , the young Leibniz
was an admirer of Kircher. Leibniz mentions this well-known German Je-
suit in On the seat of the soul, and in another essay of February , he
uses the same image to even greater effect. Kircher was fond of placing a
picture in his books, at least one of which Leibniz knew,103 portraying God
as the center and the circumference of the cosmos. I will return to this
point later. For now, it is important to emphasize the fact that when minds
act, they act on themselves, and that the model for the relation between a
mind and its body is the emanative relation between God and creatures. In
other words, the relation between mind and body in the texts of  is
that of Prearranged Diffusion. Leibniz summarizes the point in Decem-
ber :
The harmony of things requires that there should be in bodies beings that act on
themselves [quae agerent in se ipsa]. On the nature of a being that acts on itself, it
acts by the simplest means, for in that there is harmony. Once it has begun, it is eter-
nal. There are ideas in it of those things it has perceived and done, as there are in
God; the difference is that in God the ideas are of all things and are simultaneous. . . .
Thought [cogitatio] or the perception of oneself, i.e., action on oneself, is necessar-
ily continued.104
Despite their uncertainty on a number of points, the essays of  re-
veal an underlying commitment to the main features of Leibniz’s Theory
of Corporeal Substance. In , Leibniz persists in his belief that there
is a core of substance which is fundamentally active, indivisible, and
indestructible. Most important here is the idea that the goodness, self-
sufficiency, and unity of God permeates the world to form clusters of be-
ings which stand in prearranged harmony with one another.

Plenitude and minds: On the secrets of the sublime

or on the greatest of things
In February of , Leibniz announces for the first time that he is com-
mitted to plenitude. In a fascinating note entitled On the secrets of the sub-
lime or on the greatest of things, he proclaims: “After due consideration I take

. VI iii : Pk .

. See, e.g., the Magneticum Naturae Regnum of  to which Leibniz refers in VI ii .
. VI iii : Pk .


 

as a principle the Harmony of things, that is, that the greatest amount of
essence that can exist does exist.”105 In order to attribute as much goodness
as possible to the universe, Leibniz assumes that essences are good, and then
reasons that the more (compatible) essences in the world the better. It is im-
portant that he is not just after the greatest possible number of essences, he
wants to make every positive aspect of the world as full as possible. He
states: “It follows from this principle that there is no vacuum among forms;
also that there is no vacuum in place and time. . . . From which it follows
that there is no assignable time in which something did not exist, nor is there
a place which is not full.”106 In his characteristic fashion, Leibniz takes the
traditional Principle of Harmonized Plenitude and molds it to fit contem-
porary issues in physics and mathematics. As I noted in chapter , section
, the Platonist principle takes the goodness of the world to be a function of
both the variety and order among the beings of the world. From the per-
spective of my interpretative story, it is noteworthy that Leibniz thinks of
these assumptions as following from “the Harmony of things.” According
to the interpretation offered in chapter , section , there are two aspects to
Leibniz’s orginal understanding of harmony: the basic idea behind Ema-
native Harmony is that the Supreme Being emanates its essence to every
creature and to the collection of creatures; the assumption behind the orig-
inal version of Reflective Harmony is that (at least) some parts of the cre-
ated world are in close relation with others, although by the time Leibniz
left for Paris he had extended reflection to all creatures. Each of these as-
pects of harmony plays a role in his original attempt to articulate a theory
of plenitude: he intends to fill the world with as many different creatures as
possible and to relate them as thoroughly as he can.
As Leibniz struggled to articulate his theory of plenitude in the spring of
, he began to make more explicit (than he did in his pre-Paris essays)

. VI iii : Pk –. In an otherwise helpful article, O. Bradley Bassler offers a good ex-
ample of some of the dangers in interpreting Leibniz without a broad enough textual,
historical, and philosophical perspective. In his “Leibniz on Indefinite as Infinite,”
Bassler assumes that the invention of the calculus “washed over Leibniz’s metaphysics
with the force of a tidal wave” and generated “the metaphysical outpourings of ”
(–). Bassler does not offer any evidence of the impact that the invention had on
Leibniz’s metaphysics, so it is hard to evaluate the motivations of his claim. But a wide
survey of the relevant texts makes clear that the various philosophical problems sur-
rounding the calculus form a rather small subset of the many metaphysical topics that in-
terested Leibniz at the time. Bassler also assumes that the analysis of one or two “moti-
vating concerns” is sufficient to uncover what really interested Leibniz. Although Bassler
rightly mentions Leibniz’s interest in the Cartesians during his Paris years, he ignores the
equally important work done in the period on Plato. Finally, Bassler assumes that an
unclarity on Leibniz’s part about how to solve one problem implies an unclarity on other
topics. Although Bassler is right to note that in On the secrets of the sublime and on the
greatest of things, Leibniz’s conclusions about the indefinite are unclear, such indefinite-
ness does not justify the claim that Leibniz’s metaphysics in  is in “radical flux”
(). As the title of Leibniz’s essay suggests, the text focuses on a set of related “sub-
lime” matters, which (as we will see) reveal central features of the core metaphysics.
. VI iii : Pk .


      , –

his underlying beliefs about Emanative and Reflective Harmony. There

were three underlying assumptions, each of which we discerned in the texts
of . First, he asserts that all minds are eternal and that each mirrors the
entirety of the created world. Second, in March and April, he develops his
doctrine of traces as a means to increase worldly variety and unity. Third,
in April, he offers his first explicit argument for the Principle of the Iden-
tity of Indiscernibles. In the subsections that follow, I will discuss the sec-
ond and third of these developments in Leibniz’s thinking about plenitude.
For now, it will be worth analyzing the relevant parts of On the secrets of the
sublime or on the greatest of things. Because the essay is Leibniz’s original at-
tempt to string together his fundamental assumptions about harmony and
plenitude, there is much to be learned from some of its details.
That Leibniz is trying out new combinations of ideas is clear from the
tentative language of the text. Throughout the essay, he begins sentences
with phrases like “It seems” and “Perhaps it follows.” He often proclaims:
“One must see if this inference is valid” and “One must see if this really fol-
lows.” What is most relevant here, however, is the exclamation: “One must
see, therefore, what follows from the plenitude of the world.”107 At the cen-
ter of the essay stands the following paragraph, which functions as a sum-
mary of Leibniz’s views about God’s relation to the world and acts as an in-
troduction to a lengthy discussion about the plenitude and harmony of
creatures. The passage contains evidence of panorganic vitalism, a vortex
theory of physical cohesion, Emanative and Reflective Harmony, Com-
plete-Ratio Phenomenalism, and the mirroring of minds. For our purposes,
it is significant that in February  all these doctrines are closely linked
in Leibniz’s thought. He writes:
It seems that there is some center of the entire universe, and some general infinite
vortex; also some most perfect mind, or God. This mind, like a soul, exists as a whole
in the whole body, of the World; the existence of things is certainly due to this mind.
It is the cause of itself. Existence is nothing other than that which is the cause of
consistent perceptions. The ratio of things is the aggregate of all the requisites of
things. God comes from God. The whole infinite is one. Particular minds exist, in
short, simply because the highest Being judges it harmonious that there should ex-
ist somewhere what understands, or is a certain intellectual mirror, or replica of the
World. To exist is nothing other than to be Harmonious; the mark of existence is
consistent perceptions.108
This passage is remarkable in a number of ways, not the least of which is its
obscurity. Although its details are difficult, it will be worthwhile to work
through them.
The passage begins with a striking use of Kircher’s image of God as the
center of the cosmic circle. Given the thrust of the rest of Leibniz’s pas-
sage, it is noteworthy that Kircher’s image was often interpreted as convey-
ing the harmony and interconnectedness of things and was not taken to im-
ply pantheism or anything like it. For example, according to Sor Juana Inés
. VI iii –: Pk . . VI iii : Pk .


 

de la Cruz, a Mexican nun and contemporary of Leibniz, Kircher’s image

shows that “all things proceed from God, who is at once the center and the
circumference from which all existing lines proceed and at which all end up.”
That is, for Sor Juana, Kircher’s point is that God so put things “in place
that they appear correlated and bound together with marvelous concert and
bonding . . . so that all things were strung and linked together.”109 Although
Leibniz changes the image so that it conforms to his vortex theory of cohe-
sion, he uses it to set the context for what follows. In order to feel the full
weight of the image as employed here, we need to return to Leibniz’s vital-
ism and to another text of February , namely, On the union of soul and
body. In this essay, Leibniz uses the image to suggest that in the same way
the emanative power of God organizes and harmonizes created beings, so
does the emanative power of mind organize and harmonize its body. Ac-
cording to Leibniz’s theory of the World Soul articulated in section  of
chapter , the Supreme Being fills the world with its “Spirit,” which is then
organized into vitalistic beings. What Leibniz does in  is to combine his
Metaphysics of Divinity and his physical theory: the Supreme Being unifies
the world by emanating its divine oneness and power in the same way that
every mind-like form unifies its passive principle. Each of the vortices in the
world can be seen as a part of a universal vortex created and maintained by
God. Leibniz writes: “The whole world is one vortex for God.”110 Within
this context, Leibniz’s claim that the divine “mind, like a soul, exists . . . in
the whole body, of the world,” suggests that the divine mind emanates its
perfect vitality out of which the individual creatures are made. The sugges-
tion is also that the unity produced by the activities of individual minds is
modeled on that of God. That is, for each corporeal substance S, the unity
and being of S is ultimately rooted in the mind-like F in S just as the unity
and being of the world is rooted in God. “The ratio of things is the aggre-
gate of all the requisites of things” in the sense that God is the ratio of each
F, which itself contains the aggregate of the requisites of the states of S.
So far, so good. But the claim that “God comes from God” looks fright-
fully unorthodox. What are we to think? Following the Theory of Ema-
native Causation and the Creaturely Inferiority Complex, God is both
transcendent from and immanent in the world. As explained in chapter ,
section , the creatures exist in the Supreme Being in the sense that their
entire being depends on that transcendent source, while the Supreme Be-
ing exists in the creatures in the sense that each creature is a more or less
clear instantiation of the divine essence. In this interpretative context, it
need not be heretical to declare either that the perfect mind “is the cause

. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, A Sor Juana Anthology, . It is significant that a Catholic
nun like Sor Juana did not find Kircher’s image controversial. While it might strike us as
pantheistic and heretical, neither the Catholic church nor Kircher’s many contemporary
admirers seem to have found it problematic.
. VI iii : Pk . cf. Wilson, Leibniz’s Metaphysics, .


      , –
of itself” or that “God comes from God.”111 Moreover, in related texts, Leib-
niz makes the same point in more orthodox terminology. For example, he
writes in March: “God does not form part of things, rather, he is their prin-
ciple.”112 But, insofar as God is their principle, the supreme essence is im-
manent in the world. According to Emanative Harmony, the Supreme Being
is both the variety and the unity in the world. Thus, Leibniz writes: “The
whole infinite is one.” Once we place the quoted passage against the Platon-
ist background set in the previous chapters, it can be seen as a subtle play on
the relation between God as transcendent from the world and as immanent in
it. Leibniz’s vision here is stunning: the world is a vortex of vitalistic minds,
emanating from God and interrelated through perception and harmony.
In section , I will argue that Leibniz’s comments about existence in this
and related texts imply Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism. For now, the point
to emphasize is that he is explicit here for the first time that the harmony of
the world will be increased just in case minds act as a “replica of the World.”
In his use of the mind as a mirror in , mirroring was considered good
because it aided in the moral development of rational minds. In February
, the benefit of the mirroring of minds has greatly increased. But how
exactly does the mirroring of minds increase the goodness of the world?
Leibniz continues: if “it is possible,” then “it is true that any part of mat-
ter, however small, contains an infinity of creatures, or is a World, . . . for it
increases the multiplicity of existing things and the harmony of things, or
the admiration of the divine wisdom.”113 He is explicit here about the fact
that the harmony of the world will be increased by the existence of crea-
tures who are capable of admiring the divine wisdom.
Nor is that all. For the first time, Leibniz proclaims in On the secrets of
the sublime or on the greatest of things that minds are eternal. One of the more
striking facts about the subtle changes in his views during the Paris period
is that without any fanfare, he replaces the momentary minds of the pre-
Paris years with eternal ones. According to Leibniz in February ,
“every mind is of endless duration” and “is indissolubly implanted in mat-
ter. . . . There are innumerable minds everywhere” which “do not per-
ish.”114 But this is curious. It is one thing for minds to be indestructible and
quite another for them to be eternal: the constant activity of minds guaran-
tees the natural indestructibility of substances, but it does not by itself guar-
antee their eternity. Once created, such substances will persist forever only
if God deems their survival harmonious. But how exactly is the eternity of

. Lest someone think that Leibniz intends to equate God with nature, it is worth pointing
out that a few lines later he insists that God is “a certain substance, a person, a mind” and
is neither “nature” nor “the World” nor “in a place” nor in any way material. Rather, he
insists: “God is an intelligent substance.” VI iii : Pk . Furthermore, in an essay of
April, Leibniz argues against the idea that there is a single soul in the universe, and con-
cludes that “there is no soul of the universe.” See VI iii : Pk .
. VI iii : Pk 
. VI iii : Pk ; my emphasis. Also see VI iii : Pk .
. VI iii –: Pk .


 

substances supposed to increase harmony? For example, if God were to re-

place one infinite set of substances with a new one (say, one every millen-
nium), would the universe not be rendered fuller? In On the secrets of the
sublime or on the greatest of things, Leibniz justifes his new position: “A most
perfect being is that which contains the most. Such a being is capable of ideas
and thoughts, for this multiplies the varieties of things, like a mirror.”115 I ar-
gued in chapter  that in the texts of , minds perceive harmony; and in
chapter , I described the role of the image of a mirror in Leibniz’s account
of the ethical development of human beings.116 By February , Leibniz
has recognized that he can greatly increase the plenitude of the world by
turning all minds into eternally perceiving things and by making each indi-
vidual mind reflect or mirror every state of every other substance. Accord-
ing to Leibniz: “There are beautiful discoveries and ingenious images with
regard to the harmony of things.”117 For the first time, Leibniz applies the
image of the mind as a mirror to all created minds and thereby increases
both the variety and unity in the world. The fact that each mind reflects or
mirrors all the others allows Leibniz to go beyond the maximization of ob-
jects to that of their images and ideas. By giving each indestructible mind
at every moment of its eternal existence a perception of the entire world,
not only does each created thing instantiate the (selected) divine essence, it
reflects all the other instantiations and thereby increases the variety of
things. By the same means, Leibniz also heightens the unity of things: not
only are created things in perfect correspondence with one another, each
mirrors all the others and thereby increases the Reflective Harmony and
unity among them.
Finally, in On the secrets of the sublime or on the greatest of things, Leibniz
presents some important clues about how created minds work. In language
very similar to that used in the writings of , he claims that “God is a
person or [seu] an intelligent substance”118 who “arranged all things from
the beginning,”119 where the suggestion is that this arrangement consists in
giving each mind a Production Rule for the continuous production of its
thoughts. In chapter , I argued that each created mind produces all its own
thoughts and hence all its states, both active and passive. In February ,
Leibniz applies the same model of thinking to God. He writes about God:
“It must be demonstrated rigorously that he perceives himself acting on
himself, for nothing is more admirable than for the same being to perceive
and to be acted on [pati] by itself.”120 As a conclusion to his discussion of
harmony and “the mutual influence” of things which “understand their

. VI iii : Pk ; my emphasis.

. Although there is, to my knowledge, no textual evidence to this effect, it is at least possi-
ble that Leibniz was motivated to attribute perception to the mind-like substantial forms
in bodies because he saw the need to attribute sympathy to all substances. As noted in sect.
, by , sympathy had become a means to explain cohesion in the parts of bodies.
. VI iii : Pk . . VI iii : Pk .
. VI iii : Pk . . VI iii : Pk .


      , –

duty and communicate with God,” Leibniz makes a delightfully honest

comment. In a touching display of optimistic exuberance, he exclaims:
Whoever understands these things correctly cannot fail to be happy and content,
trusting God and loving God, whatever the evils into which he falls. I know no one
happier than I am, because God gave me this understanding, as a result of which I
envy no king; I am certain that God takes special care of me, that is, that he has des-
tined my mind for immense joys, in that he has opened to me such a certain and easy
way of happiness. Nor is there any need of miracles to explain the grace of God. . . .
For God arranged all things from the beginning in this way.121

Plenitude and traces

In the winter of –, Leibniz took notes on a number of important texts.
These include Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Plato’s Phaedo and
Theaetetus, Descartes’ Principles of Philosophy, and Boyle’s The Excellence of
Theology.122 Among the writings of his well-known contemporaries, the one
that probably had the greatest immediate influence on his evolving ideas was
the Response written by Simon Foucher to Malebranche’s The Search for
Truth. In his notes, Leibniz makes some remarks that are particularly rele-
vant here. He writes: “The author says that traces [les traces] are necessary
for us to conserve a memory of things. But this does not seem so certain to
me.” Leibniz gives two reasons for his doubt. The first displays his concern
for conciliation: “[t]hose who ascribe memory to the separate soul will not
agree to it.” The second is more complicated. He asks: “[b]y what trace does
the soul remember that it has been and has thought?”123 As we will see, it
was Leibniz’s firm opinion that we are continuously aware of ourselves
thinking. According to his reading of Foucher, the conservation of the mem-
ory of a thing was to be explained by a trace in the mind. For Leibniz, the
problem with Foucher’s theory was due to the fact that since the mind or soul
cannot be changed in any way, the theory of traces cannot be used to explain
the memory that we have of ourselves thinking. As Leibniz adds a bit later
in his notes: “The author is right in saying that thought is not the essence of
the soul, for a thought is an act, and since one thought succeeds another, that
which remains instead during this change must necessarily be the essence of
the soul, since it remains always the same.”124

. VI iii : Pk . . See VI iii –.

. VI iii : L . For Foucher’s views, see Réponse pour la critique à la préface du second
volume de la recherche de la verité, –. Loemker notes the relationship between Leib-
niz and Foucher.
. VI iii : L . Many years later, Leibniz added the following comment: “The essence
of substances consists in the primitive force of action, or in the law of the sequence of
changes, as the nature of the series consists in the numbers.” I take this comment as evi-
dence of the fact that Leibniz’s Theory of Substance in  attributes a production rule
to mind and, moreover, that the latter is very similar to “the law of sequence” which he uses
to such effect in the s and which assumes the complete concept theory of substance.


 

But Leibniz was attracted by Foucher’s theory and set about solving the
problem. Within weeks of taking notes on the Response, he had incorporated
Foucher’s notion of traces into his account of substance. The steps he took
are unusually easy to discern. In his Notes on science and metaphysics of
March , he reveals that he is very tempted by Foucher’s basic idea. Ac-
cording to Leibniz, each mind “perceives all the endeavors” or activities of
all the other substances and “no endeavor in the universe is lost; they are
stored up in the mind, not destroyed.”125 He is undecided about how to ex-
plain this feature of mind, and ends this essay with a query about memory.
However, by the time he composed the essay entitled On truths, mind, God,
and the universe, he has resolved that when a mind F perceives itself, its ob-
ject is a different kind of thing than are the objects it perceives when it per-
ceives particular states. According to Leibniz in this note of April , when
an individual mind perceives itself thinking, it perceives its essence as a
thinking thing; when it perceives its individual states, it is perceiving its
states or modes. He argues:
In our mind there is a perception or sense of itself. . . . This is always in us. . . .
Therefore, intellectual memory consists in this: not what we have perceived, but that
we have perceived, that we are those who have perceived. This is what is commonly
called ‘the same;’ this faculty in us is independent from external things. . . . This
particular sense of oneself is without characteristics. . . . It seems that this sense of
oneself always exists. Since this is the nature of the mind and it consists in the sense
of itself, then I do not see how that sense can be impeded or destroyed. Further-
more, . . . the identity of the mind is not destroyed by some modification.126
If we take the “faculty” here to be the divine-like emanative power in each
individual mind, then the point is that when the mind reflects on itself, it
perceives its nature without any particular state or modification. The mem-
ory that we have of this nature is not the memory of a particular state or
thought; rather, it is the memory of the awareness of ourselves as the per-
sistent thinking things that we are. Leibniz suggests that this memory is sig-
nificantly different from the memory that we have of particular states or
modifications. About the latter, he explains that each mind “as something
particular” is “endowed with certain modifications; moreover, a mind per-
ceives each of its modifications as a this or a that.”127 In sum, for each in-
dividual mind F, F has direct awareness of itself as the thinking thing that
it is, and this “intellectual memory” constitutes part of what it is to be F.
For Leibniz here, the nature and identity of F is somehow bound up with
this memory that F has of itself. However, the memory that F has of its par-
ticular states is different in kind from the one that it has of itself because
(among other things) the states are constantly changing. In another essay of
April entitled On reminiscence and on the mind’s self-reflection, Leibniz an-
nounces, without explanation or elaboration: “To me, it seems that there is

. VI iii : Pk . . VI iii : Pk –.

. VI iii : Pk . The language that Leibniz uses here is similar to that used in notes on
Plato’s Theaetetus. See VI iii –.


      , –

some memory per se of ourselves and of perception, but not of varied per-
ception.”128 Although Leibniz does not talk about traces here, it would seem
to follow that while traces are required for the memory that F has of a state
or modification, they are not required for the memory F has of itself. Leib-
niz summarizes his new position in On truths, mind, God, and the universe:
“It is not credible that the effect of any perception should vanish in the fu-
ture, since the effect of the actions of all the others endures forever.”129 The
point seems to be that in the same way that each mind retains the effect of
the actions of every other substance in the world, so it retains the effect of
its own actions.
As we have noted, in Notes on science and metaphysics of March, Leibniz
claimed that “no endeavor in the universe is lost; they are stored up in the
mind.” In On truths, mind, God, and the universe of April , he implies a
distinction between intellectual memory and the memory of particular
states, and he concludes that we must retain the effects of the latter. His con-
clusion is that the perceptions of a mind are cumulative in the sense that
every new state of F contains “the effect” of all the previous ones. That
Leibniz takes himself to have constructed a solution to the problem that
faced Foucher’s theory is clear. By the time Leibniz composed On forms or
the attributes of God in the second half of April, he has adopted Foucher’s
term. According to Leibniz there, “it is true that there is no memory with-
out traces.”130

Plenitude and distinctness: Meditation on the principle

of the individual
According to the Platonist Principle of Harmonized Plenitude, variety
among beings increases the goodness of the world. As noted in chapter ,
section , Leibniz’s texts of the late s already contain evidence that each
substance differs from every other. Given Emanative Harmony, it seems
obvious that the distinctness of minds would greatly increase the goodness
of the world. By the spring of , Leibniz is prepared to expand upon
this idea and to explain exactly how the distinctness of mind is related to
plenitude. In an essay of April , Leibniz offers his first argument for the
Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. As a proper introduction to this
argument, it will be helpful to note an epistemological asymmetry in the
relation between a cause and its effect in Leibniz’s original Aristotelian
assumptions.
The notion of complete ratio maintains that the understanding of a cause
entails full knowledge of its effect: one sees exactly why the effect and no
other occurred. In the essay entitled Demonstration of first propositions,

. VI iii : Pk . For an interesting account of some of Leibniz’s early views about mem-
ory and its relation to his account of the action of the mind on itself, see Kulstad, Leib-
niz on Apperception, Consciousness, and Reflection, –.
. VI iii : Pk . . VI iii : Pk .


 

which dates from the winter of – and which contains the first demon-
stration of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, Leibniz’s comments suggest
that from a full knowledge of the cause, an understanding of the effect
would result. However, the essay is silent about what the effect might tell us
about the cause. That is, the Aristotelian assumptions imply nothing about
any entailment from effect to cause. Since the Intelligibility Assumption
implies that a feature f of a substance S is rendered intelligible (at least in
theory) by a consideration of S’s nature, one would think that a full under-
standing of f requires that one know enough about S to see exactly how S
caused f. In other words, the Aristotelian assumptions lead us to expect that
a thorough understanding of f would involve S in fairly significant ways.
Moreover, according to the Theory of Emanative Causation, for a being
A that is more perfect than a being B, A can emanate its attribute f-ness to
B in such a way that neither A nor A’s f-ness is depleted in any way, while B
has f-ness, though in a manner inferior to the way it exists in A. Many Pla-
tonists understood the theory to entail that knowledge of B would lead to
knowledge of A. Given that both the Aristotelian and the Platonist as-
sumptions seem to assume an epistemological symmetry between a cause
and its effect, it is odd that Leibniz’s writings before  are nearly silent
about the relation.131
This awkward silence is broken on April , , when in the essay Med-
itation on the principle of the individual, Leibniz first begins to claim that
“[a]n effect is conceived through its cause.”132 Nor should his sudden in-
terest in the epistemological connection between an effect and its cause
come as a surprise: the conjunction of his new notion of traces, the Theory
of Corporeal Substance, and the Logical and Intelligibility Assumptions
yields the view that for any state f of S, a thorough knowledge of f would
lead to an understanding of S. A major part of the essay is an argument for
just this sort of relation between a substantial state and its cause. But before
turning to the details of the argument, it will be helpful to present a further
motivation for Leibniz’s revised account of a substantial state. In the essay
On truths, mind, God, and the universe, we find a theological reason for the
revision: in order to assure that the soul retains its identity after death, it
must contain at every moment of its existence the entirety of its past. In this
essay of April , Leibniz reasons as follows:
It is credible that the person who dies content, remains content. It is my view that
all true entities or minds, which alone are one, always increase in perfection . . . ; that
[at death] minds will for a while be withdrawn within themselves and will perhaps
at some time return to a perception of external things. . . . So, I do not accept the
view of Spinoza, that the individual mind is extinguished with the body; that the

. Leibniz’s discussion in  about the difference between what is prior in time and prior
in nature is roughly a discussion about this topic. See my account of this distinction in
ch. , sect. . For a summary of the principles and assumptions mentioned here, see Ap-
pendix II, chs. , , and .
. VI iii : Pk .


      , –
mind in no way remembers what has gone before; that there remains only that which
is eternal in the mind, namely, the Idea or the essence of the body.133
At the time of the death of a person S, the passive principle of S is radically
altered while the mind F in S persists.134 Since without its body, F cannot
perceive the world, F will remain in something like a condition of stasis un-
til resurrection. We also find in this passage (what is probably) Leibniz’s
original statement of the remarkable idea that all the minds in the world in-
crease in perfection. His primary concern here is to explain how each mind
is able to retain its identity at death. The assumption seems to be that be-
cause substantial identity is determined by the condition of the soul at death
and because the essence of each soul is fundamentally the same (what I have
taken to be a mind-like emanative power), it is necessary that every state of
the soul contains its entire history. Leibniz goes on to explain exactly how
the perfectibility of minds requires this account of a substantial state. He
argues that if what survives death is merely some “perfect essence,” then “it
will not be remembered, nor will we have any perception of it, and we la-
bor in vain to perfect our mind on behalf of its state after death.” But in this
case, “one labors at the perfection of one’s mind in vain. My view, on the
contrary, is that it is rational that the perfection of the mind should not be
sought in vain.”135 For Leibniz, in order to justify the moral development
of human beings and explain the perfectibility of minds, it is reasonable to
assume that every state of mind retains traces of its entire history.
But let’s be perfectly clear about what Leibniz’s position involves. Ac-
cording to the texts of , for every mind-like substantial form F there is
a Production Rule such that the necessary and sufficient conditions for each
state of F consists in the conjunction of the principle of activity in F, its
Production Rule, and its previous state. Because the Production Rule con-
tains instructions for what F will do, it would seem to follow that it contains
what the mature Leibniz will call “the marks” of F. But it also would seem
to follow from the notion of a Production Rule that F contains evidence of
its history in the sense that it contains the Production Rule, which has told
it how to act throughout its existence. What exactly is the difference between
the earlier view and the position in ? In the spring of , by giving
each mind traces of its past, Leibniz allows each mind the means to mem-

. VI iii : Pk . In the Philosopher’s confession, Leibniz seems to assume that the
thoughts that a person has at death determine the nature of the person’s afterlife. The ba-
sic idea is that when someone dies loving God, salvation is (at least) likely, whereas, when
someone dies hating God, damnation is bound to follow. See VI iii , f.
. Although it is possible that Leibniz has radically changed his views about corporeal sub-
stance, this seems unlikely. Since immediately before and immediately after the compo-
sition of this essay, he endorses both the Passive Principle Assumption and the doctrine
of a core of substance, it seems likely that when he writes here that “the body is extin-
guished,” he does not mean that the core of the substance has changed, but only that it
has shrunk down to some small part of its original body. For the details of how this is
supposed to work, see ch. , sect.  and ch. , sect. .
. VI iii : Pk .


 

ory and knowledge of its past states. And once each mind, at every moment
of its existence, has the means to its past, it is both capable of retaining its
identity after death and is such that every one of its states contains traces of
its nature.
Leibniz begins the Meditation on the principle of the individual as follows:
“We say that the effect involves its cause; that is, in such a way that whoever
understands some effect perfectly will also arrive at knowledge of its cause.
For it is necessary that there is a certain connection between a complete
cause and the effect.”136 He then poses an apparent counter-example to this
theory: in some cases “different causes can produce an effect that is perfectly
the same.” His immediate response to this problem is important. He denies
that there could ever be such a case, and claims that “we are certain, from
some other source, that the effect does involve its cause,” and therefore that
“it is necessary that the method of production must always be discernible”
in the effect.137 It is “impossible” that two effects could be perfectly simi-
lar “for they will consist of matter” that “will have a mind” such that “the
mind will retain the effect of its former state.” He does not explain what this
“other source” of certainty is, but attempts to demonstrate his claim by
means of a reductio ad absurdum. He argues that if any two individuals were
perfectly similar, three unacceptable conclusions would result: “the effect
would not involve its cause;” “the principle of individuation” would be
“outside the thing, in its cause;” and “one individual would not differ from
another in itself.” It is important that Leibniz does not feel the need to ex-
plain why these results are absurd. He seems to take their untenability to be
obvious. And of course they are obvious given his Metaphysics of Sub-
stance. In general terms, the absurdity of all three claims follows from Leib-
niz’s Aristotelian assumptions about cause and substance. As we have seen,
from the beginning of his philosophical career, Leibniz assumes an intimate
relation between a cause and effect and between a substance and its features.
More specifically, the notion of a Production Rule implies the falsity of the
conclusions: because the rule makes each substance distinct from every
other, the principle of individuation of the substance would have to be in
the thing itself; because Emanative Harmony insists that no two rules be the
same, it follows that no two individuals will be the same either.
So far so good. But how exactly does the effect involve its cause? In his
explanation of this point, Leibniz admits that the position follows from
the fact that each state f of a mind F contains traces of all the previous states
of F:

. VI iii : Pk . The interpretation that I present here of this essay differs slightly from
the one offered in “Metaphysics: The Early Period to the Discourse on Metaphysics,” coau-
thored with Robert Sleigh. See esp. –.
. Ibid. Notice the relation between this argument and Leibniz’s point about the clock. For
my discussion of the latter, see ch. , sect. . I assume that Leibniz’s claim here would
not be true of aggregates of substances since an aggregate is not strictly an individual
thing. For a discussion of a related point about aggregates, see sect. .


      , –
But if we admit that two different things always differ in themselves in some respect
as well, it follows that there is present in any matter something that retains the ef-
fect of what precedes it, namely, a mind. And from this it is also proved that the
effect involves the cause. For it is true of it that it was produced by such a cause;
therefore right up to the present there is in it a quality of such a kind as to bring this
about, and this quality . . . has about it something that is real. It is evident what great
consequences follow from such little premises.138
Before we can understand exactly how great these consequences are, we
need to articulate an implicit assumption in the these “little premises.” In
particular, we need to grasp exactly how the mind is related to the matter
such that the mind “retains the effect of what precedes it.” The passage as-
serts that the mind has a quality that is real and that somehow brings this
matter about. Although Leibniz does not give details in the Meditation on
the principle of the individual, the counter-example that he presents to the
claim that an effect involves its cause offers some help. Leibniz presents a
square figure and explains that “whether two parallelograms or two trian-
gles are put together, . . . the same square will . . . be produced.” By such
means, Leibniz seems to present the rectangle as an intentional object. That
is, the matter under discussion in the essay in the phenomenal object that
belongs to a thinking mind, where the latter is its cause. In other words, the
essay assumes Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism. If we assume that the mat-
ter under discussion in the quoted passage is the phenomenal object per-
ceived by the mind, then this part of Leibniz’s argument in Meditation on
the principle of the individual goes through neatly. Once we take the matter
under discussion to be a substantial state f of a mind F and once we recog-
nize that each state of F contains traces of all it has done, it follows that to
understand f is to understand F. In brief, the effect involves its cause in this
case because, for any state or effect f of a mind F, f is caused by F and more-
over f “retains the effect of what precedes it.” One of the “great conse-
quences” of Leibniz’s essay is that each substantial state reveals the entire
nature of the substance. As Leibniz concludes his argument: “This argu-
ment is very fine, and proves that matter is not homogenous and that we
cannot truly think of anything by which it differs, except the mind.”
But how exactly is all this related to plenitude? It follows from the argu-
ment in Meditation on the principle of the individual that every state of every
substance contains the entire world, past, present, and future. But this per-
ceptual fecundity requires that each substance be distinctive: in order to
maximize the variety of perceptions, each substance must perceive the world
from a perspective that is different from every other. This means that no
two perspectives will be similar, and hence that no two substantial states will
be the same. The Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles constitutes one

. VI iii : Pk . A prominent claim in First truths is that “there are no extrinsic denom-
inations.” See Appendix I. Although Leibniz does not develop this terminology until
later, the claim is roughly the same as the one made here.


 

of the fundamental assumptions of the essay. But Meditation on the princi-

ple of the individual also implies that for Leibniz in , the relation be-
tween a substance and each of its states or products is like that between the
Supreme Being and each one of its creatures or products: from a full un-
derstanding of the one, we can attain a complete understanding of the other.
By constructing an epistemological symmetry between an effect and its
cause, Leibniz has made the world such that a full understanding of any
state of any substance is tantamount to knowledge of the divine nature. In
a striking passage written in the first few months of , Leibniz returns
to the image of a town to summarize his new position:
It seems to me that every mind is omniscient in a confused way. . . . And so in this
way a wonderful variety arises, for there are as many different relations of things to
the universe as there are minds, just as when the same town is seen from various
places. So God, by the creation of many Minds, willed to bring about with respect
to the universe what is willed with respect to a large town by a painter, who wants to
display delineations of its various aspects or projections.The painter does on canvas
what God does on the mind.139
Leibniz’s account of mind and perception in the first half of  has
much in common with a major part of the Metaphysics of Divinity as de-
scribed in chapters  and . According to the Emanative Creation Story ar-
ticulated in chapter , the Supreme Being emanates its (selected) divine
essence to every substance which is thereby an instantiation of that essence.
Each substance contains the divine essence but in a different way from every
other. In chapter , section , I discussed an essay written in the second half
of  in which Leibniz displays for the first time a complete account of
thinking. In On endeavor and motion, perceiving and thinking, what Leibniz
adds to the Emanative Creation Story is that the thoughts and perceptions
of a mind F emanate from its nature which itself is an emanation of God.
More specifically, each of the thoughts of a perceiving mind F is the result
of F’s emanating its divine essence in a manner consistent with its Produc-
tion Rule. Because God is the ultimate cause of the thoughts and percep-
tions, the perceptions contain their divine source. Although each mind per-
ceives its own version of harmony, each is perfectly coordinated with the
others. For Leibniz in , reality is an infinity of perfectly coordinated
perspectives on the divine nature.
By the spring of , Leibniz has added significantly to the grandeur of
this picture. By making each mind eternal and by giving every mind at every
moment of its external existence traces of the entire history of the world,
Leibniz has turned every state of every creature into a “delineation” and
“projection” of the being and goodness of God. With wonderful aplomb,
Leibniz thereby increases the plenitude and harmony of creation: each
thought of every mind has been constructed so that it contains the world
and the means to knowledge of its divine source.

. VI iii : Pk .


      , –

It will be helpful to include these additions in the Substantial Form As-

sumption. The revised version is:
• The () Substantial Form Assumption claims that, for every mind-like
substantial form F in a corporeal substance S, F acts constantly through
emanation and therefore can neither be created nor destroyed by anything
other than God; F contains the (selected) divine essence and a Production
Rule where the latter specifies how F will emanate the former and there-
fore contains marks of everything F will do; F emanates its states, which
are its thoughts, which change constantly, which are the ontological cor-
relates of the predicates in the complete concept of S, and which are a
more or less clear instantiation of the (selected) divine essence; F is per-
manently rooted in its passive principle P with which it forms a core of
substance, where the relation between F and P is one of Prearranged Dif-
fusion and where the unity is indissoluble; F is eternal, differs from every
other mind in the world, and mirrors all the others; and each state of F
contains traces of all its previous states and is such that an understanding
of it will lead to knowledge of its cause.

. Substance and divinity, 

In chapter , I displayed Leibniz’s conception of God as the emanative
source of the world, each of whose creatures instantiate the (selected) di-
vine essence. In chapters  and , I described his first attempts to explain
the preestablished interrelations among substances, according to which each
creature instantiates the divine essence from its own perspective in perfect
harmony with every other. Although many of the passages discussed in the
previous section contain evidence of these doctrines, it will be helpful to ex-
plore some of these texts in greater detail here. Given the intensity of his
interest in metaphysical matters in early , it is not surprising that Leib-
niz attempts to clarify his views on these central topics. The results of his
ruminations are more careful articulations of some of the doctrines of his
core metaphysics.

Emanative Harmony
In April , Leibniz criticizes Descartes because the latter “did not take
his analysis to the most profound things or [seu] the primary forms, that
is, he did not begin with God.”140 Leibniz does not intend to make the
same mistake. In the notes composed in March and April, he is especially
keen to analyze precisely the relation between God and creatures and to
formulate what he considered an original version of the ontological argu-
ment.141 Placing himself squarely within a long line of Platonists, he de-

. VI iii : Pk .

. For a discussion of Leibniz’s version of the argument, see Adams, Leibniz, esp. ch. . Al-


 

fines the divine mind as what contains the Platonic Ideas. According to
Leibniz, God is “the subject of all absolute simple forms – absolute, that is
affirmative.”142 ‘Form’ here refers to a Platonic Idea or essence, so that God
contains all positive essences. Thus, God can be thought of as “the con-
junction in the same subject of all possible absolute forms or perfections.”
In the spring of , Leibniz is explicit about the fact that God contains
an infinity of such Ideas or forms.
According to part () of the Emanative Creation Story, the Supreme Be-
ing chooses one among an infinity of versions of the divine essence and em-
anates that (selected) divine essence to each individual creature in the world
so that each creature contains fundamentally the same essence. According
to part () of the story, each substance is different from every other. Fol-
lowing the analysis of emanation in chapters , , and , this means that each
substance instantiates the (selected) divine essence in a way different from
every other, where the Production Rule specifies exactly how that instanti-
ation will occur and where the difference is partly a function of the clarity
of the instantiation of the essence. For help with this idea, in chapter  I
compared the (selected) divine essence to a story and each individual in-
stantiation of the (selected) essence to a translation of the story. Following
this analogy, each substance is like a translation of the story in that although
it differs from all other substances, it is an expression of the same thing.
Once the notion of a Production Rule was introduced in chapter , I ex-
tended the analogy and compared the rule in F to the rules of the language
into which the story will be translated. In this case, the nature of F is like
the (selected) story, its Production Rule is like the rules of the language, and
the thoughts of F are like the sequence of translated sentences which result
from applying the rules of the language to the story. I noted the importance
of the fact that the thoughts of F change although F remains the unchang-
ing emanative source of them. Finally, with the introduction in chapter  of
the idea that substances and their states differ according to the clarity of
their instantiation of the divine essence, the analogy was employed to make
sense of the fact that like different translations of a story, substances can dif-
fer dramatically in the clarity of their expression.
The essays of the spring of  are thoroughly consistent with this ac-
count. In fact, Leibniz is fairly explicit about the relation between the divine
essence and the individual instantiations of it in the world. But before turn-
ing to the details of the texts, it will be helpful to identify a subtle difference
between the two images that Leibniz commonly uses to describe the relation
between the divine essence and its products. Throughout , Leibniz re-
lies on two distinct analogies. One is arithmetical, where the essence of a
number, say , is compared to God and the various expressions of that

though much of Adams’ discussion of Leibniz’s philosophical theology is quite helpful,

there is no acknowledgement of Leibniz’s Platonism and, therefore, the entire analysis is
based on an inadequate understanding of Leibniz’s notion of God.
. VI iii : Pk .


      , –

essence, say  + ,  + ,  + , are compared to individual substances. The

other analogy that Leibniz uses in  is the town analogy, whose original
versions I discussed in chapter , section , and whose examples are scat-
tered across his later philosophy. The point of both analogies is to show how
the products of the Supreme Being can instantiate the same essence and yet
do so in a way different from every other. But the emphasis in each is slightly
different. Like my translation analogy, the focus of the arithmetical analogy
is the active individual substance who produces its version of the divine
essence. The focus of the town analogy is the subject as a perceiver of the
world.143 Where the arithmetical analogies usually stress the way in which
different created subjects can express the same thing, the town analogies
usually emphasize the fact that the same essence can be grasped in a num-
ber of different ways. In the town analogy, there is often an epistemological
moral: like the traveler whose perception of the town is radically different
from the “Ideal” conception available from a tower in the town center, each
created mind perceives only one aspect or mode of the divine essence. But
the subtle suggestion of the image is that the traveler can enter the town and
climb the tower, just as the wise person can attain the beatific vision. In his
notes on Wilkins, Leibniz defines a mode as “a means by which something
is thought.” The town analogy is supposed to reveal that for each thinking
substance S, what the world is for S is a prearranged set of perceptions and,
moreover, that each such set is only one among an infinity of modes of the
divine essence, where each mode is a way to grasp that essence. In brief,
while the arithmetical analogy reveals something about how active creatures
express the divine essence, the town analogy displays how the divine essence
can be thought in different ways. I postulate that as Leibniz became more
and more committed to the Preestablished Harmony among minds and to
the view that each mind just is another projection of harmony, he became
more attached to the town image and became more inclined to think of God
both as the ultimate source of these projections and as something that is ac-
cessed by such means. In conclusion to his essay On forms or the attributes
of God, Leibniz writes in April : “God thinks out infinitely many
things in infinitely many ways.”144 In a striking summary of his view, Leib-
niz writes in Notes on metaphysics at the end of the year:
There is no doubt that God understands how we perceive things; just as someone
who wants to provide a perfect conception of a town will represent it in several
modes [modis]. And this understanding of God, insofar as it understands our way
of understanding, is very like our understanding. Indeed our understanding results
from it, from which we can say that God has an understanding that is in a way like
ours. For God understands things as we do but with this difference: he understands

. For the arithmetical analogy, see, e.g., VI iii : Pk ; VI iii : Pk . For the town anal-
ogy, see, e.g., VI iii : Pk ; VI iii : Pk . Leibniz soon ceases to use the former anal-
ogy, but uses the latter in some of his most important later works. See, e.g., Discourse on
metaphysics, sect.; Monadology, sect.; First truths, VI iv [B] : AG / L .
. VI iii : Pk .


 
them at the same time in infinitely many ways, whereas we understand them in one
way only.145
According to Emanative Causation, the attributes of God constitute the
metaphysical principles out of which individuals are made. I noted in sec-
tion  that in the Philosopher’s confession, Leibniz talks about “the series of
things” which is formed out of the divine Ideas or attributes.146 According
to Leibniz in , when these attributes are combined or related to one an-
other, modifications of them arise. He writes: “from the conjunction of sim-
ple possible forms there result modifications, that is, ideas, as properties re-
sult from essence.” The point is that when simple forms are combined,
modifications of the essence of God result “just as properties result from
essence.”147 In On forms or the attributes of God of April, Leibniz elabo-
rates. Concerning the creator, he makes it clear that “the essence of God
consists in the fact that he is the subject of all compatible attributes.” Con-
cerning the products of God, Leibniz claims that “any property or affec-
tion of God involves his whole essence.”148 For Leibniz, when God pro-
duces something, regardless of how small, “it involves the whole nature of
God.”149 He writes: “Modifications . . . are what result from all other forms
taken together.” They have an “infinite variety,” which “can only result
from an infinite cause,” i.e., from the infinitely various forms.150 In brief,
modifications come about when divine attributes are combined; such com-
binations always contain all divine attributes.151 Each modification is a
product of the whole essence of God and therefore contains all the divine
attributes; it is in this sense that each modification of God will contain the
whole divine essence. Because of its infinite cause, each modification is
bound to be infinitely complex itself. When we piece together these clues,
they yield something very similar to claims () (), and () of the Emana-
tive Creation Story. It seems reasonable to assume that “the product,”
“modification,” or “idea” that is supposed to result from the the combina-
tion of divine attributes is the (selected) divine essence. According to Leib-
niz, when the attributes of God are “related to one another, modifications
result; hence it comes about that the same essence of God is expressed as a
whole in any kind of world and, therefore, that God manifests himself in
infinite modes.”152 Moreover, according to Leibniz, individual substances

. VI iii : Pk . A number of scholars have taken Leibniz’s use of the Latin term
‘modus’ in the essays of  to be evidence of Spinoza’s influence. While there are texts
that do suggest that Leibniz is trying on Spinozistic terminology, the use of the term in
passages such as these is perfectly consistent with its use in the Studies on the universal
characteristic, which was of course written significantly before Leibniz had heard about
the Ethics.
. It is noteworthy that in the De summa rerum papers, Leibniz is explicit about possible
worlds. See, e.g., VI iii –: Pk .
. VI iii : Pk . . VI iii : Pk .
. VI iii : Pk –. . VI iii : Pk .
. At VI iii , Leibniz writes: “proprietas sive affectio Dei totam eius essentiam involvit.”
. VI iii : Pk .


      , –

result when these modifications are instantiated in an active subject. He ex-

claims: “It is a wonderful thing that a subject is different from forms or at-
tributes. . . . Thought is not duration, but what thinks is something that en-
dures. And this is the difference between substance and forms.”153 That is,
because substances are active things, they are the sorts of things that can en-
dure and they are the kinds of things that instantiate properties. For Leib-
niz in On forms or the attributes of God: “The correct way of considering the
matter is that forms are conceived through themselves; subjects, and the fact
that they are subjects, are conceived through forms.”154 He continues: “par-
ticulars result” when forms “are combined with a subject.” According to
Leibniz, a subject is that which has a mind or principle of activity. Each sub-
ject or substance will be an instantiated modification or collection of divine
attributes. God produces modifications through the combinations of his at-
tributes or forms and then instantiates these in subjects. As he summarizes
the point in an essay of April  entitled On simple forms: “I cannot ex-
plain how things result from forms other than by analogy with the way in
which numbers result from units – with this difference, that all units are ho-
mogeneous, but forms are different.”155
Since each subject is an instantiated modification and each modification
is a combination of all the divine attributes, each substance will be a in-
stantiation of the divine essence. Leibniz embraces this consequence. In On
the origin of things from forms, also of April , he writes: “It seems to me
that the origin of things from God is of the same kind as the origin of prop-
erties from an essence; just as  =  +  +  +  +  + , therefore  =  + ,
=  × , =  + , etc. Nor may one doubt that the one expression differs from
the other. . . . So just as these properties differ from each other and from
essence, so do things differ from each other and from God.”156 Each cre-
ated substance is an expression of God’s essence, and in this sense each has
the same essence. But each nonetheless differs from every other because it
is a different expression of that essence. God creates each substance so that
it will express the (selected) divine essence in its own way. Like the differ-
ent translations of the selected story, where each series of sentences is a dif-
ferent expression of the same propositions, each substance is a different ex-
pression of the same essence.
Two obvious questions arise at this point. The Creaturely Inferiority
Complex insists that each creature contains the divine attributes but in a
manner inferior to their divine source. What does Leibniz have to say about
this topic? In , he is explicit about the fact that it is appropriate “to as-
cribe” the divine features to the things of the world. For example, he claims
that a creature has the immeasurability of God if it can be said to be some-
where; it has the omniscience of God if it can be said to perceive. But he
also insists that strictly speaking, the absolute affirmative attributes of God
are not in the world. For example, he writes in On the origin of things from

. VI iii : Pk . . VI iii –: Pk .

. VI iii : Pk . . VI iii –: Pk .


 

forms that God “contains the absolute affirmative form that is ascribed in a
limited way to other things.” According to Leibniz, it is appropriate to as-
cribe the attributes of God to creatures, but it remains true that “God is not
part of our mind” nor is the Supreme Being in any of the creatures which
participate in the divine attributes.157 In On simple forms, Leibniz writes: “all
things are in a way contained in all things. But they are contained in a quite
different way in God from that in which they are contained in things.”158
Therefore, the divine attributes are in creatures but in a limited way.
In the Philosopher’s confession, Leibniz makes a distinction that helps
make sense of this:
Even complete cognitions can increase, not by novelty of matter, but by novelty of
reflection. If you have nine units accessible to you, then you have comprehended
completely the essence of the number nine. However, even if you were to have the
material for all its properties, nevertheless you would not have its form or reflection
[formam seu reflexionem]. For even if you do not observe that three times three . . .
and a thousand other combinations are nine, you have nonetheless thought of the
essence of the number nine. . . . I will give an example of a finite thing representing
[praebentis] properties that are infinite without any comparison with external
things. Here is a circle: if you know that all the lines from the center to the circum-
ference are equal, in my opinion, you consider its essence sufficiently clearly. Still
you have not comprehended in virtue of that innumerable theorems.159
In an essay of December  entitled On mind, the universe, and God, Leib-
niz makes the same point: “we do not have any idea of a circle, such as there
is in God, who thinks all things at the same time. . . . We think about a cir-
cle, we provide demonstrations about a circle, we recognize a circle: its
essence is known to us – but only part by part. If we were to think of the
whole essence of a circle at the same time, then we would have the idea of a
circle.”160 He goes on to explain that only God can do this. In an essay of
November , Leibniz adds further help. He defines ‘perfection’ as a
“simple quality that is positive and absolute or [seu] that expresses without
any limits what ever it does express.”161 By piecing together these clues, we
attain the following: for any essence E, whether infinite or finite, there is a
range of possible cognitions of it, from partial to complete, where a partial
cognition of E is to grasp one of its properties and a complete cognition of
E is to grasp every such property. Moreover, for any essence E, whether in-
finite or finite, it may be “represented” or “expressed” more or less clearly,
although each property of E is a partial expression of it.
With these distinctions in hand, we can articulate more precisely what
Leibniz means when he claims in the essays of  that the divine attrib-
utes are in creatures but in a limited way. We can also grasp more fully than
was previously possible the full significance of the arithmetical and town

. VI iii : Pk –. . VI iii : Pk .

. VI iii –. . VI iii –: Pk .
. VI iii : Pk . See also VI iii : Pk , where he uses exactly the same Latin
phrase, namely, “quicquid exprimit sine ullis limitibus exprimit.”


      , –

analogies. As employed in On the origin of things from forms, the arithmeti-

cal analogy assumes that each of the expressions  +  and  +  +  is a par-
tial expression or instantiation of the essence , and by analogy, that each
creature is a partial expression of God. That is, each creature contains a lim-
ited expression or representation of the divine essence. If one understands
 + , then one understands the essence of ; if one understood the nature
of a substance, then one would grasp the essence of God. But not the whole
essence. Each of these expressions is an instantiation of the fundamental na-
ture or essence of God, but only part of it. So, just as to understand a cir-
cle fully is to grasp every possible expression of its essence, to understand
God fully is to grasp every possible expression of it. Leibniz confirms this
idea in another essay of April . In On truths, mind, God, and the uni-
verse, he writes: “Just as the number  is one thing, and , ,  is another, for
 is  +  + . To this extent the form of the number  is different from all
its parts; in the same way things differ from God, who is all things. Crea-
tures are some things.”162 Suppose the numbers , , and  to be attributes
of God. For each of these attributes, there is an infinite number of expres-
sions of each and there is an infinite number of combinations of these ex-
pressions. If we combine one expression of  (say,  + ) with an expression
of  (say,  − ) with the expression of  (say,  −  +  divided by
), then we have a combination or modification of these divine attributes.
This extension of the arithmetical analogy offers the tools with which to
construct a relatively precise account of how the products or modes of God
differ from one another and yet are all (limited) expressions of the same
thing: a substance S expresses a substance R just in case S is (at least) a par-
tial expression of the essence of R (and S is not identical with R); if S ex-
presses R (and therefore is a partial expression of the essence of R), then R
will express S, since R will also be a partial expression of the essence of S.
That is, the expresses relation among created substances is reciprocal. As
Leibniz writes in On the origin of things from forms: “It seems to me that the
origin of things from God is of the same kind as the origin of properties
from an essence; just as  =  +  +  +  +  + , therefore  =  + , =  +
, etc. Nor may one doubt that the one expression differs from the other. . . .
So just as these properties differ from each other and from the essence, so
do things differ from each other and from God.”163
On the basis of Leibniz’s definitions in Studies on the universal character-
istic, I revised the Substantial Form Assumption in chapter  to include the
claim that the thoughts of a mind F are more or less clear instantiations of

. VI iii : Pk .

. VI iii –: Pk . The doctrine of expression as it appears in the mature philosophy
is notoriously difficult to articulate. There has been a good deal of discussion in the lit-
erature both about what exactly the doctrine is and what motivated it. The earliest date
that has been given for the emergence of the doctrine is –, and most commenta-
tors have placed its development at the time of the Discourse on metaphysics of . For
the best accounts of the doctrine, see, e.g., Mates, The Philosophy of Leibniz, ff; Sleigh,
Leibniz and Arnauld, ff; Kulstad, “Causation and Pre-Established Harmony,” ff.


 

the (selected) divine essence. Although Leibniz is nowhere explicit about

this point in , the texts suggest that the partial expressions of God will
differ in clarity. It does seem obvious, for example, that  +  +  +  +  is
a clearer presentation of the essence  than is ( − ) + ( × ) − ( − ).
Although each is a partial expression of , one is clearer than the other. Sim-
ilarly, the traveler who stands just outside the town wall will grasp much less
of the nature of the town than someone who has arrived at the town center
by meandering through all its streets. In this case, each of an infinity of sub-
stances could be a partial expression of the (selected) divine essence, and yet
each could differ in its level of clarity. According to Leibniz, “the essence
of all things is the same, and things differ only modally, just as a town seen
from a high point differs from the town seen from a plain.”164 The town is
the essence of God, which has an infinity of modes, each of which can be
thought and each of which (in theory) allows a partial cognition of that
essence. But some of these modes and some of these cognitions are more
confused than others. In a passage, some of which we have seen, Leibniz
suggests as much: “It seems to me that every mind is omniscient in a con-
fused way; that any Mind perceives simultaneously whatever happens in the
entire world, and that these confused perceptions of infinite simultaneous
varieties give rise to the sensations that we have of colors, tastes, and tactile
sensations.”165
This brings me to the second question that arises concerning Leibniz’s
views in  about emanative creation and the relations between creatures.
Among the definitions in the Studies on the universal characteristic, we found
evidence that the correspondence relation between created substances was
ultimately to be explained in terms of fluctuations in the clarity of the in-
stantiations of the (selected) divine essence. That is, all the correspondence
relations among creatures, including the causal relations, were to be ex-
plained in such terms. Is there evidence of this view in the texts of ?
Although the clues are scarce, they are significant. Scholars have recog-
nized the fact that in , Leibniz asserts for the first time the equipollence
principle, according to which an effect is “equal in power” to its cause; and
some commentators have been right to note the importance of the principle
to Leibniz’s physics.166 As he asserts in a note written between  and ,
“a primary axiom . . . of physics is that the entire effect is equipollent to its
cause.”167 What, if anything, does Leibniz’s core metaphysics have to do with
this axiom in physics? As noted in the last section, Leibniz committed him-
self in April  to the view that knowledge of the effect “involves its cause”

. VI iii : Pk . The sense of expressio used here is different from the mathematical and
functional account that Leibniz came to use later. For a thorough account of the latter,
see Mark Kulstad, “Leibniz’s Conception of Expression.”
. VI iii : Pk .
. For a brief account of the principle’s early articulation, see Parkinson, De Summa Rerum,
Introduction, xlii; for its role in Leibniz’s physics and citation to some other literature,
see Garber, “Leibniz: Physics and Philosophy,” . Also see Duschesneau, La dynamique.
. VI iii .


      , –

and leads to knowledge of its cause. When he first makes this claim in the
Meditation on the principle of the individual, his concern is with the relation
between a substantial nature and a substantial state. By the fall of , he is
prepared to apply the equipollence principle to the relation between sub-
stances, where the idea is that the effect is equal in power to the cause. His
most complete presentation of the point in  appears in a note of De-
cember  entitled A chain of wonderful demonstrations about the universe.
Leibniz writes: “There is nothing without a cause, since there is nothing with-
out all the requisites for existing. The entire effect is equipollent to the full cause,
since there must be some equality between cause and effect, passing from one
to the other. Truly, it consists in this equipollence nor can another measure
be found.” In the same essay, Leibniz displays his phenomenalism. He main-
tains: “there are no Entities besides bodies and minds, that is, what we sense
[qualia sentimus].”168 Against the background set both by the Metaphysics
of Divinity and by the definitions of  in his Studies on the universal char-
acteristic, it is reasonable to assume that underlying the equipollence princi-
ple is the idea that a cause and its effect are in perfect prearranged harmony.
Concerning efficient causation in physics, for example, the clarity of the in-
stantiation of the (selected) divine essence of the cause is properly coordi-
nated with the clarity of the effect. Although Leibniz does not offer many de-
tails of the equipollence relation in A chain of wonderful demonstrations about
the universe, he does make an important assertion, namely, that “the cause is
equipollent to the effect not in perfection but in expression.”169 Since for
Leibniz in , each substance is a partial expression of the divine essence,
this comment suggests that substances can differ in perfection, although they
express or instantiate the (selected) divine essence equipollently. It would
seem to follow that the equipollence principle is consistent with the claim
about efficient causation in Studies on the universal characteristic. According
to the relevant definitions (that is, definitions [] and []), for two substances
S and S, where S acts (efficiently) on S, there is a state in S that is fol-
lowed by a change in S and moreover there is a conservation or increase of
the perfection of S and a diminishing of the perfection of S. What Leibniz
says in A chain of wonderful demonstrations about the universe is consistent with
this claim. The point in late  seems to be that, whether the causal rela-
tion is between God and creatures, between a creature and its state, or be-
tween two creatures, the cause is equipollent to the effect in expression,
though not in perfection. That is, the equipollence principle seems to apply
nicely to a world in which substances express the same (selected) divine
essence, although with greater or lesser clarity. To speak precisely, each sub-
stance bears the same Expression Relation to the essence of God, but each ex-
presses that essence more or less clearly.

. VI iii : Pk ; also see VI iii : Pk .

. VI iii : Pk . From the text, it is clear that Leibniz intends to apply the equipollence
principle to the causal relation between God and creatures and that he believes that a
cause and effect can differ in perfection and yet be equipollent.


 

Moreover, given Leibniz’s newly developed doctrine of traces, it also fol-

lows that each state f of a mind F bears an Expression Relation to F and
hence to the essence of God. That is, the transitivity of the relation is as-
sumed and each state of a substance expresses the (selected) divine essence.
To speak precisely, whether the product is a creature or a state of a creature
it has an Expression Relation with its divine source.
In this subsection, we have seen ample evidence in the essays of  of
the continued endorsement of Emanative Harmony in general and of parts
(), (), (), and () of the Emanative Creation Story in particular, and we
have witnessed a clarification of the Creaturely Inferiority Complex. That
is, in  Leibniz was keen to extend his Metaphysics of Divinity and make
more precise his views about the relation between God and creatures.
Among other things, Leibniz was interested to clarify the way in which each
creature manifests the (selected) divine essence but does so in a manner that
is different from and yet related to every other. Before turning to the next
subsection, it will be convenient to summarize the Expression Relation.
• The () Expression Relation is such that S expresses an essence E just
in case S is a partial representation of E which means (at least) that to un-
derstand S is equivalent to having a partial cognition of E. In the texts of
, every created substance (and every state of a substance) has an Ex-
pression Relation with God: because every created substance S (and every
state of S) contains the (selected) divine essence, S (and every state of S)
will be a partial expression of the divine essence. Moreover, for any two
distinct substances S and R, each can be said to express the other because
each is a partial (though distinctive) expression of the same divine essence.

Preestablished Harmony
As noted in chapter , I take Preestablished Harmony to consist of the Com-
plete-Ratio Theory of Substance and (Strong) Parallelism. As also explained
there, in a world constituted entirely of minds and their thoughts, Complete-
Ratio Phenomenalism entails the Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance.
That is, in a world constituted of mind-like substances, Complete-Ratio
Phenomenalism and (Strong) Parallelism are equivalent to Preestablished
Harmony. The texts of  contain ample evidence of these doctrines.
On February , , in the same essay in which he first explicitly com-
mits himself to plenitude, Leibniz articulates his assumptions about the
prearranged activities of minds. He ends On the secrets of the sublime or on
the greatest of things by noting that “God arranged things from the begin-
ning” so that minds can “understand their function.”170 In an essay of early
, he offers a definition helpful to his account of exactly how minds do
this. In On magnitude, he writes: “A rule [regula] is an instrument of action,
determining the form of the action by the perpetual and successive appli-

. VI iii : Pk .


      , –

cation of the agent to the parts of the instrument.” From the examples he
gives, it is clear that the rule not only specifies what the actor does, but the
order in which it is done. According to Leibniz, a footpath across a plain is
a rule, but a compass is not. He explains: “The instruction which an em-
peror gives to a deputy . . . is a rule if it is written so that the deputy, in his
action, can only follow it in order.”171 In the texts of , Leibniz attrib-
utes just such a rule to individual minds by means of which they can act ac-
cording to their divinely prearranged plan.
Before returning to Leibniz’s personal notes, it will be helpful to consider
one of the few letters written in the period that has a bearing on our meta-
physical topics. Among the prominent French philosophers with whom
Leibniz made contact in Paris was Simon Foucher, whose theory of traces
was noted above. Relevant here is the fact that Foucher was deeply inter-
ested in ancient skepticism and encouraged Leibniz to think more seriously
than he previously had about skeptical questions.172 In a letter to Foucher
written sometime in , Leibniz summarizes his position:
I agree with you that it is important once and for all to examine all our presupposi-
tions in order to establish something sound. For I hold that it is only when we can
prove everything we assert that we understand perfectly the thing being consid-
ered. . . . As I see it, your purpose is to examine those truths which affirm that there
is something outside of us. You seem to be most fair in this, for thus you will grant
us all hypothetical truths which affirm, not that something does exist outside of us,
but only what would happen if anything existed there.173
With this context set, Leibniz goes on to present, among other things, an ar-
gument to the conclusion that “there is some cause outside of us for the va-
riety of our thoughts.” About the argument, he says:
So we make great strides toward fabricating what we call matter and body. But at
this point you are right in stopping us for a while and renewing the criticisms of the
ancient Academy. For at bottom all our experiences assure us of only two things:
first, that there is a connection among our appearances which provides the means to
predict future appearances successfully; and, second, that this connection must have
a constant cause. But it does not follow strictly from this that matter or bodies exist
but only that there is something which gives us appearances in a good sequence.174
After criticizing Descartes’ response to skepticism, Leibniz insists that
the more closely we examine our appearances, the better ordered we find them, as
microscopes and other means of observation have shown. This permanent consis-

. VI iii : Pk .

. Although Ezequiel de Olaso has argued in his interesting paper, “Leibniz and Scepticism,”
that by “about  Leibniz has completed his first and very profound study of scepti-
cism” (), the facts do not substantiate this claim. During the s, Leibniz does men-
tion a number of skeptics, and every now and then acknowledges an awareness of skepti-
cal questions, but he does not take skepticism seriously. In fact, I do not think that he takes
it very seriously in –; rather, he recognizes that his Complete-Ratio Phenomenal-
ism constitutes a response to some skeptical arguments and is happy to point that out.
. II i –: L . . II i : L .


 
tency gives us great assurance, but after all, it will be only moral until somebody dis-
covers a priori the origin of the world which we see and pursues the question of why
things are as they appear back to its foundations in essence. For when this is done,
it will be demonstrated that what appears to us is reality and that it is impossible for
us ever to be deceived in it. But I believe that this would very nearly approach the
beatific vision and that it is difficult to aspire to this in our present state. Yet we do
learn therefrom how confused the knowledge which we commonly have of body and
matter must be, since we believe we are certain that they exist, but eventually find
that we could be mistaken.175
We have here a fine example of Leibniz’s Rhetoric of Attraction: he accepts
the position of his interlocutor and then uses it to uncover an explanatory
gap that his own philosophical proposals fill. I claimed in chapter  that for
Leibniz as early as , the world is an elaborately constructed appearance
whose source is the perceiving mind itself. In the letter to Foucher, Leibniz
summarizes the epistemology articulated in chapter , section : when we
abstract from the variety of things and notice the consistency and intercon-
nections among the appearances, we begin the journey to the truth, which
will lead us to the divine essence of things and finally to the beatific vision.
In the last section, I considered several essays written in the spring of
 in which Leibniz examines the exact relation between the divine
essence and its products. In these same essays, he also analyzes the relation
between the created beings and their products or states. In On truths, the
mind, God, and the universe, composed on April , he writes: “On due con-
sideration, only this is certain: that we perceive, and that we perceive in a
consistent way [congruenter], and that a certain rule [regulam] is observed
by us in perceiving. For something to be perceived in a consistent way is for
it to be perceived in such a way that a ratio can be given for everything
and everything can be predicted.”176 According to Leibniz here, on the ba-
sis of the consistency of our perceptions, we can infer that there is a ratio
for everything, that everything can be predicted, and that in sensing we ob-
serve a rule. What exactly is the cause of the consistency of perceptions and
how is that cause a rule? From the text so far quoted, the consistency of per-
ceptions could be caused either by something internal to the mind, like a
Production Rule, or by something external to it, like the physical world.
Leibniz clarifies matters in what follows and in the process, proposes Com-
plete-Ratio Phenomenalism and (Strong) Parallelism. He writes:
This is what existence consists in: in perception that follows certain laws [leges]. For
otherwise, everything would be like dreams. Further, it consists in the fact that sev-
eral people perceive the same, and perceive consistently [consentientia]; and that di-
verse minds perceive themselves and their own effects. From this it follows that there
is one and the same cause that causes our own and others’ perceptions. Nevertheless
it is not necessary either that we act on them or that they act on us, but only that we

. II i : L . It is not surprising that some commentators have taken passages such as
these to imply a form of skepticism. See, e.g., Brown, Leibniz, –.
. VI iii : Pk .


      , –
perceive with such conformity; and necessarily so, on account of the sameness of the
cause. . . . Therefore there is no reason why we should ask whether there exist cer-
tain bodies outside us or whether space exists, and other things of this sort; for we
do not explain adequately the terms that are involved here. . . . [I]t does not follow
that there exists anything but perception, and the cause of this perception and its
consistency.177
In On truths, the mind, God, and the universe, Leibniz makes it clear that in
order to explain existence, it is unnecessary to resort to outside bodies. He
proposes that we reduce existence to the consistency of perceptions, where
the latter includes both the consistency of the perceptions within a mind and
the coordination or parallelism among minds. There is no reason to ask
whether bodies exist outside us because the consistency of perceptions and
coordination among minds can be explained elsewhere. Although Leibniz is
not explicit in the quoted text about what this cause of the consistency of per-
ceptions is, he offers some details about what it does: the cause produces the
consistency of perceptions within a mind and the coordination of percep-
tions among minds; it offers a reason for everything and a means of predict-
ing everything; and it somehow involves diverse minds perceiving “them-
selves and their own effects” in a way that does not require that they act on
one another. That is, assuming that the cause is somehow internal, what the
cause does is produce all our perceptions and hence all our states. It also
brings about the correspondence between our perceptions and those of oth-
ers. In response to the fact that we do not adequately explain terms like ‘body’
and ‘space,’ Leibniz proposes that “we call ‘body’ whatever is perceived in a
consistent way” and define ‘space’ as “that which brings it about that several
perceptions cohere with each other at the same time.” In short, the defini-
tions of these terms depend on his phenomenalism and parallelism.178 In the
same text in which he first defined ‘rule,’ we find another assertion of paral-
lelism. Leibniz writes in On magnitude: “if we were perfectly knowing, i.e.,
if we were gods, we would easily see that those things which, because of our
ignorance, now appear to exist at the same time by accident, co-exist by their
very nature, i.e., by the necessity of the divine intellect.”179 In On existence
of December , Leibniz maintains: “We have no idea of existence, other
than that we understand things to be perceived. . . . Without sentient beings,
nothing would exist. Without one primary sentient being, which is the same
as the cause of all things, nothing would be perceived.”180 Leibniz summa-
rizes the point in a passage from On truths, the mind, God, and the universe of
April , part of which we have seen:
the mind will be created by God, since it will exist and remain by the will of God,
that is, by the will of the good intellect. For to exist is simply to be understood to be
good. Existence is stated equivocally of bodies and of our mind. We sense or per-
ceive that we exist; when we say that bodies exist, we mean that there exist certain
consistent perceptions, having a particular constant cause. Just as  is one thing, and

. VI iii : Pk –. . VI iii : Pk –.

. VI iii : Pk . . VI iii : Pk .


 
,, is another – for  is  +  + . In such a way, the form of  is different from all
its parts; so creatures differ from God, who is all things. Creatures are some
things.181
We exist and perceive as we do because of harmony. According to Leibniz
in On existence, “[h]armony is just this: a certain simplicity in multiplicity.
Beauty and pleasure also consist in this. So for things to exist is the same as
for them to be understood by God to be the best or the most harmo-
nious.”182 Consistent with the interpretative story told in chapters 
through , God emanates the (selected) divine essence to the world, where
it exists as a thoroughly ordered collection of instantiations of itself. As Em-
anative Harmony insists, God is the variety in the world in that every sub-
stance, although it contains the same (selected) divine essence as every other,
also contains a Production Rule according to which it instantiates that
essence in a different way from every other. For each mind F, bodies exist
for F, and F’s perceptions have the ordered they do because of F’s Produc-
tion Rule; moreover, F has that Production Rule because it is part of the
most harmonious world. In On the secrets of the sublime or on the greatest of
things, Leibniz insists that God is the kind of “intelligent substance” and
“perfect mind” who finds what is “most harmonious” to be “most pleasing”
and who “arranged all things from the beginning” such that “all things are
in general good.”183
I noted in the Introduction to this book that Leibniz describes his papers
of the period as “poorly expressed vestiges of hasty reflections,”184 and his
essays of  are surely obscure. But large sections of these texts are ren-
dered transparent once we see them as describing a world in which each sub-
stance expresses the (selected) divine essence from its own perspective and
does so because of its Production Rule.185 For example, once we realize that
the missing “single cause” in On truth, the mind, God, and the universe is the
essence of God, and once we grasp that the notion of rule employed there
is that of a Production Rule, we are able to make out the full significance of
Leibniz’s proposals. In short, once we place the texts of  against the in-
terpretative background described in previous chapters, the sub-theses of
Preestablished Harmony, namely, (Strong) Parallelism and Complete-Ratio
Phenomenalism, are discernible. Finally, we should not lose sight of the fact
that much of the terminology used to describe these doctrines in  was
discovered in the texts of –early .
As a conclusion to my discussion of Leibniz’s thought in , I would
like to emphasize the fact that despite the genuine obscurity of these texts,
we have discerned all the major features of the core metaphysics. These
writings show that during his final months in Paris, Leibniz continued to

. VI iii : Pk –. . VI iii : Pk .

. VI iii –: Pk –. . VI iii .
. In her erudite survey of Leibniz’s development, C. Wilson recognizes some of the com-
plications in the papers of  that I have discussed. See her Leibniz’s Metaphysics,
–.


      , –

apply his Metaphysics of Method, Divinity, and Substance to the philo-

sophical questions that interested him, and that in some cases, he added im-
portant new details to those doctrines. Once again, we see Leibniz submit-
ting his core tenets to a number of difficult philosophical examinations.
Once again, we witness those doctrines passing the tests.

. Completeness and truth, –

When Leibniz left Paris in September , he remained thoroughly com-
mitted both to his core metaphysics and to the slight revisions that he had
made during his last months in the French capital. There are two doctrines
of his mature philosophy that are conspicuously absent from the system ar-
ticulated above. The first and more important of these is the well-known
theory of truth, according to which an affirmative categorical proposition is
true just in case the concept of its predicate is contained in the concept of
its subject. The second is the assumption that a substance is a complete be-
ing. Related to the latter is the distinction between unities per se and uni-
ties per accidens, where the idea is that only genuine substances fall into the
former category, while aggregates like tables, air-pumps, and whirlpools fall
into the latter. In this section, I will discuss how the metaphysics of 
motivated the evolution of these doctrines. The theory of truth is underde-
termined by the core metaphysics. I do not mean to suggest that there were
not other factors that contributed to the development of that theory. There
no doubt were. But it is important to recognize that these developments in
Leibniz’s thought are a natural outgrowth of his core metaphysics.186
Beginning in the autumn of  and continuing for several months,
Leibniz was concerned to investigate a number of problems related to his
core doctrines. Among other things, he continued in his search for a solu-
tion to the problem of the continuum. In October , he began to sub-
mit his views about body and motion to a new battery of tests.187 The re-
sult was the development of his notion of force, which he first articulated
in  and which constituted a major contribution to seventeenth-century
physics. At the same time, he searched for a way to streamline and summa-
rize his metaphysical doctrines, especially the tenets that surrounded his
notion of substance. These investigations forced Leibniz to clarify some
of his intuitions about substance, and they encouraged him to develop his
theory of truth. It will be helpful to explore some of the problems and so-
lutions that led to these developments. The problems have their roots in the
texts of .

. Due to the publication of three new volumes of Leibniz’s philosophical papers, it is now
possible to tell a precise story of the steps in his development after . See VI iv, parts
A, B, and C.
. In the spring of , Leibniz wrote: “One must unravel, with the greatest rigour, the
entire labyrinth concerning the composition of the continuum” (VI iii : Pk ). The
problem continued to provoke him and, as will be noted in sect. , he wrote an important
dialogue on this and related issues in the fall of . See VI iii –.


 

Substances, aggregates, and completeness

In the spring of , Leibniz was taking great strides in the careful artic-
ulation of his views on God, mind, and their interrelations. He was not as
successful on the topic of body. In the essay of March entitled Notes on sci-
ence and metaphysics, he poses a problem for which he does not have an ad-
equate solution: “Since mind is something that has a certain relation to some
portion of matter, it must be stated why it extends itself to this portion and
not to all adjacent portions; or why it is that some body, and not every body,
belongs to it in the same way.”188 At the center of Leibniz’s Theory of Cor-
poreal Substance stands the notion of a core of substance which, for a cor-
poreal substance S, is constituted of the mind-like substantial form F in S
and the dominant minds in the subordinate substances in the passive prin-
ciple P in S. The Prearranged Diffusion Relation between F and P is based
on the idea that F and P form a unity just in case P acts according to the in-
structions in F and, moreover, that the substantial feature f, which results
from the activities of P, is perceived by F. It is consistent with the Diffusion
Relation that F can diffuse a greater or lesser expanse of body, or to put it
another way, the core of S can expand to a large body or shrink to an “in-
visible center.” Because F constitutes the identity of S and is the source of
its unity, S remains the same thing regardless of its changes. The Theory of
Corporeal Substance is perfectly tailored to fit the metaphysical demands
of the Eucharist and resurrection. But the theory does not apply so easily to
the constantly changing collections of bodies that are studied by the me-
chanical philosopher.
In the spring of , as Leibniz reevaluated and clarified his core meta-
physics, he became acutely aware of the difficulties that the Theory of Cor-
poreal Substance and its related doctrines about activity and unity posed in
physics. According to Leibniz’s metaphysics, in each corporeal substance
there is a mind-like substantial form that acts as the source of substantial
unity and identity. According to the Prearranged Diffusion Relation be-
tween the mind-like substantial form F and the passive principle P in a cor-
poreal substance S, P is an organized arrangement of subordinate sub-
stances. In a sense, P is an aggregate, each of whose constituents bears a
special relation to F. In March , Leibniz articulates some problems in
allowing for any sort of unity that is not one of Prearranged Diffusion. In
his Notes on science and metaphysics, Leibniz neatly summarizes the prob-
lem in a passage, part of which we have seen:
Let us assume that there is some portion of matter, uninterrupted and surrounded
on all sides by a vacuum; let us say that it pertains to that portion of matter that it
has some mind of its own because of the fact that this portion is separated from every
other portion. Now let us assume that it is touched by another portion of matter, like
an island floating in the vacuum; it will follow from the contact alone that these two
minds coalesce into one, since no vacuum is interposed, from which it will follow

. VI iii : Pk .


      , –
that the thoughts of each are mingled. . . . But if you think that a new mind comes
into being with this contact, because a new body has been formed, then it will have
to be said that the two former minds have perished, since the two bodies have also
perished. But if you say that they are preserved, even though the body is extinct,
then there will certainly be as many minds in any body as there are assignable points
in it, which is impossible. . . . [T]herefore I agree, on other grounds, that there is
some solid and unbreakable portion of matter. . . . [F]rom all this it follows that
thought enters into the formation of matter, and there comes into existence a body
which is one and unsplittable, or an atom, of whatever size it may be, whenever it
has a single mind.189
In what sense is it true that “thought enters into the formation of matter?”
According to the Substantial Form Assumption, the unity between F and P
consists in their Prearranged Diffusion Relation whose relevant claim here
is that F thinks the substantial state f that results from the Prearranged Dif-
fusion Relation between F and P. In this case, thought enters into the for-
mation of matter in the sense that a collection of corporeal substances will
be part of a real unity if and only if the states of those substances perfectly
correspond to the thoughts of a single mind. That is, Leibniz’s conclusion
amounts to the following: for any portion of matter or (what is the same
thing) for any collection of corporeal substances, they will constitute a gen-
uine thing if and only if there is a single mind that stands in a relation of
Prearranged Diffusion with them or, in other words, that forms an atom
with them.
Within this context, it is not surprising that very soon after the composi-
tion of Notes on science and metaphysics, Leibniz makes his first explicit dis-
tinction between bodies as atoms and bodies as mere aggregates. In On the
origin of things from forms of April , he summarizes his point: “What-
ever acts cannot be destroyed. . . . Every body that is an aggregate can be
destroyed. There seem to be elements, i.e., indestructible bodies, because
there is a mind in them.”190 It follows from Leibniz’s views about unity and
being that if an aggregate can be destroyed, then it lacks being and unity.
But we need to do some explaining here. According to the physics and meta-
physics of the early s, an aggregate of vital beings or corpuscles is
something that moves and hence something that acts. What does Leibniz
have in mind in this essay of April ? His point here – which I take to
be a new clarification of his views about substance – is that strictly speak-
ing, only substances act because only substances have active principles that
can cause their states. Another way to approach the point is to note that
given the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, an aggregate cannot strictly
have an active (or passive) state f because it does not have a persistent sub-
stantial core that can act as the complete ratio of f. The Principle of Causal

. VI iii : Pk –. I take the “other grounds” cited in the penultimate sentence to be
the theological ones (e.g., resurrection) for which Leibniz argued in  and which I de-
scribed in chapters  and .
. VI iii : Pk .


 

Self-Sufficiency demands that every substantial feature be caused by the

nature of the substance to which it belongs. For Leibniz in the spring of
, the problem was how to build the proper causal bridge between the
constantly changing corporeal features of the world and some underlying
active mind. Each feature had to be caused and explained by some mind,
but which one and how?
In a short paper of December , we find the distinction between sub-
stance and aggregate made more sharply. According to Leibniz in A chain
of wonderful demonstrations about the universe, the “atoms” are “the funda-
mental elements” out of which “cohering bodies arise,” so that “all things
come from” them.191 It is significant that in order to make his point, Leib-
niz distinguishes between complete and incomplete beings where the idea
is that only substances are complete. In Notes on metaphysics, also of De-
cember , he writes:
A substance or complete Being [Ens completum] is for me that which alone involves
[involvit] all things, or for the perfect understanding of which, no other thing needs
to be understood. A figure [figura] is not of this kind, for in order to understand
from what a figure [figura] of such and such a kind has arisen, there must be a re-
course to motion. Each complete being can be produced in only one way: that fig-
ures [figurae] can be produced in various ways is enough to indicate that they are not
complete Beings.192
In order to grasp Leibniz’s point here, we must unpack the definition of
‘complete being’ [Ens completum] on which his argument depends. For
help with the claim that a substance or being “involves all things,” let’s re-
turn to the Meditation on the principle of the individual of April . In sec-
tion , we saw that for Leibniz there, an effect “involves [involvere] its
cause” in the sense that “whoever understands some effect perfectly will also
arrive at knowledge of its cause.” Given our present concerns, it is impor-
tant that Leibniz explains himself in that essay by insisting: “it is necessary
that there be a certain connection between a complete cause [causa inte-
gram] and the effect.” While Leibniz does not explain what the relation is
between a complete being and a complete cause, the passage from Notes on
metaphysics is clear about the fact that a complete being is such that an un-
derstanding of it entails an understanding of “all things [omnia].” But ex-
actly what things are these? In the second half of the first sentence, Leib-
niz tells us: a complete being or substance S involves all things in the sense
that a perfect understanding of S is possible and, moreover, in order to ac-
quire such an understanding, nothing else needs to be understood.
In our analysis of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance, we have come

. VI iii : Pk .

. VI iii : Pk . The Latin “figura” is ambiguous in an important way. It can mean
figure or shape, but also nature, kind, or species. When talking about the stuff of which
bodies are made, Leibniz employs the latter sense, where the idea is that the matter is an
organized arrangement that makes up the nature of the body. See II i f, ; VI i ;
VI ii .


      , –

across only one sort of thing that can be understood in the relevant sense,
namely, a substance. But what makes a substance the sort of thing that can
be understood in this way? Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance offers a
good deal of help. It follows from the Principle of Substantial Self-Suffi-
ciency, the Principle of Substantial Activity, and the Substantial Nature
Assumption that a created substance is the sort of thing that can offer a com-
plete ratio of all its features and that can (in theory) be perfectly understood.
Because a substance is causally autonomous, it depends on nothing else (be-
sides its divine source) either to be what it is or to be understood. Leibniz’s
Metaphysics of Divinity also affords important insight into Leibniz’s (new)
notion of completeness. According to the Emanative Creation Story, for
every created substance, there is a complete concept in God’s mind that con-
tains all the predicates of S. The complete concept of S contains exactly
those things, whose understanding would entail an understanding of S.
Thus, a complete being or substance S involves all things in three related
senses. First, S has a complete concept that includes all the predicates that
can be truly attributed to S and whose understanding entails an under-
standing of S. Second, given Emanative Harmony (and the Expression Re-
lation), S involves all things in the sense that to understand the concept of
S is to have a partial understanding of the nature of God, which is all things.
Third, S involves all things in the sense that every state or thought of S is
a mirror of everything in the world. By the spring of , each state of each
substance mirrors and in that sense contains the whole world, past, present,
and future. Thus, when Leibniz makes all substances eternal mirrors of all
the others and when he adds traces of all past states to every present state
of a substance, he suggests that a complete understanding of a single sub-
stantial state would lead to a complete understanding of the world.
But it is important that Leibniz’s point in the quotation from Notes on
metaphysics is much more than an epistemological one. The passage goes on
to explain that each complete being can be produced in only one way. Ac-
cording to Leibniz here, the crucial difference between a complete and an
incomplete being is that the former and not the latter can be produced in
only one way. But this is odd. Given that for Leibniz in , the world is
constituted of mind-like substances and their states, it is not at all clear that
there is anything that can be produced in more than one way. Surely there
is only one way that either a mind-like substance or a substantial state can
be produced. I propose that this is Leibniz’s point: anything that can be pro-
duced in more than one way is not a thing at all. For help with this idea, let’s
recall the Supreme Being Assumption, whose relevant claim here is that
unity and self-sufficiency are a function of being. Anything that is self-suf-
ficient in the required way will produce and maintain itself. Otherwise it will
not be a substance. As the Principle of Substantial Activity insists, a thing
that does not have its own source of activity will not subsist per se and a thing
that does not subsist per se will not be a substance. For Leibniz in , a
substance will also have a Production Rule that tells its eternal mind-like
form how to emanate its version of the (selected) divine essence. Therefore,


 

in , a complete being is one that produces itself where the idea is that
it has its own principle of activity and its own Production Rule by means of
which it maintains its unity, self-sufficiency, and (eternal) nature.
But what about the figure or aggregate? Unlike a complete being, a fig-
ure has neither its own principle of activity nor its own source of unity and
being. It can be produced in more than one way because it does not have a
nature in terms of which it creates and sustains itself. It does not have its
own Production Rule. The unity and being that it has are temporary and
depend entirely upon the activity of its constituents. To speak in contem-
porary terms, its being, unity, and self-sufficiency supervene on the being
of its constituents.
In Notes on metaphysics, Leibniz goes on to make some other remarks that
are consistent with this interpretation of the distinction between a complete
being and an aggregate. Leibniz writes:
It is not surprising that the number of all numbers, all possibilities, all relations or
reflections are not distinctly understood; for they are imaginary and have nothing
that corresponds to them in reality. For example, suppose that there is a relation be-
tween a and b, and that that relation is called c; and let a new relation be considered
between a and c, and let that relation be called d, and so on to infinity. It does not
seem that any one may say that all those relations are true and real ideas. Perhaps
only those things are purely intelligible which can be produced; that is, which have
been or will be produced.193
For Leibniz, the world is constituted of active substances and their states.
Relations – and anything else imaginary – are neither real nor intelligible.
Aggregates also lack reality and intelligibility: an aggregate has no reality
over and beyond the reality of the substances which constitute it.
But what does Leibniz mean when he says that only what is “purely in-
telligible . . . can be produced”? Although obscure, Leibniz’s point is im-
portant and tells us a good deal about his concerns at the end of . There
are two ways to approach the point. From the perspective of his Metaphysics
of Substance, the idea is that, for every substance and substantial state, there
is a ratio that is in theory intelligible. This is the point of the Substantial Na-
ture Assumption. From the perspective of his Metaphysics of Divinity,
every product contains the (selected) essence of God and is in theory intel-
ligible. The implication is that there is a neat causal and explanatory hierar-
chy from God to substance and from substance to substantial state. There
is a place for aggregates in this explanatory hierarchy, but only if they are or-
ganized and unified by a single emanative mind, which thereby turns the ag-
gregate (that is, collection of substances) into a unified thing.
It is significant that in Notes on metaphysics, Leibniz proposes the fol-
lowing thought-experiment: “If it could be supposed that a body exists
without a mind, then a man would do everything in the same way as if he
did not have a mind, and men would speak and write the same things, with-

. VI iii : Pk .


      , –

out knowing what they do, just as when they are playacting. But the suppo-
sition that the body exists without a mind is impossible.”194 This passage is
remarkable in two ways: it seems to embrace (Strong) Parallelism between
mind and body where the idea is that the human body acts as it does because
it has been prearranged to do so. But it also implies that this sort of perfectly
organized body is the only sort of body that “exists.” Within the general con-
text of the essay, it is reasonable to interpret Leibniz’s point here as follows:
a collection of substances will exist as an organized thing if and only if they
constitute the passive principle in a corporeal substance. If they have their
own mind, then they will have a unity and being; otherwise, they will not.
In conclusion, by the end of , Leibniz was clear about the fact that
substances are complete beings and that a complete being is one that has its
own source of reality, unity, and self-sufficiency and is (in theory) intelligi-
ble. He was also committed to the idea that an aggregate lacked this sort of
being, but he was unclear about exactly what sort of ontological status to
give it. Leibniz’s confusion about the precise status of aggregates persists
throughout the Discourse on metaphysics and correspondence with Arnauld.
As he articulates the difficulty in a text written in the mid-s:
It is worth investigating in what way a being through aggregation, such as an army
or even a disorganized multitude of men, is one; and in what way its unity and real-
ity differ from the unity and reality of a man. . . . The chief point is this: an army
accurately considered is not the same thing even for a moment, for it has nothing real
in itself that does not result from the reality of the parts from which it is aggregated;
and since its entire nature consists in number, figure, appearance and similar things,
when these change it is not the same thing, but the human soul has its own special
reality so that it can not come to an end by any change in the parts of the body.
A thing can remain the same, even if it is changed, if it follows from its own na-
ture that one and the same thing must have diverse, successive states. Without doubt,
I am said to be the same as he who was before because my substance involves all my
states, past, present and future.195
But Leibniz’s persistent worries about the status of aggregates should not
detract from the fact that his comments in the essays of  tell us a good
deal about the intuitions that underlie his distinction between a complete be-
ing and an aggregate. I do not mean to suggest that the analysis offered here
will solve all the interpretative problems that arise in the mature texts. But
against the background of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Substance and Meta-
physics of Divinity, the difficulty of those problems will be diminished. In
deciphering Leibniz’s mature works, it is helpful to keep in mind the
Supreme Being Assumption, the Theory of Emanative Causation, and the
Substantial Nature Assumption. The first mark of being is that the thing can
be the result of emanation; the second is that the thing have its own source
of activity and its own nature. The state of a substance is the result of ema-

. Ibid.
. VI iv [B] –. Sleigh makes this point about Leibniz’s continued confusion in our
“Metaphysics: The Early Period to the Discourse on Metaphysics,” sect. .


 

nation and in that sense has being. But the state of a substance does not have
complete being. Only something that has its own source of unity and activ-
ity can be complete. Aggregates fail both tests: they are neither the result of
emanation, nor do they have their own source of unity and activity.

Substances, subjects, and truth

In the spring of , Leibniz begins to emphasize the importance of sub-
jects as the bearers of features. This is an important clarification of claims
contained in the core metaphysics, and constitutes a step toward the devel-
opment of his conception of truth. One of the basic presuppositions behind
Leibniz’s Aristotelian assumptions is that substances are causally and ex-
planatorily self-sufficient, at least with regard to their primary features.
Once Leibniz decides to extend the Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency to
all substantial features, he commits himself to the idea that for every feature
f of a substance S, there is a complete ratio of f in S. This implies a truth-
conferring relation between a substance and its features in the sense that a
feature f will belong to S (and therefore be truly predicated of S) if and only
if the nature of the substance contains the complete ratio of f.
At the basis of Leibniz’s theory of truth is the idea that in Sleigh’s words,
“truth is a matter of relations among concepts.”196 As Leibniz began to re-
fine his views about the relation between the attributes of God and their in-
stantiation in the world in the spring of , he took his first steps toward
the development of that idea. In April, he emphasizes the metaphysical im-
portance of a substance as a subject or bearer of predicates and of truth as
grounded in the relation between such substances and substantial states. In
a passage from On forms or the attributes of God, part of which we have seen,
he writes:
It is a wonderful fact that a subject is different from forms or attributes. This is nec-
essary because nothing can be said about forms on account of their simplicity; there-
fore there would be no true propositions unless forms were united to a subject.
Thought is not duration, but that which thinks is something that endures. And this
is the difference between substance and forms . . . An attribute of God is any sim-
ple form.”197
Once Leibniz has hit upon the idea that a substance is a subject in which a
modification of the divine attributes has been placed and once he sees truth
in terms of the relation between a subject and such attributes, the materials
are in place for the concept containment theory of truth.
Let’s be clear about the most important metaphysical underpinnings of the
theory. For Leibniz in the spring of , it has become perfectly clear that
there is a hierarchy of subjects: first, there is God, who is the subject of all

. See Mercer and Sleigh, “Metaphysics: The Early Period to the Discourse on Metaphysics,”
. Much of what I say here is inspired by sect.  of the latter, which was written by
Sleigh.
. VI iii : Pk .


      , –

simple attributes; then there are creatures, each of which is the subject of a
partial expression of those attributes. As Leibniz explains in On forms or the
attributes of God: “the essence of God consists in the fact that he is the sub-
ject of all compatible attributes” or forms,198 while it is the nature of created
“subjects” to be “conceived through forms.”199 Before creation, the Supreme
Being conceives the fully articulated essence for each individual substance. In
the Emanative Creation Story, we described this as a complete concept in
God’s mind. In the terminology of , this is a “modification” of the di-
vine essence. But each complete concept and modification is also the set of
predicates that will truly be ascribed to the substance, if created. It follows
that all the true statements about the active things in the world will be state-
ments about a substance as a subject and its relation to one of the predicates
contained in its complete concept. In the case of possible Wanda, her concept
includes the predicates ‘thinks about coffee,’ ‘makes coffee,’ ‘spills coffee,’ etc.
In the case of actual Wanda, the true statements about her include: ‘Wanda
is here thinking about coffee,’ ‘Wanda is here making coffee,’ ‘Wanda is here
spilling coffee,’ etc. In such a world, all basic truths about the created world
involve the inclusion of a predicate in the concept of a subject. For Leibniz,
all the truths about an individual substance are contained in its nature in much
the same way that the divine attributes are contained in God. As Leibniz
makes the point in a passage from On simple forms, part of which we have seen:
“all things are in a way contained in all things. But they are contained in a
quite different way in God from that in which they are contained in things. . . .
Things are not produced merely by combining the forms of God, but along
with a subject.”200
Against this metaphysical background, it is not surprising that when
Leibniz began to think more about logical matters in his early years in
Hanover, he began to think that all truths were a matter of concept con-
tainment. For Leibniz, the only (real) properties available in the world are
those constructed out of divine attributes. That is, all there is in the world
are divine attributes and their combinations. In a striking passage of early
 from On simple forms, Leibniz acknowledges this point:
There is the same variety in any kind of world, and this is nothing other than the same
essence related in various ways, as if you were to look at the same town from various
places, or, if you relate the essence of the number  to the number , it
will be  ×  or  + , but if you relate it to the number  it will be / = /, or
 =  × /. So it is not surprising that in a certain way, different things are produced.201
In a world in which everything is constituted of combinations of divine at-
tributes, it is not difficult to think of truth in terms of concept containment.
In April , Leibniz produced a series of papers which treat a number
of questions related to formal validity and in which he first proposes his
concept containment account of truth. Underlying many of these discus-
sions is the idea that an affirmative categorical proposition is true just in case

. Ibid. . VI iii –: Pk . . VI iii : Pk . . VI iii : Pk .


 

the concept of its predicate is contained in the concept of its subject. As

Leibniz writes:
it must be considered that every true categorical affirmative universal proposition
signifies nothing other than some connection between predicate and subject, in the
non-oblique case, which is always meant here, so that the predicate is said to be in
the subject, or contained in the subject, either absolutely and regarded in itself, or
at any rate in some instance. That is [seu], the subject is said to contain the predi-
cate in the fashion stated. This is that the notion of the subject, either in itself or
with some addition, involves [involvat] the notion of the predicate.202
Although the passage begins with a version of the concept containment ac-
count of truth restricted to universal propositions, by the end of the pas-
sage the way is cleared for a generalization of the concept containment ac-
count of truth to all categorical affirmative propositions. As Sleigh has
summarized the point: “Leibniz’s logical papers from this period make it
plausible to ascribe to him the view that an adequate theory of truth for cat-
egorical affirmative propositions will settle the truth conditions for all
propositions.”203
A number of questions arise concerning the development of the concept
containment theory of truth in the late s: what is the precise relation
between it and his other doctrines,204 to what extent did the writings of
other seventeenth-century logicians (e.g., Pascal) influence him, and what
metaphysical importance did Leibniz think it had? My brief discussion here
leaves these and other important questions unanswered. Nor do I think that
it will be possible to construct adequate replies to such queries until the re-
cently published papers from the period have been studied thoroughly. But
despite the important scholarly work that remains to be done, the interpre-
tative story told here does solve a number of problems that have plagued
scholars for decades. As I noted in the Introduction to this book, the Rus-
sell–Couturat account of Leibniz’s philosophy had an enormous influence
on subsequent scholars. According to Russell, Couturat, and their follow-
ers, the theory of truth forms the bedrock of Leibniz’s metaphysics. It is an
important consequence of my interpretation that as we can now clearly see,
the theory turns out to be the very last major doctrine of the core meta-
physics to evolve, and itself developed out of the Metaphysics of Substance.
For the sake of thoroughness, let’s be clear about the fact that between
 and , the core metaphysics remains fundamentally the same al-
though Leibniz develops the details of his views in the ways noted here. In

. VI iv [A] . For the other logical papers of April , see VI iv [A] texts N. , ,
, , , , and .
. Mercer and Sleigh, “Metaphysics: The Early Period to the Discourse on Metaphysics,”
.
. Although previous commentators have not recognized the early development of Leib-
niz’s core metaphysics, his early uses of the Principle of Sufficient Reason have been
noted. This has generated speculation about the relation between it and the development
of the theory of truth. For an analysis of this relation, see Fabrizio Mondadori, “Refer-
ence, Essentialism, and Modality in Leibniz’s Metaphysics.”


      , –

particular, he develops his doctrine of traces and his theory of truth, his the-
ory of expression, and his distinction between complete and incomplete be-
ings; and he makes each mind-like substance a mirror that reflects at each
moment of its eternal existence the past, present, and future states of the
world. By , Leibniz’s core metaphysics contain these claims and doc-
trines.

. Matters of interpretation
In this chapter, we have seen that during his years in Paris, Leibniz remains
committed to the Metaphysics of Method attributed to him in chapter , to
the Metaphysics of Substance described in chapters  through , to the
Metaphysics of Divinity articulated in chapters  through , and to the
metaphysical doctrines presented in chapters  through . Although his
views evolve during the period –, he does not diverge from the philo-
sophical commitments of the pre-Paris period. In short, there is abundant
evidence that Leibniz developed the central part of his philosophy many
years earlier than scholars have previously thought.
Before concluding my discussion of this last phase in the development of
the core metaphysics, it will be helpful to confront an obvious question:
what would constitute evidence that my interpretation of Leibniz’s devel-
opment is wrong? This is a particularly important question since a number
of recent scholars have used Leibniz’s writings of the middle and late s
to argue for interpretative conclusions contrary to mine (and to one an-
other). According to some commentators, Leibniz has no consistent philos-
ophy until , when he rehabilitated substantial forms and created his
mature metaphysics. According to others, he was an occasionalist for much
of the period. Still others have claimed that he toyed with (what they call)
Spinozistic pantheism for at least a part of the s. The striking thing
about these interpretations is that each is based on an impressive amount of
textual evidence. Why doesn’t this textual material seriously undermine my
interpretation?
The vast majority of the disputable passages turn out to be unproblem-
atic when they are seen in their proper context. Let’s consider briefly the
three most prominent interpretations that have recently been put forward
and that contradict my own. The first is Robinet’s argument to the conclu-
sion that  marks the birthdate of Leibniz’s mature philosophy. Ac-
cording to Robinet, it was in the summer of that year that Leibniz decided
to “rehabilitate the substantial forms.” Robinet’s conclusion is based on an
impressive survey of Leibniz’s writings, beginning with the thesis of .
Due to the textual breadth of Robinet’s study and to the subtlety of much
of his analysis, most subsequent scholars have accepted  as the earliest
possible commencement of Leibniz’s mature thought. For example, Adams
credits Robinet for the “pinpointing” of this “momentous decision.”205 Be-

. Adams, Leibniz, , n. . See also Lodge, “Leibniz’s Commitment to Pre-established


 

cause the details of Robinet’s interpretation are elaborate, a general

overview of his argument must suffice here.206 In rough terms, Robinet cor-
rectly attributes to the Confession of nature against the atheists and related
texts of the late s what he calls “restrained occasionalism,” but then
mistakenly assumes that this position persists until the Paris years.207 Like
Kabitz and many other serious scholars of the s, Robinet ignores the
importance of the letters and essays sent to Johann Friedrich as well as texts
such as On the incarnation of God or on hypostatic union and the Studies on
the universal characteristic. That is, Robinet’s textual base is broad, but it is
not broad enough. He claims that Leibniz has “put aside” substantial forms
in Paris and only reintroduces the terminology of ‘forms’ in .208 Robi-
net and his followers take the following passage from a letter to Johann
Friedrich of late  to be “momentous:”
There is another important thing in my philosophy which will give it access to the
Jesuits and other theologians. This is my restoration of substantial forms, which the
atomists and Cartesians claim to have exterminated. It is certain that without these
forms and the distinction that exists between them and real accidents, it is impossi-
ble to explain our mysteries. For if the nature of body consists in extension, as
Descartes claims, it involves a contradiction, beyond all doubt, to maintain that a
body may exist in many places at once. But all that has been said about the essence
of body until now is unintelligible, and it is not surprising that substantial forms
have been taken for chimeras by the most able minds. What I shall say about them,
among other things will instead be as intelligible as anything that the Cartesians have
ever proposed about other matters.209
Given the importance of Leibniz’s early letters to Johann Friedrich on
matters related to the activity and nature of substances, it is ironic that this
letter stands as one of Robinet’s most important pieces of evidence of the
revolution in Leibniz’s thought in . But I can see nothing new here.
While it is significant that in the late s, Leibniz once again returns to
the vocabulary of ‘substantial form,’ the passages that Robinet cites con-
tain nothing more than the claims of Leibniz’s core metaphysics.210 Like

Harmony” sect. III. Kulstad is one of the few scholars not to swallow Robinet’s conclu-
sion whole, and has offered convincing alternative readings of the most important pas-
sages on which Robinet builds his point. See “Causation and Preestablished Harmony,”
sects. II-III. Although in the end I disagree with Kulstad’s conclusion that there is evi-
dence of occasionalism and no evidence of Preestablished Harmony in the s, one re-
sult of Kulstad’s careful analysis is consistent with mine, namely, that when we apply a
sharp analytic eye to many of Leibniz’s key passages, we find that their author is neither
explicit nor clear about some of his most basic views.
. In notes scattered throughout chs. –, I have attempted to identify those points of dis-
agreement between Robinet’s interpretation and my own.
. Robinet, Architectonique disjonctive, esp. –. . Ibid., –; passim.
. II i : L .
. For the list of passages on which Robinet bases his claim, see Architectonique disjonctive,
sect. .. As far as I can tell, none of these contains anything more than an account of
some of the main elements of Leibniz’s core metaphysics. What remains to be explained,
however, is what exactly might have motivated Leibniz to return to his earlier Aristotelian


      , –

the quoted passage, most of Robinet’s textual evidence is little more than
a summary of the views articulated in On the true method in philosophy and
theology of – and the various pre-Paris essays discussed in chapters
, , and .
A second interpretative position that has recently gained popularity and
that contradicts my own concerns Spinozistic “pantheism.” For decades,
commentators have attributed forms of Spinozism and pantheism to Leib-
niz on the basis of passages of the sort quoted in sections  and  above. Be-
cause Leibniz heard about Spinoza’s Ethics in the winter of –, be-
cause he uses Spinozistic terminology in some of the essays of , and
because some of his comments reek of Spinozism, it has often been assumed
that he was deeply influenced by the thought of Spinoza, and it has some-
times been claimed that he was himself a Spinozist for a while in the
s.211 In , Russell makes the point with characteristic verve: Leib-
niz “tends with slight alterations of phraseology, to adopt (without ac-
knowledgement) the views of the decried Spinoza.”212 More recently,
Adams has argued that Leibniz toyed with pantheism in , where the
latter is taken to be the denial of the “ontological externality of created
things.”213 Against the background set in chapters  and , the specter of
pantheism dissolves. In fact, most Platonists in the history of philosophy
would have found Adams’ definition of pantheism utterly baffling. For
them, there is nothing external to God and, moreover, the ontological de-
pendence of creatures in God is theologically exactly right. In this context,
we should remember that Leibniz’s mentor, Jakob Thomasius, had written
a long book in which he describes in detail the heresies of the Stoics (many
of whom describe the world in terms that could be called pantheistic) and

vocabulary with such intensity at this time. Since many of the relevant passages are writ-
ten to conservative thinkers like Johann Friedrich and Conring, and since they often
touch on theological topics, the shift in terminology might simply be due to a new-found
interest in proclaiming the theological benefits of his core metaphysics. Now that the
Academy edition of these textual materials has been published, it is possible to answer
such questions.
. In the winter of –, Leibniz heard about the unpublished manuscript of Spinoza’s
Ethics, and in the autumn of  he met with Spinoza and saw a copy of the manuscript.
For a century, there has been a good deal of speculation about the influence that Spin-
oza’s Ethics might have had on Leibniz’s philosophical development. For an account of
Leibniz’s relation to the Ethics, see Kulstad, Leibniz, Spinoza, Tschirnhaus: Multiple
Worlds, Possible Worlds. My interpretation of Leibniz’s relation to Spinoza is presented
in greater detail in “Leibniz and Spinoza on Substance and Mode.” Also see Detlev Pät-
zold’s helpful Spinoza-Aufklärung-Idealismus, esp. ch. .
. Russell, A Critical Exposition, .
. Adams, Leibniz, . Independently of Adams, Kulstad has also argued for Leibniz’s
pantheism. Although I disagree with him, I find Kulstad’s argument more subtle and
convincing than the one put forward by Adams. See Kulstad, “Did Leibniz Incline to-
ward Monistic Pantheism in ?” In fact the use of the term ‘pantheism’ is anachro-
nistic. As the Oxford English Dictionary and the various seventeenth-century philosoph-
ical lexicons make clear, the term was not used in the seventeenth century. That is, neither
Spinoza nor his contemporaries thought of him as a pantheist. For a discussion of the
concept, see Michael P. Levine, Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity.


 

noting exactly how Platonist theism differs from it.214 Leibniz was thor-
oughly acquainted with such dangers and fully aware of the significant dif-
ferences between heretical and non-heretical accounts of the relation be-
tween God and creatures. In short, to claim that these passages from
Leibniz’s Paris writings imply pantheism is to misunderstand a major tra-
dition in the history of philosophy. Once we place Leibniz’s comments
within the Platonist tradition to which they belong, they prove to be no more
“pantheistic” than similar passages in the texts of Augustine, Philo of
Alexandria, Pico della Mirandola, Thomasius, Scherzer, Alsted, and a hun-
dred other philosophers who share Leibniz’s Platonist leanings.
Futhermore, for every passage in Leibniz’s writings that smacks of “pan-
theism,” there are several others (sometimes in the very same text) that sug-
gest otherwise. A striking case is the essay, Notes on science and metaphysics,
of March  in which Leibniz neatly summarizes the Platonist position
about the relation between God and creatures: “God does not form part of
things, rather, he is their principle.”215 For a more complicated example,
let’s consider an account that Leibniz offers of the relation between the
Supreme Being and its products in On forms or the attributes of God of April
. First, Leibniz writes: “any property or affection of God involves his
whole essence. . . . When all the other attributes [of God] are related to any
one of them, there result in it modifications, whence it happens that the
same Essence of God is expressed as a whole in any kind of World, and so
that God manifests himself in infinitely many modes.”216 Adams has taken
this passage as evidence of Leibniz’s “pantheistic” tendencies. As he puts
it: “What is striking here is that Leibniz is not moved to speak clearly of the
world as an additional ‘result’ outside the divine being.”217 But Leibniz could
not have been so moved. Nor does On forms or the attributes of God leave the
point unexplained. In the words that immediately follow the passage just
quoted, Leibniz is explicit about exactly how he understands the ontologi-
cal dependency between the divine essence and its products. He writes in a
passage, part of which we have seen:
Whatever is conceived per se, its cause cannot be understood. For an effect is con-
ceived through its cause, from which it is evident that if something exists through it-
self, and also if other things exist, then it exists. The correct way of considering the
matter is that forms are conceived through themselves; subjects and the fact that they
are subjects are conceived through the forms. But that whose modifications depend
on the attributes of another, in which all its requisites are contained, is conceived
through another. That is, it cannot be perfectly understood unless the other is un-
derstood. Those things are connected of which the one cannot be understood with-
out the other. Requisites are those things which are connected with one another.218

. Thomasius, Exercitatio; see my discussion in ch. , sect. . Also notice that throughout
his Paris years, Leibniz continues to be interested in and to take copious notes on Pla-
tonists like Kircher, Capella, Plato, and others. See VI iii –, –.
. VI iii : Pk . . VI iii : Pk –.
. See Adams, Leibniz, ; Adams’ emphasis. . VI iii –: Pk .


      , –

In this passage, Leibniz offers a precise statement of the relation between

an emanative cause and its product: the latter depends on the former, is con-
ceived through the former, and cannot be understood without it. He also in-
dicates exactly why this kind of relation is theologically good: if a creature
were fully independent of God, then an understanding of its nature would
not lead to an understanding of its divine cause. That is, for Platonists like
Leibniz, ontological dependence is exactly what is desired.219 As Augustine
exclaims to God in Book I of the Confessions: “I would have no being if I
were not in you.” Or, in Scherzer’s words, God “is that through which things
live” and “the unity in the multitude.”220
Concerning Leibniz’s apparent occasionalism in the s, the same sorts
of explanations can be made. For over a hundred years, scholars have won-
dered about the influence of French occasionalists like Nicolas Male-
branche and Arnold Geulincx, and they have pointed to a number of pas-
sages in Leibniz’s texts of the s as evidence of his occasionalist
tendencies. Although this is a much more plausible interpretative stance
than the claims of pantheism, in the vast majority of cases, the passages that
are used to support Leibniz’s occasionalism are either compatible with my
interpretation or can be explained as rhetorically motivated. While I agree
with French scholars like Robinet and Belaval that Leibniz was keen to di-
gest the occasionalism served in Paris, his primary interest was to learn
enough about this causal alternative so as to engage its prominent praction-
ers.221 It is important to note how very similar in general terms the occa-
sionalist position is to Leibniz’s, especially when set against the traditional

. The most significant evidence offered for the thesis that Leibniz briefly flirted with Spin-
ozism in  is the following passage from a text of November: “It can easily be demon-
strated that all things are distinguished, not as substances (i.e., radically) but as modes.
This can be demonstrated from the fact that, of those things which are radically distinct,
one can be perfectly understood without the other; that is, all the requisites of the one can
be understood without all the requisites of the other being understood. But in the case of
things, this is not so; for since the ultimate reason of things is unique, and contains by it-
self the aggregate of all requisites of all things, it is evident that the requisites of all things
are the same. So also is their essence, given that an essence is the aggregate of all primary
requisites. Therefore, the essence of all things is the same, and things differ only modally,
just as the town seen from a high point differs from the town seen from a plain. If only
those things which are separated are really different or which one can perfectly under-
stand without the other, it follows that no thing really differs from another, but that all
things are one, just as Plato argues in the Parmenides” (VI iii : Pk –). While there
seems little doubt that Leibniz here uses Spinozistic terminology, the point seems fun-
damentally the same as that in the passage just quoted: creatures are not radically differ-
ent from one another because they depend on God; because the One itself is immanent
in each creature and in the totality of creatures, it follows (as Emanative Harmony claims)
that all things are one.
. For Augustine, see Confessions I, ii; for Scherzer, see Vade Mecum, –; for similar
comments about the immanence of God by other prominent Platonists, see ch. , sect. .
. Robinet, Malebranche et Leibniz: relations personnelles, passim; also Belaval, Initiation,
ff. For a particularly clear account of the arguments for Leibniz’s early occasionalism
and for citations to other literature on this topic, see Kulstad, “Causation and Preestab-
lished Harmony.”


 

scholastic account of nature: for the standard occasionalist, only the Su-
preme Being is the true cause of things and our perceptions are given us by
God. Where the occasionalists and Leibniz differ is in the details, although
in this case the details are everything. For the former, the Supreme Being is
the immediate cause of the activity in nature: God causes Wanda’s arm to
move on “the occasion” of her willing it to move. For Leibniz, the Supreme
Being is the cause of everything only in the sense that it is their principle or
emanative source; created beings are essentially active things, so that the
source of all natural activity lies with them.
However, because of the similarity between occasionalism and Preestab-
lished Harmony at the most general level and because of the popularity of
the former, it would not be surprising to find Leibniz trying to engage these
philosophers on their own terms. Two letters that Leibniz wrote to Male-
branche, one of the foremost French occasionalists, afford a nice view of his
Rhetoric of Attraction. In January , Leibniz gives the author of The
Search After Truth some advice: “I wish you had not written solely for
Cartesians, as you yourself claim, for all sectarian labels should be odious
. . . to a lover of truth. Descartes has said some fine things; his was a most
penetrating and judicious mind, but it is impossible to do everything at
once.” After proclaiming some of the virtues (and vices) of Descartes, he
commends Malebranche for his insightful criticism of the Cartesian con-
ception of body, but insists: “I believe that you have gone only halfway and
that still other consequences can be drawn than those which you have made.
In my opinion it follows that matter is something different from mere ex-
tension, and I believe, besides, that this can be demonstrated.”222 Although
Leibniz does not tell Malebranche exactly what the other half is, scholars
like Robinet have correctly inferred that the unstated position is Preestab-
lished Harmony. In a letter of early summer , Leibniz explains to Male-
branche:
I approve most heartily these two propositions which you advance: that we see all
things in God and that strictly speaking bodies do not act on us. I have always been
convinced of this for important reasons which seem to me indisputable and which
rest on certain axioms which I do not yet see used anywhere, though they could be
most serviceable in proving some other theses no less important than those I have
just mentioned.223
This is a paradigm case of Leibniz’s Rhetoric of Attraction: he compliments
his interlocutor, describes his own position in a way that highlights their
similarities, and then suggests that his own views afford a slight advantage.
That Leibniz hopes to engage Malebranche is obvious; that he sees precisely
what they have in common is clear.

. II i : L . Robinet makes much of this letter, and takes it as evidence that by 
Leibniz had developed Preestablished Harmony. See Malebranche et Leibniz, ch. .
. II i : L . It is noteworthy that, according to Leibniz, he has “always” believed these
two propositions. As he so often does in his autobiographical sketches, he is here offering
an overly simple account of his development.


      , –

Within the context of his Rhetoric of Attraction, the papers that Leibniz
wrote in the mid- and late s and that suggest occasionalism no longer
seem so problematic. While it is surely true that comments such as “we see
all things in God” are consistent with occasionalism, they are also consis-
tent with Leibniz’s claims about Emanative and Reflective Harmony. The
most significant evidence for Leibniz’s occasionalism occurs in a fascinat-
ing text of October . It is ironic that Leibniz wrote this important
dialogue on motion, entitled Pacidius to Philalethes, on route to Hanover via
England and Holland. Scholars have taken the following passage to prove
Leibniz’s occasionalism at the time:
Therefore, what moves and transfers the body is not the body itself, but a superior
cause which by acting does not change, which we call God. From which it is clear
that a body cannot even continue its motion of its own accord, but stands in contin-
ual need of the impulse of God, who, however, acts constantly and by certain laws
in keeping with his supreme wisdom.224
There is no doubt that Leibniz’s language here is thoroughly consistent
with that of the occasionalist. But what he says before and after this passage
suggests that things are more complicated than they first appear. By way of
introducing this comment, Leibniz writes, for example: “I am of the fol-
lowing opinion: there is no portion of matter that is not actually divided into
further parts, so that there is no body so small that there is not a world of an
infinity of creatures within it.” In the dialogue, one of the interlocutors is
duly impressed by this position and proclaims that “as far as I know, it has
not been adequately considered before now.” Leibniz’s spokesperson then
proudly announces that this position is “the only opinion worthy of the
greatest author of things, who bequeathed us nothing sterile, nothing fal-
low, nothing unadorned.”225
An obvious question arises at this point concerning the occasionalism of
the dialogue: if God is the direct cause of the motion in bodies, then what
exactly are all these creatures doing in the world? In a passage that is both
perfectly consistent with occasionalism and thoroughly in keeping with the
Theory of Corporeal Substance, Leibniz writes:
For motion stops altogether, and does not last for any time however small, but at
each moment the lifeless is resuscitated by the work of a superior cause. In fact, since
God does everything in the most perfect way, from this a use for the axiom that noth-
ing is without a reason returns as if by postliminy. For the forms [formas] of changes
which God originally chose in some stretch of time, those he will not change with-
out a reason.226

. VI iii . Richard Arthur was kind enough to let me see the manuscript of his Labyrinth.
I have benefited from his translation of this and other works. For his views on Leibniz’s
occasionalism in the dialogue, see Labyrinth, Introduction. In a recent paper, Lodge has
argued that in the Paris years, “Leibniz was exploring a number of different options re-
garding substantial causation” and that one of the most prominent of these is occasion-
alism. See Lodge, “Leibniz’s Commitment to Pre-established Harmony.”
. VI iii –. . VI iii .


 

This is a fine example of Leibniz’s rhetorical subtlety. What he says in his

dialogue on motion is perfectly judged to engage the occasionalist and yet is
thoroughly consistent with his own views. Once we realize that the source of
the required “resuscitation” is not the Supreme Being itself but “the forms,”
then the underlying metaphysics of the dialogue is rendered transparent.
While it is true that bodies need to be “resuscitated” and motion “trans-
created,”227 and while it is true that God is the constant cause of everything,
the world is chock full of creatures that do the dirty work for their “supe-
rior cause.” Leibniz offers the following summary of “the fruit of this
demonstration.” He writes: “that action is something very different from
change, and that a thing can act without undergoing reaction, a fact that is
in turn of great utility in divinity.” That is, it is the mind-like forms that
underlie change, act without themselves changing, and make the world
“worthy of the greatest author of things.”228
Before I turn to the conclusion of Leibniz’s remarkable dialogue, it will
be helpful to return to the question with which I began this section: what
would constitute evidence that my interpretion of Leibniz’s development is
wrong? As I have suggested here, what will not disprove my interpretation
is a short list of passages which are plucked from the vast writings of the
s and which seem to contradict the core metaphysics. It is no doubt true
that it is possible to string together a list of passages which imply any num-
ber of doctrines contrary to Leibniz’s underlying views. And it is no doubt
true that – sometimes through carelessness and sometimes through (appar-
ently) intentional concealment – Leibniz himself encourages confusion. But
I see no reason to believe that he was either a Spinozist, occasionalist, atom-
ist, skeptic, or anything other than a brilliant conciliatory eclectic. Once we
stand back and survey the vast expanse of Leibniz’s erudition and the full
array of his interests during the time, we should not be surprised to discover
among his many papers, and especially his personal notes, a number of
vague and misleading comments or a tendency to try out the terminology of
the other side. A few recalcitrant passages prove little except that the great
Leibniz himself sometimes suffered from befuddlement, and perhaps a
mild form of philosophical paranoia. Given his conciliatory eclectism, it
would be surprising that in the face of the many new ideas that confronted
him in Paris, he did not try out some new terminology here or there. What
is much more important than a few passages that smack of Spinozism or oc-
casionalism or atomism or skepticism is the fact that when Leibniz arrives
in Hanover in  and when he wrote the Discourse on metaphysics in 
and the First truths in , he accepted the same metaphysical doctrines
which he carried with him to Paris in March .

. Leibniz first uses this term in an essay on infinite numbers in the first half of . See
VI iii . He uses it in this dialogue where he claims that it is a wonderful new way to
describe the constant recreation of motion. Having coined the term here, he does not use
it in his philosophical writings of –June . See the index of VI iv.
. VI iii .


      , –

But what then would count as evidence against my interpretation? The

short answer to this question is: any interpretation that takes as wide a tex-
tual scope as does mine. Because of the sheer volume of Leibniz’s writings
and the difficulties of his texts, it is not surprising that scholars have tended
to string together passages from his writings and then tell an interpretative
story based on them. Nor is it shocking that some commentators have over-
looked important essays, while others have discarded sections of texts that
seem odd.229 As students of Leibniz, we cannot let ourselves be satisfied ei-
ther with lists of quotations or with a few familiar texts. He did not limit his
energies in this way and neither should we. Nor can we cavalierly cast en-
tire letters and texts aside because they strike us as odd. As it turns out, some
of Leibniz views are extremely odd from our philosophical perspective. But
their oddity does not make them any less central to his thought. My method-
ological strategy differs from previous accounts of Leibniz’s early thought
in that while it surely cannot explain every single passage, it attempts to of-
fer a story consistent with every single text. My interpretation will not be
disproven either by a list of passages that suggest occasionalism or a string
of quotations that smack of Spinozistic “pantheism.” For each such passage
and quotation, I propose that we return the passage to the text and see the
text as a part of Leibniz’s grand philosophical project. In the vast majority
of cases, the problem dissolves as soon as the recalcitrant passage is placed
in the context of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Method, Substance, and Divin-
ity. In summary, what would constitute significant evidence against the in-
terpretation offered here is a different account that tells a plausible story
based on the entire range of theological, ethical, physical, and metaphysical
writings of the period.
Finally, I would like to display the extraordinary conclusion to Leibniz’s
dialogue Pacidius to Philalethes. As its title might suggest, Pacidius has taken
part in a philosophical exchange whose details he describes for the benefit
of a friend. In its conclusion, the description of the discussion reads as a
morality play, where the warring factions are the mechanical philosopher
who ignores God and is too concerned with “sensible things” and the Godly
theologian whose “zeal for the divine glory” has encouraged him “to shrink
from reason.”230 Peace is forged by the marvelous proposals of Leibniz’s
spokesperson who has revealed “the grandeur of reality itself.” As the me-
chanical philosopher exclaims about the “unexpected solution” to their puz-
zle about motion:
. For example, nowhere in his lengthy discussions of Leibniz’s views about God and sub-
stance does Adams cite or use On the incarnation of God, a text to which I devoted much
of ch. . See Adams, Leibniz, passim, and Index of Leibniz Texts Cited. Or to give an-
other kind of example, Beeley considers the letter to Johann Friedrich of May  to be
one of Leibniz’s “exoteric writings” and its proposals about a core of substance to be one
of those philosophical ideas “which pretty quickly land in the waste-bins.” See Beeley,
“Response,” –. But as the discussions in chs.  and  show, the letter of  con-
tains much that is important and as we have noticed in sect.  here, Leibniz endorses the
view of his  letter in an essay of  (see VI iii –).
. VI iii .


 
I certainly hold it in . . . admiration. And as a soldier accustomed only to sensible
things, I have never . . . suspected that such clear and firm demonstrations could be
achieved in matters that are abstract and remote from the imagination. For my part
I was for a long time expecting different things from this meeting, namely, laws of
motion, and the mechanical causes of powers. . . . Now I would not want to replace
anything that you have said with Algebra and Mechanics, nor would I be disinclined
to listen to metaphysics.231
As Leibniz’s spokesperson explains, in order “to produce the truth,” it is
necessary for the philosopher “to acknowledge divine power and greatness;
nor should he be a stranger to revelation or to the things we call miracles or
the mysteries.” The result will be virtue, wisdom, and the recognition that
there is nothing more important than “the worship of God . . . and the con-
templation of eternity. For if the soul in us is immortal, the few years of life
we have ought to seem of very little importance to us, except insofar as we
may believe that the effects of our actions extend into the future.” It is to
this end, Leibniz’s spokesperson insists, that we must seek “the most per-
fect knowledge of nature.” Not only has God “created things from nothing,
but also creates and resuscitates them all the time.” In conclusion, he pro-
claims: “For my part I confess that my intellect has exulted in the power of
these reasonings, and I congratulate philosophy, which finally looks as
though it will return with piety to grace; with which it has seemed to be in
too little agreement, not through any fault of its own, but as a result of . . .
thoughtless judgments.” When the proper study is made of motion, instead
of “crass” materialism, “certain metaphysical mysteries of a truly spiritual
nature will be found contained in it; and the secret force inside us will ap-
pear, in which, inflamed with love and affection, and elevated by its careful
meditation, the soul may take delight.”232 But what exactly are these “meta-
physical mysteries of a spiritual nature”? In the startling final lines of the
text, Pacidius explains:
When the old man said these things with such remarkable piety and zeal . . . , we all
caught some of the fire, and vying with him in pouring forth divine praise, we ex-
cited ourselves to a zeal so favorable, that compared to it all others seemed as noth-
ing, since the only way they could be estimated would be by comparing them with
that state of the soul in which all happiness is ordained. But also a consensus of wis-
dom appeared, and Theophilus introduced us to the mysteries of the theologians,
and Gallutius to many of the secrets of the Hermeticists and Pythagoreans, in con-
firmation of its truth. . . . Finally, when this discussion had drawn on long into the
night, and we had agreed not only to another day’s discussion, but also on some def-
inite rules of communal study, having given and received a secret trust, for certain
words were said back and forth which cannot be repeated since not everyone seems
worthy of them and surely there are few who seem mature and ready, after a very
long time we finally finished our discussion. The next morning, while my soul was
glowing with the recent memory, I took up my pen and, for you as much as for my-
self, I wrote this.233

. VI iii . . VI iii .

. VI iii . I have benefited greatly from Arthur’s translation of this complicated text.


      , –

Once again, we discover that underlying Leibniz’s thought is the two-part

assumption that the truth will be constructed out of the great past and pres-
ent philosophers and that because most readers are not sufficiently “mature
and ready,” he must present these “metaphysical mysteries” by means of
carefully controlled suggestive remarks. It is no wonder that the origins and
development of Leibniz’s metaphysics have remained hidden for so long.


 Conclusion: the truth behind the First truths

This book offers the first systematic study of Leibniz’s intellectual odyssey
from his student days in Leipzig to the development of one of western phi-
losophy’s great metaphysical systems. We have discovered much in the early
works that is enlightening and surprising. In my Introduction, I claimed
that one of the results of this historical and philosophical narrative would
be a greater understanding of Leibniz’s mature philosophy. I promised that
the developmental story offered here would help us grasp the truths behind
the First truths. As I see it, I have fulfilled that promise. Because the fun-
damental truths that underlie the mature thought just are the Aristotelian
and Platonist assumptions articulated in chapters  through  and because
Leibniz’s mature metaphysics fundamentally is the core metaphysics pre-
sented in chapters  through , the analysis of the previous chapters turns
out to be an examination of the central doctrines of the mature philosophy.
Let me be perfectly clear. I am claiming that the Metaphysics of Method,
the Metaphysics of Substance, and the Metaphysics of Divinity constitute
the background assumptions and implicit premises of Leibniz’s mature
writings and, moreover, that the various tenets that constitute the core meta-
physics are interwoven throughout the fabric of Leibniz’s mature thought.
I said in the Introduction that because the mature Leibniz is rarely explicit
about his underlying beliefs, we would have to turn to the early texts in
which his basic views are closer to the surface and easier to discern. Now
that we have excavated and articulated those philosophical ideas, we are able
to discern them throughout the mature writings. Because Leibniz’s early
commitments just are the unspoken assumptions of the later writings, they
offer constant help in deciphering the complications of those texts.

. Metaphysics of Method
T.S. Eliot was one of the great poets of the twentieth century. But he was
also a student of Leibniz. Eliot wrote two articles on Leibniz for the 
issue of The Monist in which he approaches Leibniz’s thought from a per-
spective not unlike my own. According to its introduction, this issue of The
Monist was “devoted to a commemoration of the scientific and philosophi-
cal work of Leibniz and its influences on modern thought.” In Eliot’s arti-
cles, there are a number of delightful and astute observations. Although he
accepts the interpretation promulgated by Kabitz and others according to
which Leibniz abandoned scholasticism for mechanical atomism before


 

adopting his own monadism in the s, Eliot acknowledges that “Leibniz
. . . seldom spoke ill of a dead philosopher” and “always praises the school-
men.”1 Although Eliot does not recognize the theory of emanation under-
lying the system and therefore takes more seriously than he should some of
the problems that Russell (with whom Eliot studied) ascribed to our eclec-
tic German, Eliot recognizes two features of Leibniz’s philosophical per-
sonality which, as I have documented, increased the obscurity of his texts.
As Eliot rightly sees, “there is no philosopher with whom the problem of
sources is less important than with Leibniz. The fact that he could receive
stimulation from such various sources and remain so independent of the
thought of his time indicates both the robustness and the sensitiveness of
genius.” Eliot delightfully summarizes the point: “Leibniz’s originality is in
direct, not inverse ratio to his erudition.”2
But Eliot also identifies another source of difficulty for scholars: “More
than multiplicity of influences, perhaps the multiplicity of motives and the
very occasional reasons for some of Leibniz’s writings, make him a bewil-
dering . . . writer. The complication of his interests in physics, his interests
in logic, and his equally genuine interest in theology, make his views a jun-
gle of apparent contradictions and irrelevancies.”3 When we add to this
chaotic mixture my claim about Leibniz’s commitment to philosophical
concealment and rhetorical self-control, we should no longer be surprised
that it has been so difficult to get to the bottom of Leibniz’s thought.
Once we know to look for it, there is abundant evidence in the mature
writings of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Method. He constantly calls attention
to his conciliatory tendencies and proclaims his use of ancient thought. In
the Discourse on metaphysics, for example, he is explicit about his debt both
to Plato and Aristotle. Concerning the former, Leibniz uses Platonist ter-
minology throughout the essay and emphasizes the insights of Plato him-
self. In section , Leibniz talks about “the emanation” of God and admits
the close relation between what I have called Emanative and Reflective Har-
mony; in sections  and , he applauds Plato’s anti-materialism and gen-
eral epistemology; and in section , he agrees with the Platonist concep-
tion of the soul. About Aristotelianism, in sections –, Leibniz insists
that the scholastics have a good deal to offer and that the Aristotelian notion
of form is the basis for the true conception of substance as well as for an un-
derstanding of “the wonders of God.”
Leibniz is also frequently explicit about his intellectual debts and concil-
iatory goal in the letters, essays, and notes of his mature period. A striking

. T.S. Eliot, “The Development of Leibniz’s Monadism,” . Sleigh refers to this article in
the conclusion of his book. According to Sleigh, it was reprinted as Appendix I of Knowl-
edge and Experience in the Philosophy of Bradley, which is a revised version of Eliot’s dis-
sertation. As Sleigh notes, Eliot did not defend the thesis at Harvard; nor as far as I know
did he publish on Leibniz any more than this article and the one mentioned below. See
Sleigh, Leibniz and Arnauld, .
. Eliot, “Leibniz’s Monads and Bradley’s Finite Centers,” –.
. Ibid., .


 

case of his forthrightness appears in the Specimen of Dynamics, an impor-

tant publication on physical topics. In this text of , he applauds the use
in his time of Plato, the Stoics, and other ancients and says that he intends
to do the same for the Aristotelian philosophy in physics. He writes:
This plan of study seems to me to be the one best suited both for judiciousness in
teaching and for the benefit of students. It prevents us from appearing more eager
to destroy than to build. . . . [By] restraining the whim of the sects . . . and by es-
tablishing doctrines of certainty, it enables the human race, at long last, to advance
unhaltingly toward greater heights. . . . For if you just omit the harsher things they
say against others, there is usually much that is good and true in the writings of the
distinguished ancients and moderns, much that deserves to be brought to light.4
Or, in a letter written at the end of his life, he writes: “I have tried to un-
cover and unite the truth buried and scattered under the opinions of all the
different philosophical sects, and I believe I have added something of my
own which takes a few steps forward. . . . I flatter myself to have penetrated
into the harmony of these different realms.”5 In short, there is ample evi-
dence in the mature writings of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Method.
But this fact itself gives rise to an obvious question: if Leibniz was such
a committed eclectic, then why doesn’t he just describe and explain the ideas
taken from his sources? Leibniz is reticent to articulate his position because,
as he wrote in the dialogue Pacidius to Philalethes, “few seem mature and
ready.”6 In chapter , I attributed to Leibniz a rhetorical strategy whose
fundamental goal was to engage his contemporaries so as to nudge them to-
ward the truth. We have seen abundant evidence of this Rhetoric of At-
traction in the early texts: he often carefully describes his views so as to make
them sound as similar to his interlocutor as possible while at the same time
giving his opponent reasons to take seriously some of the other details of his
position. By such means, Leibniz hoped to lead wayward souls to the philo-
sophical truth. We have also noticed cases of Leibniz’s motivating the same
principle in a variety of ways and expressing the same claims in different
terminology. What is explained in terms of final causes for Thomasius’ sake
is described differently for Oldenburg’s. What is “a flower of substance” in
a letter to Johann Friedrich of May  is “an atom” in some papers of
. Within this context, the chameleon-like quality of Leibniz’s autobi-
ographical descriptions are not difficult to explain. As we have seen several
times over, the presentation of his motivations and views is often perfectly
honed for his present philosophical goal.7
There is abundant evidence of the Rhetoric of Attraction in his mature

. GM VI : AG f.
. G III : L . Part of this passage was quoted at the end of ch. .
. VI iii .
. Before we conclude on the basis of these facts that Leibniz was a conniving, dishonest ma-
nipulator of princes and princesses, it will be helpful to remind ourselves of how common
it is for us to mold the presentation of our projects to fit the specifics of the grant for which
we are applying or the journal for which we are writing.


 

writings. Consider, for example, Leibniz’s comments in the New essays, a

text written more than forty years after he walked in the Rosental woods.
Leibniz explains in a passage part of which we have seen:
This system appears to unite Plato with Democritus, Aristotle with Descartes, the
scholastics with the moderns, Theology and morality with reason. Apparently it
takes the best from all systems and then advances further than anyone has yet
done. . . . I find the true principles of things in the substantial unities which this sys-
tem introduces, and in their harmony which was preestablished by the primary sub-
stance. I find in it an astounding simplicity and uniformity, such that everything can
be said to be the same at all times and places except in degrees of perfection. I now
see what Plato had in mind when he talked about matter as an imperfect and transi-
tory being; what Aristotle meant by his ‘entelechy;’ how far the sceptics were right
in decrying the senses. . . . How to make sense of those who put life and perception
into everything. . . . I see everything to be regular and rich beyond what anyone has
previously conceived; with matter everywhere organic – nothing empty, sterile, idle –
nothing too uniform, everything varied but orderly; and, what surpasses the imagi-
nation, with the entire universe being epitomized, though always from a different
point of view, in each of its parts and even in each of its substantial unities. . . . Well,
sir, you will be surprised at all I have to tell you, especially when you grasp how much
it elevates our knowledge of the greatness and perfection of God.8
Whether or not his contemporaries were surprised, there have been excel-
lent reasons for the student of Leibniz’s mature writings to be flabber-
gasted: this account of his philosophical evolution does not conform to
other, more public ones that he gives in the same period; moreover, this de-
scription of his philosophy differs importantly from other presentations.
What are we to think? The short answer to the question is that Leibniz
molded the story that he told about his development to fit the interests of
his audience and he ordered the relations among his “first” principles to
match his philosophical mood at the time. Consider another significant ex-
ample from the mature writings. Leibniz’s first public presentation of the
main features of his mature metaphysics occurs in A New System of the Na-
ture and Communication of Substances, and of the Union of the Soul and the
Body, which he published anonymously in the Journal des Savants in .
Scholars have made much of the fact that, according to the story given there
of his philosophical development, Leibniz was first an Aristotelian, then an
atomist, and finally a rehabilitator of the substantial forms.9 According to
Leibniz, after discovering “the atoms of substance” and the importance of
the real unities in nature:
I thought I was entering port; but when I began to meditate about the union of soul
and body, I felt as if I were thrown again into the open sea; for I could not find any

. VI vi –. For other mature texts in which he either uses or praises the philosophies of
Plato and Aristotle, see, e.g., G III –; G VII –; there are abundant references
throughout VI iv [B].
. I discussed a part of this autobiographical account in ch. , sect. . For other accounts, see,
e.g., G IV ; G III –; VI ii ; II i –; VI iii –; II i –; VI ii –.


 
way of explaining how the body makes anything happen in the soul, or vice versa, or
how one substance can communicate with another created substance. Descartes had
thrown in the sponge at this point. . . . But his disciples . . . judged that we sense the
qualities of bodies because God causes thoughts to arise in the soul on the occasion
of motions of matter. . . . That is what they call the system of occasional causes, which
has been made very fashionable by the beautiful reflections of the author of the
Search after Truth.10
We can approach Leibniz’s account here in one of two ways. The first and
more obvious option is to take it as literally true in all details. For decades,
this is what scholars have done. Although some have noticed that Leibniz’s
account here contradicts other autobiographical descriptions, most com-
mentators have either ignored the discrepancies or explained them away as
further support of Russell’s unflattering remarks about Leibniz as a social
climber. While it is always a good idea to take a philosopher at his word,
there is absolutely no textual evidence that Leibniz’s development followed
this general outline.
The other approach to this account is to see it as perfectly constructed for
his readership. As recent scholars have noted, the journal for which the New
System was written had a predominantly Cartesian audience.11 That is,
Leibniz could assume with a high degree of probability two things about
his readers: first, that they had rejected traditional scholastic philosophy
and would therefore find his use of substantial forms extremely odd; sec-
ond, that they would be acutely sensitive to problems concerning the mind-
body relation. We have seen other examples of Leibniz’s ability to insinu-
ate his views in a way that would appeal to his audience. I take the New
System to be a paradigm case of the Rhetoric of Attraction. In this intel-
lectual autobiography, Leibniz makes himself as much like his audience as
possible: like most of them, this unnamed thinker had found repellent a part
of his scholastic education, had been seduced by atoms and the void, and
had been confused about matters concerning mind-body interaction. In
fact, everything Leibniz says is true as long as we take the rejection of
scholasticism to be partial, his atoms to be substantial atoms constituted of
a union formed out of an active and a passive principle, and the mind-body
problem to be only one among several problems that led to his core meta-
physics. That is, Leibniz describes himself in terms as similar as possible to
his audience while remaining faithful to the truth. Moreover, his strategy of
engagement is brilliant: since Cartesianism was particularly weak on mind-
body interaction, Leibniz hoped to catch and sustain the attention of these
philosophers. As the full title of his essay suggests, he cleverly presents his
philosophical system as a means to solve exactly that problem more satis-
factorily than anyone else has done. In brief, everything in his New System
is constructed to engage as much as possible his expected reader.
Finally, let’s consider First truths as an example of his tendency to sum-

. G IV –: AG –.

. See, e.g., Brown, “Leibniz’s ‘New System’ Strategy.”


 

marize his views in a way that suggests the explanatory power of the un-
derlying system while not divulging too much. In fact, First truths can be
seen as an orchestrated attempt to attract attention. The bait has been nicely
described by Sleigh:
the concept containment account of truth seems to imply that a proposition is true
just in case it is conceptually true, and, hence, to imply that a proposition is true just
in case it is necessarily true. Yet we know from a number of papers authored during
our time period that Leibniz rejected the thesis that if a proposition is true then it
is necessarily true. So, why on earth did Leibniz accept an account of truth that, as
he himself noted, exacerbates the problem of establishing that there are contingent
truths?12
I propose that the answer to this question has two parts, which are closely
related and for which I have no textual evidence. First, the reason that Leib-
niz continues to put forward his problematic theory of truth is that he took
the theory to encapsulate the self-sufficiency of individual substances and
the relation between God and the world: all the truths in the world are
rooted in substances and all the truths in substances derive from the nature
of God. Second, Leibniz liked concerned curiosity when the truth was in-
volved: the theory of truth was perfectly gauged to grab people’s attention.
By such means, Leibniz hoped to lead his interlocutor to examine the sys-
tem of Preestablished Harmony, see its rightness, and thereby be led to the
truth. The fact that Leibniz was so mistaken about the actual effects of his
strategy should not blind us to the fact that he had the noblest of intentions.
In First truths, the theory of truth is supposed to act as a bridge between the
truths of logic and the truths of the created world and thereby to offer a sig-
nificant clue about God’s relation to the world and every event in it. As
Mondadori has shown, the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the theory of
truth are very closely related in Leibniz’s mature thought.13 Leibniz hoped
to use the theory of truth to lead his contemporaries first to the Principle of
Sufficient Reason and its notion of a complete ratio, then to the individual
substance that functions as the complete ratio for its states, and finally to the
Supreme Being who is the complete ratio for all created substances. In a
sense, the truth behind the First truths is that Leibniz was keenly concerned
to save our souls.14

. For Sleigh’s comments, see Mercer and Sleigh, “Metaphysics: The Early Period to the
Discourse on Metaphysics,” . For support of his point about Leibniz, Sleigh cites De lib-
ertate written in , the same year as First truths, in which Leibniz wrote: “Once I had
recognized the contingency of things, I then began to consider what a clear notion of truth
would be; for I hoped, not unreasonably, to derive from it some light on the problem of
distinguishing necessity from contingent truth.” Then, after summarizing the concept
containment account of truth, he added: “But this only seemed to increase the difficulty
for if, at a given time, the concept of the predicate is in the concept of the subject, then
how, without contradiction and impossibility, can the predicate not be in the subject at that
time?” See Foucher de Careil, Nouvelles lettres et opuscules, –.
. Mondadori, “Reference, Essentialism, and Modality in Leibniz’s Metaphysics.”
. For a glimpse of Leibniz’s vision of salvation, I refer the reader to a wonderful paper un-


 

. Metaphysics of Substance and Metaphysics

of Divinity
It has been a hundred years since Russell and Couturat first proposed their
elegant interpretations of Leibniz’s metaphysics. Commentators are now
generally agreed that the philosophy is not the deductive system that the
Russell–Couturat story had assumed. As Mates has written: “Leibniz’s phi-
losophy has no ‘beginning,’ that is, no unique, logically primitive set of ax-
ioms.”15 But it is important to go a step further than Mates and see that the
propositions that Leibniz presents as “first principles” are themselves
rooted in more basic philosophical assumptions. That there are such basic
assumptions or inclinations some commentators have recently noted. On
the basis of his meticulous study of the correspondence with Arnauld,
Sleigh makes a distinction between “first principles per se,” principles that
Leibniz explicitly calls first principles, and “attitudinal first principles,”
where the latter “are basic principles that guided his metaphysical reason-
ing.” According to Sleigh: “There are first principles that Leibniz employed
and called ‘first principles,’ i.e., the law of contradiction and the principle
of sufficient reason. But there are attitudes at work, which can be formu-
lated as principles, to which he rarely referred, but which must be recog-
nized, in order to grasp his reasoning.”16 Other commentators have made
similar points. Brown has noted that there are “background assumptions”
and “accepted maxims” that lie behind Leibniz’s conception of substance
and for which Leibniz gives no argument.17 Garber puts it nicely when he
notes that behind the fluctuations in Leibniz’s thought, “there may be
some very deep commitments . . . , commitments that shape and limit
what appear to us as swings in his mature thought.”18 It is noteworthy that
those commentators who have made a careful analysis of a particular
work or collection of closely related works from Leibniz’s middle period
have concluded that there is a group of unstated principles, assumptions,
or simple philosophical tendencies that lie beneath the explicit statements
of Leibniz’s thought. The suggestion is that, before an accurate picture of
Leibniz’s mature thought can be drawn, we need to know more about these
underlying assumptions.
This book exposes those assumptions and thereby opens the way to a
more careful analysis of the mature texts. When Leibniz emerged from the
Rosental woods in , he was on a path that would lead to the philoso-
phy of the First truths. Once we unearth his early Metaphysics of Substance

earthed by Don Rutherford and quoted at length in the conclusion to his book. As that
text suggests, in helping us to save our soul, Leibniz wanted to give us “wisdom and hap-
piness” instead of “vanity and bitterness” and lead us to discover “the brilliant lights of
the divine author of things.” Rutherford, Rational Order, .
. Mates, The Philosophy of Leibniz, . . Sleigh, Leibniz and Arnauld, –.
. Brown, Leibniz, –.
. Garber, “Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Middle Years,” .


 

and Metaphysics of Divinity, we recognize them as the unstated assump-

tions of the mature thought. When Leibniz wrote First truths, he probably
had no specific audience in mind, but it is important to remember that this
brief note is one of many different articulations of his system. That is, Leib-
niz was prepared to present his core metaphysics in a number of ways. First
truths was one way of thinking through some of his core beliefs. Although
it differs from the papers of the early period in the greater sophistication of
its details, the same core metaphysics is present. In fact, every single one of
Leibniz’s “first truths” appears among the tenets of the core metaphysics.
Nor has the terminology changed significantly.19 What is different from the
texts of – is of course the prominence given to the theory of truth.
Leibniz explicitly states that the Principle of Sufficient Reason “directly
follows” from the conjunction of the theory and the laws of identity and
non-contradiction. In the remainder of the essay, he presents most of the
main doctrines of the core metaphysics, which he says are other implications
of “these considerations.” In order of appearance, these are: “that in nature
there cannot be two individual things that differ in number alone;” that “there
are no purely extrinsic denominations;” that the “complete or perfect notion of
an individual substance contains all of its predicates, past, present, and future;”
that “[e]very individual substance contains in its perfect notion the entire uni-
verse;” that “all individual created substances are different expressions of the
same universe and different expressions of the same universal cause, namely,
God;” that “strictly speaking no created substance exerts a metaphysical ac-
tion or influx on any other thing;” that the mind-body union and the relation
among all created substances is one of “concomitance;” that “[t]here is no
vacuum;” that “[t]here is no [physical] atom;” that “every particle of the uni-
verse contains a world of an infinity of creatures;” and that “corporeal sub-
stance can neither arise nor perish except through creation or annihilation.”20
Nor is this list a complete set of Leibniz’s core tenets; he says nothing
here either about the doctrine of marks and traces or about real unity. We
can safely conclude that First truths is one among several presentations of
Leibniz’s views, each one of which is an attempt to capture an important as-
pect of his thought. We can also conclude that neither the First truths nor
any of the related presentations is by itself canonical. For example, in the
Discourse on metaphysics, which was written only three years before First
truths, Leibniz displays his doctrines in a different order and with different
emphasis. In that first complete summary of his philosophy, Leibniz dis-
cusses a number of theological matters, before turning in section  to “the
notion of an individual substance,” a version of the concept-containment

. The one exception is Leibniz’s use of the scholastic phrase “extrinsic denomination”
where the latter is a feature that can be predicated of a being although there is no basis in
the being itself for the feature. Leibniz of course denies that there can be any such thing.
In our discussion of the Meditation on the principle of the individual in ch. , sect. , we
noted the forerunner of this tenet. See ch. , n. .
. VI iv [B] –: AG –\ L –. In the Latin text, Leibniz highlights all his first
principles. Both L and AG fail to highlight some of these.


 

theory of truth, and the doctrine of mark and traces. It is worth quoting sec-
tion  at length, beginning with its summary-title (in italics):
That each singular substance expresses the whole universe its own way, and that all its
events, together with all their circumstances and the whole sequence of external things,
are included in its notion. Several paradoxes follow from this; among others, it fol-
lows that it is not true that two substances can resemble each other completely and
differ only in number. . . . It also follows that a substance can begin only by creation
and end only by annihilation; that a substance is not divisible into two; that one sub-
stance cannot be constructed from two; and that thus the number of substances does
not naturally increase and decrease, though they are often transformed.
Moreover, every substance is like a complete world and like a mirror of God or of
the whole universe, which each one expresses in its own way, somewhat as the same
city is variously represented depending upon the different positions from which it
is viewed. Thus the universe is in some way multiplied as many times as there are
substances, and the glory of God is likewise multiplied by as many entirely differ-
ent representations of his work. It can even be said that every substance bears in
some way the character of God’s infinite wisdom and omnipotence and imitates him
as much as it is capable. For it expresses, however confusedly, everything that hap-
pens in the universe, whether past, present, or future – this has some resemblance
to an infinite perception or knowledge. And since all other substances in turn ex-
press this substance and accommodate themselves to it, one can say that it extends
its power over all the others, in imitation of the creator’s omnipotence.21
In the remainder of the Discourse on metaphysics, Leibniz presents the other
doctrines contained in the First truths and he unpacks many of the meta-
physical details that are supposed to follow from them. That is, the doctrines
of the core metaphysics occur in both of these texts and yet in different or-
der and with different emphasis.
Nor does Leibniz either motivate or explain these doctrines. He just
posits them as his first truths. But we know better. These tenets evolved
from even more basic assumptions about the self-sufficiency of substances
and the relation between God and creatures. As we have seen, Leibniz in-
herited two fundamental beliefs from his teachers: () created substances are
self-sufficient in the sense that they contain in their nature a sufficient rea-
son for what they are and how they act, and () God emanates the divine at-
tributes to all created substances and thereby creates a perfect unity within
a multiplicity. Leibniz took his inheritance and applied it with enormous
philosophical acumen to an array of problems in metaphysics, physics,
ethics, and theology. The result is his core metaphysics, which he con-
structed in –, reexamined and developed (slightly) in –, and
then used for the rest of his long philosophical career.
Obviously, there remains a good deal to be said about the fate of Leibniz’s
Metaphysics of Substance and Metaphysics of Divinity in the writings of
the last three decades of his life. Scholars have long debated the degree to
which Leibniz’s views change during these years and in particular how his

. VI iv [B] –: AG –.


 

theory of substance evolved. Now that I have offered the proper philo-
sophical and historical background against which that further development
must be seen, it will be easier to uncover the motivations and subtleties of
those changes. While it is obvious that the core metaphysics persists, it is
also clear that Leibniz continued to rethink and revise some of its details.
And now that the Academy editors have finished their painstaking work of
editing and dating the vast philosophical materials of –June , it is
possible for the first time to trace the next part of the story about the evo-
lution of Leibniz’s thought.22 This book has begun the full excavation of
Leibniz’s philosophy, but there is a great deal more work to be done.

. Leibniz and seventeenth-century

philosophy and science
The Leibniz of this book will come as a surprise to many and a disappoint-
ment to some. The philosopher exposed here does not fit neatly into the
standard accounts of the history of philosophy and science. Given the bril-
liant contributions that he made in mathematics and physics, given the pro-
fundity of his views about the problem of evil, and given the Baroque quirk-
iness of his system, we are justified in being slightly surprised. The great
Leibniz seems not to conform to the standard ways of being modern. He did
not come to his philosophy through the careful reading and criticism of the
great men of his age. Although he read the works of Galileo, Bacon,
Descartes, Hobbes, and Gassendi, he was impatient with their details,23 and
developed his own system in conscious opposition to major parts of their
modernism.24 Although he made significant contributions to early modern
mathematics and science, he did not develop any of his ideas through the
careful study of nature. Nor did he deduce his philosophy from first truths
that he intuited through a priori philosophical reflection. After , he be-
came increasingly interested in tracing the logical relations among his doc-
trines, but he arrived at his system by an entirely different path. Because for
Leibniz the road to truth was paved with the books of the great philoso-
phers, he collected ideas from the prominent philosophical traditions and
then attempted to combine them in a way that would solve all the problems,
and please everyone. Although the new mechanical philosophy also played

. The fourth volume of Leibniz’s philosophical papers was published in . Volume  of
Series VI is itself three volumes of writings and one volume of indices.
. It is striking that Leibniz seems proud of the fact that he is too impatient to read the works
of others with any care. He often confesses to reading philosophical texts through “like
novels.” See, e.g., II i : L . Leibniz readily admits to Malebranche that he did not
read The Search After Truth with great care (II i : L ).
. There has been a good deal of important scholarship on the relation between these other
“great” men and Leibniz. For the most important secondary literature, see the notes, ch.
, sects. –. As I argue in ch. , although Leibniz surely absorbed ideas from these sources,
the contemporaries who most influenced the development of his core metaphysics were
(for us) obscure figures like Thomasius, Weigel, Digby, De Raey, Kircher, and so on.


 

an important part in his eclectic mixture, the basic ingredients of Leibniz’s

system are thoroughly traditional. In the end, both his intellectual goal and
the devised means to that goal have ancient sources: the ultimate object of
knowledge is God, the means to that knowledge are the divine Ideas, and all
created things are emanations of the divine nature. Shockingly enough, the
inventor of the calculus and the author of First truths developed the details
of his system so that (among other things) they would mirror the harmony
and perfection of God and solve the problems of the Eucharist and resur-
rection.
An aspect of Leibniz’s brilliance that has gone unnoticed for too long is
his ability to take materials from a wide variety of common sources and
transform them into something that is somehow both vaguely familiar and
entirely new. This is what Eliot recognized when he explained that “Leib-
niz’s originality is in direct, not inverse ratio to his erudition.”25 Motivated
from the beginning of his long philosophical career by a desire to construct
political, intellectual, and personal peace, Leibniz set about making a sys-
tem that would engage his contemporaries and eventually lead them to the
truth. He was terribly wrong. It is ironic that because Leibniz was so mis-
taken about the power of his philosophy to lead people to the truth, the deep
motivations of his thought have remained hidden for so long.
In conclusion, the origins and development of Leibniz’s metaphysics are
not quite what we expected. And that, I think, is a good thing. For too long,
historians of early modern philosophy have ignored the historical and philo-
sophical roots of their heroes and for too long we have glossed over the gen-
uine intellectual diversity of the period. It is clear that Leibniz was brilliant.
It is a fact that he contributed mightily to the history of philosophy and sci-
ence. But it is also true that in glorious and unexpected ways, he seems from
our perspective to be strangely unmodern and provocatively weird. It is im-
portant to recognize that Leibniz was only one among a number of thinkers
in the seventeenth century who were wedded to traditional theological doc-
trines, to conciliatory eclecticism, and to the truth. More work needs to be
done to unearth the fascinating details of this part of early modern philos-
ophy and science. In the end, we should proclaim with Leibniz: “Let us shed
prejudices and support geniuses of all ages!”26

. Eliot, “Leibniz’s Monads and Bradley’s Finite Centers,” –. Quoted in sect. .
. Leibniz to Conring, May , II i .


 Appendix I
(Not exactly) First truths

I offer here a list of the fundamental tenets of Leibniz’s mature philosophy

as they are presented in the First truths of , the Discourse on metaphysics
of , and related texts. For the sake of convenience, it will be helpful to
present them here and offer an extremely brief summary. There is dis-
agreement among scholars about the precise way to formulate some of these
doctrines. I have tried to keep the controversial issues to a minimum. I pres-
ent them here in the order in which they appear in First truths.1
• . The concept-containment account of truth.
In First truths, Leibniz writes:
the predicate or consequent is always in the subject or antecedent, and the na-
ture of truth in general or the connection between the terms of a statement,
consists in this very thing, as Aristotle also observed. The connection and in-
clusion of the predicate in the subject is explicit in identities, but in all other
propositions it is implicit and must be shown through the analysis of notions;
a priori demonstration rests on this.2
In other words, the account of truth claims that a categorical, affirma-
tive proposition, whether singular or universal, is true just in case the
concept of its predicate is contained in the concept of its subject. See
also Discourse on metaphysics, .
• . The principle of sufficient reason.
According to the First truths, there is “nothing without a reason, or
there is no effect without a cause.”3 Leibniz often writes that for every-
thing there is, there is a sufficient reason. Also see Discourse on meta-
physics, .
• . The principle of the identity of indiscernibles.
In First truths, Leibniz writes:
in nature, there cannot be two individual things that differ in number alone.
For it certainly must be possible to explain why they are different, and that ex-
planation must derive from some difference they contain.4

. The summary of the doctrines offered here is inspired by the account found in Sleigh, Leib-
niz and Arnauld, though Sleigh may not agree with the results.
. VI iv [B] : AG . . VI iv [B] : AG . . VI iv [B] : AG .


  

Some commentators emphasize the point that, for Leibniz, the basic
assumption is that wherever there is numerical diversity there must be
qualitative dissimilarity.5 See Discourse on metaphysics, .
• . The position that there are no extrinsic denominations.
The claim in First truths is that:
there are no purely extrinsic denominations, denominations which have ab-
solutely no foundation in the very thing denominated. For it is necessary that
the notion of the subject denominated contain the notion of the predicate. And
consequently, whenever the denomination of a thing is changed, there must be
variation in the thing itself.6
In other words, things cannot differ merely with respect to extrinsic
properties, they must differ with respect to their intrinsic properties as
well.7
• . The complete-concept theory of substance.
In First truths, Leibniz writes: “The complete or perfect notion of an
individual substance contains all of its predicates, past, present, and
future.”8 In Discourse , he explains:
the nature of an individual substance or of a complete being is to have a no-
tion so complete that it is sufficient to contain and to allow us to deduce from
it all the predicates of the subject to which this notion is attributed.9
As Sleigh summarizes it, the doctrine asserts that a being is an indi-
vidual substance if and only if its concept contains all and only the con-
cepts of those entities that may be attributed to it. Also consider Dis-
course on metaphysics,  and .
• . The expression hypothesis.
The basic idea here is that each substance expresses or mirrors every
other one from its own point of view. As Leibniz makes clear in First
truths, the hypothesis has two parts. He writes:
Every individual substance contains in its perfect notion the entire universe and
everything that exists in it, past, present, and future. For there is no thing on
which one cannot impose some true denomination from another thing, at the
very least a denomination of comparison and relation. Moreover, there is no
purely extrinsic denomination. I have shown the same thing in many other
ways, all in harmony with one another.
Indeed, all created substances are different expressions of the same universe and
different expressions of the same universal cause, namely, God. But the ex-
pressions vary in perfection, just as different representations or drawings of
the same town from different points of view do.10

. Broad, Leibniz: An Introduction, . . VI iv [B] –: AG .

. Sleigh, Leibniz and Arnauld, . . VI iv [B] : AG .
. VI iv [B] : AG . . VI iv [B] : AG –.


  

In Discourse on metaphysics , he writes:

Moreover, every substance is like a complete world and like a mirror of God
or of the whole universe, which each one expresses in its own way, somewhat
as the same city is variously represented depending upon the different posi-
tions from which it is viewed.11
Also see Discourse on metaphysics,  and .
• . The world apart thesis.
In First truths, Leibniz claims:
Strictly speaking, one can say that no created substance exerts a metaphysical
action or influx on any other thing. For, not to mention the fact that one can-
not explain how something can pass from one thing into the substance of an-
other, we have already shown that from the notion of each and every thing
follows all of its future states.12
Here the view is basically that that no quality or state of any created
substance has as a real cause some quality or state of another such
substance and hence that there is no intersubstantial interaction. Also
consider Discourse on metaphysics,  and .
• . The doctrine of preestablished harmony or concomitance.
In First truths, Leibniz presents the doctrine only as it bears on the
mind-body relation where the two are considered two separate sub-
stances. Generally, however, the doctrine applies to the relation be-
tween any two created substances. The basic idea is that God created
finite substances in such a way that they do not causally interact, but
harmonize with each other in virtue of their internal nature.13 Also
see Discourse on metaphysics, , , and .
• . The doctrine of spontaneity.
Leibniz does not explicitly present this in First truths, but it is a com-
mon feature of his notion of preestablished harmony. According to
the doctrine, for every quality or state of a substance, there is a cause
of that quality or state in the nature of the substance. Also see Dis-
course on metaphysics, .
• . The thesis of parallelism.
In First truths, Leibniz writes:
For God from the beginning constituted both the soul and the body with
such wisdom and such workmanship that, from the first constitution or no-
tion of a thing, everything that happens through itself [per se] in the one

. VI iv [B] : AG . . VI iv [B] –: AG .

. VI iv [B] : AG .


  
corresponds perfectly to everything that happens in the other, just as if some-
thing passed from one to the other.14
In other words, the qualities or states of each substance agree or cor-
respond perfectly with those of every other at any given time. Also
see Discourse on metaphysics,  and .
• . The infinity of creatures thesis.
As he argues in the First truths, this thesis is closely related to his
claims that there is neither vacua nor atoms in the world. Here the ba-
sic point is that the world is as full as possible.15
• . The hypothesis of the indestructibility of substances.
The assumption in First truths and elsewhere is that substances can
neither be created nor destoyed by any natural means; that is, only
God can create and destroy substances.16 Also see Discourse on meta-
physics,  and .

The following doctrines are not found in First truths, but are contained in
other works of the same period.
• . The hypothesis of the indivisibility of substances.
Asserts that substances are not divisible. Also see Discourse on meta-
physics, .
• . The real unity hypothesis.
Claims that a being is a substance if and only if it has real unity (unum
per se). See especially the letters to Arnauld of November  and
April .
• . The doctrine of marks and traces.
States that the present state of a substance contains marks of all it will
be and traces of all it has been. Also see Discourse on metaphysics, 
and .

. Ibid. . VI iv [B] –: AG . . VI iv [B] : AG .


 Appendix II
Leibniz’s Original Assumptions

I present here a brief account of the assumptions uncovered in the textual

analysis of each chapter. In an attempt to distinguish between the early as-
sumptions and the mature tenets, I have capitalized the former.

Chapter : Eclecticism and conciliation, –

The Metaphysics of Method assumes that the true metaphysics will be con-
structed from the underlying truths in the great philosophical systems, will
be consistent with Christian doctrine and the claims of revelation, and will
explain the phenomena (including the new experimental findings).

The Rhetoric of Attraction attempts to engage the sectarian reader by using

agreeable philosophical terminology and by extolling the virtues of the
reader’s sect while attracting attention to the virtues of other philosophical
schools; ultimately the goal is to entice the reader to consider the underly-
ing (and usually unstated) assumptions, which Leibniz considers to be true
and which he thinks will eventually lead the reader to philosophical en-
lightenment and intellectual peace.

Chapter : Aristotelian assumptions, –

The Principle of Self-Sufficiency assumes that a being S is self-sufficient if
and only if the complete ratio for its features can be discovered in the na-
ture of S. (In , Leibniz is almost certainly here concerned only with
primary features.)

The Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency assumes that a being S is a sub-

stance if and only if S is self-sufficient.

The Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency assumes that for any being S,

strictly speaking, S can be said to have a feature f and f can be said to exist
in S just in case the complete ratio for f can be found in the nature of S. (In
, Leibniz is almost certainly concerned here only with primary fea-
tures.)

The Principle of Substantial Activity assumes that a being S is a substance

if and only if it subsists per se and S subsists per se if and only if it has a
principle of activity within its own nature.


  

The Principle of Sufficient Reason assumes that, for everything there is,
there is a complete ratio.

The notion of a complete ratio assumed in these principles is:

For some state or feature f, a complete ratio of f () constitutes the neces-
sary and sufficient condition for f; () is perspicuous in that, in those cases
where one can understand it, one sees exactly why f as opposed to some
other state of affairs came about; () is such that in those cases when a full
account of it can be given, that account constitutes a complete explanation
of f; and () the ratio itself does not require a reason of the same type.

The Logical Assumption claims that, for any state or feature f, the logically
necessary and sufficient conditions of f exist and in theory can be articu-
lated.

The Intelligibility Assumption claims that those conditions are in theory in-
telligible. It is important to note that, when taken with the Principle of
Causal Self-Sufficiency, the Intelligibility Assumption implies that for any
feature f, f cannot be said to belong to a being S unless one can in theory
understand how the nature of S acts as the cause of f.

The Substantial Nature Assumption, which is very closely related to the

Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency, claims that, for every substance
S, it has a nature that contains the set of necessary and sufficient conditions
or the complete ratio for those features which strictly belong to it and more-
over those conditions are in theory intelligible. (In , Leibniz is almost
certainly concerned only with primary features.)

The () Substantial Form Assumption asserts that, for every substance S,
S will have a (mind-like) substantial form that contains the principle of ac-
tivity of S.

The Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance claims that the nature of a sub-

stance S contains the complete ratio for all its states or features (and not just
its primary ones).

Chapter : Original conception of substance, 

The Original Theory of (non-human) Corporeal Substance asserts that divine
mind (or primary form) takes body qua matter, which is extended
passive matter, activates or organizes it, and thereby produces a (secondary)
form or body qua form (i.e., an organized arrangement of matter), which has
its own essence and is the cause and explanation of its (primary) features.


  

Chapter : Second conception of substance, –early 

The Second Theory of Corporeal Substance maintains that, for each corpo-
real substance S, whether human or non-human, the nature of S is consti-
tuted of a mind-like substantial form F and a passive principle P. Consis-
tent with the Substantial Form Assumption and the Passive Principle
Assumption, F acts on P to produce an organization with P such that the or-
ganization is the nature of S. (In –early , the mind-like substantial
form in unconscious substances is a momentary mind.)

The () Substantial Form Assumption claims that, for every mind-like
substantial form F in a corporeal substance S, F acts constantly on its pas-
sive principle P by a set of instructions given it by God, F creates a sub-
stantial unity with P by so acting, F is permanently attached to P so that F
will only act outside itself through P, and the acting of F is a form of think-
ing that produces thoughts.

The () Passive Principle Assumption maintains that, for every passive
principle P that forms a unity with a mind-like substantial form F, P con-
tains nothing active in itself and P is the “instrument of acting” of F.

Chapter : Platonist Assumptions

The Supreme Being Assumption claims that there is a wholly perfect, self-
sufficient, and unified being on which all else depends and, moreover, that
each of the features of unity, self-sufficiency, perfection, and reality is a
function of the other.

The Principle of Harmonized Plenitude assumes that the goodness of the

world is partly a function of the variety of the beings within it, partly a func-
tion of the sum of the goodness of the beings within it, and partly a func-
tion of the order among those beings where the latter is understood prima-
rily in terms of the Enhancement Relation among beings.

The Enhancement Relation is as follows: for every being S that has an En-
hancement Relation to a being R, the relation of S to R is such that an in-
crease in the goodness of S will promote an increase in R which is non-re-
ciprocal (that is, the increase in R will not then promote an increase in S).

The Theory of Emanative Causation claims that, for a being A that is more
perfect than a being B, A can emanate its attribute f-ness to B in such a way
that neither A nor A’s f-ness is depleted in any way, while B has f-ness, though
in a manner inferior to the way it exists in A. The emanative process is con-
tinual so that B will instantiate f-ness if and only if A emanates f-ness to it.

The Relation of Sympathy, which can be more or less, claims that each cre-
ated being corresponds to the activity and states of all other beings.


  

The Theory of Reflective Harmony claims that there is an interrelation

among minds such that each mind thinks or reflects all the others in such a
way that each mind may be said to contain all the others.

The Creaturely Inferiority Complex asserts that every product of the

Supreme Being contains all the attributes that constitute the divine essence,
though the product instantiates each of those attributes in a manner infe-
rior to the way in which they exist in the Supreme Being and moreover the
grade of perfection of a creature is related to the clarity of its instantiation
of the divine essence.

The Epistemological Assumption claims () that the mind is the object of
knowledge in the sense that it contains the eternal truths or Ideas, () that
the mind, which is mutable and finite, will become aware of those objects
only if it both turns away from the material world and is aided by the divine
light, and () that it is the intellect or understanding that is capable of grasp-
ing those truths.

The Doctrine of the Hierarchy of Being maintains that matter, which is the
lowest stratum of the hierarchy, lacks all power and causal efficacy, while
human souls, which constitute the highest stratum of created being other
than angels, can only be created and destroyed by God.

The Causal Seed Doctrine asserts that God created everything in the begin-
ning as seminal rationes, which remain dormant until the appropriate time
for them to become causally efficacious.

Chapter : Metaphysics of Divinity, –early 

(–early ) Emanative Harmony claims that God is the variety in the
world in that every creature is an inferior instantiation of the divine essence
and that God is the unity in the world in the two-fold sense that each indi-
vidual creature and the totality of creatures instantiate the divine unity so
that each individual is a unity and the totality is an interrelated whole.

(–early ) Reflective Harmony, which is closely related to the Pla-

tonist assumption articulated in chapter , claims that there is an interrela-
tion among human minds such that each mind thinks or reflects all the oth-
ers, at least with regard to their moral development.

Summary of the Speculative Creation Story, which is roughly the same as

the Emanative Creation Story:

() Among an infinity of emanative options (each of which is a version of

the divine essence), the Supreme Being chooses one. God emanates this
(selected) divine essence so as to create and sustain the world. Each in-


  

dividual created substance S is an instantiation of the (selected) divine

essence.
() For every created individual substance S, there is a complete concept in
God’s mind that contains all the predicates of S and that is a version of
the (selected) divine essence.
() For every individual substance S, there is a substantial form F that con-
tains a set of instructions that tells F how to activate and organize its
passive priniciple P at every moment of S’s existence, and that there-
fore functions as the ontological correlate of the complete concept in
that every predicate in the complete concept of S has a correlate in the
set of instructions, and the instructions constitute the necessary condi-
tion for the true ascription of those predicates.
() There is intersubstantial causation among substances and (Weak) Par-
allelism where the latter is understood as follows: for every substance S,
the set of instructions in the substantial form F of S is constructed so
that the actions of S will perfectly correspond to those of all the sub-
stances with which S interacts, with the result that all the predicates
contained in the complete concept of S will be true of S.
() Every instantiation of the (selected) divine essence is different from
every other; that is, there are no two created substances with the same
individual essence.

The (early ) Substantial Form Assumption claims that, for every mind-
like substantial form F in a substance S, F acts constantly on its passive prin-
ciple P by a set of instructions given it by God and that constitute the on-
tological correlate of the complete concept of S, F creates a substantial unity
with P by so acting, F is permanently attached to P so that F will only act
outside itself through P, the acting of F is a form of thinking that produces
thoughts, and moreover F acts through emanation and therefore can neither
be created nor destroyed by anything other than God.

Chapter : Matter, passivity, and panorganic vitalism, –

The (early ) Passive Principle Assumption claims that, for every passive
principle P that forms a unity with a mind-like substantial form F, P consists
in a panorganic collection of substances, each of which is itself constituted
of a substantial form and passive principle, and so on in infinitum and, more-
over, the identity of P is determined by the dominant minds or substantial
forms of the corporeal substances in P so that the core of substance that re-
sults from the unity of F and P is such that P is F’s instrument of acting.

Chapter : Phenomenalism and Preestablished Harmony, 

Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism claims that, for every mind-like form F,
there is a complete ratio in F for all its thoughts (i.e., its states) where the
complete ratio is best understood in terms of a Production Rule.


  

The Production Rule of a mind-like substantial form F contains instructions

for the production of the states of F in the sense that the necessary and suf-
ficient conditions for each state of the substantial form F consists in the con-
junction of the principle of activity in F, its Production Rule, and its previ-
ous state.

(Mid-) Emanative Harmony claims () that God is the variety in the
world in that every substance, although it contains the same (selected) di-
vine essence as every other substance, also contains a Production Rule ac-
cording to which it instantiates that essence in a way different from every
other substance, and () that God is the unity in the world in the two-fold
sense that each individual creature and the totality of creatures instantiate
the divine unity so that each individual is a unity and the totality is an in-
terrelated whole.

(Mid-) Reflective Harmony extends the relation of Reflective Harmony

to all thinking creatures, that is, it claims that every thinking substance
thinks or reflects the entire world. It follows that every thinking substance
reflects all other substances and in that sense contains them.

The (mid-) Theory of Corporeal Substance maintains that, for each cor-
poreal substance S, whether human or non-human, the nature of S is con-
stituted of a mind-like substantial form F and a passive principle P, where
F and P have a Prearranged Diffusion Relation with one another. For the na-
ture of F, see the (mid-) Substantial Form Assumption; for the nature
of P, see the (early ) Passive Principle Assumption.

The (mid-) Substantial Form Assumption claims that, for every mind-
like substantial form F in a corporeal substance S, F acts constantly through
emanation and therefore can neither be created nor destroyed by anything
other than God; F contains the (selected) divine essence and a Production
Rule where the latter specifies how F will emanate the former; F emanates
its states which are its thoughts and which are the ontological correlates of
the predicates in the complete concept of S; F is permanently rooted in its
passive principle P with which it forms a core of substance, where the rela-
tion between F and P is one of Prearranged Diffusion and where the unity is
indissoluble.

The () Prearranged Diffusion Relation between F and P in a substance S

creates a core of substance which is constituted by F and the dominant minds
in P and which can be more or less expansive (for details, see ch. , sect. ).
The Diffusion Relation is such that, although each of the subordinate sub-
stances in P acts out of its own nature, F emanates instructions for the activ-
ity of each of those substances and each of its substances perceives its in-
structions; moreover, the activity of F and of the substances in P is each a
necessary condition and all are sufficient for any substantial feature f of S.


  

The Diffusion Relation assumes Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, the Com-

plete-Ratio Theory of Substance, and (Strong) Parallelism.

(Mid-) (Strong) Parallelism is the view that the constituents of a sub-

stance S are in perfect correspondence with one another.

Chapter : Preestablished Harmony, late –early 

(Early ) Reflective Harmony claims that every substance thinks or re-
flects the entire world and contains every other substance in the sense that
it perceives all the states or thoughts of all the others.

The (early ) Substantial Form Assumption claims that, for every mind-
like substantial form F in a corporeal substance S, F acts constantly through
emanation and therefore can neither be created nor destroyed by anything
other than God; F contains the (selected) divine essence and a Production
Rule where the latter specifies how F will emanate the former; F emanates
its states which are its thoughts, which change constantly, which are the on-
tological correlates of the predicates in the complete concept of S, and
which are a more or less clear instantiation of the (selected) divine essence;
F is permanently rooted in its passive principle P with which it forms a core
of substance, where the relation between F and P is one of Prearranged Dif-
fusion and where the unity is indissoluble.

The (early ) Theory of Corporeal Substance maintains that, for each cor-
poreal substance S, whether human or non-human, the nature of S is con-
stituted of a mind-like substantial form F and a passive principle P, where
F and P have a Prearranged Diffusion Relation with one another. For the
nature of F, see the (early ) Substantial Form Assumption; for the na-
ture of P, see the (early ) Passive Principle Assumption.

The (early ) Prearranged Diffusion Relation between F and P in a sub-

stance S creates a core of substance which is constituted by F and the domi-
nant minds in P and which can be more or less expansive (for details, see ch.
, sect. ). The Diffusion Relation is such that, although each of the sub-
ordinate substances in P acts out of its own nature, F emanates instructions
for the activity of each of its substances and each of those substances per-
ceives its instructions; the activity of F and of the substances in P is each a
necessary condition and all are sufficient for any substantial feature f of S;
and moreover, f is a perception or state whose source is F. The Diffusion
Relation assumes Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, the Complete-Ratio
Theory of Substance, and (Strong) Parallelism.

Chapter : Final steps toward the mature philosophy, –

 (Strong) Parallelism is the view that created substances are in perfect


  

correspondence with one another. This means, among other things, that a
substance S will have a perception of R qua sensory thing if and only if R
qua sensory thing perfectly corresponds to the actions and passions of R qua
active thing.

The () Substantial Form Assumption claims that, for every mind-like
substantial form F in a corporeal substance S, F acts constantly through em-
anation and therefore can neither be created nor destroyed by anything
other than God; F contains the (selected) divine essence and a Production
Rule where the latter specifies how F will emanate the former and therefore
contains marks of everything F will do; F emanates its states which are its
thoughts, which change constantly, which are the ontological correlates of
the predicates in the complete concept of S, and which are a more or less
clear instantiation of the (selected) divine essence; F is permanently rooted
in its passive principle P with which it forms a core of substance, where the
relation between F and P is one of Prearranged Diffusion and where the
unity is indissoluble; F is eternal, differs from every other mind in the
world, and mirrors all the others; and each state of F contains traces of all
its previous states and is such that an understanding of it will lead to knowl-
edge of its cause.

The () Expression Relation is such that S expresses an essence E just in

case S is a partial representation of E which means (at least) that to under-
stand S is equivalent to having a partial cognition of E. In the texts of ,
every created substance (and every state of a substance) has an Expression
Relation with God: because every created substance S (and every state of S)
contains the (selected) divine essence, S (and every state of S) will be a par-
tial expression of the divine essence. Moreover, for any two distinct sub-
stances S and R, each can be said to express the other because each is a par-
tial (though distinctive) expression of the same divine essence.


 Bibliography

Primary texts
Anselm of Canterbury, Saint Anselm: Basic Writings, ed. and tr. S.N. Deane, La
Salle, IL: Open Court, 
Aquinas, Thomas, Opera Omnia, Parma: Petrus Fiaccodorus, –; repr. New
York: Musurgia, .
——De Principiis Naturae, ed. J.J. Pauson, Fribourg-Louvain, .
——Summa Contra Gentiles, ed. and tr. James F. Anderson, Notre Dame: Univer-
sity of Notre Dame Press, .
Augustine, Saint, Confessions, ed. and tr. Henry Chadwick, New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, .
——Sancti Aureli Augustini Opera, Vienna: Tempsky, .
——The Essential Augustine, ed. and tr. Vernon J. Bourke, Indianapolis: Hackett
Press, .
Bacon, Francis, The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. James Spedding, –; repr.
London: Garrett Press, .
Berkeley, George, The Works of George Berkeley, ed. A.C. Fraser, Oxford: Claren-
don Press, .
Bodin, Jean, Colloquium Heptaplomeres de Abditis Rerum Sublimium Arcanis, ed. L.
Noack, Paris, .
——Colloquium of the Seven about the Secrets of the Sublime, ed. and tr. M.L.D.
Kuntz, Princeton: Princeton University Press, .
Boyle, Robert, The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, ed. Thomas Birch,  vols.,
London, ; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, .
——Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle, ed. M.A. Stewart, Indianapolis:
Hackett, .
Castanaeus, H.L., Celebriorum Distinctionum Philosophicarum Synopsis, Leiden,
.
Chauvin, Stephan, Lexicon Philosophicum, nd ed., Leeuwarden, ; repr. Düs-
selldorf: Stern-Verlag Janssen & Co., .
Clauberg, Johann, Disputationes Physicae, published as a part of a series of related
works, with an introduction by Johannes de Raey and entitled Physica, Quibus
Rerum Corporearum Vis & Natura, Mentis ad Corpus Relatae Proprietates,
denique Corporis ac Mentis Arcta & Admirabilis in Homine Conjunctio Explican-
tur, Amsterdam: D. Elsevier, .
——Opera Omnia Philosophica,  vols., Amsterdam, ; repr. Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, .
Conway, Anne, Principia Philosophiae Antiquissimae & Recentissimae, Amsterdam,
.
——The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy, eds. A. Coudert, T.
Corse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, .


 
Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri: Inferno, A Verse Transla-
tion, tr. Allen Mandelbaum, New York: Bantam Books, .
De Raey, Johannes, Clavis Philosophiae Naturalis sive Introductio ad Contempla-
tionem Naturae Aristotelico-Cartesiana, Leiden: J. and D. Elsevier, .
Descartes, René, Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. Charles Adam, Paul Tannery, Paris:
J. Vrin, –.
——The Philosophical Writings of Descartes,  vols., tr. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff,
D. Murdoch, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, .
Digby, Everard, Theoria Analytica, London, .
Digby, Kenelm, Two Treatises: in the one of which, the nature of bodies, in the other,
the nature of mans soule is looked into: in way of discovery of the Immortality
of Reasonable Soules, London, ; repr. Garland Publishing Inc.: New
York and London, ; Latin version, Demonstratio immortalitatis animae
rationalis, sive tractatus duo philosophici, in quorum priori natura et operationes
corporum, in posteriori vero, natura animae rationalis . . . explicantur, Paris,
.
Dryden, John, The Works of John Dryden, vol. , eds. Edward N. Hooker, Hugh T.
Swedenberg, Berkeley: University of California Press, .
Du Hamel, Jean-Baptiste, Philosophia Vetus et Nova ad Usum Scholae Accomodata,
in Regia Burgundia olim Pertractata, Paris: S. Michaillet, .
——Philosophia vetus et nova ad usum scholae accomodata; Astronomia physica; De
meteoris et fossilibus libri duo; and De Consensu veteris & novae Philosophiae,
published together, Nuremberg, .
Duns Scotus, Opera Omnia,  vols., Lyons, ; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms,
.
Eustachius à San Paulo, Summa Philosophiae Quadripartita, Paris, .
Ficino, Marsilio, Marsilii Ficini Opera. Basil,  vols., .
——The Letters of Marsilio Ficino, vol. , Preface by P.O. Kristeller, Suffolk: Shep-
eard-Walwyn, .
Foucher, Simon, Réponse pour la critique à la préface du second volume de la recherche
de la verité, Paris, .
Galilei, Galileo, Opere, ed. A. Favaro, Fiorentina: Barbera, –.
Gassendi, Pierre, Opera Omnia,  vols., Lyon, ; repr. Stuttgart: Friedrich From-
mann, .
——The Selected Works of Pierre Gassendi, ed. and tr. C.B. Bush, New York: John-
son Reprint Corporation, .
Glanvill, Joseph, Scepsis Scientifica: or Confest Ignorance, the Way to Science, Lon-
don: E. Cotes, for Henry Eversden, .
Goclenius, Rudolph, Lexicon Philosophicum, Frankfurt: ; repr. Hildesheim:
Georg Olms, .
——Conciliator Philosophicus, ; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, .
Grotius, Hugo, De Veritate Religionis Christianae, Leiden, .
Hobbes, Thomas, The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, ed. William
Molesworth, ; repr. Darmstadt: Scientia, .
Juana Inés de la Cruz, Sor, A Sor Juana Anthology, ed. and tr. Alan S. Trueblood,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, .
Kircher, Athanasius, Oedipus Aegyptiacus,  vols., Rome: Mascardi, –.
——Turris Babel, Amsterdam, .
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Opera Omnia,  vols., ed. Ludovici Dutens, Geneva:
De Tournes, : repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, .


 
——Mathematische Schriften,  vols., ed. C.I. Gerhardt, Berlin: A. Asher/Halle:
H.W. Schmidt, –; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, .
——Nouvelles lettres et opuscules inédits de Leibniz, ed. Alexandre Foucher de Careil,
Paris: Ladrange, .
——Die Philosophischen Schriften,  vols., ed. C.I. Gerhardt, Berlin: Weidemann
Buchhandlung, –; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, .
——Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, ed. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Berlin: Akademie Verlag, –.
——Textes inédits d’après des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque provinciale d’Hanovre, 
vols., ed. Gaston Grua, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, .
——Leibniz’ deutsche Schriften,  vols., ed. G.E. Guhrauer, Berlin: –.
——Selections, ed. P.P. Wiener, New York: Scribner’s, .
——Philosophical Papers and Letters, nd ed., ed. and tr. Leroy E. Loemker, Boston:
Reidel, .
——New Essays on Human Understanding, ed. and tr. Peter Remnant, Jonathan Ben-
nett, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, .
——Philosophical Essays, ed. and tr. Roger Ariew, Daniel Garber, Indianapolis:
Hackett, .
——Leibniz Korrespondiert mit China: Der Briefwechsel mit dem Jesuiten Missionaren
(–), ed. Rita Widmaier, Frankfurt: Klostermann, .
——De Summa Rerum: Metaphysical Papers –, ed. G.H.R. Parkinson, New
Haven: Yale University Press, .
——Writings on China, ed. and tr. Daniel J. Cook, Henry Rosemont, Jr., La Salle,
IL: Open Court, .
——Confessio Philosophi: Papers Concerning the Problem of Evil: –, ed.
R.C. Sleigh, Jr., in The Yale Leibniz, New Haven: Yale University Press, forth-
coming.
Micraelius, Johann, Lexicon Philosophicum Terminorum Philosophis Usitatorum,
Jena, .
Nifo, Agostino, De Intellectu, Venice, .
Nizolio, Mario, De Veris Principiis et Vera Ratione Philosophandi contra
Pseudophilosophos, Parma, ; G.W. Leibniz, ed., Frankfurt, .
Petrarch, Francesco, On his Own Ignorance and that of Many Others, tr. Hans Na-
chod, in The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, ed. Ernst Cassirer, Paul O. Kris-
teller, John Herman Randall, Jr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ,
–.
Philo, The Works of Philo, tr. C.D. Yonge, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, .
Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni, De Hominis Dignitate, Heptaplus, De Ente et Uno, e
Scritti Vari, ed. Eugenio Garin, Florence, .
——On the Dignity of Man, On Being and One, Heptaplus, tr. Charles G. Wallis, Paul
J.W. Miller, Douglas Carmichael, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, .
Plotinus, Enneads, tr. A.H. Armstrong, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, .
Reuchlin, Johann, Johann Reuchlin: On the Art of the Kabbalah, tr. Martin Good-
man, Sarah Goodman, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, .
Scherzer, Johann Adam, Trifolium Orientale, Leipzig: J. Bauer .
——Collegii anti-Sociniani, rd ed., Leipzig and Frankfurt: N. Scipio, .
——Joh. Adami Scherzeri Ingenui Praesulatus Misnensis ac R. Capit. S. Petri Bud-
issin. Resp. praepositi ac senioris dissertationum theologicarum fasciculus. Prodiit


 
adjectis VI. Indicibus necesariis. Cum privelegio Elect. Saxon., Leipzig: N. Sci-
pio, .
——Vade Mecum Sive Manuale Philosophicum Qvadripartitum, Leipzig, .
Stahl, Daniel, Compendium Metaphysicae in XXIV Tabellas redactum, Jena, .
Sturm, Johann Christoph, Philosophia Eclectica, Altdorf, .
Thomasius, Jakob, Breviarium Ethicorum Aristotelis ad Nicomachum, Leipzig,
.
——Johann von Wower, de Polymathia Tractatio, Leipzig, .
——Schediasma Historicum, Leipzig, .
——Physica, Perpetuo Dialogo, Leipzig: G.H. Frommann, , .
——Exercitatio de Stoica Mundi Exustione, Leipzig: F. Lanckisius, .
——Praefationes sub Auspicia Disputationum Suarum in Academia, Leipzig: J.
Fuhrmann & M. Ritter, .
——Paulus Manutius, Epistolarum libri XII., Leipzig, .
——Physica; Logica; Metaphysica, and Rhetorica, published together, Leipzig,
.
——Physica, Perpetuo dialogo, suis tamen capitibus interciso, sic adornata, ut scientia
naturalis non tantum definiendo ac dividendo, sed etiam celebrioribus attingendis
controversiis, idque plana methodo nec difficili, explicetur, Leipzig,  (first
published in ).
——Dissertationes LXIII & Varii Argumenti Magnam Partem ad Historiam Philo-
sophicam & Ecclesiasticam Pertinentes, ed. and preface by Christian Thomasius,
Halle, .
——Origines Historiae Philosophicae & Ecclesiasticae, preface by Christian Thoma-
sius, Halle: J.G. Renger, .
——ed., Marcus Antonius Muretus: Orationes, Epistolae, & Poemata, Leipzig, .
——ed., Johann Von Wower, De Polymathia Tractatio, ed. Jakob Thomasius,
Leipzig,
.
Weigel, Erhard, Analysis Aristotelica ex Euclide Restituta, Jena: Grosium, .
——Idea Matheseos Universae, cum Speciminibus Mathematicarum, Jena: J.J.
Bauhofer, .
Wilkins, John, Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language, Lon-
don, .

Secondary texts
Adams, Robert M., “Phenomenalism and Corporeal Substance in Leibniz,” in
French, Uehling, Wettstein, eds., Contemporary Perspectives on the History of
Philosophy, , –.
——Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 
——“Leibniz’s Examination of the Christian Religion,” Faith and Philosophy, .
(Oct. ): –.
Aiton, Eric J., Leibniz: A Biography, Bristol: Adam Hilger, .
Åkerman, S., Queen Christina of Sweden and her Circle: The Transformation of a
Seventeenth-Century Philosophical Libertine, Leiden: E. J. Brill, .
Antognazza, Maria Rosa, “Immeatio and Emperichoresis: The Theological Roots of
Harmony in Bisterfeld and Leibniz,” in Brown, ed., The Philosophy of the
Young Leibniz, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, , –.
Ariew, Roger, “Descartes and Scholasticism: The Intellectual Background to


 
Descartes’ Thought,” in Cottingham, ed., Descartes: The Cambridge Compan-
ion, , –.
——“G.W. Leibniz: Life and Works,” in Jolley, ed., Leibniz: The Cambridge Com-
panion, , –.
Ariew, Roger and Gabbey, Alan, “The Scholastic Background,” in Garber and Ay-
ers, eds., The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, ,
–.
Armstrong, A.H., The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Phi-
losophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, .
——“Plotinus,” in Armstrong, ed., The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early
Medieval Philosophy, , –.
Arthur, Richard T.W., “Russell’s Conundrum: On the Relation of Leibniz’s Mon-
ads to the Continuum,” in J. R. Brown and J. Mittelstrass, eds., An Intimate Re-
lation: Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Presented to Robert E.
Butts on his th Birthday, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, ,
–.
——The Labyrinth of the Continuum, New Haven: Yale University Press, forth-
coming.
Ashworth, E. J., “Traditional logic,” in Schmitt and Skinner, eds., The Cambridge
History of Renaissance Philosophy, , –.
Bassler, O. Bradley, “Leibniz on Indefinite as Infinite,” The Review of Metaphysics,
vol. li, no. , June , –.
Beck, Lewis White, Early German Philosophy: Kant and his Predecessors, Wilshire:
Thoemmes Press, .
Beeley, Philip, Kontinuität und Mechanismus, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, .
——“A Response to Arthur, Mercer, Smith, and Wilson,” Leibniz Society Review 
(Dec. ): –.
Belaval, Yvon, Leibniz: Initiation à sa Philosophie, Paris: J. Vrin, .
——“Premières Animadversions sur les ‘Principes’ de Descartes,” repr. in Études
leibniziennes (Paris, Éditions Gallimard, ), –.
Bernstein, Howard, “Conatus, Hobbes, and the Young Leibniz,” Studies in the His-
tory of Science , (): –.
Bettenson, Henry, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, New York and London:
Oxford University Press, .
Blumenfeld, David, “Perfection and Happiness in the Best Possible World,” in Jol-
ley, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz, , –.
Blumenthal, Henry J., “On Soul and Intellect,” in Gerson, ed., The Cambridge Com-
panion to Plotinus, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, , –.
Boas, Marie, “The Establishment of the Mechanical Philosophy,” Osiris  ():
–.
Bohatec, Josef, Die cartesianische Scholastik in der Philosophie und reformierten Dog-
matik des . Jahrhundert, Leipzig: A. Deichert, .
Bouillier, Francisque, Histoire de la philosophie cartésienne,  vols., Paris, , repr.
New York: Garland, .
Breger, Herbert, “Das Kontinuum bei Leibniz,” in A. Lamarra, ed., L’infinito in
Leibniz: Problemi e terminologica, Rome: Edizioni dell’ Ateneo, , –.
Broad, C.D., Leibniz: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
.
Brockliss, L.W.B., “Aristotle, Descartes, and the New Science: Natural Philosophy
at the University of Paris, –,” Annals of Science  (): –.


 
——French Higher Education in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, .
Brown, Stuart, Leibniz, Sussex: Harvester, .
——“Leibniz: Modern, Scholastic, or Renaissance Philosopher?” in Sorell, ed., The
Rise of Modern Philosophy, , –.
——“The Seventeenth-Century Intellectual Background,” in Jolley, ed., The Cam-
bridge Companion to Leibniz, , –.
——“Leibniz’s ‘New System’ Strategy,” in Woolhouse, ed., Leibniz’s ‘New System’
(), , –.
——ed., The Young Leibniz and his Philosophy: –, Dordrecht: Kluwer Aca-
demic Press, .
——“The Proto-Monadology of the De Summa Rerum,” in Brown, The Young Leib-
niz and his Philosophy: –, –.
Burke, Peter, “The Spread of Italian Humanism,” Goodman, Mackay, eds., The
Impact of Humanism on Western Europe, London: Longman, , –.
Burtt, E. A., The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Phycial Science, rev. ed., Gar-
den City, NY: Doubleday, .
Bussanich, John, “Plotinus’s Metaphysics of the One,” in Gerson, ed., The Cam-
bridge Companion to Plotinus, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ,
–.
Capek, Milic, “Leibniz on Matter and Memory,” in Leclerc, ed., The Philosophy of
Leibniz and the Modern World, , –.
Carraud, Vincent and de Buzon, Frédéric, Descartes et les Principia II: Corps et mou-
vement, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, .
Cassirer, Ernst, Kristeller, Paul O., and Randall, John H., eds., The Renaissance Phi-
losophy of Man, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, .
Cook, Daniel J., “Leibniz: Biblical Historian and Exegete,” in I. Marchlewitz, A.
Heinekamp, eds., Leibniz’ Auseinandersetzung mit Vorgängern und Zeitgenossen,
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, , –.
——“Understanding the ‘Other’ Leibniz,” Philosopher’s Forum  (Spring ):
–.
——“Leibniz’s Use and Abuse of Judaism and Islam,” in M. Dascal, E. Yakira, eds.,
Leibniz and Adam, Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects Ltd., , –.
——“The Young Leibniz and the Concept of Historical Truth,” in Brown, ed., The
Young Leibniz and his Philosophy, –.
Copenhaver, Brian P. and Schmitt, Charles B., Renaissance Philosophy, Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press, .
Costabel, Pierre, Leibniz and Dynamics: The Texts of , tr. R.E.W. Maddison,
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, .
Cottingham, J., ed., Descartes: The Cambridge Companion, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, .
Coudert, Allison, Leibniz and the Kabbalah, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers,
.
Couturat, Louis, La logique de Leibniz, d’après des documents inédits, Paris: Alcan,
.
—— “Sur la Métaphysique de Leibniz,” Revue de métaphysique et de morale 
(): –; tr. R. Allison Ryan, “On Leibniz’s Metaphysics,” in Frankfurt,
ed., Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays, , –.
Cover, Jan A. and Kulstad, Mark, eds., Central Themes in Early Modern Philosophy:
Essays Presented to Jonathan Bennett, Indianapolis: Hackett, .


 
Curley, Edwin, Behind the Geometrical Method: A Reading of Spinoza’s Ethics,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, .
——“Homo Audax: Leibniz, Oldenburg and the TTP,” Studia Leibnitiana Supple-
menta  (): –.
Debus, Allen G., Science and Education in the Seventeenth Century: The Web-
ster–Ward Debate, London: MacDonald & Co., .
——Man and Nature in the Renaissance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
.
Deleuze, Gilles, The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque, tr. Tom Conley, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, .
De Olaso, Ezequiel, “Leibniz and Scepticism,” in R. Popkin and C.B. Schmitt, eds.,
Sceptisism from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Wolfenbütteler Forschun-
gen  (): –.
Des Chene, Dennis, Physiologia: Natural Philosopohy in Late Aristotelian and Carte-
sian Thought, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 
Di Napoli, G., L’Immortalità dell’anima nel Rinascimento, Turin: Società editrice in-
ternazionale, .
Döring, Detlef, G., “Der junge Leibniz und die Gelehrtengesellschaften in Leipzig
and Jena,” in Wissenschaft und Weltgestaltung, eds., Kurt Nowak and Hans Poser.
Duschesneau, François, Leibniz et la méthode de la science, Paris: Presses Universi-
taires, .
——La dynamique de Leibniz, Paris: Vrin, .
——“Leibniz’s Models for a Science of Nature,” in Wissenschaft und Weltgestaltung,
eds., Kurt Nowak and Hans Poser.
Duhem, Pierre Maurice, Le système du monde: histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de
Platon à Copernic,  vols., Paris: Hermann, –.
Düring, Ingemar, “The Impact of Aristotle’s Scientific Ideas in the Middle Ages
and at the Beginning of the Scientific Revolution,” Archiv für Geschichte der
Philosophie  (): –.
Eliot, T.S., “Leibniz’s Monads and Bradley’s Finite Centers,” The Monist  ():
–.
——“The Development of Leibniz’s Monadism,” The Monist  (): –.
Emilsson, Eyjólfur. K., Plotinus on Sense-Perception: A Philosophical Study, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, .
——“Plotinus on the Intelligible,” forthcoming.
——“Cognition and Its Object,” in Gerson, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Plot-
inus, , –.
Evans, Gillian R., Philosophy and Theology in the Middle Ages, New York: Routledge,
.
Fichant, Michel, “Les concepts fondamentaux de la mécanique selon Leibniz en
,” Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa  (): –.
Fischer, Kuno, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Leben, Werke, und Lehre, th ed., Heidel-
berg: C. Winter, .
Flew, Antony, An Introduction to Western Philosophy, London: Bobbs-Merrill, .
Foucher de Careil, Alexandre, Mémoire sur la philosophie de Leibniz, Paris: F.R. de
Rudeval, .
Fouke, Daniel C., “Mechanical and ‘Original’ Models in Seventeenth-Century
Explanations of Biological Reproduction,” Science in Context . ():
–.
——“Spontaneity and the Generation of Rational Beings in Leibniz’s Theory of Bi-


 
ological Reproduction,” Journal of the History of Philosophy  (Jan. ):
–.
——“Leibniz’s Opposition to Cartesian Bodies during the Paris Period, –,”
Studia Leibnitiana . (): –.
——“Metaphysics and the Eucharist in the Early Leibniz,” Studia Leibnitiana 
(): –.
——“Emanation and the Perfections of Being: Divine Causation and the Autonomy
of Nature in Leibniz,” Archiv für Geschichte die Philosophie  (): –.
——“Dynamics and Transubstantiation in Leibniz’s Systema Theologicum,” Jour-
nal of the History of Philosophy, forthcoming.
Frankfurt, Harry G., ed., Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays, Notre Dame: Uni-
versity of Notre Dame Press, 
Freddoso, Fred J., “Medieval Aristotelianism and the Case against Secondary Cau-
sation in Nature,” in T.V. Morris, ed., Divine and Human Action, Ithaca: Cor-
nell University Press, , –.
Frede, Michael, “The Original Notion of Cause,” in M. Schofield, M. Burnyeat, J.
Barnes, eds., Doubt and Dogmatism, Oxford: Clarendon Press, , –.
Freedman, Joseph S., European Academic Philosophy in the Late Sixteenth and Early
Seventeenth Centuries: The Life, Significance, and Philosophy of Clemens Tim-
pler (/–),  vols., New York: Georg Olms, .
French, Peter, Uehling, Theodore, and Wettstein, Howard, eds., Contemporary Per-
spectives on the History of Philosophy (Midwest Studies in Philosophy ), Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, .
Frischeisen-Koehler, Max and Moog, Willy, Friedrich Ueberwegs Grundriß der
Geschichte der Philosophie: Dritter Teil: Die Philosophie der Neuzeit bis zum Ende
des XVIII. Jahrhunderts, th ed., Basel: Benno Schwabe & Co., .
Gabbey, Alan, “Henry More and the Limits of Mechanism,” in Hutton, ed., Henry
More (–): Tercentenary Studies, , –.
Garber, Daniel, “Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Middle Years,” in
D. Okruhlik, J.R. Brown, eds., The Natural Philosophy of Leibniz, Dordrecht:
D. Reidel, , –
——“Motion and Metaphysics in the Young Leibniz,” in Hooker, ed., Leibniz: Crit-
ical and Interpretative Essays, , –.
——“Mind, Body and the Laws of Nature in Descartes and Leibniz,” in French,
Uehling, Wettstein, eds., Contemporary Perspectives on the History of Philoso-
phy, : –.
——“Descartes, The Aristotelians, and The Revolution that Did Not Happen in
,” The Monist  (): –.
——“Review: Leibniz’s Metaphysics: A Historical and Comparative Study by Cather-
ine Wilson; Leibniz and Arnauld: A Commentary on their Correspondence by
Robert C. Sleigh, Jr.,” The Journal of Philosophy . (Mar. ): –.
——Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, .
——“Leibniz: Physics and Philosophy,” in Jolley, ed., The Cambridge Companion to
Leibniz, , –.
——“Leibniz on Form and Matter,” Early Science and Medicine: A Journal for the
Study of Science, Technology and Medicine in the Pre-modern Period . (Oct.
): –.
Garber, Daniel and Ayers, Michael, eds., The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-
Century Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, .
Garin, Eugenio, Ritratti di Umanisti, Florence: Sanson, .


 
Gensni, Stefano, Il Naturale e il Simbolico: Saggio su Leibniz, Rome: Bulzoni, .
Gerson, Lloyd, The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, .
Gilbert, Neal, Renaissance Concepts of Method, New York: Columbia University
Press, .
Gillispie, Charles C., ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography,  vols., New York:
Scribner, –.
Gilson, Etienne, “Humanisme médiéval et renaissance” in Les idées et les lettres,
Paris: J. Vrin, , –.
——Index Scholastico-Cartesien, Paris: J. Vrin, .
Goodman, Anthony and Mackay, Angus, eds., The Impact of Humanism on Western
Europe, Longman: London, .
Goodman, Martin, and Goodman, Sarah, trs., Johann Reuchlin: On the Art of the
Kabbalah, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, .
Goldenbaum, Ursula, “Transubstantiation, Physics and Philosophy at the Time of
the Catholic Demonstrations,” in Brown, ed., The Young Leibniz and His Philos-
ophy, –.
Gracia, Jorge E., Suarez on Individuation, Metaphysical Disputation V: Individual
Unity and Its Principle, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, .
——Introduction to the Problem of Individuation in the Early Middle Ages, Washing-
ton, D.C.: Catholic University Press, .
Grafton, Anthony and Blair, Ann, eds., The Transmission of Culture in Early Mod-
ern Europe, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, .
——Defenders of the Text: The Tradition of Scholarship in an Age of Science,
–, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, .
Grant, Edward, “The Effect of the Condemnation of ,” in Kretzman, Kenny,
Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, , –.
Gueroult, Martial, Dynamique et métaphysique leibniziennes, Paris: Aubier-Mon-
taigne, .
Guhrauer, G. E., Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von Leibnitz: Eine Biographie,  vols.,
Breslau, . Repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, .
Hannequin, Arthur, “La première philosophie de Leibnitz,” in Études d’histoire des
sciences et d’histoire de la philosophie, vol. , Paris: Alcan, , –.
Hartz, Glenn, “Why Corporeal Substances Keep Popping Up in Leibniz’s Later
Philosophy,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, v. , no. , June, ,
–.
——“Exactly How are Leibnizian Substances Related to Extension?” in Woolhouse,
ed., Leibniz’s ‘New System’ (), , –.
——“Leibniz’s Phenomenalisms,” The Philosophical Review  (Jul. ): –.
Hissette, Roland, Enquête sur les  condamnés à Paris le  Mars , Louvain:
Publications Universitaires, .
Hochstetter, Erich, “Leibniz-Interpretation,” Revue de métaphysique et de morale 
(): –.
Hoffding, Harold, A History of Modern Philosophy, vol. ,tr. B.E. Meyer, New York:
Dover Publications, .
Hoffman, Joseph E., “Leibniz,” in Gillispie, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography,
vol. , New York: Scribner, , –.
Hooker, Michael, ed., Leibniz: Critical and Interpretative Essays, Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, .


 
Hutton, Sarah, ed., Henry More (–): Tercentenary Studies, Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, .
Idel, Moshe, “Introduction to the Bison Book Edition,” in Goodman, Goodman,
trs., Johann Reuchlin: On the Art of the Kabbalah, , v–xxix.
Jardine, Lisa, “Lorenzo Valla: Academic Skepticism and the New Humanist
Dialectic,” in M. Burnyeat, ed., The Skeptical Tradition, Berkeley: University
of California Press, , –.
——“Humanist logic,” in Schmitt and Skinner, eds., The Cambridge History of Re-
naissance Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, , –.
Jasper, J., Leibniz und die Scholastik: Eine historisch-kritische Abhandlung, Münster:
Westfälische Vereinsdruckerei, /.
Jolley, Nicholas, “Leibniz and Phenomenalism,” Studia Leibnitiana  (): –.
——The Light of the Soul: Theories of Idea in Leibniz, Malebranche, and Descartes,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, .
——ed., The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz, New York: Cambridge University
Press, .
——“The Relation between Theology and Philosophy,” in Garber, Ayers, eds., The
Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, , –.
Jones, G. Lloyd, “Introduction” in Goodman and Goodman, trs., Johann Reuchlin:
On the Art of the Kabbalah, , –.
Joseph, H.W.B., Lectures on the Philosophy of Leibniz, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
.
Kabitz, Willy, Die Philosophie des jungen Leibniz, Heidelberg: C. Winter, .
Kaehler, Klaus E., Leibniz’ Position der Rationalität, Munich: Alber, .
Kargon, Robert H., Atomism in England from Harriot to Newton, London: Oxford
University Press, .
Kenny, Anthony, The Oxford Illustrated History of Western Philosophy, Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press, .
Kenny, Neil, The Palace of Secrets: Béroalde de Verville and Renaissance Conceptions
of Knowledge, Oxford: Oxford University Press, .
Kessler, Eckhard, “The Intellective Soul,” in Schmitt, Skinner, eds., The Cambridge
History of Renaissance Philosophy, , –.
Kneale, William and Martha, The Development of Logic, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
.
Kraye, Jill, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Humanism, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, .
——“Moral Philosophy, in Schmitt, Skinner, eds., The Cambridge History of Re-
naissance Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –.
Kretzman, Norman, Kenny, Anthony and Pinborg, Jan, eds., The Cambridge His-
tory of Later Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
.
——“A Particular Problem of Creation,” in Scott McDonald, ed., Being and Good-
ness: The Concept of the Good in Metaphysics and Philosophical Theology, Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, , –.
Kristeller, Paul O., “Humanism and Scholasticism in the Italian Renaissance,”
Byzantion  (–): –.
——The Classics and Renaissance Thought, Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
.


 
——Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters, Rome: Ediziona di Storia e Letter-
atura, .
——La tradizione Aristotelica nel Rinascimento, Padua: Antenore, .
——Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance, Stanford: Stanford University
Press, .
——and Mooney, Michael, eds., Renaissance Thought and its Sources, New York: Co-
lumbia University Press, .
Kulstad, Mark, “Leibniz’s Conception of Expression,” Studia Leibnitiana  ():
–.
——Leibniz on Apperception, Consciousness, and Reflection, Munich: Philosophia,
.
——“Causation and Pre-Established Harmony in the Early Development of Leib-
niz’s Philosophy,” in Nadler, ed., Causation in Early Modern Philosophy, ,
–.
——“Did Leibniz Incline toward Monistic Pantheism in ?” Presented at the
International Leibniz Congress, July .
——“Leibniz, Spinoza, and Tchirnhaus: Multiple Worlds, Possible Worlds,” in
Brown, ed., The Young Leibniz and his Philosophy: –, –.
Lasswitz, Kurd, “Die Erneuerung der Atomistik in Deutschland durch Daniel Sen-
nert und sein Zusammenhang mit Asklepiades von Bithynien,” Vierteljahrss-
chrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie  (): –.
Leclerc, Ivor, ed., The Philosophy of Leibniz and the Modern World, Nashville: Van-
derbilt University Press, .
Leijenhorst, Cees, Hobbes and the Aristotelians: The Aristotelian Setting of Thomas
Hobbes’ Natural Philosophy, Utrecht: Publications of the Zeno Institute of Phi-
losophy, vol. , .
Leinkauf, Thomas, Mundus combinatus: Studien zur Struktur der barocken Univer-
salwissenschaft am Beispiel Athanasius Kirchers SF (–), Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, .
Leinsle, Ulrich Gottfried, Reformversuche protestantischer Metaphysik im Zeitalter
des Rationalismus, Augsburg: Marlo, .
Levine, Michael P., Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity, London: Rout-
ledge, .
Lewalter, Ernst, Spanisch-Jesuitische und Deutsch-Lutherische Metaphysik des .
Jahrhunderts, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, .
Lodge, Paul, “Liebniz’s Commitment to Pre-established Harmony in the Late
s and Early s,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, ,  (),
–.
Loemker, Leroy E., “Leibniz and the Herborn Encyclopedists,” Journal of the His-
tory of Ideas  (): –.
——Struggle for Synthesis, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, .
——“Leibniz’s Conception of Philosophical Method,” in Leclerc, ed., The Philos-
ophy of Leibniz and the Modern World, , –.
Lohr, C. H., “The Medieval Interpretation of Aristotle,” in Kretzman, Kenny and
Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, , –.
——“Metaphysics,” in Schmitt and Skinner, eds., The Cambridge History of Re-
naissance Philosophy, –.
Lovejoy, Arthur, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea, Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, .


 
Lüthy, Christoph and Newman, Williaim R., “Matter and Form: By Way of a Pref-
ace,” Early Science and Medicine: A Journal for the Study of Science, Technol-
ogy and Medicine in the Pre-modern Period, . (October ): –.
Mahnke, Dietrich, Leibnizens Synthese von Universalmathematik und Individual-
metaphysik. Freiburg: M. Niemeyer, .
Marschlick, Annette, Die Substanz als Hypothese: Leibniz’ Metaphysik des Wissens,
Berlin: Akademie, .
Mates, Benson, The Philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and Languge, Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press, .
Marion, Jean-Luc, “The Idea of God,” in Garber, Ayers, eds., The Cambridge His-
tory of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, , –.
McCullough, Lawrence B., “Leibniz and Traditional Philosophy,” Studia Leibni-
tiana  (): –.
——Leibniz on Individuals and Individuation, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, .
McConica, James, “Humanism and Aristotle in Tudor Oxford,” The English His-
torical Review  (): –.
Meagher, Paul K., O’Brien, Thomas C., and Aherne, Consuelo Maria, eds., Ency-
clopedic Dictionary of Religion,  vols., Washington, D.C.: Corpus Publications,
.
Menn, Stephen, Descartes and Augustine, Cambridge University Press: New York,
.
——“The Intellectual Setting,” in Garber and Ayers, eds., The Cambridge History
of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, , –.
Mercer, Christia, The Origins and Development of Leibniz’s Metaphysics, Ph.D. the-
sis, Princeton University, .
——“The Seventeenth-Century Debate between the Moderns and the Aris-
totelians: Leibniz and Philosophia Reformata,” Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa
 (): –.
——“The Vitality and Importance of Early Modern Aristotelianism,” in Sorell, ed.,
The Rise of Modern Philosophy, , –.
——co-athored with Sleigh, Robert C., Jr., “Metaphysics: The Early Period to the
Discourse on Metaphysics,” in Jolley, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz,
, –.
——“Mechanizing Aristotle: Leibniz and Reformed Philosophy,” Oxford Studies in
the History of Philosophy, vol. , Oxford: Clarendon Press, , –.
——“Humanist Platonism in Seventeenth-Century Germany,” in Jill Kraye, Mar-
tin Stone, eds., London Studies in the History of Philosophy, vol. , London:
Routledge, .
——“Clauberg, Corporeal Substance, and the German Response,” in T. Verbeek,
ed., The Philosophy of Johann Clauberg, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, , –.
——“Leibniz’s Teachers: Their Eclecticism and Platonism,” in Brown, ed.,The
Philosophy of the Young Leibniz, , –.
——“Leibniz and Spinoza on Substance and Mode,” Rationalists, ed. Derk Pere-
boom, Rowman and Littlefield, , –.
——“Divine Madness”: Metaphysics, Method, and Mind in Seventeenth-Century
Continental Philosophy, in progress.
Merchant, Carolyn, “The Vitalism of Anne Conway: Its Impact on Leibniz’s Con-
cept of the Monad,” Journal of the History of Philosophy  (): –.


 
Merlan, P., “Greek Philosophy from Plato to Plotinus,” in Armstrong, ed., The Cam-
bridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, , –.
Meyer, Rudolf, “Leibniz und Plotin,” Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa  ():
–.
Moll, Konrad, Der junge Leibniz,  vols., Stuttgart: Fromann-Holzboog, .
Mondadori, Fabrizio, “Mirrors of the Universe,” Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa:
–.
——“Reference, Essentialism, and Modality in Leibniz’s Metaphysics,” Studia
Leibnitiana . (): –.
——“A Harmony of One’s Own and Universal Harmony in Leibniz’s Paris Writ-
ings,” Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa  (): Leibniz a Paris (–),
–.
——“On Some Disputed Questions in Leibniz’s Metaphysics,” Studia Leibnitiana
. (): –.
Mugnai, Massimo, “Der Begriff der Harmonie als metaphysische Grundlage der
Logik und Kombinatorik bei Johann Heinrich Bisterfield und Leibniz,” Stu-
dia Leibnitiana  (): –.
Müller, Kurt and Krönert, Gisela, Leben und Werk von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz:
Eine Chronik, Frankfurt: Klostermann, .
——and Heinekamp, Albert, Leibniz-Bibliographie: die Literatur über Leibniz bis
, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, .
Mungello, D.E., “European Philosophical Responses to Non-European Culture:
China,” in Garber, Ayers, eds., The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century
Philosophy, , –.
Nadler, Steven, ed., Causation in Early Modern Philosophy, University Park: Penn-
sylvania State University Press, .
——“Doctrines of Explanation in Late Scholasticism and in the Mechanical Phi-
losophy,” in Garber and Ayers, eds., The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-
Century Philosophy, , –.
Nowak, Kurt and Poser, Hans eds., Wissenschaft und Weltgestaltung: Internationales
Symposion zum . Geburtstag von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Hildesheim:
Georg Olms, .
O’Brien, Denis, “Plotinus on Matter and Evil,” in Gerson, ed., The Cambridge Com-
panion to Plotinus, –.
O’Meara, Dominic J., “The Hierarchical Ordering of Reality in Plotinus,” in Ger-
son, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, , –.
O’Neill, Eileen, “Influxus Physicus,” in Nadler, ed., Causation in Early Modern Phi-
losophy, –.
Osler, Margaret, “Eternal Truths and the Laws of Nature: The Theological Foun-
dations of Descartes’ Philosophy of Nature,” Journal of the History of Ideas
. (): –.
——“Ancients, Moderns, and the History of Philosophy: Gassendi’s Epicurean Pro-
ject,” in Sorell, ed., The Rise of Modern Philosophy, , –.
——Divine Will and the Mechanical Philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on Contin-
gency and Necessity in the Created World, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, .
Parkinson, G.H.R., “Leibniz’s Paris Writings in Relation to Spinoza,” Studia Leib-
nitiana Supplementa  (): Leibniz à Paris (–), –.
Pätzold, Detlev, Spinoaa-Aufklärung-Idealismus, Frankfurt: Peter Land, .


 
Petersen, Peter, Geschichte der aristotelischen Philosophie im protestantischen Deutsch-
land, Leipzig: F. Meiner, .
Piro, Francesco, Varietas Identitate Compensata: Studio sulla formazione della
metafisica di Leibniz, Naples: Bibliopolis, .
——“Leibniz and Ethics: The Years –,” in Brown, ed., The Young Leibniz
and his Philosophy, –.
Politella, Joseph, “Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Cabalism in the Philosophy of
Leibniz,” unpublished dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
.
Popkin, Richard H., “Leibniz and the French Sceptics,” Revue Internationale de
Philosophie  (): –.
——“The Third Force in Seventeenth-Century Thought: Skepticism, Science, and
Millenarianism,” in Edna Ullmann-Margalit, ed., The Prism of Science, Boston:
Reidel Publishing Company, , –.
——“The Religious Background of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy,” Journal of
the History of Philosophy  (): –.
Poser, Hans, “Leibniz’ Parisaufenthalt in Seiner Bedeutung für die Monadenlehre,”
Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa  (): Leibniz à Paris (–), –.
Pyle, A.J., Atomism and Its Critics, London: Routledge, .
Randall, John H., Jr., “The Development of Scientific Method in the School of
Padua,” Journal of the History of Ideas  (): –.
——The School of Padua and the Emergence of Modern Science, Padua: Editrice An-
tenore, .
——The Career of Philosophy, New York: Columbia University Press, .
Reif, Patricia, “The Textbook Tradition in Natural Philosophy, –,” Jour-
nal of the History of Ideas  (): –.
Reinhardt, Karl, Kosmos und Sympathie, Munich: C.H. Beck, .
Rescher, Nicholas, The Philosophy of Leibniz, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
.
——“Logical Difficulties in Leibniz’s Metaphysics,” Studia Leibnitiana Supple-
menta (): –; reprinted in Leclerc, ed., The Philosophy of Leibniz and
the Modern World, , –.
——“The Contributions of the Paris Period (–) to Leibniz’s Metaphysics,”
Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa  (): Leibniz à Paris (–), –.
——Leibniz: An Introduction to his Philosophy, Guildford: Billing & Sons Limited,
.
——Leibniz’s Metaphysics of Nature, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, .
Riley, Patrick, Leibniz’ Universal Jurisprudence: Justice as the Charity of the Wise,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, .
Rintelen, Fritz J. von, “Leibnizens Beziehungen zur Scholastik,” Archiv für
Geschichte der Philosophie  (): –.
Rist, John M., Plotinus: The Road to Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, .
Rist, John M., “Plotinus and Christian Philosophy,” in Gerson, ed., The Cambridge
Companion to Plotinus, , –.
Robinet, André, Architectonique disjonctive automates systémiques et idéalité transcen-
dantale dans l’oeuvre de G.W. Leibniz, Paris: J. Vrin, .
——Malebranche et Leibniz: relations personnelles, Paris: Vrin, .
Rodier, G., “Plotin: Sur une des origenes de la philosophie de Leibniz,” Revue de
métaphysique et de morale, Paris, .


 
Russell, Bertrand, History of Western Philosophy, New York: Simon & Schuster,
.
——A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz, Northhampton: John Dick-
ens and Co., .
Rutherford, Donald, “Phenomenalism and the Reality of Body in Leibniz’s Later
Philosophy,” Studia Leibnitiana  (): –.
——“Leibniz’s Theory of Intelligibility,” History of Philosophy Quarterly  ():
–.
——Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature, New York: Cambridge University
Press, .
——“Demonstration and Reconciliation: the Eclipse of the Geometrical Method in
Leibniz’s Philosophy,” in Woolhouse, ed., Leibniz’s ‘New System’ (),
, –.
Sambursky, S., Physics of the Stoics, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, .
Schmitt, Charles B., “Aristotle as a Cuttlefish: The Origin and Development of an
Image,” Studies in the Renaissance  (): –.
——“Perennial Philosophy: From Agostino Steuco to Leibniz,” Journal of the His-
tory of Philosophy  (): –.
——Critical Survey and Bibliography of Studies on Renaissance Aristotelianism,
Padua: Antenore, .
——“Towards a Reassessment of Renaissance Aristotelianism,” History of Science
 (): –.
——Aristotle and the Renaissance, Cambridge, MA: Published for Oberlin College
by Harvard University Press, .
——John Case and Aristotelianism in Renaissance England, Montreal: McGuill-
Queen’s University Press, .
——The Aristotelian Tradition and Renaissance Universities, London: Variorum
Reprints, .
——“The Rise of the Philosophical Textbook,” in Schmitt, Skinner, eds., The Cam-
bridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, , –.
——Quentin Skinner, and Eckhard Kessler, eds., The Cambridge History of Renais-
sance Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, .
Schneiders, Werner, “Deus Subjectum: Zur Entwicklung der leibnizschen Meta-
physik,” Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa  (): Leibniz à Paris (–),
–.
Shapin, Steven, The Scientific Revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
.
Singer, Charles, A Short History of Scientific Ideas to , Oxford: Clarendon
Press, .
Sleigh, R.C., Jr, “Truth and Sufficient Reason in the Philosophy of Leibniz,” in
Hooker, ed., Leibniz: Critical and Interpretive Essays, , –.
——“Leibniz on the Two Great Principles of All Our Reasonings,” in French,
Uehling and Wettstein, eds., Contemporary Perspectives on the History of Phi-
losophy, , –.
——Leibniz and Arnauld: A Commentary on their Correspondence, New Haven: Yale
University Press, .
——“Leibniz on Malebranche on Causality,” in Cover and Kulstad, eds., Central
Themes in Early Modern Philosophy, , –.
Smith, Justin: Leibniz, Microscopy, and the Metaphysics of Composite Substance,
Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, .


 
Sorell, Tom, ed., The Rise of Modern Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press, .
Southgate, Beverley C., “Covetous of Truth”: The Life and Work of Thomas White,
–, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, .
Stein, Ludwig, Leibniz und Spinoza, Berlin: Georg Reimer,.
Stieler, G., Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Ein Leben, Paderborn: F. Schoningh, .
Thorndike, Lynn, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, vols. –, New
York: MacMillan, –.
Totok, Wilhelm, Handbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie III: Renaissance, Frank-
furt: Klostermann, .
Trentman, John A., “Scholasticism in the Seventeenth Century,” in Kretzman,
Kenny, and Pinborg, eds., The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy,
, –.
Utermöhlem, Gerda, “Leibniz’ Antwort auf Christian Thomasius’ Frage, Quid sit
Substantia?” Studia Leibnitiana  (): –.
——“Die Literatur der Renaissance und des Humanismus in Leibniz’ privater
Büchersammlung,” Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa  (): –.
Verbeek, Theo, Descartes and the Dutch: Early Reactions to Cartesian Philosophy,
–, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, .
Wagner, Michael F., “Plotinus on the Nature of Physical Reality,” in Gerson, ed.,
Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, , –.
Waldemar, V., “Leibniz, Nizolius et le nominalisme moderne,” Studia Leibnitiana
Supplementa  (): Leibniz à Paris (–), –.
Walker, D. P., Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella, London:
Warburg Institute, .
——The Ancient Theology: Studies in Christian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the
Eighteenth Century, New York: Cornell University Press, .
Wallis, R. T., Neoplatonism, London: Gerald Duckworth and Co., .
Webster, Charles, The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform, –,
London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., .
Wilson, Catherine, Leibniz’s Metaphysics: A Historical and Comparative Study,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, .
——The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Micro-
scope, Princeton: Princeton University Press, .
——“Atoms, Minds, and Vortices in De Summa Rerum: Leibniz vis-à-vis Hobbes
and Spinoza,” in Brown, ed., The Young Leibniz and his Philosophy, –.
Wilson, Margaret, “Leibniz: Self-Consciousness and Immortality in the Paris Notes
and After (Summary),” Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa  (): Leibniz à
Paris (–), –.
Witt, Charlotte, Substance and Essence in Aristotle: An Interpretation of Metaphysics
VII-IX, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, .
Wollgast, Siegfried, Philosophie in Deutschland zwischen Reformation und Auf-
klärung, –, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, .
Woolhouse, Roger, ed., Leibniz’s ‘New System’ (), Florence: Leo S. Olschki
Editore, .
Wright, M. R., Cosmology in Antiquity, London: Routledge, .
Wundt, Max, Die Philosophie an der Universität Jena, Jena, .
——Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des . Jahrhunderts, Tübingen: J.C.P. Mohr,
.
Yates, Frances A., The Art of Memory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, .


Index Locorum/Index
 Index Locorum

I have restricted this index to works by Leibniz; other texts are included in
the main index. For texts frequently discussed, the (translated) title is given,
along with the page numbers of an English translation (when available);
then the page numbers of the full Leibniz text are given, along with the page
numbers in this book where discussion of the work occurs. Most other ci-
tations are to notes on the cited pages.

Academy edition Sept.  letter to Oldenburg

Ii –: , –, , –, , - ,
:  , , –
: 
II i : , , –, , , 
Feb.  letter to Thomasius : –, , 
–: –, , ,  : 
Oct.  letter to Thomasius : 
–: –, , , , , ,  : 
: –, ,  : 
: , –, ,  Dec.  letter to Thomasius
: ,  –: –, , –, –, 
: , ,  : , , –, –, , , ,
April  letter to Thomasius (L –) 
–: , , –, –, –, , : , –, , , , 
–, –, –, , –, , : 
–, ,  (see also VI ii –) Feb.  letter to Conring
: ,  –: , –, 
: , , , , ,  : , , , 
:  : , 
: , , ,  : 
: ,  : 
:  : 
: , , – –: , , 
: , ,  : , 
: , ,  : , 
: , , –,  : 
: , , , –, , –, , May  letter to Conring
 –: , 
:  : , , , , , , , 
: ,  : , , , , 
July  letter to Hobbes (L –) : 
–: , ,  May  letter to van Velthuysen
: ,  –: –, 
:  : , , , 
: ,  : , , 


  
April  letter to Oldenburg : 
–:   letter to Johann Friedrich
: ,  –: , , , 
May  letter to Johann Friedrich (with : , 
two appendices) : , , 
–: –, –, , , –, : , 
–, , , , , , , : 
, 
: , –, , , , – VI i
: , ,  –: 
: , , , , –, ,  Metaphysical Disputation on the Principle of
: , ,  Individuation of 
: ,  –: , , –, , 
: , , ,  –: 
: ,  : 
May  letter to Wedderkopf (L –) : , , 
–: –,  : 
: , , –, ,  : 
:  Specimen of Collected Philosophical Questions
June  letter to Oldenburg Concerning Law of 
–:  –: –, , , 
: , ,  : , 
:  : , 
June (?)  letter to de Carcavy : 
–: – : , , , 
: ,  : 
: , ,  : , 
: , ,  : , , 
: , – : 
Late  letter to Johann Friedrich : 
–:  : 
:  : 
: , –,  –: 
Nov.  letter to Arnauld (L –) : 
–: , –, , –, , –, : 
–, , –, , ,  : 
: –, , ,  : 
: ,  : 
: , , ,  : 
: , –, , ,  : 
: ,  : 
: , , , , ,  : 
: , ,  : , 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
: ,  : 
:  : , 
:  On The Combinatorial Art of  (L –)
:  –: , , , , , 
March  letter to Conring (L –) : 
–: – New Method for the Learning and Teaching of
–: ,  Jurisprudence of  (L –)
–: – –: –, 
: – : , 
: ,  : , 


  
:  Notes on Thomas White of 
:  –: , –, , –
:  : –, , , , , 
:  : , 
:  On transubstantiation of  (L –)
: ,  –: , –, –, , –, –,
: , ,  , –, , , –, –,
: , , ,  –, , , –, , , 
:  : , , , –, 
:  : –, , , , –, , 
: ,  : , , , , , –, 
:  : , , , , , –, –
:  : , , , , , –, 
On the elements of natural law of –late : , , , 
 (L –) : 
–: , –, –, , , : 
, –, , , , , , On the incarnation of God of –
,  - : –, , , , , , ,
:  , , –, , , 
:  : –, , , 
: –,  : –, , , , , 
:  : –, , 
:  : 
: , , –, , 
:  VI ii
:  : 
:  : 
:  –: 
:  : 
: ,  : 
: ,  : 
: ,  : 
: ,  : 
: , ,  : 
: , ,  : , 
: , –, ,  : 
: , ,  : 
: , , , –, , , – : 
Confession of nature against the atheists of Schediasma: New Physical Hypothesis and
 (L –) Theory of Abstract Motion of 
–: –, –, –, , –, , (L –)
, , , , , , , , –: , , , , , –, –,
 , –, –, –, –,
: ,  , –, , , , –, ,
: ,  
:  : 
: , , ,  : –
: ,  : 
:  : 
Conspectus of – : 
–: , –, –, –, –, : 
, , , –, , ,  : 
: ,  : , , 
: , , , ,  : 
: , , ,  : 
: ,  : , 


  
:  –: 
: , – : , , 
On the power of persuasion; on dreaming and : , , , , 
wakefulness of – (L –) : 
–: –,  : , 
:  : 
:  –: , 
On prime matter of – (W –) : , 
–: , ,  : , , 
: ,  : , –, , , , 
: , , – : , , 
On endeavor and motion; on perceiving and : , 
thinking of  : 
–: , –, , , , , , : –, 
, –, ,  : , , 
:  : , 
: , –, ,  : , , 
: , –,  : , , –
: , ,  Demonstration of first propositions of –
: ,  –: –, –, –, –
: , , , ,  : , 
: ,  : , , 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  Studies on the universal characteristic of
Specimen of demonstrations about the –
nature of corporeal things . . . of  –: –, , –, , ,
(L –) , , , –, 
– : , , 
: ,  : –, , , 
: , , ,  : , , , , 
: ,  : 
: , ,  : , 
: ,  : , –
: , ,  : 
: ,  : 
:  : –, 
:  : 
: ,  : , 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
:  : 
: , – : 
Marius Nizolius, De Veris Principiis of , : 
ed. Leibniz (L –, –)
–: , –, , , , ; VI iii
chs.  and , passim. : 
:  Certain physical propositions of 
:  –: –
–:  : 
:  : , 
:  : –
:  : 
: ,  : 


  
:  On the secrets of the sublime or on the greatest
: ,  of things of Feb.  (Pk –)
:  –: –, 
:  : 
:  : –
: – : , , , 
: , – : , –, –
:  : , –, 
Philosopher’s confession of – : –, 
–: –, ,  On the seat of the soul of Feb.  (Pk –)
:  –: –
:  : –, 
: ,  : –, 
:  : –, 
: – : 
: ,  : , 
: , ,  Meditation on the principle of the individual
:  of April  (Pk –)
:  –: –, , , 
:  : , 
:  : 
:  : 
: ,  On truths, mind, God, and the universe of
:  April  (Pk –)
:  –: –, , –
: ,  : 
: ,  : 
: –, ,  : , , 
:  : –
:  : , –, , 
:  : 
:  On forms or the attributes of God of April
On the true method in philosophy and theology  (Pk –)
of – (W –) –: , –, –, 
–: –, –, –, –,  : , –, –, 
: , –,  : , , , 
: , ,  : 
: , –,  On the origin of things from forms of April
: , , –,   (Pk –)
: , , ,  –: –, 
–:  : , , 
: ,  : , 
–:  : , , 
:  : , , , 
: ,  On simple forms of April  (Pk –)
:  –: –, 
Notes on science and metaphysics of March : 
 (Pk –) : , , –, 
–: –, , –, – On the plenitude of the world of  (Pk
:  –)
: , ,  –: 
: –, , ,  : , , 
: , , ,  : 
:  Pacidius to Philalethus of 
:  –: , –, 
:  : , 


  
:  : , 
:  Jan.  letter to Remond (L –)
:  –: , , –, –
:  : , , –, –
:  : , , , 
: –
: , ,  G IV
: , , , ,  : 
:  : 
:  : 
A chain of wonderful demonstrations about the A New System of the Nature and
universe of Dec.  (Pk –) Communication of Substances of  (L
–: ,  –\AG –)
:  –: , , –, –
:  : , , 
: , , – : 
–: 
VI iv : 
[A]–: 
[A]–: ,  G VI
[A]:  : 
[B]–:  –: 
Discourse on metaphysics of  (L –\ : 
AG –)
[B] –: –, , –, , , ,
, –; see also Appendix I. G VII
[B]–:  : 
First truths of  (L –\AG –) –: 
[B] –: –, –, –, , , , ,
, , , , , , –; see GM VI
also Appendix I Specimen of Dynamics of  (L –
[B] :  \AG –)
[C] :  –: , , 
[C] :  : 
: , , 
VI vi
New essays on human understanding of Dutens II
– : 
–: –, , ,  : –

Gerhardt Foucher de Careil, Mémoire sur la

G II philosophie de Leibniz
:  : 
: 
:  Foucher de Careil, Nouvelles lettres et
opuscules
G III –: 
–: 
:  Monadology
:  –, , , , , –, 


 Index

Academy edition and editors, , , ,  Adam and traduction, , 
n., n., –, , n., Adams, Robert, n., n., ,
,  n., n., n., n.,
Accident, , , , , , , –, , n., , –
 Aether, –, –, , –, –
creature as,  See also World Soul
Activity (action), –, –, , , Affection, , , , , 
, , –, , , , –, Agens, . See also Activity
–, , –, , , –, Aggregate(s), see Substance vs. aggregate
–, , –, –, Aherne, Consuelo, n.
–, –, , , ,  Aiton, E.J., n., n., n., n.,
and indestructibility, –, , –, n.
–, –, , , , , Alexander of Aphrodisias, 
, , , –, – (see also Alsted, Johann Heinrich, , n., –,
Substantial Form Assumption) , n., n., 
and mind, –, –, , , –, Altdorf, 
ch.  (passim), , , , , Althusius, Johann, 
, , –, –, –, , Anaxagoras, , 
–, –, –, , –, Ancient wisdom, see Prisca theologia
– (see also Mind, Emanation, Ancients, Leibniz’s views on, –, –,
Principle of Substantial Activity, , , , –, –, –,
Substantial Form Assumption) , –, , 
and perfection, –, –, –, Angels, , , , 
–,  Animals, , , –, 
and primary features, , – Animal spirits, , 
and unity, –, –, , –, , Antitypy, . See also Impenetrability
, –, ,  (see also Passive Antognazza, Maria Rosa, n.
Principle Assumption, Substantial Apparent vs. real, –, , , ,
Form Assumption) –, , –, –, –,
principle of, –, –, , , –, –
–, , , , –, –, waking vs. dreaming, –
–, –, –, –, –, See also Appearances
, , –, –, –, , Appearances, , , , –, –,
 , –, 
relation to passive principle, –, –, and relation to God, , –, –,
–,–, –, , –, –, 
, , –, –, ,  and relation to other minds, , –
See also Cause (incorporeal), Mind, See also Apparent vs. real, Perception,
Passive Principle Assumption, Senses, Knowledge
Principle of Substantial Activity, Aquinas, Thomas, , , , n.,
Substance, Substantial Form, n., n., n., –, ,
Substantial Form Assumption, 
Supreme Being on matter, 
Actuality (actus), –,  on multiplicity, –


 
Aquinas, Thomas (cont.) Arithmetical analogy, see Numerical analogy
on order among creatures, –, – Armstrong, A.H., n., n.,
on relation between God and creatures, n., n.
–,  Arnauld, Antoine , , ,  n., 
Summa Contra Gentiles, –,  –, , , –, –, ,
Ariew, Roger, n., n., n., –, , , , ,  n.,
n., n.  n., 
Aristotelian Assumptions, , –, –, Arthur, Richard, n., n., n.,
, , , , –, –, , n., n., n., n.,
, , , , , –, , , n., n., n.,
, –,  n., , n., n.
Aristotelianism, –, –, , –, Atheism, –, –, , , –
–, , , , , , –, –, Atoms and atomism, , , , –,
, –, –, , , –, , –, –, –, , –, 
–, –, –, –, –, Gassendi’s, , , , –, 
, , , , , , , Leibniz’s substantial atoms, –, –,
–, –, –, –, , , –
, , , , , –, , Attributes of mind, –. See also Mind
, –, –, ,  n., Attributes of Supreme Being, –,
, ,  –, , , –, –, ,
and humanism, –, – , , , – –
and Metaphysics of Substance, –, predecessors on –, –, 
, –, , , –, , See also Ideas of Supreme Being, Essence
 of Supreme Being
and Platonism –, , ,  Augsburg Confession, –, –
and scholasticism, –, –, –, , Augustine of Hippo, n., , , ,
–, , –, , , , –, , , –, n., –
–, –, –, –, , and evil, –, 
, , ,  and God , –, –, ,
and substance, , , , , , , , –
, –,–, , , –, and knowledge, 
 and matter, –; and mind, , 
and Thomasius –, – and pagan Platonists, , , 
in Germany, –, –, – texts of, Confessions, , , , ,
in Paris,  –, ; On the Trinity, , ,
reconciliation with mechanism, , –, n.
, , –, , , –, , Averroës, , , , , , , 
–, , –, –,  Avicenna, , , 
reconciliation with Platonism, –, –, Ayers, Michael, n., n., n.,
, , , , –, ,  n.
See also Aristotle, Scholasticism
Aristotle, –, , –, –, ––, , Bacon, Francis, , n., , –, , ,
–, –, –, ,  n., , , , , , –, , 
, –, –, –, –, Baroque, –, 
, , , , ,  n.,  Bassler, O. Bradley, n.
n., , , , , ,  Beatific vision, , , , , 
and mechanism, –, , , –, Beck, Lewis White, n., n., n.,
–, , ,  n., n.
and physics, –,  Becoming, –, –, , , , ,
on substance, –, , , , –, , . See also Being
, –, –, –, , , Beeley, Philip, n., n., n., n.,
 n., n., n., n.,
texts of, Metaphysics, , On The n., n., n., n.,
Heavens, , On The Soul,  , n., n.–, n.,
See also Matter, Substance, Substantial n., n., n., n.,
form n., n., n.


 
Beier, Silvia,  n. Descartes on, , , 
Being, , –, , , –, – human body, –, , 
and becoming, –, –, , , mechanical account, –, 
,  states of, –, 
and matter, –, – vs. mind, –, –, , , 
and plenitude, – See also Corporeal nature, Essence,
and possibility, – Matter, Substance, Unity
goodness of, – Bodin, Jean, –
hierarchy of, , –, –, Bohatec, Josef, n.
–, , , , , , –, Boineburg, Baron Johann Christian von, ,
, – , , , , 
relation to perfection, unity and self- Bonaventura, 
sufficiency, –, , –, Bone (as place of soul) 
–, ,  Bouillier, Francisque, n.
See also Becoming, Supreme Being Bourguet, Louis, 
Assumption Bouvet, Joachim, 
Belaval,Yvon, n., n., n., n., Boyle, Robert, , n., n., 
n., n., n., n., Brain, , 
n., n.,  Brockliss, L.W.B., n., n.
Bennett, Jonathan, n. Brown, Stuart, n., n., n., n.,
Berkeley, George,  n., n., n., n.,
Bernstein, Howard, n., n., n., n., n., n., n.,
n., n. n.
Bettenson, Henry, n., n. Burnet, Thomas, 
Bible, , –, –,  Bussanich, John, n.
as source of philosophical truths, , 
Acts,  Calculus, 
Corinthians, n. Calvinist, n.
Ephesians, ,  Campanella, Tommaso, n., 
Genesis,  Cannibalism, –, 
Psalms,  Capek, M., n., n., n., n.,
Biller, Gerhard, n. n.
Bisterfeld, Johann Heinrich, , n., Carcavy, Pierre de, , 
–,  Carmichael, Douglass, n.
Blueprint, –, –, –,  Cartesianism, Leibniz’s criticism of, ,
and Thomasius,  –, –, , , , ,
See also Instructions, Production Rule, –, –, , , , 
Prearranged Diffusion Relation See also Descartes, Mechanism
Blumenfeld, David, n. Casaubon, Isaac, n.
Blumenthal, Henry, n. Castanaeus, H.L., , –
Bodies, , –, –, –, –, –, Catholic Demonstrations, , , , , ,
–, , –, –, –, , –, , , , , . (See
, , –, , , , , Index Locorum for references to
–, –, –, , –, specific texts)
, –, –, –, , Catholicism, and Leibniz’s attitude toward,
, –, , – –, , , –, –, –
and Eucharist, –, –,  (see also and reconciliation with Lutheranism,
Transubstantiation) –, , 
and hypostatic union, –, –,  See also Eucharist
as objects of perception, –, –, Causal Seed Doctrine, , , , ,
– –
body qua form, , –, , –, Causation, , , 
–, , , – intersubstantial, –, –, , ,
body qua matter, , –, , –, –, –, , , , –,
, , –, , , , , –, , –, , –, 
, –, ,  intrasubstantial, 


 
Cause(s), , , –, , –, , , Metaphysical, , , , –, ,
–, –, –, –, –, –
, –, , –, – Problem of Metaphysical, , 
and ratio, –,  (see also Ratio) Collini, Giovanni. See also Sally
Aristotelian account, ,  (see also Collision, . See also Force
Aristotelianism, Metaphysics of Comenius, Johann Amos, , 
Substance) Complete cognition vs partial, –
efficient, , , , –, , –, Complete concept, , , , –,
 –, –, –, , –, ,
emanative, –, , , –, , , , , 
–, , –, – theory of substance, , –, , –,
equipollence with effect, – , –, 
final, , , –, , , ,  ontological correlate of, , , –,
hierarchy of,  , –, , , , , ,
material, –, , – , , 
predecessors on, , , , ,  Complete reason (ratio), –, , , ,
primary vs. secondary, –, ,  –, . See also Principle of
See also Causation, Emanation Substantial Self-Sufficiency,
Cause, incorporeal Principle of Sufficient Reason,
God, –, , , , –, , –, Complete-Ratio Theory of
–, , –, , , , , Substance, Ratio, Substantial Nature
, –, –, – Assumption
soul or mind, , , , , , , Completeness, , , , , –, 
–, , –, –, , , complete being, , , –, 
–, –, , , – vs. incompleteness, , –, 
Cavalieri, Bonaventura,  Complete-Ratio Theory of Substance, –,
Cement (of substance),  , , –, , –, –,
Change, –, , –, , –,  , –, , , , –, ,
in substance, –, –, – , –, , 
Charity,  Conatus, see Endeavor
Chef, analogy of, ,  Concomitance, doctrine of, . See also
Chemistry, , ,  Preestablished Harmony
Chinese thought, – Condemnation of , , 
Church, Confused idea, . See also Perceptions
fathers,  Confusion,
hierarchy,  in human affairs, 
universal, – in perceptions –, , 
See also Lutheranism, Catholicism, in philosophy , 
Theology Conring, Hermann, n., n., –,
Cicero, , – –, –, , , n.,
Circle, analogy of, – n.
City, analogy of, see Town Continuum, problem of, , , –,
Clarity and creatures, see Expression, , , , , , , , 
Instantiation vs. other problems with matter, –,
Clarity, in philosophical expression, –, –, –
, , –, ,  See also Cohesion; Cohesion, Problem of;
Clauberg, Johann, n. Passivity Problem
Clear and distinct, see Perception Conway, Anne, , n., n.,
Clock, world as, , –, ,  n.
Cognition Cook, Daniel, n., 
complete, – Copenhaver, Brian P., n., n.,
partial, –,  n., n., n., n.,
Cohesion, , –, , , , , n., n.
, –,  Copernicus, 
Problem of, , , , –, ,  Core metaphysics, –, , , –,


 
, , –, , , –, Denominations, extrinsic, 
, –, , –, – Dependency,
status of, , , –,  ontological, , –
See also Metaphysics of Substance, Thomasius on, –
Metaphysics of Divinity three descriptions of, 
Corpuscles, as bullae, . See also Atoms See also Creaturely Inferiority Complex,
Corpuscularianism, . See also Mechanism Emanation, Emanative Harmony,
Costabel, Pierre, n. Theory of Emanative Harmony
Coudert, Allison, n., n. De Raey, Johannes –,  n., ,
Couturat, Louis, –, –, , –. See –,  n. ,  n., , ,
also Russell-Couturat interpretation  n.
of Leibniz Descartes, René, , , , , n., ,
Creation, , , , , , , , , , n., –, –, ,
–,  , , , –, –, , ,
continual, –, , , , , –, –, , , ,
– n., , –, , –, ,
predecessors on, – n., , n., , , ,
story of, , , , , , –, , , , , –, 
–, – Leibniz’s criticism of Descartes and
See also Emanative Creation Story; Cartesians, , –, –, ,
Speculative Creation Story , , , –, –, ,
Creaturely Inferiority Complex, , , 
, , , , –, , , Des Chene, Dennis, n., n.
 Digby, Everard, 
Creatures, ,  Digby, Kenelm, , , n., , n.,
and divine attributes, , ,  (see also , –, , , , n.,
Attributes, Ideas, Supreme Being) , , , n., , n.
and grades of perfection, , –,  as reformed philosopher, –
and seminal rationes,  (see also Causal Diffusion,
Seed Doctrine, Seminal rationes) hierarchy of, 
as divine, , , ,  of God in creatures, , , , –
as inferior (to God), –, –, , of mind in passive principle, , ,
–, , –, , ,  (see , –, –, , , –
also Creaturely Inferiority Complex) See also Prearranged Diffusion Relation
as instantiations (of God), , , Diogenes, 
–, , –, – Dioscorides, 
harmony among, –, –, –, Diversity, see Multiplicity
–, –, , , – (see Divisibility, , , , –. See also
also Harmony, Sympathy, Reflection, Unity
Reflective Harmony) Doctrine of Hierarchy of Being, , ,
infinity of, , , , , – (see , , 
also In infinitum) Döring, Detlef, n., n.
Thomasius on, – Dreams, –, 
See also Emanative Creation Story, Mind Duchesneau, François, n., n.,
Cudworth, Ralph, n. n.
Du Hamel, Jean-Baptiste, –, 
Dante Alighieri,  Durand, William, 
Debus, Allen, n.
Definitions, Echo, 
of constitutive principles, , , –, Eclecticism, conciliatory, , –, –,
 –, , , , 
De la Cruz, Sor Juana Inés, n. early modern, –, , –, –
Deleuze, Gilles, n. Pico della Mirandola’s, –
Democritus, , , , , , , , , Renaissance, , –, –
, ,  Scherzer’s, –


 
Eclecticism (cont.) –, –, , , –, 
Sturm’s, –,  (see also Attributes, of Supreme
Thomasius’, –,  Being; Ideas, of Supreme Being;
Weigel’s, – Supreme Being)
Ecumenicalism, see Catholicism; Harmony, and accident, 
religious; Lutheranism and corporeal nature, –, , , ,
Effect, –, –, –, , . See –, –, –, , –, ,
also Causation , –, –, , , ,
Eliot, T.S., –,  –,  (see also Matter)
Elisabeth of Bohemia, n. and properties, , , –, ,
Emanation, –, , , –, , –, , , , – (see also
–, , –, – Feature)
See also Supreme Being, Cause, Theory and ratio, , –
of Emanative Causation and substance, –,, –, –,
Emanative cause, see Cause, Theory of –
Emanative Causation of individuals, –, , , 
Emanative Creation Story, –, , , (selected) divine, , –, , ,
, , –, –, , , –, , –, , , –,
, , , ,  
Emanative Harmony, –, , , See also Complete concept; Complete
–, –, , , , , concept, ontological correlate of;
, , , –, , –, , Ratio
, , , –, –, , Eternity, , , , , , , .
–, , , , , , – See also Mind, eternity of
and Preestablished Harmony, , –, Ethics, , , , , , , n.,
, –, , – –, , , –, , ,
See also Theory of Emanative Harmony –, , , , , , ,
Emanative option, –. See also –
Emanative Creation Story Eucharist, doctrine of, –, , , –,
Embryo, ,  , , 
Emilsson, Eyjólful, n., n., and multipresence, –, –, –
n., n., n. and transubstantiation, –, , ,
Empedocles,  –, –, , , –
Endeavor (conatus), , , , , , Leibniz’s account of, , –, –,
, –, –, –, , –, , –, , –, ,
–, , ,  –, 
harmony of, –, –, , ,  Leibniz’s criticism of mechanical
series of,  philosophers on, –, , –,
See also Activity, Mind , 
Enhancement Relation, –, , –, See also Augsburg Confession; Transub-
–,  stantiation; Trent, Council of
and Thomasius,  Euclid, , , , , n., 
Entelechy, . See also Substantial Forms Eustachius à S. Paulo, n., n.
Epicureanism, Thomasius on,  Evans, G.R., n.
Epicurus, ,  Evil, problem of, –, –, 
Epistemological Assumption, , –, Leibniz on, –, –, –, ,
, , –,  –
Epistemology, see Knowledge predecessors on, –, , 
Equipollence, principle of, –. See also Existence, , , –, , , –,
Effect , –, –, , , ,
Essence, –, –, , –, –, , , , , –, ,
–, , – –, , , , –, –,
of Supreme Being, , , , , –, –, , –, , ,
, , , –, , , 
–, , , –, –, existent thing, 


 
Experiments, –, , , , , , Galileo, , n., , , , , ,
 n., , , , , 
Explanation, , , –, –, , , , Gallutius, 
–, , , , –, , , Garber, Daniel, n., n., n.,
–, , –, –, –, n., , n., n., n.,
, , ,  n., n., n., n.,
hierarchy of, , , – n., n., n., –,
mechanical, –, , , , , n., , n., 
 Garin, Eugenio, n., n.
Expression,  Gassendi, Pierre, , –, n., ,
clarity of, , –, –, –, –, , –, , , , , –,
– –, , , –, –, –,
(traditional) doctrine of, ,  , , , , –, , 
of divine attributes, , , , –, atomism, , , , –, 
 on cohesion, 
theory of,  on substance, –, –, , ,
See also Instantiation 
Expression Relation, –,  Geometry, , , , –, , ,
Extension, see Matter . See also Mathematics
Gerhardt, C. I., n., n., n.
Fabri, Honorato,  German language, Leibniz on, n.
Faith, , ,  Geulincx, Arnold, 
Feature, –, – Gilson, Étienne, n.
primary, , , –,  Glanvill, Joseph, n.
substantial, , , ,  Glory, , , 
Ficino, Marsilio,  n.,  n., ,  Goclenius, Rudolf, , , , n.,
n.,  
on God’s relation to world,  God, see Supreme Being
See also Eclecticism and Prisca theologia Goldenbaum, Ursula, n.
Figure (figura), , –, –, –, Good, –
–, –, , , , , , as end, –, , –, 
,  as object of love, –, –, ,
Fire, , , –, ,  –
Fischer, Kuno, n., n. as related to creatures,  (see also
Flow or pour forth (fluere), , , –, Creaturely Inferiority Complex,
, , , , , , ,  Instantiation)
Force,  person, , , , 
magnetic, – See also Perfection, World, Supreme
Form as attribute of God, see Attribute Being Assumption
Form, Platonic, see Plato Goodman, Martin, n.
Form, substantial, see Substantial form Goodman, Sarah, n.
Foucher, Simon, n., –,  Grace, 
Foucher de Careil, Alexandre, n., Gracia, Jorge E., n.
n., n. Grafton, Anthony, n., n.
Fouke, Daniel, n., n., n., Gregory of Rimini, , 
n. Grotius, Hugo, –, –
Fountain, image of, , , . See also Guericke, Otto von, –
Substance, fountain of Guhrauer, G.E., n., n.
Freddoso, Fred, n.
Frede, Michael, n. Haecceitas, 
Freedom, , , , , –, , Hannequin, Arthur, n., n., n.,
 n., n., n., n.,
n., n., 
Gabbey, Alan, n., n., n. Happiness, , , , , , ,
Galen, ,  –, 


 
Harmony, , –, , , , –, Hobbes, Thomas, –, –, –, –,
–, , , , , , , , , , n., n., ,
–, , , –, –, , , , –, , , 
–, –,  on cohesion, , 
among conscious beings, –,  on endeavor, n., , , –,
and beauty, , , –, –, –, n., , 
–, –, , , ,  Hochstetter, Erich, n., n.
and plenitude, –, –, – Hoffmann, Joseph, 
end of,  Humanism and humanists –, –, ,
intellectual, –, , , –, –, 
– (see also Peace) and Aristotle, , , , 
musical metaphor, Leibniz’s use of, , and Christianity, –
, – Leibniz on, , –, , 
musical metaphor, predecessors’ use of, Huygens, Christiaan, , , 
, , –, 
of endeavors, –, –, , ,  Idea(s), , , , –, –
perception of, –, , , , and immutability, , 
–, –, –,  (see also and Supreme Being, –, , –,
Perception) –, , , –, , –
predecessors on, , –, –, , –
 as conceived essence, –, –,
Bodin’s views, – –, –, –
Thomasius’ views, , – as substantial form, –, , –,
religious, –, –, , ,  (see also , 
Catholicism, Lutheranism) in God’s mind, –, , , , 
universal, –, , , –, , (see also Attributes of Supreme
–, –, –, –, –, Being, Supreme Being)
, –, , , – in human mind, –, , , –,
See also Emanative Harmony; Parallelism; 
Preestablished Harmony; Reflective knowledge of, –, , –, –,
Harmony , , –, – (see also
Hartz, Glenn,  Intellect, Knowledge)
Harvey, William, n.,  Platonic, ,  (see also Plato)
Heinekamp, Albert, n. Plotinian notion of containment, –
Helmont, Francis Mercury van, , predecessors on, –, 
n.,  Idel, Moshe, n.
Heraclitus,  Identity, , , , –, , ,
Herborn philosophers, –, , ,  –, . See also Unity
Hierarchy, Identity of indiscernibles, principle of, ,
of being, –, –, –, , , , , , , , 
, , –,  (see also Immortality, , , , –, , ,
Creaturely Inferiority Complex, –, , –, , , ,
Doctrine of Hierarchy of Being,) , –
of dependence, – Immutability, see Ideas
of diffusion, , – Impenetrability of bodies, , , –,
of emanation, , , –, , , , , –, 
–, – Incarnation, , –, –, , ,
of explanation, –, –, , , 
 Indestructibility of substances, . See also
of perfection, , –, –, , Activity, Mind, Substance
, –, –, – Individuation, , –, , , ,
of self-sufficiency, –, , ,  –, 
of subjects – Indivisibility, see Activity, Mind, Unity
of unity, –, , –, – Infinitesimals, see Mind, momentary;
Hippocrates, ,  Calculus
Hissette, Roland, n. Infinity, , , , , , , –,


 
–, –, , , , , Kant, Immanuel, n., n.
, , , ,  Kenny, Anthony, n.
Infinity of creatures thesis, . See also Kessler, Eckhard, n., n.
Panorganism, In infinitum Kircher, Athanasius, –, –, ,
In infinitum, –, , , ,  n., , –, n.
Instantiation of God in creatures, , , Knowledge, , , –, , –,
–, –, –, , , , –, , –, –, –,
, , , –, –, , –, , , , , –, 
–, –, , , – and appearances, – (see also
and clarity, , –, –, –, Appearances, Perception)
 of cause, –, 
and relation to goodness, , , – of existence, –
See also Creaturely Inferiority Complex, of God, –, , , –
Essence of Supreme Being, Ideas of of Ideas, –, , –, –, ,
Supreme Being , 
Instructions, –, –, , , –, of inner natures, –, 
–, , ,  predecessors on, , , , –, 
set of, –, –, –, , –, universal, –, 
–, , – See also Appearances, Ideas, Intellect,
Intellect, , –, , –, –, Perception
, , , – Kraye, Jill, n., n.
Active, –, , , – Kretzmann, Norman, n.
Agent intellect, ,  Kristeller, Paul O., n., n., n.,
divine, –, –, –, –,  
human, , –, , –, , , Krönet, Gisela, n.
, –, –, , –,  Kulstad, Mark, n., n., n.,
Passive, –, ,  n., n., n.,
vs. senses, , , – (see also n.
Perception)
Intelligibility Assumption, , ,  Labyrinth, –, 
Italy,  Law,
natural, 
Jasper, J., n. of collision, 
Jena, University of, , ,  of sequence,  (see also Production
Jesus Christ, , , , n., , , Rule)
, , –, –,  Lazarus, 
seamless garment of, – Leibniz,
Jews and beliefs on mind, identity, and as diplomat, , 
immortality, , ,  education of, –, –, –, , –,
Johann Friedrich, Duke, , –, , , , –, –, 
–, , , , –, , on Chinese thought, –
, –, , , , –, on history, , , –, 
n., , , n., on physics, , –, – (see also
n. Body, Explanation, Matter, Physics)
Jones, Lloyd G., n. on legal topics, , , , , –,
Joseph, H.W.B., n. –, , –, , , , 
Juana Inés de la Cruz, n. See also Pacidius, Wilhelmus
Judas,  Leijenhorst, Cees, n.
Judgment day,  Leinkauf, Thomas, n.
Leinsle, Ulrich G., n., n., n.,
Kabbalism, predecessors on, –, ,  n., n., n., , n.,
Leibniz’s interest in,  n., n.
Kabitz, Willy, –, n., n., Leipzig, , , , , , , , –,
n., n., n., n., –
n., n., ,  Leucippus, 
Kaehler, Klaus E., n. Levine, Michael P., n.


 
Life, object of, , , , , , , –, –, , , ,  (see
,  also Mechanism)
predecessors on, – Leibniz’s predecessors on, , , ,
Light (illumination), , , , , , –
, –, , , , , , nature of, n., , –, , ,
, –, , –, , , , –, , –, , –,
, – –, 
vs. shadow, , –, – primary, –, –, , –, ,
See also Grace, Glory , , , , , , , 
Linus,  reality of, , –, –, , ,
Lodge, Paul, n., n., n. –, –, 
Loemker, L., , n., n., n., Mauritius, Erich, 
n., , n., n., McAlhany, Joseph, n., n.
n., n., n., n. McCollough, Laurence B., n., n.
Logic, as source of Leibniz’s philosophy, , Meagher, Paul, n.
, –, –, , , – Mechanism, , –, , –, –,
Logical Assumption, , ,  –, –, , , , ,
Lohr, Charles, n. , , –, –
Love, –, – Descartes on, , 
Lovejoy, Arthur, –, n. Leibniz on, –, , , , , –,
Lowalter, Ernst, n. –, , , , , , , ,
Lucretius,  –, , , , –
Lull, Raymond, n. reconciliation with Aristotelianism, ,
Luther, , , , – –, , , –, , ,
Lutheranism, , –, , , –, –, , –, , –,
–, – –, , 
and Aristotle,  See also Cartesianism
and reconciliation with Catholicism, –, Medicine, , , , 
,  Melanchthon, Philipp, , n.
See also Augsburg Confession, Memory, , –, 
Transubstantiation Mendelbaum, Allen, n.
Menn, Stephen, n., n., n.,
Magnitude, , , –, –, , , n.
,  Mercer, Christia, n., n.,
Mahnke, Dietrich, n., n., n. n., n., n.
Maimonides,  Merlan, P., n.
Malebranche, Nicolas, , –, n. Mesland, Père, n.
Marks and traces, –, –, –,  Metaphysics, –, –, –, , ,
doctrine of, , ,  , –
Marschlich, Annette, n. definition of, 
Mass, , , ,  mysteries of, –
Mates, Benson, , n., , , relation to mysteries of faith, –, 
n.,  (see also Mysteries of the faith)
Mathematics, use and role of, , , , Metaphysics of Divinity, , –, chs. 
, –, –, –, –, and  (passim), , , , ,
 , –, –, –, ,
Matter, , –, , –, , –, –, , , , –, ,
, , –, –, , , –, , , , –
–, –, , –, , , Metaphysics of Method, ch.  (passim),
–, , –, –, –, –, –, , , , ,
, , , , , – –
Aristotle on, , –, ,  Metaphysics of Substance, –, chs, –
as phenomena, – (see also (passim), , , , , ,
Appearance, Perception) , –, , –, –, –,
as res extensa, –, , –, , , –, , , , –, ,
, , , , , , , –, , , –


 
Method, –, –, –, –, –, dominant, –, , –, , ,
–, , , , –, –, , , –, , –, , 
–, –, , , –, , eternity of, , , , , , 
–, –, ,  human, , , –, –, , –,
mathematical, , –, – (see also –, , –, , –, –
Mathematics) momentary, –, –, , , ,
See also Eclecticism, conciliatory; –, , , –, , 
Metaphysics of Method; Rhetoric; monads, , , 
Rhetoric of Attraction nature of, , –, , , –,
Methuen, Charlotte, n. , –, , , , , –,
Meyer, Rudolf, n. –, –, –, , –,
Micraelius, Johann, , , , , , , , 
n. perfect vs. imperfect, –, , –,
Miller, Paul, n. , 
Mind, , , , , , , –, , predecessors on, –
–, –, –, –, primary vs. secondary, –, –
–, –, , –, , , propagating itself, –, –, –,
–, –, –, , –, 
, –, –, –, , , reflection of, –, –, , , ,
, –, –, – 
acting through body, ch.  (passim), relation to substantial form, , ,
–, ch  (passim), –, –, –, , , – (see also
, , –, , –, – substantial form)
action on itself, , , –, , unconscious, –, –, , , ,
–,  , , , 
actions of, –, –, –, , See also Activity; Cause, incorporeal;
,  Mirror; Substantial form; Body;
and emanation, –, , , –, Supreme Being; Thought; Unity;
–, –, –, –, –, Substantial Form Assumption
, –, , – Mind-like substantial forms, see Substantial
and endeavor, –, , , ,  forms
and indestructibility, , –, –, Miracles, , 
–, , , , , , , Mirror, –, , –, , , ,
, –, – , , , –, 
and indivisibility, , –,  mind as, , , , , , 
and knowledge, –, – (see also See also Reflection, Reflective Harmony,
Knowledge) Theory of Reflection Harmony,
and points, –,–, , ,  Enhancement Relation, Sympathy,
and reflection, –, –, , Relation of Sympathy
–, , , –, –, , Mode(s), –, –, , –
–, –, –, .  (see infinity of, –, –
also Reflective Harmony) Leibniz vs. Spinoza on, –
as instrument of God, –, –, of Supreme Being, , , , –,
–, , , –, , –,  (see also Ideas of Supreme Being)
 Modern philosophy, –, –, –, ,
concurrent divine mind, ch.  (passim), –, , –, , , –,
–, –, –, , , , –, –, , –, –,
, ,  , , –, –
conscious, –, –, , , , Moll, Konrad, n., n., n., n.,
, , , –, , , , n., n., n.
, , ,  Monads, see Minds
created mind, –, –, ,  Mondadori, Fabrizio, n., n.
deformity of, –, ,  Monism, –
divinity of, , –, , –, More, Henry, 
–, , –, –, –, Moses, 
 Motion, , , –, , , –, –,


 
Motion (cont.) See also Modern philosophy
–, , , –, –, –, Nifo, Agostino, 
–, , –, –, , Nizolio, Mario, , n., –, ,
–, , , , , –, n., 
, –, ,  Nominalism, , –
Aristotle on, , ,  Nous,  (see also World Soul)
as essence of body, –, –,  Nowak, Kurt, n.
Descartes,  Numerical analogy, , –, –,
Gassendi,  –., 
mechanists on, –
principle of, –, –, –, –, O’Brien, Dennis, n.
–, –, ,  O’Brien, Thomas, n.
See also Activity Occasionalism, –, , –, , ,
Mugnai, Massimo, n. , –
Müller, Kurt, n., n. Ockham, William, n.
Multiplicity, –, , , –, , Olaso, Ezequiel de, n.
, –, –, , , – Oldenburg, Henry, , –, , –,
and creation, , , – (see also , –, , n., ,
Creation) –, , 
and good-making criteria, –, O’Meara, Dominic J. n., n.
–,  O’Neill, Eileen, n., n.
Aquinas on, – Ontological correlate of complete concept,
Augustine on, , – see Complete Concept
Plotinus on, , , – Order, see Harmony
predecessors on, –, – Organism, n., . See also Unity,
vs. unity, , –, , –, –, Organization
, –, –, – Organization, –, –, –, ,
See also Unity, Harmony, Plenitude, , , , , –, , ,
Principle of Harmonized Plenitude , , , , , –, –
Multipresence, see Eucharist and endeavors, –, , , 
Mungello, D.E., n. mind as cause of, ch.  (passim), ,
Murcia de la Llana,  –, –, , , , ,
Music, see Harmony , , –, –
Mysteries of the faith, , , , , of mind-like substances,  (see also
 Panorganism)
Leibniz on, –, –, –, –, See also Mind, Activity, Passivity,
,  Essence, Unity, Prearranged
See also Eucharist, Transubstantiation, Diffusion Relation
Incarnation, Immortality Origen, 
Original Theory of (non-human) Corporeal
Nadler, Steven, n., n. Substance, –, –, , –,
Narrative options, –,  (see also Story) –, , –, –, , ,
Nature, , –, –, , , , , –, , , 
–, –,  (see also Essence) and conciliatory potential, –
and harmony among parts, – problems with, –, –, –, –
and mind, –, – vs. Second Theory of Corporeal
Book of, , –, ,  Substance, –, , , 
corporeal, see Body, Matter Orpheus, 
knowledge of inner nature, –, , Osler, Margaret, n.

phenomena of, , , – Pacidius, Wilhelmus, , –, 
New philosophy, , ,  Paintings, analogy of, , –
in England, – Panorganism, , , , –, –,
in France, – , –, –, , –,
in Germany, – , , , –, , ,
in the Netherlands, – –, , , –


 
See also Organization, Passivity, political, 
Prearranged Diffusion Relation, Perception (perceive), , , –,
Theory of Corporeal, Substance, –, , , , , ,
Passive Principle Assumption –, –, –, –, –,
Pantheism, –,, , –,  –, –, , , , ,
Paracelsus,  –, 
Parallelism, , , , , , –, clear and/or distinct, –, , ,
–, , –, ,  , , , 
Strong, –, , , –, –, Perceptual fecundity, 
, , , , , , –, Perfection, , –, –, –,
, , ,  –, , , –, , –,
traditional account,  –, , –
Weak, , , , , , , , and cause, –, – (see Cause,
 emanative)
Parkinson, G.H.R., n., n., and minds, – (see Emanation, Mind)
n. hierarchy of, , –, –, ,
Parmenides,  –, –, , –, –,
Participation in Plato, . See also –
Instantiation, Emanation, Creaturely See also Supreme Being Assumption
Inferiority Complex Person, . See also Mind, Soul
Pascal,  Petersen, Peter, n., n., n.,
Passive Principle Assumption, , , n., n., n., n.
, , , , , , , , Petrarch, n.
, , ,  Phenomena (natural), , , , , ,
Passivity, , , , , ch.  (passim), –, , , , –, –,
– –, , 
and suffering (patiens), , , , , See also Appearances, Perception
, –, , –, –, , Phenomenalism, , , , , ,
 –
as instrument of mind, ch.  (passim), and Preestablished Harmony, ch. 
–, ch.  (passim),, , (passim), –
– Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism, ,
mental, , –, , ,  –, –, –, , –,
principle of, , –, , –, , , , , , –, , –,
, , –, –, –, , –, , , , , ,
–, , , , ch.  (passim), , , 
, , , –, –, –, well founded, –, , 
–, , , –, –, , See also Appearances, Perception,
, ,  (see also Matter, Prearranged Diffusion Relation,
Activity, Prearranged Diffusion Strong Parallelism
Relation) Philo, , , –, , –, , ,
Problem of, –, – , 
rejection of material passivity, –, on creation, 
–, – on knowledge, , 
relation to perfection, –, – on multiplicity and order, , , ,
Passivity Problem, see Passivity 
Passion, , –, , –, –, on relation between Supreme Being and
–, , . See also Passivity the world, , 
Patiens, , , . See also Passivity on wisdom, 
Pätzold, Detlev, n. Physics, , , –, –, , –,
Paul, ,  , –, –, –, ,
on relation between God and world,  –, , –, , , ,
Peace, , , , , , , ,
and philosophical clarity, –, ,  , , –, 
intellectual, , , , –, , –, , Aristotelian, –, 
, , – (see also Harmony) Hobbesian, , 


 
Physics (cont.) Platonist Assumptions, Leibniz’s use of,
mechanical, –, , , , –, , , –, , , , –,
, , –, , ,  , , , , –, , ,
of Physical papers, –,  –, –, , –, –,
of Schediasma, –, –, –, –, –
–, –, – Platonist predecessors, Leibniz’s,
Piccolomini, Francesco,  on relation among creatures,–, –,
Pico della Mirandola, Gianfrancesco, n. –,  (see also Relation of
Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni, Sympathy, Theory of Reflective
eclecticism, –, ,  Harmony)
kabbalism,  on relation between God and creatures,
Platonism, ,  –, –, 
Pictures, analogy of, see Paintings pagan vs. Christian, , , , 
Piro, Francesco, n. Platonists, Leibniz on, , , , ,
Plato, , , , –, , –, , , –, , , , –, , –,
, , , , –, –, , , 
, , , , –, , , Plenitude, –, –, , , –,
, , , –, , , , –, –,  (see also Principle
, , , , , –, of Harmonized Plenitude)
–, – and multiplicity, –, –, –,
and sensible things, –,  –, –, –
emanation and image of sun,  Problem of, , , –
on Ideas, , , , , ,  Plenum, , n., 
on knowledge, –, –,  Plotinus, , n., –, n., ,
on the Good, , ,  n., , , –, , ,
Leibniz on, –, –, , –, n.
–, , , – individual soul, , 
texts of, intelligible matter, 
Phaedo, , –, ,  multiplicity and unity, , , 
Republic, , , ,  on evil, , –
Theaetetus,  on Ideas, , –, , , –
Timaeus, , , ,  on matter, –
Platonism, –, , –, , , , –, on sympathy, –, 
, , chs. – (passim),  n. , on the One, , 
, – on the One as immanent and
and Augustine, , – transcendent, –, –
and knowledge, –, –,  (see Plutarch, 
also Knowledge) Pneuma, –. See also World Soul
and Leibniz’s mature thought, –, Point(s), , –, –, , , ,
– 
and matter – and mind, –,–, , , 
and Metaphysics of Divinity, –, See also Indivisibility
–, – Politella, Joseph, n.
and reconciliation with Aristotelianism, Pope Paul III, 
–, –, , , , , Porphyry, , n.
–, ,  Poser, Hans, n., n.
and scholasticism,  (see also Power, –, –, , 
Aristotelianism) of God, , 
and sympathy, –, ,  (see also Prearranged Diffusion Relation, –,
Sympathy, Theory of Reflective –, , , –, –,
Harmony, Relation of Sympathy) –, –, , , , –,
in Cambridge, – , –
in Germany, –, –,  Predestination, , 
on relation among creatures, –, – Predicates, see Complete concept
on relation between God and creatures, Preestablished Harmony, , , –, ,
–, –,  , , , –, –,


 
–, –, –, , , primary, –, , 
–, , –, , , – Quantity, , , , –, , 
and Emanative Harmony, , –,
, –, , –, –, Rabbis, –. See also Jews
– Ramos, Peter, n.
and phenomenalism, ch.  (passim) Randall, John H., 
Principia logico-metaphysica,  n. Raphael, n.
Principle, definition of, , n. Ratio, rationes, –, –, –, , ,
Principle of Causal Self-Sufficiency, –, , , , –, , , ,
–, , –, –, , , –, , , , –, , , ,
, , –, , , , , , –, –, –, 
–, , , , , , , complete ratio, –, –, –, ,
–, , ,  , , , , , –, ,
Principle of Contradiction,  –, , –, , , ,
Principle of Harmonized Plenitude, , , –, –, , – (see
–, –, , , , , also Principle of Sufficient Reason,
, ,  Complete-Ratio Phenomenalism;
and Thomasius,  Complete-Ratio Theory of
Principle of identity of indiscernibles,  Substance)
See also Identity of indiscernibles of motion, , 
Principle of Self-Sufficiency, –, –, special ratio (instrument), , ,
, , –, , ,  –, 
Principle of Substantial Activity, , –, sufficient, , , –, , , ,
–, , , , ,  – (see also Principle of Sufficient
Principle of Substantial Self-Sufficiency, Reason)
, , , –, , , , , vs. the English ‘reason,’ –
–, ,  Rationes seminales, see seminal rationes
Principle of Sufficient Reason, , –, Real being (ens reale), –, , 
–, –, –, , , , Reality Problem, , , –, ,
, , , , –, –, –, , , 
–, –, , –, , , Reason, faculty of, , , –
–,  natural, 
Prior, Reflective Harmony, –, , –,
in nature, –, ,  –, , , , , , ,
in time, –,  , , –, , , , –,
Prisca theologia or prisca sapientia (ancient , , , –, , –, ,
wisdom), –,  
Privation, Aristotle on,  and Preestablished Harmony, –,
Proclus, –, , ,  –, –
Production, – See also Theory of Reflective Harmony
Production Rule, –, –, , , Reformed philosophy, –, 
, , , , –, , , De Raey’s, –
, , – Digby’s, –
and law of sequence,  Du Hamel’s, –
Protagoras,  Leibniz’s, –, –
Protestantism, , , –, – (see Weigel’s, –
also Augsburg Confession, Refraction, , 
Lutheranism) Remnant, Peter, n.
Ptolemy,  Remond, Nicolas, , n., , , ,
Punishment,  –, –
Pyle, A.J., n., n. Republic, world as, , 
Pythagoras,  Rescher, Nicholas, n, , n., n.,
n.
Quality, , –, , , , –, Res cogitans, . See also Activity, Mind,
, , –, , , , , Thought
 Res extensa, see Matter


 
Resistance, see Impenetrability See also Aristotelianism
Resurrection of body, –, , , , Schwartz, Peter, n.
–, , –, , ,  Scotus, , , n., n.
Reuchlin, Johann, n.,  Second Theory of Corporeal Substance,
Rhetoric, Leibniz’s, –, –, –, –, , , , –, –,
, –, –, , , – , , –, , –, ,
See also Rhetoric of Attraction, Method , –, , , , –,
Rhetoric of Attraction, –, –,–, , , , , , 
–, , , –, , , and conciliatory potential, –
–, – vs. Original Theory of (non-human)
Riley, Patrick, n., n. Corporeal Substance, –, –,
Rintelen, Fritz, n. , 
Rist, John, n. Seed (seminal rationes), , , –, .
Robinet, André, , n., n., , See also Causal Seed Doctrine
n., n., n., n., (Selected) divine essence, see Essence,
n., –, – Emanative Creation Story
Rodier, G., n. Seminal rationes, , –, –, –,
Rosemont, Henry, n.,  , –
Rosental woods, decision and walk in, –, and mind, –
, , , , , , , ,  Thomasius, –, –
Royal Society, , , , ,  See also Causal Seed Doctrine,
Russell, Bertrand, –, , , n., , Traduction
, , , ,  Seneca, , 
Russell-Couturat interpretation of Leibniz, Senses, (see also Appearances, Perception)
–, , , n., ,  See also and knowledge, –
Couturat sensory phenomena, , , , –,
Rutherford, Donald, , n., n., –, –, –
n., n., n., n., Sensible things –
n., n., , n., Series of things, –
n. Sextus, 
Shapin, Steven, n.
Sally, . See also Giovanni Collini Simplicity, –,  See also Unity
Sambursky, S., n., n. Sin, 
Sanchez,  original, 
Scaliger, J.C., ,  Skinner, Quentin, n., n.
Scherzer, Johann Adam, , , n., , Sleigh, Robert C., Jr., n., n., ,
, , , n., , – n., n., n., n.,
and kabbalism,  n., n., n.,
and Platonism, – n., –
and prisca theologia ,  Smith, Justin, n., n., n.,
method, –,  n.
on Ficino,  Socrates, , n.
on Plato,  Songs, 
on relation between God and creatures, Sorell, Tom, n.
– Soto, D., 
Vade Mecum, –,  Soul, , , , , , , , ,
Schmitt, Charles B., n., n., n., –
n., n., n., n., predecessors on, ,–, 
n., n. See also Immortality, World Soul, Mind
Science, , –, , , , , , Space, , , –, , , , ,
, , , , , – , , 
of mind, – Weigel on, 
Scholasticism, –, –, –, , –, Speculative Creation Story, –, –,
, –, , , , –, –, , 
–, –, , , , , Spinoza, , , n., –, , ,
 , , , –


 
Spirit, see Mind, World Soul, Vitalism –, –, –, , –,
Spirit of God, –, ,  –, , –, , , ,
Spontaneity,  (see Complete-Ratio ,  (see also Mind, Activity)
Theory of Substance, Theory of nature of, , , –, , –, ,
Corporeal Substance) –, –, –, , –,
Stahl, Daniel, – , , , , 
State, , , , , , , –, non-human , , , –, ,
, –, –, , , , , –, 
–, –, , , , , simple, 
, , , , –, , state of, , –, –, ,  (see
–, , –,  also Feature, State)
Steuco, Agostino, n.,  two-tiered theory, –, 
Stieler, G., n. vs. aggregate, , –, 
Stoics, –, –, , –, ,  vs. essence, , , –
and Thomasius, –,  See also Original Theory of (non-human)
Story, analogy of, , –, , , Corporeal Substance, Second Theory
–, –, –, , , , of Substance, Theory of Substance,
, –, ,  Metaphysics of Substance,
translation of, , , –, ,  Substantial form, Principle of
Sturm, Johann Christoph, n., n., Activity, Principle of Substantial
–, , , n., n., , Nature, Principle of Substantial Self-
 Sufficiency
Suárez, , , , n. Substance, core of, –, –, –,
Substance, , –, , , , –, –, –, –, , , , –
–, –, –, –, , See also Substance, flower of,
, –, , , , –, Prearranged Diffusion Relation
–, , –, –, –, Substance, flower of, , , , ,
–, , –, –, –, –
–, –, –, –, Substance, fountain of, . See also
–, –, –, –, Substance, core of
–, , ,  Substantial Form Assumption, , , ,
and activity, –, ,  (see also , , –, , , , ,
Activity) , , , , , , ,
and indestructibility, – (see also , , , –, 
Activity) Substantial forms, , , –, , ,
and indivisibility, – (see also Activity) –, –, , , –, –,
and perfection, –, – (see also , ,, , –, , ,
Hierarchy, Creaturely Inferiority , –, –, , , ,
Complex) , –, , , –, –,
Aristotelian views about, , , , , –, –, –, –, ,
, –,–, , –,  , , –, –, , 
change in, –, –, – (see and emanation, –, –, ,
also State) –, –, –,  (see also
complete concept theory of, see Complete Emanation, Mind)
concept and entelechy, 
corporeal, –, , –, –, , Aristotelians on, , –, , ,
–, , –, , –, , 
, –, –, –, –, De Raey on, –
–, –, –, –, , Leibniz’s attitude toward, , , , ,
, –, –, –, –, , , –, –, , , 
–, –, –, ,  mind-like substantial forms, , , ,
criticism of predecessors on, –, , , –, , , , , ,
–, – , , , –, –, ,
De Raey on, – –, –, , , , ,
incorporeal substance, –, –, , ,  (see also Cause, incorporeal)
, , –, , , , , primary and secondary, –, 


 
Substantial forms (cont.) as emanative cause, –, –,
relation to mind, , , , , , –, –, , , –,
–, ,  (see also Mind) –, , –, , , 
restoration of, , , , –, – as First cause, , , , –, 
transubstantiation of, –, –, – as immanent, –, , –, –,
(see also Transubstantiation) , , , 
Weigel on,  as source of harmony, , , , ,
See also Mind, Substantial Form –, , –, –, ,
Assumption, Activity, Principle of –, , , –, , , ,
Substantial Activity , , –, , –, 
Substantial Nature Assumption, , , , as transcendent, , , 
,  attributes of, –, –, , ,
Suffer, see Passivity –, –, , , , ,
Sufficiency, –, –, , –, – –
–, –, , , , , essence of, , , , , , ,
–, , , ,  , –, , , –, ,
and activity, , –, –, –, , –, –, –, –,
,  , , –,  (see also
hierarchy of self-sufficiency, –, , Attributes of Supreme Being; Ideas
,  of Supreme Being)
Leibniz’s predecessors on, – existence of, , , , , , , 
self-sufficiency, –, , –, , –, omniscience and foreknowledge, –,
–, –, , –,  , , , , , 
See also Principle of Self-Sufficiency, predecessors on immanence of, –,
Principle of Substantial Self- –, –, , , , –,
Sufficiency –
Summa rerum, meaning of, n. predecessors on transcendence of, –
Sun (image of), , ,  relation to creatures causally (through
Supreme Being, , , , , , –, emanation), –, –, –, ,
–, , –, –, –, , –, –, , , –,
–, , –, , , , –, –, –, , –,
–, , , –, , , –,  (see also Emanation)
, , –, , –, relation to creatures ontologically
–, . See also Creation (through participation), , , ,
and the best, , –, ,  (see –, –, –, –, ,
also Supreme Being Assumption) –, , , , , ,
and clarity of expression, –, –, –, –
– (see also Expression, Supreme Being Assumption, , –,
Instantiation) , , , , , , –,
and creation of souls, –, –, , , , , 
,  (see also Creation) Sympathy, , –, , , , –,
and divine light, – (see also Light) , , –, –, , –,
and evil, –,  , –, 
and freedom, , ,  Relation of, –, , , –, 
and knowledge, predecessors’ views, – Symphony orchestra, analogy of, , ,
Leibniz’s views, –, –, , , 
, –, – (see also
Knowledge) Telesio, Bernardino, 
and nature, predecessors’ views, – Texts, nature and difficulty of Leibniz’s,
Leibniz’s views, , –, –, –, –, –, , , –,
, , ,  –, –, –, , 
and perfection, unity, and self-sufficiency, Thales, 
–, –, , –, –, Theology, , , , , –, ,
, –, , –, –,  –, , , . , , ,
(see also Supreme Being Assumption) –, , , –
and will, , ,  Natural, , , , 


 
new (Protestant),  (see also Trent, Translations, see Narrative options
Council of) Transubstantiation, –, , , –,
orthodoxy, predecessors’ views, –,  –, , , –. See also
Leibniz’s views, , –, , , , Eucharist
–, ,  Trent, Council of, , , , , ,
revealed,  –, . See also Eucharist,
Theory of Corporeal Substance, , , Transubstantiation
, , , , , , –, Trentman, John A, n.
, ,  Trinity, , , , , , 
Theory of Emanative Causation, , Truth,
, , , , , , , concept containment account of, , ,
,  –, –, 
See also Emanation, Cause divine truths, –
Theory of Reflective Harmony, , –, fountain of, 
–, ,  Leibniz’s relation to, , , 
See also Reflective Harmony, Reflection means to, –, –, , , –
Theory of truth,  predecessors on, –, –
as source of Leibniz’s philosophy , , , pagan vs. Christian, –, 
–, , –,  (see also presentation of, –
Logic) Tschirnhaus, Ehrenfried Walther von, 
Theresa of Ávila, n. Tully, James, 
Thinking, see Thought
Thirty Years War, ,  Understanding, –, , , –,
Thomasius, Jakob, , , , , –, , –
, –, , , , , , –, See also Intellect
–, , , –, –, Unity, –, 
–, , , , –, among minds, , –, , –,
–, , –, –, –, , – (see also Prearranged
–, –, , , , –, Diffusion Relation, Substantial Form
 Assumption, Panorganism,
Aristotelianism of, –, ,  Aggregate)
Leibniz’s attitude toward, , , –, and good-making criteria, –, –,
, –, ,  , 
method and goal, – and mind, , –, , , , ,
on history, – , , ,  (see also Mind,
on matter, –,  Activity)
on Plotinus,  and multiplicity, , –, , –,
physics, , – , –, –, –, ,
Platonism of, , – –, –, –
relation between God and creatures, and panorganism, – (see also
–,  Panorganism)
texts of, Exercitatio, –,  and substance, , , , , –,
Thought, Thinking, –, –, –, –,
as action of mind, , , –, – –, –, , –, , ,
thinking (cogitatio), –, , –, , –, –, –, –,
– –, –, –, , ,
thought (cognitio), –, –, , –, 
, –,  and Supreme Being, –, , 
See also Mind, Activity and world, –, 
Time, , , , , –, , , hierarchy of, , –, , , ,
–, , , –,  – (see also Supreme Being
Town, analogy of, –, , , –, Assumption)
, , , , , ,  hypostatic, –, , , , –
Traces, –, , –, –, –, indivisibility, , , , –, ,
. See also Marks and traces –
Traduction, , , –, –,  organic, –, – (see also Organism)


 
Unity (cont.) Will, , 
union between mind and body, –, , divine, , , , 
, , , , , –, See also Freedom
–, , , –, , , Wilson, Catherine, n., , n., n.,
–, –, –, –, , n., n., n., n.,
– n., , n., n., n.,
predecessors on, –,  n., n., n., n.
See also Organization, Prearranged Wilson, Margaret, n.
Diffusion Relation Wisdom, –, –, –, , –, ,
Universal characteristic,  , 
Utermöhlen, Gerda, n. of God, , , 
Witt, Charlotte, n.
Vacuum, –, , ,  World,
Aristotle on,  goodness of, –, –, –,
Variety, see Multiplicity , –, , , , , ,
Velthuysen, Lambert van, –, – 
Verbeek, Theo, n., n., n. perception of, –,  (see also
Virgil,  Perceive)
Virtue, – relation among parts, –, –,
predecessors on, –,  –, –, , 
Vitalism, –, –, –, –. See relation to God, –, –, –,
also World Soul , –, , , , 
Vortex, –, –, – See also Nature
World apart thesis, . See also Complete-
Wagner, Michael F., n. Ratio Theory of Substance
Waldemar, V., n. World Soul, –, , –, –, ,
Walker, D.P., n., n., n., –, –
n. predecessors on, , –
Wallis, Charles G., n. Thomasius on, –, 
Wallis, R.T., n., n., n. See also Pneuma, Vitalism
Wanda, , , –, –, , , , Worlds-within-worlds, n., 
, –, , , ,  Wower, Johann von n.
Wedderkopf, Magnus,  Wren, Christopher, , n., 
Weigel, Erhard, –, –, , , , Wright, M.R., n., n.
n., , , n. Wundt, Max, n., n., , n.,
method, –,  n., n., n.
Platonism of, 
reformed philosophy of, – Yates, Francis A., n.
White, Thomas, , , n. Yonge, C.D., n., n., n.,
on Eucharist, , – n., n., , n.,
Widmaier, Rita, n. n.
Wiener, n., n.
Wilkins, John, , , , , n., Zabarella, Jacopo –
, , ,  Zeno, 

