LEIBNITZ, Godfrey William, Baron de, a philosopher and mathematician of the first order, and the most universal scholar of modern times, was born at Leipsig on the third of July 1646. At the age of six he lost his father, Frederick Leibnitz, professor of law, and secretary to the university. After this event his mother placed him in the school of St Nicoas at Leipsig. Here he learned the principles of the Greek and Latin languages; but soon breaking through a routine ill suited to his precocious disposition, he applied himself to the study of the classic writers of both languages. Titus Livius and Virgil became his favourite authors; and in his old age he could still repeat entire cantos of the Roman poet. Early distinguished by a rare facility in performing his tasks, he often assisted such of his companions as dulness or idleness prevented from completing their own; and he himself informs us, that when scarcely fourteen, he composed in this way three hundred Latin verses in one day, without any elisions; but he takes care to add, “Credo a lectore non quaeri quam cito, sed quam bene.” At fifteen he entered on his academical career in the university of Leipsig, and, under the direction of Thomasius, devoted himself to the study of philosophy and the mathematics. He then passed a year at Iena, and returned to Leipsig, where he occupied himself with law and philosophy. Having soon mastered the details of the philosophical and mathematical sciences, the genius of Leibnitz now took a grander flight, directing him to the writings of Plato and of Aristotle. These he not only read and thoroughly comprehended, but used to pass entire days in a wood near Leipsig, endeavouring to reconcile the doctrines of the Academy with those of the Lyceum. He was scarcely twenty when he wished to be received as doctor of laws; but although some r petty jealousies prevented his want of the requisite standing or age being dispensed with at Leipsig, this favour was granted him without difficulty by the university of Altorf, which at the same time offered him the situation of extraordinary professor of law.

This, however, he declined; and leaving Altorf, he proceeded to Nuremberg, where a considerable number of men of science and learning were then assembled. At that time a society of chemists in that city occupied themselves with researches, the object of which was to discover the philosopher’s stone. Tormented with a continual desire of acquiring something new, Leibnitz hoped to find, even in the reveries of these visionaries, some aliment for his mind. With this view he wrote to the society soliciting admission, and craving to be initiated into their mysteries. This letter, which was full of abstruse terms extracted from books of chemistry, and so conformable to the style of these mystics that he himself did not understand it, had prodigious success. Leibnitz was admitted a member of the society, and immediately appointed secretary thereto. His duty in this capacity consisted in registering their processes and experiments, and in extracting from the books of the chemists such things as might be of use to his associates in prosecuting their researches.

But happily for himself and the sciences, Leibnitz, whilst at Nuremberg, chanced to make the acquaintance of the Baron de Boineburg, chancellor to the elector of Mayence, who, being struck with his merit, and conceiving a high opinion of his talents and learning, recommended to him to apply himself particularly to history and jurisprudence, and expressed a desire to see him established at Frankfort, at the same time promising to obtain him some employment under his sovereign. Leibnitz followed the judicious counsel thus given him; and from this epoch, 1667, may be dated the real commencement of his literary career. It was at Frankfort that he brought out his Nova Methodus discendae docendoeque Jurisprudentiam. This little volume contained a tableau raisonne of the objects necessary for the double purpose expressed in the title; and in it he already displayed that practical spirit which enabled him to produce so much that is really useful. But that which placed its author in the first rank of philosophical writers, was the new manner in which he treated his subject, and the profound and ingenious views which he presented in regard to a science so long abandoned to routine and pedantry. The order, the clearness, the precision of the ideas, and the style which makes books live, contributed to give great popularity to this production, which, at a subsequent period, the author himself judged with impartiality.^[1. Leibnitii Opera Omnia, tom. iv. p. 4. Geneva, Dutens, I7C8. ] We may also mention here a treatise published in 1669 in favour of the Prince of Neuburg, whom Leibnitz endeavoured to recommend to the Poles, as uniting, in a higher degree than all his competitors, the qualities they required in their king. This piece, which is somewhat lengthy, is written in Latin, and consists of sixty propositions, proved by a rigorous series of axioms, supported sometimes by expositions full of erudition, amongst which maybe mentioned that under the head, Eligendus Catholicus esto. These propositions do not always follow in a necessary order; some of them are superfluous; and the form is a little fatiguing, especially since the interest of the subject has altogether ceased. The Prince of Neuburg was not elected king. But the work of Leibnitz did not on that account make a less sensation, and may, in fact, be regarded as a sort of tour de force. Boineburg, at whose request it had been composed, observing [7:13:203] with satisfaction that Leibnitz justified the idea which he had conceived of his talents, attached him to the service of the elector, by causing him to be appointed counsellor of the chamber of revision in the chancery of the electorate of Mayence.

The material occupations of this office, however, could not shackle a genius so vast and so active as that of Leibnitz. He held it during three years; and it was in this interval that he conceived the design of re-easting or new-modelling the Encyclopaedia of Alstedius. It is not well known what his ideas then were respecting this project; but in some subsequent writings he explains himself in a manner sufficiently spécific. He defines the Eneyelopaedia to be the “system of all the true and useful propositions then known.” He thinks that, to be complete, it should contain definitions of all words; explanations of every fundamental and useful process in the liberal and mechanie arts; and, lastly, a summary of universal history. He then enumerates the different branches of human knowledge; indicates, as models to be followed in each, the principal existing works, amongst which he cites some of his own, and points out what remains to be done; and, finally, he recommends the order of the materials or subjects, in preference to the order of the alphabet.^[2. See Opera Omnia, tom. v. pp. 181-185; also tom. v. p. 405. ] In another passage he recommends subjoining to the treatise on each science a succinct account of its origin and progress, together with a list of the authors who have treated of it in detail. This was one of the predominant ideas of his life, one to which he appeared to attach great importance, and which occupied his mind as long as he lived.

Leibnitz now began to evince a mastery in almost all the sciences. He already enjoyed a great reputation as jurisconsult and philosopher; and he m⅛de himself known in physics by the publication of two treatises, viz. Thearia Motus abstracti and Theoria Motus concreti, which appeared in 1671. These theories were not admitted by philosophers, and did not deserve to be so; but they nevertheless excited astonishment by the boldness and originality of genius displayed in the coneeption of them. The year following he brought out, at the request of Boineburg, a small treatise entitled Sacrosancta Trinitas per nova argumenta logica defensa. In this work, intended to refute the attacks of a Pole named Wissowatius against the doctrine of the Trinity, the author endeavours to show that sound logie is not contrary to orthodoxy. Thus each year Leibnitz produced some work, which served as a new title of distinction, and enabled him to rank successively amongst the masters in the different sciences.

He had long entertained a desire to visit Paris. France then fixed the attention of the learned world, and extorted the admiration of Europe by the victories and the influence of the great monarch to whom she also owed an extraordinary development of military and literary glory. Leibnitz felt the importance of forming a connection with the learned men of that country; and Boineburg procured him the means of attaining this object, by proposing to him to accompany bis son, whom he was then sending to Paris. Delighted with the proposal, and at the same time anxious to testify his gratitude to so zealous a patron, Leibnitz gladly accepted the offer, and set out for Paris in 1672. Placed amongst the illustrious men of that capital, and already worthy of them, he felt that ardour which leads to the distinction conferred by useful discoveries burn with redoubled force in his bosom. He now applied himself more especially to the mathematics, in which he had not as yet made any considerable progress; and this choice, in the midst of distractions of every kind in a new society, and of studies apparently much more attractive, is not one of the least proofs of the force and energy of his character. He found at Paris the illustrious Huygens; and he afterwards confessed, with that ingenuousness which is so becoming in great men, his obligations to the work De Horologio Oscillatoriο, which had just appeared, and which, of all modern works, after those of Galileo and Descartes, proved the most useful to Leibnitz. The learned men whose society he frequented soon recognized his superior genius; and he confirmed this liigh estimate of his powers by the exposition of his ideas on the reform of the arithmetical machine of Paseal, or rather by the invention of a new machine, which he has described in the Miscellanea Be-rolinensia. ^[3. See Miiccll. Bcrolin. i. xxxi. and fig. 73. In 1763 he had exhibited this machine to the Royal Society of London; and, in fact, it appears to have occupied his attention at intervals during the whole of his life. It is still preserved in the Museum of Göttingen, and is thought superior to other machines of the same kind. (Gersten, xvii. 232.) ] He obtained the suffrages of the Academy of Seienees, the members of which signified to him that he might be admitted into that illustrious body as pensionary, provided he chose to embrace the Catholic religion; but although the proposition was equally honourable to Leibnitz, as a proof of the estimation in which his talents were held, and to the Academy, which knew how to appreciate them, he did not think it proper or right for him to accept the offer.

His protector Boineburg died in 1673; and having no longer any business to detain him at Paris, he passed over into England, where he was received with the same distinction as in France. He had the satisfaction of making the acquaintance and enjoying the society of Boyle, Oldenburg, Collins, and other celebrated men, who disputed the palm in several of the sciences with the philosophers of the Continent; and it was from Collins that he received some hints concerning the invention of the method of fluxions, which had been discovered by Newton as early as the year 1664 or 1665, and by him communicated to Dr Barrow in 1669. But he had not been long in England when he received intelligence of the death of the elector ofMayence, by which he lost his pension. As this event made an entire change in his position, he resolved to communicate his embarrassments to the Duke of Brunswick-Lunenburg. This prince, who had always testified much regard for him, availed himself of the opportunity thus afforded him to assure Leibnitz of his favour, and to offer him the situation of counsellor, with a salary, at the same time granting him permission to prolong at pleasure his stay abroad. Overjoyed with this reply, ’ which removed all cause of uneasiness as to his circumstances, Leibnitz returned to Paris, where he remained fifteen months buried in the depths of geometry. He quitted Paris in 1674, revisited England where he spent fifteen days, and proceeded by way of Holland to join his new benefactor. Leibnitz was still under thirty. At an age when great men are in general only beginning to distinguish themselves, each in his respective career, he had entered upon almost all in succession; had received, in the three countries which he had visited, testimonies of the highest esteem; and had established, with a great number of learned men, literary connections, which proved very advantageous to the sciences. We shall soon see him attain a still more commanding eminence, and at length arrive at that species of supremacy which he acquired over his age by the universality of his genius and talents.

Soon after his arrival at Hanover, he published his treatise on the Right of Sovereignty and of Embassy claimed by the Princes of Germany, who demanded the same privilege[7:13:204] as the electors, namely, those enjoyed by kings. This work, which appeared under the name of Coesarinus Eurstnerius, and maintains that the emperor is the temporal head of the states of the West, as the pope is the spiritual head, possesses little interest at the present day; but it displays a profound knowledge of public law and of history, gives minute details of titles and ceremonial, and is written in that decorous and measured style which distinguishes all the writings of Leibnitz. He continued to cultivate all the sciences. He likewise supported, by every means in his power, the project -of publishing the Acta Eruditorum, the first volume of which appeared at Leipsig in the year 1682. The celebrity which this journal acquired from its very commencement was in a great measure owing to Leibnitz, who enriched it with a great variety of curious pieces, from extracts of rare books, to problems in the higher geometry.

The Duke of Brunswick died in 1679; but his successor, Ernest Augustus, afterwards George I. of England, inheriting the same esteem for Leibnitz, extended to him the same favour, and engaged him to write the history of the house of Brunswick. Leibnitz, anxious to obey this honourable call, resolved to visit the south of Germany and Italy, that in these countries he might make the necessary researches, and collect materials for the work. He devoted no less than three years to these journeys, consulting learned men, exploring libraries and archives, perusing old charters and manuscripts, and examining other monuments.^[4. It was in one of these expeditions that, finding himself overtaken by a tempest in the Adriatic Sea, whilst passing from Venice to Mesola, he heard the pilot of the bark, who did not imagine he was understood by the stranger, propose to the crew to throw into the sea the German heretic, whose presence on board was, he conceived, the sole cause of the squall (bourasque). Leibnitz, without appearing to have heard anything, or betraying the slightest emotion, drew from his pocket a chaplet or rosary, and commenced telling the beads with great seeming devotion. This quiet artifice saved him; one of the crew observing to the pilot, that as the man was not a heretic, it would be of no use to throw him into the sea. ] The fruit of so many researches was a prodigious collection of materials of all kinds. Besides the documents necessary for his history, it comprehended an immense multitude of political and diplomatic acts, as declarations of war, manifestoes, contracts of marriage, treaties of peace, bulls, and other public pieces. Leibnitz put these materials in order, and with their aid produced a work altogether different from, and independent of, the principal, and indeed one of much greater importance, entitled Codex Juris Gentium Diplomatìcus, the first volume of which appeared in 1693, and the second in 1700, under the title of Mantissa Codicis. This collection contains a great number of acts which had never before appeared, and many others which, though previously published, had become very scarce. Read with discernment, it exhibits great knowledge, not only of history, but also of the genius of nations and languages, as well as of other subjects of inferior interest and importance. In other respects, any methodical mind might have been capable of a similar effort. What the genius of Leibnitz could alone produce is the preface to the work, in which, ascending to the principles of natural law and the law of nations, he expounds his ideas on both with great depth and originality. But that which distinguishes this book, and the preceding ones published by him on the same subjects, particularly his project for compiling a new body of law,^[5. Corporis Juris Reconcinnandi Ratio, Mayence, 16G8, in 12mo. ] from those of the same epoch, is the tendency towards that reasonable reform of jurisprudence which was afterwards effected, in a great measure owing to the influence of Leibnitz, by whom its necessity was first pointed out; and likewise the union, recommended throughout, of the study of jurisprudence with that of religion and philosophy, which he regarded as the most solid basis of human happiness.^[6. Opera Omnia, tom. vi. p. 4, et passim. ]

In the midst of labours so various, he did not lose sight of the principal object of his recent travels, and occupied himself diligently in collecting the historians of Brunswick. He even composed for that house several writings, one of which, intended to establish its connection with the house of Este, procured for him the place of privy councillor of justice; a sinecure appointment destined to recompense his zeal without withdrawing him from his ordinary labours, amongst which the history, with its collateral branches, occupied an important place. The immense researches Leibnitz had made for the history of Brunswick, however, furnished him with materials for other works of a secondary kind. Thus in 1698 he published a new collection under the title of Accessiones Historicae (in two vols. 4to), containing a great number of rare and curious pieces, which had escaped the observation of his predecessors. But nothing attests so much the extent of his views as what he did for the history he had undertaken. He commenced by collecting all the writers who had spoken of the house of Brunswick. The first volume appeared in 1707, the second in 1710, and the third in 1711; and subjoined were extracts from all the ancient authors relative to the tribes inhabiting the banks of the Elbe and the Weser, with notes explanatory of obscure passages. This collection, therefore, like those of Muratori, Duchesne, and others, had a merit independent of the object for which it had been compiled. But it was still, so to speak, only a preliminary work. The history even of Brunswick has not appeared. The learned Eckhard found amongst the papers of Leibnitz only the plan of it, which he published in the Acta Eruditorum of 1717. This history was to have been preceded by a dissertation on the primitive state of the globe, and particularly of Germany. A curious monument of the ideas of Leibnitz on this subject is contained in his Protogaea, a sort of essay, which, in 1693, he caused to be inserted in the Leipsig journal, and which was afterwards published separately by Scheidius (Göttingen, 1749, in 4to). In this production he attempts to explain the formation of the earth, and of the different substances which it includes. He admits a conflagration of the globe, then a general submersion, which, independently of the testimony of Scripture, is sufficiently established by the animal and vegetable remains that are frequently met with, and at different heights. This double hypothesis enables him to assign to the solid bodies (corpora firma) a double origin, that is, cooling after the fusion, and consolidation after the subsiding and evaporation of the waters; and in these ideas he finds the germ of a new science, which he calls Natural Geography. He enters into some details on minerals, and speaks of crystals, which he considers as the geometry of inanimate nature. Further, Leibnitz thought it incumbent on him to prove that animal and vegetable petrifactions were not a freak or sport of nature (jeu de lα nature), and also to rebut forcibly the opinion as to the productive power of matter. This short exposition will suffice to give an idea of the immensity of the plan of Leibnitz, and of the prodigious variety of subjects which it embraces; a plan in many respects similar to that which has been followed by Herder and some other authors posterior to Leibnitz. It is much to be regretted that this design was not carried into execution, seeing it would probably [7:13:205]have presented a solution of many historical and other problems of the greatest importance.

We must here take particular notice of one of those works which he continually let drop from his hands, and which were, so to speak, merely his pastimes; we l mean his book on the origin of the Franks.^[7. Disquisitio de Francorum origine, Hanover, 1715, in 8vo. ] This people, he conceives, came originally from the shores of the Baltic Sea. He founds his opinion on the authority of the anonymous writer of Ravenna, and of Ermoldus Nigellus, a French poet of the ninth century, and on passages in several authors; alleging, moreover, that some of the ancients have confounded the Palus Maeotis with the Baltic Sea. This opinion was attacked by Father Tournemine, who combated it with much urbanity, saying, amongst other things, that, even in espousing a contrary hypothesis, the French did not disclaim being the countrymen of Leibnitz, since he appeared to have proved that the Franks had occupied the countries situated between the right bank of the Rhine and the Ocean. Gundling also published a refutation of the assertions of Leibnitz. The latter, who did not hold himself beaten, replied to both his antagonists; but, far from pretending to decide in the last resort, he appealed to the judgment of several learned men of his time, and, amongst others, to that of Huet and Montfaucon, whom he highly respected on account of their learning.

This seems the proper place to speak of the correspondence which Leibnitz for a long time maintained with Bossuet, in regard to the project for the re-union of the Protestants with the Catholics; a project which had for some time been pushed with activity, and which gave Leibnitz occasion to display attainments in theology which no one could ever have suspected in a mathematician of the first order. The details may be seen in the History of Bossuet by Μ. Bausset.^[8. Histoire de Bossuet, torn· iv. p. 144, 2d edit. ] It is sufficient to state that this negociation, in which Leibnitz did not take part till the year 1692, was carried on with a degree of good faith very rare indeed in affairs of this description; that at one time it encouraged the hope of a successful and happy termination; and that it ultimately failed, owing to circumstances altogether independent of the matters which had formed the subjects of discussion. Amongst these may be reckoned the new political situation in which the elector of Hanover, to whom Leibnitz was altogether devoted, found himself placed in the year 1701. This prince saw reason to apprehend, that were he to labour longer in endeavouring to effect a reconciliation between die two communions, he might alienate the English people, who then manifested the greatest aversion to Catholicism, and might even bar his accession to the throne of England, to which he saw himself eventually called. From the Syntagma Theologicum of Leibnitz, however, it is clear that this philosopher had personally little disinclination to the doctrines of the Catholic church. To effect the re-union desired, he had reckoned much upon the influence of Louis XIV.; and it is curious to observe how this prince is judged by a man as independent of France as Leibnitz then was.^[9. See his second letter to Madame Brinon, Opera, tom. v. p. 558. ]

Having been admitted a member of the Royal Society of London during his second visit to England in 1674, and associated to the Academy of Sciences at Paris since 1699, Leibnitz too well appreciated the advantages which academies owe to this combination of labours directed towards a common centre, not to second, by all the means in his power, the project for establishing a Royal Academy at Berlin, formed in 1700 by the elector of Brandenburg, who, the following year, assumed the title of king of Prussia. This prince had solicited the advice and assistance of Leibnitz. The reply of the latter is equally remarkable for the excellence and wisdom of its views, and the great simplicity by which it is throughout distinguished. “The object,” says he, “ought to be to advance the happiness of men, which consists principally in wisdom and in virtue, and next in health and the comrbrts of life.” He points out, as the first object, “the good education of youth, which includes also the regulation of studies; nothing being more important than to give a good cast to the mind as well as to the body.” He then indicates summarily the plan of study which the Academy ought to recommend, and which is in the main that presently followed in the universities of Germany. The elector, as may well be supposed, adopted the views of Leibnitz. But he did more; he appointed him president of the new society, with the most unlimited powers, and without any restraint as to residence, or requiring that he should quit the service of the elector of Brunswick. The patent by which this office was conferred forms one of the most honourable titles ever bestowed on a man of learning and science.

Eleven years later, Leibnitz received marked proofs of confidence on the part of Peter I. of Russia, who, during his travels in Saxony, consulted him as to the execution of his vast projects relative to the civilization of his empire, and to whom Leibnitz in his turn communicated views with which that monarch expressed hi nself highly satisfied. In reward of this service he received the title of privy councillor. Lastly, the king of Prussia having died in 1713, Leibnitz, who foresaw the fall of the Academy of Berlin under his successor, repaired to Vienna to propose to the Emperor Charles VI. the institution of a similar body, wherein the sciences, which were about to be banished from Berlin, might find an asylum. Owing to several circumstances unconnected with Leibnitz, this project did not succeed; but every mark of consideration was lavished on the author. The emperor had already named him an aulic councillor; to this he now added a pension of two thousand florins, and employed every means to induce him to enter the imperial service. But Leibnitz, having declined these offers, went to fix his abode at Hanover, the elector of which had just been called to the throne of England.

In 1710 there appeared a volume of the Miscellanea Eerolinensia, in which Leibnitz amply acquitted his debt as founder and president, and showed himself under forms so varied, that this volume alone would have been sufficient to insure him the reputation of universal genius. In proof of what is here said, it is only necessary to refer to his Essay on the Origin of Nations. This production exhibits the principal points of his system, a complete know ledge of which may be obtained by the perusal of his voluminous correspondence. By the aid of etymologies, and by means of analysis, Leibnitz endeavours to distinguish, through the successive alterations of languages, the origins of different nations, whom he divides into two great principal races,—that of the North and that of the South; then, by way of synthesis, he attempts to recompose the primitive language; and, finally, by means of this last operation, he labours to discover the relations between the signs of language and the ideas expressed by them. A great part of his labours had for their object to obtain these different results; he had himself plunged into the chaos before which almost all those who are more occupied with ideas than with words usuallyrecoil: it formed one of the principal objects of his correspondence with the learned, as well as with travellers and missionaries; and new views on the language of the Copts or the Hottentots afforded him as much pleasure as the demonstration of a metaphysical truth, or the solution[7:13:206] of an important problem in geometry. He is not always of the same mind with other learned men, and often contradicts received opinions. Like all etymologists, he has placed too much reliance upon fanciful coincidences and strained derivations; but, as he himself observed, errors are often useful to truth, and the search after the three great chimeras (tria magna inania), the philosopher’s stone, the perpetual motion, and the quadrature of the circle, materially contributed to enrich the sciences.^[10. Opera Omnia, tom. iv. p. 199. ]

We have seen that Leibnitz succeeded in stamping the impression of his genius upon almost all kinds of knowledge. Natural history alone did not specially occupy his attention. His Protogaea is the only essay which he published on the subject; but in his works we often meet with proofs of the interest with which that science had inspired him; and it is not forgotten either in his general plans of education, or in his encyclopedical schemes. He was even a poet, and wrote verses in both the languages which he habitually employed; but it is right to add, that he acquired no illustration by his poetry, particularly his French verses, which are below mediocrity. Leibnitz is justly obnoxious to the literary reproach of having neglected his mother-tongue. But few of his writings appeared in German; and, what is not a little singular, the object of one of these pieces, which is very ill written, but exceedingly curious, is to recommend the study, practice, and improvement of the German language.^[11. See some remarks prefixed to his Collectanea Etymologica, in Opera Omnia, tom. vi. p. 651. ] It is the more to be regretted that he did not himself labour in the execution of the plan which he proposed for attaining this object, as he might, by his influence, have effected that which was not accomplished until half a century afterwards, by the united efforts of the poets and literary men who distinguished that epoch. Besides, although he attaches great importance to that language, he does not appear to have understood its resources or its flexibility; for, in citing French Sapphic verses, he adds, that he does not believe a similar attempt would succeed equally well in German, although he had himself composed German anapests, in imitation of those of Seneca. In justification of Leibnitz, however, it is proper to add, that, being in correspondence with men of all nations, he naturally adopted the two languages, Latin and French, which were then in general and almost exclusive use.

His Latin style is neither elegant nor agreeable. Sometimes, however, he rises with his subject, and assumes a certain degree of majesty; but what may appear singular is, that we frequently meet with Gallicisms in his Latin compositions. We are less surprised to find Germanisms in his French prose; but these, however, are of rare occurrence. What strikes us most in his general style, is that grand and noble simplicity which distinguishes the French writers of the same period, and which is equally suited to pure reason and to sublime conceptions. In his works, as in his correspondence, there is an almost total absence of ornament. The most simple literary correspondence of the present day would exhibit more brilliancy and point than that of this great man; but, on the other hand, there is not one of his letters which does not contain the germ, the expression, or the development of some great or useful idea. Those of greatest extent commonly exhibit a sort of abridged or epitomized encyclopedical view of the state of the sciences, or the labours of the learned. But what we are never weary of admiring is his constant urbanity towards his correspondents, as well as the moderation and propriety exhibited in the expression of his judgments, whatever may be their occasional severity. No personal predilection, no national prejudice, ever disturbs the impartiality of that genius which viewed every thing as it were from on high. Embracing, so to speak, entire humanity, he incessantly recommends sending European missionaries into foreign countries, for the triple purpose of augmenting the amount and variety of our knowledge, establishing new commercial relations, and, above all, propagating the faith and the doctrine of Christianity. “Peu lui importe,” says his French biographer, “que cette doctrine soit enseignée aux étrangers avec moins de pureté (on ne doit pas oublier que c’est un Luthérien qui parle), pourvu qu’elle se répande; et pour le succès des missions aux Malabar, entre autres, il conseille d’amener en Europe des habitants de cette côte, qui puissent y enseigner leur langue à des missionnaires Européens.”

Leibnitz had a sweet expression of countenance, blended with a studious air; he possessed considerable gaiety, and his conversation was equally easy and instructive. His temper was naturally choleric; but, like most passionate men, he soon recovered his equanimity. Affable and communicative, he conversed freely with all who came in his way, and even carried his complaisance so far as, according to Fontenelle, to read a multitude of worthless books, out of politeness to their authors. He was never married. At the age of fifty he had some thoughts of forming a matrimonial connection; but as the lady he wished to espouse desired time to consider his proposal, Leibnitz also made his own reflections on the subject, and unluckily came to the conclusion that, though marriage is a good thing, a wise man ought to consider of it all his life. Much has been said of his avarice, but apparently without any sufficient reason. There is no doubt that his expenditure was exceedingly frugal; but he had no expensive passions or tastes to satisfy, and it is probable that his money accumulated without his being aware of it. The reproach of not having attended the service of his religion appears to be better founded. Nevertheless, he was equally attached to the forms and the substance of religion; and though he may have been wanting in punctuality of attendance, there is no ground whatever for questioning the sincerity of his sentiments. De Murr, in his Journal of Nuremberg, of the 1lth March 1779, gives entire the Memoir of Eckhard, from which Fontenelle has derived most of the particulars inserted in his Eloge de Leibnitz. It is there stated, that Leibnitz was of a middle stature, and had black hair, a large head (which early became bald), and small eyes. He was short-sighted, but his vision continued excellent even until his last moments. He read the smallest characters, and his hand-writing was very minute. He had on the crown of his head an excrescence of the size of a pigeon’s egg; and he always walked stooping, with his head projected, which gave him the appearance of being hunch-backed. He was of a thin habit, but of a vigorous temperament; he drank little, supped plentifully, and went to rest immediately after. He remained in bed only a few hours; sometimes he contented himself with sleeping in a chair, and, awaking about six or seven in the morning, instantly resumed his labours. When deeply immersed in study, he was known to have scarcely quitted his chair for weeks. But, however strong his constitution might be, it could not, in the long run, escape being undermined by a life so sedentary; in fact, the result was an ulcer in one of his legs. He was, besides, subject to the gout, the attacks of which became more frequent and painful tow ards the close of his life. He consulted few physicians; and his death appears to have been occasioned by blindly using a remedy which he had received from one of his friends, and which, producing violent spasms, terminated his existence in little more than an hour after he had swallowed it. He died on the 14th of November 1716, at the age of seventy. His [7:13:207]monument, constructed in the form of a small temple, at the extremity of the great alley leading to the gates of Hanover, bears the simple inscription, Ossa Leibnitii.

This extraordinary man is, beyond contradiction, one of those who have most highly exalted and ennobled the human understanding. But if he has merited our admiration by the astonishing variety of his labours, he is still more deserving of our gratitude on account of that practical activity which had always for its object the good of his fellow-creatures. Along with his most profound meditations, are presented the means which indicate their utility, and facilitate their application. His letters to Madame Brinon, his judgments on Shaftesbury, the whole of his correspondence, and a thousand passages in his writings, attest his profound respect for religion and morality; and he crowned his glorious life by giving, in his Theodicaea, the support of his influence to ideas at once the most sublime and the most necessary to the welfare of humanity. None of his labours was without glory to himself, or without advantage to society. His reputation would perhaps have been more solid and permanent had he less ambitiously grasped the whole circle of human science; yet it is difficult to name any department of human knowledge which has not profited by his labours, or received fresh illustration from his genius. As a theologian, he successively contended with the sceptics who believed too little, and with the Catholics, who, in his opinion, believed too much; with the heretics, who believed otherwise than was inculcated by the confession of Augsburg; and with the Arminians, who contended for the liberty of indifference. Yet the philosopher betrayed his love of union and toleration. In conjunction with the illustrious Bossuet, he laboured zealously to effect a reconciliation between the Catholic and Protestant churches; and if he failed in this truly Christian enterprise, his sincerity and good faith remain unimpeach-cd; for, whatever may be thought of the selfish and worldly policy of the elector of Hanover, there can scarcely be but one opinion as to the purity of the motives which actuated Leibnitz. In an intolerant age, however, his orthodoxy did not escape suspicion; and the moderation which reflects so much honour on his memory was construed as indifference. His faith in revelation itself was accused, because he attempted to prove the doctrine of the Trinity by the principles of logic; and in the defence of the attributes and providence of the Deity, he was suspected of a secret correspondence with his adversary Bayle. As a metaphysician, he expatiated in regions too elevated ever to be explored by human genius and intellect. His pre-established harmony of the soul and body, if an untenable, is at least a sublime conception, and, as such, might have excited the jealousy of Plato himsclt’; whilst his optimism, or the best of all possible worlds, seems an idea too vast for a mortal mind, and too beneficent for the actual condition of humanity. He was a natural philosopher, in the large and genuine acceptation of the term; and if, like some others, he amused himself with endcavouring to penetrate the mysteries of cosmogony, his Protogaea, or primitive earth, has not been useless to Buffon, and those who have succeeded him, in investigating the changes which have taken place in the constitution of the globe, and tracing the causes or agents to which these are to be attributed.

“I am not worthy,” says Gibbon, “to praise the mathematician; but his name is mingled in all the problems and discoveries of the times; the masters of the art were his rivals or disciples; and if he borrowed from Sir Isaac Newton the sublime method of fluxions, Leibnitz was at least the Prometheus who imparted to mankind the sacred fire which he had stolen from the gods. His curiosity extended to every branch of chemistry, mechanics, and the arts; and the thirst of knowledge was always accompanied with the spirit of improvement. The vigour of his youth had been exercised in the schools of jurisprudence; and while he taught, he aspired to reform the laws of nature and nations, of Rome and Germany. The annals of Brunswick, and of the empire, of the ancient and modern world, were presented to the mind of the historian; and he could turn from the solution of a problem to the dusty parchments and barbarous style of the records of the middle age. His genius was more nobly directed to investigate the origin of languages and nations; nor could he assume the character of a grammarian without forming the project of an universal idiom and alphabet. These various studies were often interrupted by the occasional politics of the times, and his pen was always ready in the cause of the princes and patrons to whose service he was attached; many hours were consumed in a learned correspondence with all Europe; and the philosopher amused his leisure with the composition of French and Latin poetry. Such an example may display the extent and powers of the human understanding, but even his powers were dissipated by the multiplicity of his pursuits. He attempted more than he could-finish; he designed more than he could execute: his imagination was too easily satisfied with a bold and rapid glance on the subject, which he was impatient to leave; and Leibnitz may be compared to those heroes, whose empire has been lost in the ambition of universal conquest.”

Variety in unity, or unity varied, the expressive sign of every masterpiece of nature and of art, characterizes happily enough the productions of the genius of Leibnitz: extreme variety in the number and the species of the ideas with which he enriched the intellectual world, of the truths which he discovered or demonstrated, and of the elements of every order which he combined: absolute unity of principle, of method, of plan, and of object or aim, in this great and beautiful system, which connects and harmonizes the two worlds, spiritual and material, by subjecting them to the unity of a monarchy constituted under the government of the greatest and best of sovereigns. If we consider the form under which the different productions of this fertile genius present themselves, as detached pieces, or as fragments disseminated in vast collections, the mind is at first struck with their prodigious variety; and it is in this point of view that they most commonly appear, not only to biographers, but frequently to the historians of philosophy. But he who regards them in this light alone, will absolutely fail to discover the total and harmonious effect of this grand and beautiful scenography, or will only obtain partial views, and glimpses without any sequence or connection. The philosophical works of Leibnitz form a body of doctrine, the parts of which, whatever be their number or diversity, are nevertheless intimately connected, and all referrible to the same principles, as well as animated by the same spirit. This spirit, diffused throughout each of his numerous productions, pervades equally the works of the jurisconsult, the historian, the theologian, the natural philosopher, and the mathematician.^[12. See a very eloquent and learned exposition of the Philosophical System of Leibnitz, annexed to the life of that illustrious man ιn Biθffτ∏ykic Universelle, art· Leibnitz. ] In proof of this, as far as regards the philosophical system of Leibnitz, it is only necessary to refer our readers to the ample and masterly exposition of it contained in the First Preliminary Dissertation to this work (part second, sect. ii. p. 122, et seq.), where the philosopher will find abundant aliment for thought, and the man of taste will discover new sources of gratification, in the splendid combination of genius, eloquence, and philosophy.
[7:13:208]

In like manner, with reference to the mathematical labours of Leibnitz, and more particularly his claim to the discovery of the differential calculus, it is only necessary for us to direct the reader to the Third Preliminary Dissertation (part second, sect. i. p. 517, et seq.) where the subject generally is treated with profound science and consummate ability, and the claims of Leibnitz to the discovery in question are weighed and judged with that perfect candour and judicious discrimination, which ought ever to guide such decisions. In recent times, however, a new competitor for the honour of this discovery has been brought forward by no less distinguished a personage than Laplace. “Il parait,” says he, in his Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités, “ que Fermat, le véritable inventeur du calcul différentiel, a considéré ce calcul comme one dérivation de celui des différences finies.” Against this affirmation, however, Professor Playfair, in his review of Laplace’s Essai, enters a strong and solemn protestation. “The age in which that discovery was made,” says he, “has been unanimous in ascribing the honour of either to Newton or Leibnitz; or, as seems to us much the fairest and most probable opinion, to both ; that is, to each independently of the other, the priority in respect of time being somewhat on the side of the English mathematician. The writers of the history of the mathematical sciences have given their suffrages to the same effect;— Montucla, for instance, who has treated the subject with great impartiality, and Bossut, with no prejudices certainly in favour of the English philosopher. In the great controversy to which this gave rise, all the claims were likely to be well considered; and the ultimate and fair decision, in which all sides seem to have acquiesced, is that which has just been mentioned. It ought to be on good grounds, that a decision passed by such competent judges, and that has now been in force for a hundred years, should all at once be reversed.” He then proceeds to show that there are no such grounds, and concludes by observing, “Great as is the merit of Fermat, which nobody can be more willing than ourselves to acknowledge, and near as he was to the greatest invention of modern times, we cannot admit that his property in it is to be put on a footing with that of Newton or of Leibnitz ;—we should fear that, in doing so, we were violating or* of the most sacred and august monuments that posterity ever raised in honour of the dead.”^[13. Edinburgh Review, vol. xxiii. pp. 324, 325. See also Μ. Biot Sur les Travaux Mathématiques, annexed to the article Leibnitz in the Biographie Universelle; an exposition which contains a very full and distinct, though not altogether unprejudiced, view of the controversy above referred to. ]

For the most extensive collection of the works of Leibnitz, we are indebted to Louis Dutens, who in 1768 published at Geneva, Go. Gul. Leibnitii Opera Omnia, in six vols. 4to. The first volume contains the Opera Theologica, amongst which are the Theodiccea in the Latin translation, and the tracts in controversy with Bossuet; the second includes the writings relative to logic, metaphysics, general physics, chemistry, medicine, botany, natural history, the arts,&c. particularly the Meditationes, the treatise JDe Primoe Philosophice Emendatione, the Principia Philosophica, and the Correspondence with Dr Clarke; the third is devoted to mathematics; and the three remaining volumes contain the writings of Leibnitz on history, antiquities, jurisprudence, philology, etymology, the Chinese, &c. Dutens, however, excluded from his collection all that had been published by Rud. Eric. Raspe at Amsterdam in 1765, 4to, under the title of Oeuvres Philosophiques de Μ. Leibnitz, tirées des ses manuscrits, viz. 1. Nouveaux Essais sur l’Entendement Humain, intended as a refutation of Locke; 2. Examen du Sentiment de Malebranche, Que nous voyons tozit en Pieu; 3. Dialogus inter Res et Verba, and some other small treatises on logic and the Caractéristique Universelle. Those who wish to possess all that has appeared from the pen of Leibnitz, must add to these two collections, I. Essais de Théodicée, sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de Thomme, et l’origine du mal, Amsterdam, 1716; 2. Epistolae ad diversos, cum notis Kor-tholti, Leipsig, 1734-1742, in four vols. 8vo; 3. Jo. Dan. Gruberi Commercium Epistolicum Leibnitzianum, Hanover, 1745, in two vols. 8vo; 4. Leibnitzii et J. Bernoullii Commercium Philosophicum et Mathematicum, editum a Cramer, Geneva, in two vols. 4to; 5. His Correspondence with Jablonski, published by Professor Kappe, Leipsig, 1745, in 8vo; 6. Epistolae ad Schmidium, theologum Helmstadiensem, quas evulgavit Wesenmeyer, 1788; 7. Lettres choisies de la Correspondance de Leibnitz, publiées pour la première fois par G. H. Feder, Hanover, 1805, in 8vo; and, 8. A kind of Leibnitziana in the Otium Hanoveranum, 1718, in 8vo. The historical collections published by Leibnitz during his life were, 1. Codex Juris Gentium diplomaticus, Hanover, 1693, in folio; 2. Mantissa Codicis Juris Gentium diplomat, ibid. 1700, in folio; 3. Scriptores Rerum Brunsvicensium, ibid. 1707-1711, in three vols. folio; 4. Accessiones Historicae, Leipsig, 16981700, in two vols. The number of works that have been published in relation to or in connection with Leibnitz, is immense, and therefore precludes any attempt at enumerating them. (a.)