get rid of the supposed connection of mind and other arguments against a theory on which, though matter, none was ever more groundless than this; it may have found some advocates in the age of and yet to none of them have their authors attached Leibnitz, certainly has not a single adherent in our the hundredth part of the importance which Leib- day. To suppose a material world, all the more nitz attached to it. The supposition that the ments of which, so to speak, are parallel and coinmovements of body and of mind are as totally cident with those of mind, but totally disconnected distinct (to use his own favorite and oft-repeated with them, and created to answer no assignable or illustration) as those of two timepieces exquisitely imaginable purpose, is surely to impute to the correct, and that the former, like the latter, agree Deity a clumsy, cumbrous, irrational method of only in the perfect simultaneity with which they procedure. Yet Leibnitz principally values him. are performed, is really one of the most monstrous self on having excogitated a system, which opens and even self-destroying hypotheses ever framed. to us the most sublime views of the Omnipotence According to that theory, to adopt the illustration which could thus effect an entire harmony and of Bayle, " the body of Cæsar must have performed parallelism, in the infinitely complicated and varied all its acis, though it had pleased God to have functions of two perfectly heterogeneous and sep annihilated Cæsar's soul the day after it was cre- arate substances. And if mere intricacy and ated ;" or as Dr. Thomas Brown puts it, the soul superfluous complexity of apparatus were the of Leibnitz would, though his body had been an- highest trophy of wisdom, there would be some nihilated at birth, have felt and acted as if with force in this reasoning ; but as long as it is true, its bodily appendage-studying the same works, that simplicity in the means conjoined with variety inventing the same systems, and carrying on with in the ends is an attribute of the works of the the same warfare of books and epistles the same Supreme Being, we may well doubt whether this long course of indefatigable controversy ;-and the theory be any such notable compliment to tbe body of this great philosopher, though his soul | Deity. In this system, as well as in erery other had been annihilated at birth, would not merely which the impatience of philosophers has suggesthave gone through the same process of growth, ed, for the purpose of ridding themselves of a eating and digesting, and performing all its other supposed interaction of two totally different subordinary functions, but would have achieved for stances, our sages forget, while magnifying the itself the same intellectual glory, without any con- sublime views which their respective theories gire sciousness of the works which it was writing and us of the Divine Power and Wisdom pecessary to correcting-would have argued with equal strenu- realize them, that there is a very simple way of ousness for the principle of the Sufficient Reason, still more effectually doing justice to that power claimed the honors of the Differential Calculus, and wisdom; namely, by supposing it possible and labored to prove this very system of the Pre- that the Divine Being may effect a mysterious conestablished Harmony, of which it would certainly, nection between two perfectly distinct substances, in that case, have been one of the most illustrious though the philosopher cannot conceive it possible: examples.".

and in a way which may far more transcendently Now, what proof can we ever have of the exis- display the infinitude of the Divine resources, than tence of a material world, if we accept a theory, the realization of any complicated scheme of his the precise object of which is to sever all connec- could do. But this would just be humbly to admit tion between it and the percipient mind? The certain ordinary facts which all the world admits, very machinery of that material world, and its and few are the philosophers who can submit to whole series of movements, are supposed to be that. It is much more pleasant to them, having concealed behind an impenetrable curtain, and to condescendingly decided for the Deity the question be wholly independent of the world of mental of what is possible and what is impossible, and phenomena. The existence of a material world, having relieved Him from the necessity of perform therefore, is entirely assumed by the very terms ing the latter, to devise a scheme which will still of the theory; and the theory itself is consequently afford ample scope for His omnipotence. On the far more naturally connected with a purely ideal moral difficulties which beset this and every other system. Indeed, Leibnitz himself seems much theory which would get rid of a material world, more inclined to adopt some modification of that we have not spoken. But we cannot help thinksystem, than to admit the real existence of the ing that the Ideal Theory is hardly consistent with material world, in the ordinary sense of these the most worthy views of the Creator. Considerwords. Some curious statements to this effecting the deep, universal, indelible impression of an may be found in the Eclaircissements, by which, external world of matter, we can searcely recomnot without reason, he attempts to remove objec- cile it with the supposition of His perfect truthfultions to his theory.t We shall not insist upon ness, to imagine Him the projector of a general

* Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind. system of illusion. So strong is the impression Vol. ii., p. 116.

of the existence of a material world, that imma+" Nous concevons l'étendue en concevant un ordre terialists have acknowledged that they find it dans les coexistences ; mais nous ne devons pas la con- | possible to eradicate it and we have known as cevoir, non plus que l'espace, à la façon d'une substance. C'est comme le tems, qui ne présente à l'esprit qu'un or

ciples of Bishop Berkeley who have ingenuously dre dans les changemens. Et quant au mouvement, ce confessed, that, somehow, the conviction haented qu'il y a de réel est la force ou la puissance, c'est-à-dire, them, that “the solitary Palm still exists in the ce qu'il y a dans l'état présent, qui porte avec soi un desert after the traveller has passed it, and is not changement pour l'avenir." Opera Omnia, vol. ii., p. l an ideal nh

: II., P: an ideal phenomenon, to be reproduced after : 79. But he expresses himself yet more strongly towards

We reparo the close of his career. In the last year of his life in a certain interval to another mind." Letter to M. Daugicourt, he says-** Je suis d'opinion this invincible belief, like the voice of conscience qu'à parler exactement il n'y a point de substance étendue. in the moral world, to be a species of revelation C'est pourquoi j'appelle la matière non 'substantiam' sed Extravagant as the system of The Prestasi

substantiatum.' J'ai dit en quelques endroits (peut-être Harmony may now appear, certain it is that no de la Thcodicée, si je ne me trompe) que la matière n'est qu'un phénomène réglé et exaci, qui ne trompe point

int ton himself would not have ventured to predste quand on prende garde aux règles abstraites de la raison." such glorious things of his true system of the Lake

verse, as Leibnitz does of his supposed sublime dis- I certainly are not tenable. To whatever point of covery. It was to be the grand reconciling princi- perfection beyond Newton, Leibnitz may have carple of at least half a dozen different, and in some ried his Calculus,* we need not hesitate to say, respects contradictory, theories; it was to bring that a decision as to whether the two methods be Aristotle and Plato, Des Cartes and Malebranche essentially the same or not, may be regarded as a into happy harmony; and at once to redound to test of controversial candor or perverseness. Any the glory of God, and silence the controversies of one competently acquainted with both, and not afman. It is thus he speaks of it under his assumed ficted with polemical strabismus, would as soon name of Theophile, in an amusing passage of the affirm, that German printed in the German type first chapter of his Dialogues on Locke's Essay. was a different language from German printed in * J'ai été frappé d'un nouveau système, dont j'ai the Roman type, as affirm that the method of fluxlà quelque chose dans les journaux des savans de ions and of differences were essentially distinct Paris.. Depuis, je crois voir une nou. things; or he would as soon affirm that two sysvelle face de l'intérieur des choses. Ce système tems of stenography, each employing the same parait allier Platon avec Democrite, Aristote avec principles of abbreviation, and differing only in the Descartes, les scholastiques avec les modernes, la characters, were essentially different. Whether théologie et la morale avec la raison. Il semble Leibnitz was truly an independent inventor of this qu'il prend le meilleur de tous côtés, et que puis method-in principle identical with that of flux. après il va plus loin qu'on n'est allé encore." ions—is the only question, in our judgment, that And so he goes on for two or three pages, with really affects his fair fame; and that he was so, is equally or more extravagant promises of this won- now, we may say, all but universally regarded as der-working theory. The other imaginary dialo- indisputable. Involved and complicated as the gist, Philalethe, may well say, “ Vous m'étonnez en question has been through the passions and prejueffet avec toutes les merveilles, dont vous me faites dices of contemporary controvertists, its solution un récit un peu trop advantageux pour que je les really depends upon one very simple question, puisse croire facilement."

which we are in a much better position to answer Into the long controversy between Leibnitz and fairly than the heated disputants of that age. It is Newton, which so much embittered the latter years this—Was Leibnitz capable of committing the of both, we have already declared our intention of vilest literary larceny, and persisting, to conceal it, not entering further than is rendered necessary by in a detestably mean and deliberate falsehood? If the remarks of Dr. Guhrauer; who is disposed, in not, (and there are few but will acquit him, who his zeal to do justice to the memory of his great consider the general frankness and openness of his countryman, to urge those claims not a little un- nature, the freedom with which he communicated wisely.

his own discoveries, and the candor with which he Most persons of the present day, who have in congratulated others on theirs,) he is entitled to the vestigated the subject, have pretty well made up honors of independent invention. If he was capatheir minds as to the following points : first, that ble of such conduct, then no evidence can satisfy the system of fluxions is essentially the same with the doubter; for there was assuredly one period that of the differential calculus-differing only in during which there was a possibility of deriving notation ; secondly, that Newton possessed the se- advantage from the previous discovery of Newton. cret of fluxions as early as 1665—nineteen years The matter stands briefly thus. In the year 1666, before Lebnitz published his discovery, and eleven Newton, when but twenty-four years of age, was before he communicated it to Newton; thirdly, already in possession of the system of fluxions. that both Leibnitz and Newton discovered their Either wishing to exhibit his method in a more permethods independently of one another-and that, fect form than he had then leisure to impart to it, though the latter was the prior inventor, the former or desirous of reserving his discovery for his own was also truly an inventor.

exclusive benefit, he did not publish it—though he With regard to the first of the three points above communicated the outlines of it to some of his mentioned-the alleged identity of the two meth- friends, and, amongst the rest, to Dr. Barrow. ods-Dr. Guhrauer is disposed to demur, and con- The papers were lent by Barrow to Mr. Collins, tends that the claims of Newton and Leibnitz could who, unknown to Newton, took a copy of them, not interfere, as they respected two different discov and who showed them to Oldenburg ; and as these eries. Speaking of Sir David Brewster's affirma- gentlemen, to use the language of the Royal Socition, in his Life of Newton, that the latter was the ety, were very free in communicating to continenfirst, and Leibnitz the second inventor, he says, tal mathematicians what was going on at home ;« There is, in truth, no first and no second in the as the latter was certainly in communication with discovery of similar things.". This we cannot Leibnitz as early as the year 1673, when he visited but think ancandid, though he endeavors to justify England; and lastly, as both of them saw him in his views by quoting the opinion of M. Biot, that his subsequent visit in 1676, it has been surmised ** were the discovery of Leibnitz to be made even that Leibnitz might thus have either obtained a now, it would be considered a surprising creation, glance of these papers, or some significant hints as and must still be acquired, supposing nothing more to their contents. Now this is precisely the weak than the method of Newton, as it is contained in point in Leibnitz's case; but we venture to say, his works, existed." This is not precisely the that it ought not to weigh against the repeated prosame as saying that the two things are “dissimi-testations with which he affirms that he haddelar," as Dr. Guhrauer boldly affirms; neither do rived no such advantage ; and that he was absothe assertions of Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, Pois-lutely ignorant of the name, notation, and nature son, also referred to by him, amount to as much. of Newton's system till some time after 1684,

We do not think that the advocates of Leibnitz when he published his own first exposition of his wisely consult his fame, by advancing claims that

| * See some excellent remarks on this subject, in ProfesEs giebt nemlich keinen ersten, und keinen zweiten, sor De Morgan's Differential and Integral Calculus, p. in der Erfindung unähnlicher Dinge. Vol. i., p. 180. 32-34.

Calculus. He repeatedly makes this statement :/ tent with the reverence due to Newton's sagaerts, and, amongst other places, in his correspondence to say that what he thought sufficiently guarded with the Abbé Conti, who was anxious to recon- was " sufficiently intelligible to an acute mind :** cile the angry disputants. It was precisely this and that, while he flattered himself that he had reti charge against his honor, implied in the statement dered the matter sofficiently dark, he had, in the of Dr. Keill, of which Leibnitz most bitterly com- very way in which he proposed the enigma, con plains.

trived to solve it! There is one part of the statement just alluded We may be assured he was far more likely than to, and it is virtually justified in the well-knowh Keill to judge correctly as to what regarded his sereport of the committee of the Royal Society ap- cret; nor do we believe there is any one, who will pointed to investigate this affair, and which com- calmly read the letters in question, who will mainpiled the celebrated collection of papers entitled tain that this great man's sagacity was here at Commercium Epistolicum, which has always ap- fault. If Leibnitz had really excogitated the dif peared to us not only of little weight, as opposed ferential calculus out of such materials as these letto the solemn protestations above mentioned, but ters, it would have been scarcely a less illustrious as palpably illogical. We are not aware that the trophy of his genius than the discovery of the Cal. peculiar infirmity in the argument to which we calus itself'; while, if he had been able to make now refer, has ever been exposed, and it may anything at all of the hieroglyphical ciphers, be therefore justify us in bestowing a few sentences must have had no less than the skill of that philosupon it. As the charge of having possibly seen opher in Laputa, who, as Swift tells us, was em something explicit on the subject, in the papers, or ployed in extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers. in the communications of Newton's friends, was In case, however, any tyro in the mathematics but vague, Keill proceeds to say, that the two should think that these ciphers may have afforded well-known letters, which had certainly been com- some more hopeful basis of discovery, we give municated to Leibnitz through Mr. Oldenburg, them below.* contain " indications of the system of fuxions, suf- In further confirmation of the claims of Leibnitz ficiently intelligible to an acute mind, from which to the honor of independent discovery, it may be Leibnitz derived, or at least mighi derive, the prin-remarked, that though no candid man can deny the ciples of his Calculus."

essential identity of the two methods, the very difThe first was communicated in June, 1676, and ferences of terms and notation indicate that they the second in October, 1676. In the first, Newton were arrived at by distinct trains of thought, and gives an expression for the expansion in serieses that the subject was regarded from different points of binomial powers; as also expressions for the of view. The idea of the generation of magni. sine in terms of the arc, for the arc in terms of the tudes by the motion of a point, a line, or a surface, sine, &c., &c.; but the letter contains not a hint was the conception from which Newton worked ; of his method of fluxions. In the second, elicited Leibnitz, from the idea of magnitudes, as consistby a reply from Leibnitz, which clearly showed ing of infinitely small elements, and admitting inthat the German mathematician was in the track crease or diminution by infinitely small increments of the same discoveries, Newton details the man- or decrements. “ Newton and Leibnitz," says a ner in which he first arrived at his method of Se-candid and competent judge, (Professor De Morries—its application in 1665 to the quadrature of gan,) “ had independently come to the considersthe hyperbola, and the construction of logarithms:tion of quantity, and each made the new step and communicates “ many other remarkable of connecting his ideas with a specific notation." things," to use the words of Montucla. But still, It may seem remarkable, that two different men results only are given; no hint is afforded of the should have made this sublime discovery at the methods by which they are attained. “ The meth- same time, but we must remember, that the neod of fluxions," says the late eminent Professor cessities of science were simultaneously torning Playfair, " is not communicated in these letters; the attention of all the mathematical genius of the nor are the principles of it in any way suggested." age, and even of the preceding one, in the same "Nous remarquons ici," says Montucla-in reply direction ; and that Newton and Leibnitz were to the insinuation that the second letter might have both preëminently gifted with powers of invention given some light-" qu'après avoir lu et relu cette and analysis. Indeed, so far had previous mathelettre, nous y trouvons seulement cette méthode maticians paved the way for the solution of the décrite quant à ses effets et ses avantages, mais great problem, that we may well say with Pronon quant à ses principes." Those principles fessor De Morgan, “ It has, perhaps, pot bero sulNewton conceals in a couple of anagrams, consist- ficiently remarked, how nearly several of their pre ing of the transposed letters of the sentences which decessors approached the same ground, and its express them.

a question worthy of discussion, whether eitber Now we affirm that it was in the highest degree Newton or Leibnitz might not have found broader unjust and inconsequential to say that Newton had hints in writings accessible to both, than the latter afforded, in documents thus guarded, “indica- was ever asserted to have received from the tions sufficiently intelligible to an acute mind, from former." which Leibnitz derived, or at least might derive,! To conclude merely from the coincidence of the principles of his Calculus." Newton, it is evi- their discoveries, that Leibnitz must have stolen dent, did not think so. His very object was, whe- from Newton, would be as little reasonable as to ther wisely or unwisely, to keep the matter secret ; and it is clear that he ihought his reserve and his

12 V X. ciphers would effectually secure that purpose. It 2.5acc de 10 e trh 12 i 413 m 10 n60991 is really a species of impertinence, scarcely, consis-ut 10 v3X; 11 a b 3 c d d 10 e eg10:11 Am..

3 p 3q6r5$ 11 17 V X, 3a ca4egbci 414 m 3 m 3 * Keill even goes further" His indiciis atque his ad- 094138 614 v, a a d daeeee eiiim mnoopt jutumn exemplis, ingenium vulgare methodom Newtonia- risssssttuu. mum penitus discerneret."-Commercium Epistolicum, l + Elementary Ilustrations of the Differential and No. 81.

tegral Calculus.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

suppose that Laplace must have had access to was framed with little care as to whether it might some private sources of information, when, by a not be misunderstood. Indeed, so natural is the very difficult analysis, he proved some of the re- interpretation of Newton, and the English mathesulis which De Moivre had attained, but which, in maticians, that Dr. Guhrauer himself adopts it; accordance with the contracted spirit of the age, declares that Leibnitz vainly strove to explain the the latter simply announced, carrying his methods sentence away; and that it is a proof “ von Leibas a secret to the grave with him.

nitzens wahrer eigenster Meinung und Gesinnung That Leibnitz was capable of making this dis- gegen Newton.". covery, is no such extravagant supposition as to is Defend me from my friends," Leibnitz might reader it necessary to resort to a charge of plagia- well say on this occasion ; for if we adopt this inrism. It is not, perhaps, too much to say, that his terpretation as Leibnitz's true meaning, what are mathematical talents were equal to anything. The we to think of his shuffling exculpations? masterly manner in which he expounded the prin- Dr. Guhrauer is not a little indignant with Sir ciples of the differential calculus, and developed its David Brewster, for the supposed injustice which, applications, even if we were to suppose its first in his Life of Newton, he has done to Leibnitz, hints borrowed from Newton ; his admirable lahors. | and to which he frequently refers with much biton the integral calculus ; the success with which terness. Never was a complaint more unreasonhe entered the lists in those intellectual jousts, as able. Our distinguished countryman does not they may be called, in which the great mathema- question Leibnitz's claim to be regarded as a true ticians of the day were wont to engage-the diffi- inventor of the Calculus; he merely asserts the cult problems he solved, and offered for solution ; undoubted priority of Newton's discovery. He even his minor achievements his calculating ma- expressly affirms, that there is no reason to believe chine-his binary system of arithmetic-we may Leibnitz a plagiarist ; but that if there were any add, his juvenile essay De Arte Combinatoriâ —all necessity for believing either to be so, it must be show the highly inventive character of his genius, Leibnitz, and not Newton, who is open to the and the subtlety and comprehensiveness of his ana | charge. Dr. Guhrauer angrily replies, not simply lytical powers.

by saying, (which is true,) that there is no sufIf anything could make us doubt the claims of ficient evidence of Leibnitz's having stolen NewLeibnitz, it would be a statement of Dr. Gubrauer ton's invention, but by denying the essential idenhimself-proving, as it would, if true, that Leib-tity of the two methods, and by affirming that they nitz was capable of trifling with truth. It is well are so different as to be considered "unlike known that, in 1704, a notice appeared, in the things;'—than which nothing can, in our judgAda Eruditorum, of Newton's Optics. That ment, be more uncandid. notice contained a paragraph, which seemed to There is only one statement which, as respects imply that Newton had been a plagiarist from Leibnitz, Dr. Guhrauer could fairly find any fault Leibnitz. The obnoxious sentence given in all with, in Sir David Brewster's work ; and that is, accounts of the controversy was as follows:- that Keill had a “ right to express his opinion" ** Pro differentiis igitur Leibnitianis D. Newtonus that the Letters of Newton, of 1676, gave indiadhibet, semperque adhibuit, fluxiones ; # # # cations from which Leibnitz“ derived, or might quemadmodum et honoratus Fabrius, in suâ Sy- derive," the principles of his Calculus. For reanopsi Geometricâ motuum progressus Cavallerianæ sons already assigned, we do not think that any methodo substituit."

man had a right to say this ; nor that any one Newton felt highly indignant at this paragraph, could say it, without being of a different opinion as he well might-even sopposing that no charge from Newton himself, who undoubtedly must have . of plagiarism was intended. Leibnitz constantly thought that he had not disclosed what he had deaffirmed in reply, that it could be interpreted into signed to conceal. With no other statements of a charge of plagiarism only by a false and mali- Sir David Brewster as regards Leibnitz, are we cious gloss-a gloss which the compilers of the disposed to find fault. If he has shown any undue Commercium Epistolicum had not disdained to partiality in this matter at all, it is not by excessive avail themselves of; that the very words " adhibet severity towards Leibnitz, but by undeserved semperque adhibuit" were intended to imply the leniency towards Newton ; for while he has exdifference between the case of Newton and that of pressed strong indignation at Leibnitz's atrocious Fabri, to whose practice alone the word substituit charges of plagiarism against Newton, he has very applied.

gently touched the virulent reprisals into which Now, first, Dr. Gubrauer seems to have estab- Newton was betrayed; who even declared, at tished the fact, that Leibnitz himself was the last, that Leibnitz's method was but a plagiarism author of the obnoxious Review-a fact not much from Barrow-a charge upon which only the very to his credit ; secondly, he affirms that Leibnitz blindness of polemical animosity could have ven" constantly denied any knowledge of the author- tured ; for it would equally show whence his own ship.” If this fact were true, we should hardly fuxions might have been derived. It exposed him know what to think of Leibnitz's regard for truth. at once to Leibnitz's quiet sarcasm, “ that if any But, in reality, there nowhere appears, in as far could have been profited by Barrow's instructions, as we have been able to discover, any proof that it must have been Newton himself.” “Si quelqu' Leibnitz either denied knowledge of the author- un a profité de M. Barrow, ce sera plutôt M. Newship, or disclaimed the paragraph. He constantly ton, qui a étudié sous lui, que moi ; qui, autant defends the statement it contains, merely denying que je puis m'en souvenir, n'ai vu les livres that it conveyed or could be intended to convey a de M. Barrow qu'à mon second voyage d’Anglecharge of plagiarism. To the benefit of this in- terre." terpretation we would charitably admit him, since As both of these illustrious men could justly he wishes his words to be so taken ; but it is im- claim the honor of the disputed invention, so both, possible not to suspect that the equivocal sentence in the conduct of the controversy, and in the viru

| lence of expression to which they were carried, in * Dutens' Edition of his Works, vol. iii., p. 461, &c. their reciprocal charges and accusations, exhibit CIX. LIVING AGE. VOL. X. 26

themselves in much the same sorry light as the pour rendre le raisonnement sensible à tout le philosopher in Le Bourgcois Gentilhomme, who monde, il suffisait d'expliquer ici l'infini par l'inbegins to lecture the rival masters of dancing and comparable, c'est-à-dire, de concevoir des quantifencing out of Seneca, and ends by forgetting that tés incomparablement plus grandes ou plus petites he is a philosopher altogether. The controversy que les nôtres ; ce qui fournit autant qu'un veut is indeed an instructive spectacle of human in- de dégrés d'incomparables, puisque ce qui est infirmity-showing how passion can cloud the comparablement plus petit, entre inoulement en serenest intellects, and inflame the most philo- ligne de compte à l'égard de celui qui est incomsophic temperaments; that its thunder-storms may parablement plus grand que lui. C'est ainsi be found in the highest latitudes-disturbing the qu'une parcelle de matière magnétique, qui passe frigid poles as well as the burning tropics ; that à traverse du verre, n'est pas comparable avec un there is no domain of speculation, however remote, grain de sable, ni ce grain avec le globe de la or purely abstract, into which it cannot intrude; terre, ni ce globe avec le firmament." and that the mathematician, as well as the theo- Dr. Guhraner is very severe on the "parrow. logian, can exhibit all the rancor of the most vulness of mind" implied in Newton's concealing his gar controvertists. There is probably nothing fluxions under ciphers, in his correspondence with parallel in history, except the controversy between Leibnitz; and contrasts it with the frank and ihe nominalists and realists, who actually began to manly conduct of the latter, when, in his reply to fight for and against their shadowy universals. Newton's second letter, he communicated the prinYet even they first added a religious to the purely ciples of his Calculus to his rival. It ought at all speculative element, which they at last introduced events to reconcile Dr. Guhrauer to Newton's proto such an extent, that they charged each the other cedure, that it formed in fact the safeguard of with having committed the sin against the Holy Leibnitz's claims ; for had Newton disclosed his Ghost! Newton and Leibnitz had neither the secret, it would have been impossible to establish excuse nor the guilt of this superadded provo-them. cation.

We must now conclude, though we could hare However paradoxical apparently may be the wished to add a few observations on several other phraseology of Leibnitz, in his first expositions of matters ;-on Leibnitz's religious opinions, and the Differential Calculus, respecting his infinitesi. theological controversies--especially with Clarke, mal quantities, (as, that there are quantities infi- Bossuet, and Pelisson-on his political and diplos nitely less than quantities infinitely little, and that matic life, in which, with its accustomed versa. of two quantities infinitely great, one may be infi- uility, he seems to have been as much at his esse nitely greater than the other,) it is plain, that he as in literature and sciencet-on the influence he soon worked his own conceptions completely clear, exerted on literature as the centre of all the liter and gave his abbreviated expressions their true in-ary commerce of the age-an influence which Mr. terpretation. The explanations of Leibnitz are in Stewart has so justly appreciated, and finely illesfact often so perspicuous, that they ought to have trated in his well-known Dissertation. But on all satisfied every objector ; and to have prevented the these topics our space compels us to be silent, elegant and ingenious nonsense which Bishop while on others we gladly content ourselves with Berkeley ventured upon, in regard to them, more referring to the admirable criticisms of the last than thirty years alter, in his Analyst. Thus, among many other places, in an explanatory letter

* Or Leibnitz's reputed adoption of the deetrines of to M. Varignon, in 1701, Leibnitz says:

anism, we have said nothing. It is certain that if

he adopted he never arowed them, por did he erer jorn "Je ne me souviens pas assez des expressions the Romish communion. If the unfinisbed manoscript, dont je puis m'être servi : mais mon dessein a été called the Systema Theologicum, (not so entitled by him.) de marquer qu'on n'a pas besoin de faire dépendre really expresses his views, it is, as Dr. Gubraver obo l'analyse mathématique des controverses méta- serves," in opposition to all his other writings, and 10

his whole life also." Dr. Guhrauer's remarks on its ori. physiques, ni d'assurer qu'il y a dans la nature des

gin and purport may be found in vol. ii., pp. 32-34. He ligoes infiniment petite à la rigeur, en comparaison also treats i he whole question of Leibnitz's opinions a des nôtres, ni par conséquent qu'il y a des lignes this subject very ably in vol. i., pp. 340-369. It us at the infiniment plus grandes que les nôtres. C'est same time certain, that Leibniz's tolerant temper, the pourquoi afin d'éviter ces subtilités j'ai crû que le

eclecticism of his pbilosophy, which always disposed bim

to find points of reconciliation in opposing system, *One other unjust statement of Dr. Guhraver's, we whether those of Aristotle and Des Cartes, os of Rome cannot pass unnoticed. The unhappy controversy on the and Luther, his reverence for antiquity, cherished by his Calculus commenced, it is well known, by some slight profound historical researches-all predisposed him to skirmishes in the year 1699, when Fatio insinuated, regard the differences between Romanists and Protestants that the applause which Leiboitz was receiving for his as far less important than they are. In the attempt to Differential Calculus, (first given to the world by him in negotiate a reconciliation between them, be expended de 1684,) would be more justly bestowed on Newton-its first small portion of his time and energies, and, in his contro inventor. Dr. Guhrauer is pleased to intimate that versy with Bossuet, he sometimes makes far too bben! Newton was privy to Fatio's attack, and prompted it.concessions for that object. - It is not a little curious, and This is most unjust, as it is in express contradiction to highly characteristic, that he always flattered hianwell Newton's assertion, that he knew nothing of Fatio's in- that he was in possession of a metaphysical solution of tention, and was no party to it. In several other places the doctrine of transubstantiation. In this instance at Dr. G. insinuates, that it is easy to see that Newton was least he verified a najve assertion he was accustomed to behind the curtain in the early attacks on Leibnitz, (vol. make respecting himself" That to him, unlike the gen. i., p. 303,) though he did not choose to appear in the con- erality of people, all difficult things were easy, and all troversy himself. Whether it was wise or not in New easy things difficult." ton to stand so long aloof-whether it was in sullen pride of this, a proof rendered more especially remarkable or real magnanimity-from confidence in his claims, or by long subsequent events, is furnished in a memorial dislike of controversy-certain it is, that during all the addressed by him to Louis XIV., proposing that me. marlier stages of the dispute he remained silent; and morable plan for keeping some of the chief nations of being so, no man has a right to charge on him, without Europe in check, afterwards attempted to be consunt: explicit evidence, the language of his adherents, whose mated by Bonaparte ; namely, the conquest and coloni just pride in the reputation of their countryman is quite zation of Egypi. Of this posthumous piece, an Englies sufficient to account both for the rashness of their zeal, translation was published in London, in 1803, but whica and the intemperance of their expressions.

seems now entirely forgotten.

[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »