partly　because　the　conception　of　whole　and　part　come　into　play；　and　partly　from　an　obdurate
  closing　of　the　eyes　to　the　opposite　side。　From　this　empirical　method　in　Philosophy；　we　shall　now
  pass　on　to　Leibnitz。
  1。　Brucker。　Histor。　critic。　philos。　T。　IV。　P。　2；　pp。　731…736；　743…745。
  2。　Hug。　Grot。　De　jure　belli　ac　pacis；　B。　III。　chap。　xi。　§　13…16　（Ed。　Gronov。　Lipsi？；　1758；　8vo）；
  pp。　900…905；　chap。　iv。　§　10；　pp。　792；　793。
  3。　Buhle：　Geschichte　der　neuern　Philosophie；　Vol。　III。　Sec。　1；　pp。　223；　224；　227。
  4。　Hobbes。　Epistola　dedicatoria　ante　Elementor。　philos。　Sectionem　primam　（Thom？　Hobbesii
  Opera　philosophica；　qu？　latine　scripsit　omnia；　Amstelod；　1668；　4to）；　pp。　1；　2。
  5。　Cf。　Brucker。　Histor。　crit。　philos。　T。　IV。　P。　II。　p。　154。
  6。　Hobbes；　De　cive；　chap。　i。　§　2；　3　（Oper。　phil。　etc。　Amstel。　1668）；　pp。　3；　4。
  7。　Hobbes；　De　cive；　chap。　i。　§　4…6；　12…14；　pp。　4…8；　Leviathan；　chap。　xiii。　（Oper。）；　pp。　63…66。
  8。　Ibidem；　chap。　v。　§　6…12；　pp。　37…38；　chap。　vi。　§　12…14；　pp。　44…46。
  9。　Buhle：　Geschichte　der　neuern　Philosophie；　Vol。　IV。　Sec。　2；　pp。　519…523；　Rixner：　Handbuch
  der　Geschichte　der　Philosophie；　Vol。　III。　p。　29。
  10。　Rixner：　Handbuch　der　Geschichte　der　Philosophie；　Vol。　III。　p。　31；　cf。　Puttendorf：　De　jure
  natur？　et　gent。　II。　2；　§　5…7　（Francof。　ad　Moenum；　1706；　4）；　pp。　157…161；　VII。　1；　§　3…7；　pp。
  900…909。
  11。　Buhle：　Geschichte　der　neuern　Philosophie；　Vol。　IV。　Sec。　1；　pp。　107；　108。
  12。　Buhle：　Geschichte　der　neuern　Philosophie；　Vol。　IV。　p。　115；　cf。　Newtoni　Optices；　P。　III。
  （Londini；　1706；　4）　p。　314。
  Section　Two：　Period　of　the　Thinking　Understanding
  Chapter　I。　—　The　Metaphysics　of　the　Understanding
  C　1。　LEIBNITZ。
  As　in　other　respects　Leibnitz　represents　the　extreme　antithesis　to　Newton；　so　in　respect　of
  philosophy　he　presents　a　striking　contrast　to　Locke　and　his　empiricism；　and　also　to　Spinoza。　He
  upholds　thought　as　against　the　perception　of　the　English　school；　and　in　lieu　of　sensuous　Being　he
  maintains　Being　for　thought　to　be　the　essence　of　truth；　just　as　Boehme　at　an　earlier　time　upheld
  implicit　Being。　While　Spinoza　asserted　the　universality；　the　oneness　of　substance　merely；　and　while
  with　Locke　we　saw　infinite　determinations　made　the　basis；　Leibnitz；　by　means　of　his　fundamental
  principle　of　individuality；　brings　out　the　essentiality　of　the　opposite　aspect　of　Spinoza's　philosophy；
  existence　for　self；　the　monad；　but　the　monad　regarded　as　the　absolute　Notion；　though　perhaps　not
  yet　as　the　〃I。〃　The　opposed　principles；　which　were　forced　asunder；　find　their　completion　in　each
  other；　since　Leibnitz's　principle　of　individuation　completed　Spinoza's　system　as　far　as　outward
  aspect　goes。
  Gottfried　Wilhelm；　Baron　von　Leibnitz；　was　born　in　1646　at　Leipzig；　where　his　father　was
  professor　of　Philosophy。　The　subject　that　he　studied　in　view　of　a　profession　was　jurisprudence；
  but　first；　in　accordance　with　the　fashion　of　the　day；　he　made　a　study　of　Philosophy；　and　to　it　he
  devoted　particular　attention。　To　begin　with；　he　picked　up　in　Leipzig　a　large　and　miscellaneous
  stock　of　knowledge；　then　he　studied　Philosophy　and　mathematics　at　Jena　under　the　mathematician
  and　theosophist　Weigel；　and　took　his　degree　of　Master　of　Philosophy　in　Leipzig。　There　also；　on
  the　occasion　of　his　graduation　as　Doctor　of　Philosophy；　he　defended　certain　philosophical　theses；
  some　of　which　discourses　are　still　contained　in　his　works　（ed。　Dutens；　T。　II。　P。　I。　p。　400）。　His　first
  dissertation；　and　that　for　which　he　obtained　the　degree　of　doctor　of　philosophy；　was：　De　principio
  individui；　—　a　principle　which　remained　the　abstract　principle　of　his　whole　philosophy；　as
  opposed　to　that　of　Spinoza。　After　he　had　acquired　a　thorough　knowledge　of　the　subject；　he
  wished　to　graduate　also　as　Doctor　of　Laws。　But　though　he　died　an　imperial　councillor；　it　was　his　ill
  fortune　to　receive　from　the　Faculty　at　Leipzig　a　refusal　to　confer　the　doctorate　upon　him；　his　youth
  being　the　alleged　reason。　Such　a　thing　could　scarcely　happen　nowadays。　It　may　be　that　it　was
  done　because　of　his　over…great　philosophical　attainments；　seeing　that　lawyers　are　wont　to　hold　the
  same　in　horror。　He　now　quitted　Leipzig；　and　betook　himself　to　Altdorf；　where　he　graduated　with
  distinction。　Shortly　afterwards　he　became　acquainted　in　Nürnberg　with　a　company　of　alchemists；
  with　whose　ongoings　he　became　associated。　Here　he　made　extracts　from　alchemistic　writings；　and
  studied　the　mysteries　of　this　occult　science。　His　activity　in　the　pursuit　of　learning　extended　also　to
  historical；　diplomatic；　mathematical　and　philosophical　subjects。　He　subsequently　entered　the
  service　of　the　Elector　of　Mayence；　becoming　a　member　of　council；　and；　in　1672　he　was　appointed
  tutor　to　a　son　of　Von　Boineburg；　Chancellor　of　State　to　the　Elector。　With　this　young　man　he
  travelled　to　Paris；　where　he　lived　for　four　years。　He　at　this　time　made　the　acquaintance　of　the　great
  mathematician　Huygens；　and　was　by　him　for　the　first　time　properly　introduced　into　the　domain　of
  mathematics。　When　the　education　of　his　pupil　was　completed；　and　the　Baron　Von　Boineburg　died；
  Leibnitz　went　on　his　own　account　to　London；　where　he　became　acquainted　with　Newton　and
  other　scholars；　at　whose　head　was　Oldenburg；　who　was　also　on　friendly　terms　with　Spinoza。　After
  the　death　of　the　Elector　of　Mayence；　the　salary　of　Leibnitz　ceased　to　be　paid；　he　therefore　left
  England　and　returned　to　France。　The　Duke　of　Brunswick…Lüneburg　then　took　him　into　his　service；
  and　gave　him　the　appointment　of　councillor　and　librarian　at　Hanover；　with　permission　to　spend　as
  much　time　as　he　liked　in　foreign　countries。　He　therefore　remained　for　some　time　longer　in　France；
  England；　and　Holland。　In　the　year　1677　he　settled　down　in　Hanover；　where　he　became　busily
  engaged　in　affairs　of　state；　and　was　specially　occupied　with　historical　matters。　In　the　Harz
  Mountains　he　had　works　constructed　for　carrying　off　the　floods　which　did　damage　to　the　mines
  there。　Notwithstanding　these　manifold　occupations　he　invented　the　differential　calculus　in　1677；　on
  occasion　of　which　there　arose　a　dispute　between　him　and　Newton；　which　was　carried　on　by　the
  latter　and　the　Royal　Society　of　London　in　a　most　ungenerous　manner。　For　it　was　asserted　by　the
  English；　who　gave　themselves　the　credit　of　everything；　and　were　very　unfair　to　others；　that　the
  discovery　was　really　made　by　Newton。　But　Newton's　Principia　only　appeared　later；　and　in　the
  first　edition　indeed　Leibnitz　was　mentioned　with　commendation　in　a　note　which　was　afterwards
  omitted。　From　his　headquarters　in　Hanover；　Leibnitz；　commissioned　by　his　prince；　made　several
  journeys　through　Germany；　and　also　went　to　Italy　in　order　to　collect　historical　evidence　relative　to
  the　House　of　Este；　and　for　the　purpose　of　proving　more　clearly　the　relationship　between　this
  princely　family　and　that　of　Brunswick…Lüneburg。　At　other　times　he　was　likewise　much　occupied
  with　historical　questions。　Owing　to　his　acquaintance　with　the　consort　of　Frederick　I。　of　Prussia；
  Sophia　Charlotte；　a　Hanoverian　princess；　he　was　enabled　to　bring　about　the　foundation　of　an
  Academy　of　Science　in　Berlin；　in　which　city　he　lived　for　a　considerable　time。　In　Vienna　he　also
  became　acquainted　with　Prince　Eugène；　which　occasioned　his　being　appointed　finally　an　Imperial
  Councillor。　He　published　several　very　important　historical　works　as　the　result　of　this　journey。　His
  death　took　place　at　Hanover　in　1716；　when　he　was　seventy　years　of　age。（1）
  It　was　not　only　on　Philosophy；　but　also　on　the　most　varied　branches　of　science　that　Leibnitz
  expended　toil　and　trouble　and　energy；　it　was　to　mathematics；　however；　that　he　specially　devoted
  his　attention；　and　he　is　the　inventor　of　the　methods　of　the　integral　and　differential　calculus。　His　great
  services　in　regard　to　mathematics　and　physics　we　here　leave　out　of　consideration；　and　pay
  attention　to　his　philosophy　alone。　None　of　his　books　can　be　exactly　looked　on　as　giving　a
  complete　systematic　account　of　his　philosophy。　To　the　more　important　among　them　belongs　his
  work　on　the　human　understanding　（Nouveaux　essais　sur　l'entendement　humain）　in　reply　to
  Locke；　but　this　is　a　mere　refutation。　His　philosophy　is　therefore　scattered　through　various　little
  treatises　which　were　written　in　very　various　connections；　in　letters；　and　replies　to　objections　which
  caused　him　to　bring　out　one　aspect　of　the　question　more　strongly　than　another；　we　consequently
  find　no　elaborated　systematic　whole；　superintended　or　perfected　by　him。　The　work　which　has
  some　appearance　of　being　such；　his　Théodicée；　better　known　to　the　public　than　any　thing　else　he
  wrote；　is　a　popular　treatise　which　he　drewup　for　Queen　Sophia　Charlotte　in　reply　to　Bayle；　and　in
  which　he　took　pains　not　to　present　the　matter　in　very　speculative　form。　A　Würtemberg　theologian；
  Pfaff　by　name；　and　others　who　were　correspondents　of　Leibnitz　and　were　themselves　only　too
  well　versed　in　philosophy；　brought　it　as　a　charge　against　Leibnitz　—　a　charge　which　he　never
  denied　—　that　his　philosophy　was　written　in　popular　form。（2）　They　laughed　very　much　afterwards
  at　Wolff；　who　had　taken　them　to　be　quite　in　earnest；　his　opinion　was　that　if　Leibnitz　were　not
  perfectly　serious　in　this　sens