308 NEW SYSTEM 



beings in particular, which are destined to such a degree 

 of happiness that the universe is concerned in it, in 

 virtue of the Divine goodness which is imparted to each, 

 so far as supreme wisdom can allow. 



9. As to the ordinary body 42 of animals and other 

 corporeal substances, which have hitherto been supposed 

 to suffer total extinction and whose changes are de- 

 pendent rather upon mechanical rules than upon moral 

 laws, I observed with pleasure that the author of the 

 book De Diaeta (which is attributed to Hippocrates 43 ) 

 had some inkling of the truth, when he expressly said 

 that animals are not born and do not die and that 

 the things which we suppose to come into being and 

 perish merely appear and disappear. This was also the 

 opinion of Parmenides and of Melissus according to 

 Aristotle 44 ; for these men of old had more worth than 

 we suppose. 



10. I am as ready as man can be to do justice to the 

 moderns, yet I think they have carried reform too far ; 

 among other things, in confounding natural with arti- 



42 G. has corps ordinaire. E. reads cours ordinaire ('usual history '). 



43 Hippocrates, 'the father of medicine/ is no longer regarded 

 as the author of the De Diaeta (trepl Siairr/^. The passage to which 

 Leibniz refers is most probably the following : dir6\\vTat ptv vvv 

 ovoV 6.TravT(av xpr/fMTcav, ov8e yiverai o n pri KOI irpoaOev r/v . . . aal 

 OVTC, el faov, atroOaveiv olov re, et /) ueTa irdvTcav TTOV yap diroOaveiTai ; 

 oijTf T& fj.rj ov yeveaOai' ir60ev yap fffrai ; dAA.' avgerai -navra fifiovrat 

 teal I? TO fj.r}Kto~Tov KOI [Is TO^ kXa-^iarov^ rcav y Svvaraiv, i. 4. 'Now 

 none among all things is destroyed, and there does not come into 

 being that which was not in existence before. . . . And neither is it 

 possible for an animal to die, except along with all things (for 

 how shall it die ?) ; nor can that which is not come into being 

 (for whence shall it be?); but all things grow and diminish to 

 the greatest and to the least that is possible.' See Bywater, 

 Heraditi Ephesii Reliquiae, Appendix ii. 



4t De Cae'o, F I, 298^ 14: of ftv yap avrSiv o\cos avetXov yevtaiv Kai 

 <p6opdv ov6(.v yap oijrt ytyvfadai <pa(Tiv ovre <pOdpecr8ai TWJ/ ovrcav, d\Xa 

 jju'tvov SoKfiv fffjiiv olov ol irfpl MeA.to'O'oi' re teal HapneviSrjv, ouy, et Kal 

 Ta\Xa \eyovai Ka\S>s, d\\' ov <}>vffiKu>s ye 8ef VOftiffVU \eyeiv. Cf. 

 Monadology, 74, note 116. But the views of Parmenides and 

 Melissus, who deny the reality of change or of becoming, are very 

 far removed from the position of Leibniz. They deny change or 

 becoming of TO tv, not of each of a plurality of substances. 



