455 
LEIBNITZ. 
at the inftance of the princefs of Wales, afterwards queen 
Caroline, he was engaged in a difpute with the celebrated 
Dr. Samuel Clarke, upon the fubjeCt of free will, the re¬ 
ality of fpace, and other philofophical topics; which was 
carried on by letters which palled through her royal high- 
nefs’s hands, and was conducted with great learning and 
candour on both lides. This controverfy w'as continued 
after Leibnitz’s return to Hanover, and terminated only 
with his death; which took place in November 1716, in 
confequence of a violent attack of the gout, and the ftone, 
when he was in the 70th year of his age. 
Befides the pieces enumerated in the preceding biogra¬ 
phical Iketch, Leibnitz was the author of numerous other 
works, on various fubjeCfs, forne of which were publilhed 
feparately, and others in the memoirs of different learned 
focieties. M. G. Hanfcius colleCfed, with great care, every 
thing that Leibnitz had laid, in different paffages of his 
works, on the fubjeCl of philofophy ; and formed of them 
a complete fyftent, under the title of “ G. G. Leibnitzii 
Principia Philofophite, More Geometrico demonftrata,” 
See. 4to. 172.$ ; and in 1734 and 1735 there was publilhed 
a colleCiion of his letters, entitled “ Epiftolae ad diverfos 
Theologici, Juridici, Medici, Pbilofophici, Mathematici, 
Hiftorici, et Philologici Argumenti M.S.S. AuClores; 
cum Annotationibus fuis, primum divulgavit Chriftian 
Cortholtus.” But all his works were collected, diftributed 
into claffes by M. Dutens, and publilhed at Geneva in 
fix large volumes 4to. in 1768, entitled, Gothofredi Guil- 
Idmi Leibnitii Opera omnia, See. 
Leibnitz w'asin pevfon of a middle ftature, and of a thin 
habit of body. He had a Ihidious air, and a pleafmg 
afpeCt, though near-lighted. He was temperate in eating 
and drinking, and lived on plain food, which he took at 
no regular hours, but only when hunger prompted him. 
His temper was naturally quick and warm ; but he had 
acquired, by degrees, a philofophic command of it. In 
converfation he was affable and polite, and greatly averfe 
to difputes. He was thought to love money, and amaffed 
leveral thoufand pounds; yet he certainly was not a man 
of the world in the management of his property ; for only 
a fmall part of it was put out at interelf, and the remain¬ 
der was found lying ulelefs in his apartments, after his 
death. He was never married; and paid his addreffes to a 
lady only once, when he was about fifty years of age ; and, 
as fee did not immediately accept his offer, but took time 
to confider of it, he alfo took the fame opportunity to re- 
conlider the matter, and troubled her with no further fe¬ 
licitation. He was accullomed to fay, “that marriage 
was a good thing; but that a wife man ought to confider 
of it all his life.” He always profefled the Lutheran re¬ 
ligion 5 and, as we have feen, made feme facrifices in early 
life rather than renounce it; but he feldom or never at¬ 
tended on public worlhip ; and when, in his lalt illnefs, a 
favourite fervant propofed to lend for a minifter, he would 
not permit it, faying that he had nooccafion for one. His 
intellectual abilities and attainments entitle him to be 
ranked among thofe univerfal genitifes, who at once fur- 
prife and benefit the world. With wonderful ftrength of 
underftanding, an excellent faculty of invention, and a 
moll capacious and retentive memory, he united an un¬ 
common degree of induftry. He frequently fpent a great 
part of the night, as well as the day, in reading; and has 
been known to pafs whole months in his ftudy. Hence 
he was enabled, not only to acquire much general know¬ 
ledge, but to become eminent in attainments of various 
kinds. The following animated and juft character of him 
Is given in Mieville’s Tombeaux du i8me Siecle : 
“ Approach this tomb, and behold the man whom it 
contains. Obferve the works depofited with him ; his 
writings on theology and metaphyfics; his letters on to¬ 
leration ; his profound refearches on international law ; 
the mafs of his phyfical and mathematical folutions; and 
a variety of other intricate difquifitions which combined 
to give him the character of the moft general fcholar of 
his age. He was fe fortunate as to receive the moft bat¬ 
tering diftinCHons, the moft magnificent recompences, and 
the efteem of almoft every fovereign in Europe. The 
princes of the houfeof Brunfwitk employed him to write 
the hiftory of their family ; the eleCtor of Mentz admitted 
him into the lift of his coutifellors ; the elector of Bran- 
denburgh placed him at the head of his academy; the 
emperor of Germany granted him a penfion and a title; 
and he had the honour of fearing the invention of the 
differential calculus with the immortal Newton. An hif- 
torian, a civilian, a metaphyfician, a mathematician, and 
a poet, Leibnitz may be faid to have embraced every thing. 
The treafures of ancient learning were his, and he had 
the ambition to attempt a knowledge of the moft abftrufe 
fubjeCIs. He was thus led into bold fpeculations, from 
the purfuit of which he was fometimes recalled by the 
admonitory leffons of hiftory; while at other times he 
ventured beyond his powers, and allowed the guiding 
thread to efcape from his hold, but proceeded unconfcious 
of his lofs, and bewildered himfelf in the illufions of fyf- 
tem. He then no longer argued ; an ardent imagination 
created for him an affemblage of fantaftic beings ; daz¬ 
zling hypothefes deceived his reafen ; and, when he hoped 
to have fucceeded in laying open one labrynth, he little 
perceived that he was entangled in another.” In the An¬ 
tiquities of the houfe of Brunfwick, (Gibbon’s Mifcel-r 
laneous Works, vol. ii. p. 638.) a character is drawn of 
Leibnitz, which is not indeed a model of encomiaftic cri- 
ticifm, yet its conclufion is fpirited and juft: “The ex¬ 
ample of Leibnitz may difplay the extent and powers of 
the human underftanding ; but even his powers were dif- 
fipated by the multiplicity of his purfuits. He attempted 
more than he could finife, he defigned more than he could 
execute; Iris imagination was too eafily fatisfied with a 
bold and rapid glance on the fubjeCl he was impatient to 
leave; and Leibnitz may be compared to thofe heroes, 
whofe empire has been loft in the ambition of univerfal 
conqueft.” 
The Philofophy of Leibnitz is a fyftem formed, partly in 
emendation of the Cartefian, and partly in oppofition to 
the Newtonian. In this fyftem, the author retained th& 
Cartefian fubtile matter, with the vortices and univerfal 
plenum; and he represented the univerfe as a machine 
that fhould proceed for ever, by the laws of meehanifm, 
in the moft perfeCt ftate, by an abfelute and inviolable 
neceffity. After Newton’s Philofophy was publilhed, in 
1687, he printed an effay on the celeftial motions, in the 
ACta Erud. for 1689, in which he admits of the circula¬ 
tion of the ether with Des Cartes, and of gravity with 
Newton ; but he never explained how thefe principles 
could be reconciled, and adjufted together, fe as to ac¬ 
count for the planetary revolutions in their refpective or¬ 
bits. His fyftem is alfo defective, as it does not reconcile 
the circulation of the ether with the free motions of the 
comets in all directions, or with the obliquity of the 
planes of the planetary orbits ; nor refolve other objec¬ 
tions to which the hypothefis of the vortices and plenum, 
is liable. Soon after the period above-mentioned, the 
difpute commenced concerning the invention of the cal¬ 
culus of infinitefimals, or the method of fluxions, which 
led Leibnitz to take a very decided part in oppofition to 
the philofophy of Newton. From the wifdom and good- 
nefs of the Deity, and his principle of a fuffeient reafon, he 
concluded the univerfe to be a perfeCl work, or the beft: 
that could poffibly have been made ; and that other things, 
which are evil or incommodious, were permitted as ne- 
ceffary confequences of what was beft; that the material 
fyftem, confidered as a perfeCt machine, can never fall into 
diforder, or require to be fet right; and that to fuppofe 
that God interpofes in it, is to leffen the fkill of the au¬ 
thor, and the perfection of his work. He exprefsly 
charged an impious tendency on the philofophy of New¬ 
ton, becaufe he afferts, that the fabric of the univerfe 
and the courfe of nature could not continue for ever in 
its prefent ftate, but in procefs of time would require to- 
be re-eltabliftied or renewed by the fame hand that formed* 
