1 As cited in Kirk, G. and Raven, J. The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge: 1966), p. 271.Google Scholar

2 Quine, W. Mathematical Logic (New York: 1962), p. 150.Google Scholar

3 Kirk and Raven, pp. 269-70.

4 As cited in Kirk and Raven, p. 273.

5 Plato, Parmenides, 164b.

6 As cited in Kirk and Ravan, p. 273.

7 Russell, B. and Whitehead, A. Principia Mathematica (Cambridge: 1967), vol. I, p.66.Google Scholar

8 Principia Mathematica, vol. I, pp. 174–5.

9 Plato, Parmenides, 164c.

10 Aristotle, De Caelo, 278b1-4.

11 Aristotle, Physica, 191a25-30.

12 Aristotle, De Generatione et Corruptione, 318a16-7.

13 Aristotle, Metaphysica, 1049a5.

14 Aristotle, De Generatione et Corruptione, 317a16-19.

15 Aristotle, Physica, 192a30.

16 As cited in T., Gilby tr. Saint Thomas Aquinas: Philosophical Texts (New York: 1960), p. 132.Google Scholar

17 Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, I. 150.Google Scholar

18 Hume, D. Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (Oxford: 1975) p. 164Google Scholar and p. 164nl.

19 Hume, p. 35.

20 Aristotle, De Generatione et Corruptione, 317b30.

21 Romans 9.

22 Leibniz, G. “A Specimen of Discoveries about Marvellous Secrets”, as contained in Morris, M. and Parkinson, G. trs, Gottried Wilhelm Leibniz: Philosophical Writings (London: 1973), p. 78.Google Scholar

23 Romans 4,17.

24 Grua, G. ed., G. W. Leibniz: Textes Inédits (Paris: 1948). p. 314.Google Scholar

25 See, e.g., Kenny, A. ed., Descartes: Philosophical Letters (Oxford: 1970), pp. 14-6.Google Scholar

26 Leibniz, G. Letter to Arnauld, as contained in Loemker, L. ed., Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters (Holland: 1969), p. 336.Google Scholar

27 Leibniz, G. “Necessary and Contingent Truth”, as contained in Morris and Parkinson, p. 105.Google Scholar

28 Mason, H. tr, The Leibniz-Arnauld Correspondence (Manchester: 1967), p. 50.Google Scholar

29 See De Rijk, L., ed., Dialectica (Holland: 1956), p. 137 and pp. 161–2.

30 Russell, B. The Principles of Mathematics (New York: 1964), p. 449.Google Scholar

31 De Rijk, p. 137.

32 I.e., “And in so far as we are concerned with the interpretation of it [the copula], from the assertion ‘Peter is a man’ we cannot infer ‘Peter is’.”

33 Gerhardt, C. ed., Die Philosophischen Schriften von G. W. Leibniz (Berlin: 1875–90), vol. VII, p. 214.Google Scholar

34 I.e., “If ‘entity’ is taken to refer to possibility, i.e., as meaning that there is a Iaugher in the region of ideas, then ‘Some man is a laugher’ must not be understood as other than ‘A man-laugher is an entity’, namely as possible, i.e., in the region of ideas”. As translated in Parkinson, G. Leibniz: Logical Papers (Oxford: 1966), p. 118.Google Scholar

35 N. b., in this section I have merely shown how the Christian conception of protracted creation may be represented in Leibniz's logic. Though he would surely say that it is logically possible for God to place substances into the world at different times, he would insist that God does not in fact do this. For, given certain other doctrines of his (which regrettably I haven't space to discuss), in his system each individual substance exists as long as the world of which it is a living mirror exists.

36 Kneale, W. and M., The Development of Logic (Oxford: 1971), pp. 322-3.

37 Parkinson, p. 115.

38 See Parkinson, p. 61 #61, p. 64n and p. 82 #153.

39 Parkinson, p. 76.

40 Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P. eds, The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Harvard: 1960), vol 2, p. 313.Google Scholar

41 See Mates, B. “Leibniz on Possible Worlds”, as contained in Frankfurt, H. ed., Leibniz (New York: 1972), p. 344.Google Scholar

42 See Frankfurt, p. 345.

43 “Ut scilicet maneat omnem propositionem vel veram vel falsam esse, falsam autem omnem esse deest constantia subjecti, seu terminus realis”, in Couturat, L. ed., Opuscules et Fragments Inedits de Leibniz (Paris: 1903), p. 393.Google Scholar (For a use of “constantia subjecti”, which seems better suited to the Mates interpretation than to mine, see Langley, A., tr, New Essays, p. 516.)

44 See Hintikka, J. “Towards a Theory of Descriptions”, Analysis, 19 (1958-9), pp. 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 See Lambert, K. “Notes on E! Ill: A Theory of Descriptions”, Philosophical Studies, 13 (1962), pp. 51-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Lucas, P. and Grint, L. trs, Leibniz's Discourse on Metaphysics (Manchester: 1968), p. 42.Google Scholar

47 This letter is translated in Lackey, D. “Three letters to Meinong”, Journal of the Bertrand Russell Archives, vol. 9 (1973), p. 16.Google Scholar

48 New Essays, bk iv, ch 7, sec 7. [translated by J. Bennett and P. Remnant]

49 Mason, p. 9.

50 See, e.g., Russell, S. Mysticism and Logic (New York: 1964), p. 153.Google Scholar

51 Russell, B. A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz (London: 1964), p. v.Google Scholar

52 See Frankfurt, p. 341.

53 See, e.g., Parkinson, p. 77.

54 Mason, p. 9.

55 Philosophy of Leibniz, p. v.

56 A logical system is called free when its singular terms (if any) are free of existential import.

57 Lucas and Grint, p. 13.

58 Laplace, Marquis de Introduction à la Théorie Analytique des Probabilitiés, Oeuvres Complètes (Paris: 1886). p. VI.Google Scholar

59 Spinoza, B., The Ethics, as contained in Elwes, R. tr, The Works of Spinoza (New York: 1955). vol. I, p. 75.Google Scholar

60 See, e.g., Wartofsky, M. Conceptual Foundations of Scientific Thought (New York: 1968),Google Scholar chapter 11, in which the views of Leibniz and Spinoza are assimilated.

61 Hume, D., Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, p. 25.

62 Enquiry, p. 63.

63 See Enquiry, p. 164.

64 See Newton, I. Opticks (New York: 1952), p. 402.Google Scholar

65 As reprinted in Alexander, H. ed., The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence (London: 1965), pp. 11-2.Google ScholarPubMed

66 Alexander, pp. 186-7.

67 Alexander, pp. 187-8.

68 See Hobbes, T. Letter to the Lord Marquis of Newcastle, as reprinted in Peters, R. ed., Body, Man, and Citizen (New York: 1962), pp. 245-74.Google Scholar

69 Huggard, E. tr, Theodicy (London: 1952), p. 397.Google Scholar

70 Newton, I. The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (New York: 1964), pp. 14-5.Google Scholar

71 Enquiry, pp. 35-6.

72 Opticks, pp. 403-4.

73 See Opticks, p. 400.

74 Russell, B. The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford: 1969), p. 61.Google Scholar (The Problems of Philosophy is a popular work. Russell's considered view of induction and causality, as expressed in “On the Notion of Cause”, is actually quite near to that of Leibniz, from whom I assume he derived it.)

75 See Opticks, pp. 369-70.

76 Lucas and Grint, pp. 9-10.

77 See Alexander, p. 19.

78 Parkinson, p. 53.

79 Loemker, p. 263.

80 Aristotle, Metaphysica, 1047b4.

81 Aiken, H. ed., Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (New York: 1963), p. 58 (pt. ix)Google Scholar

82 Selby-Bigge, L. ed., Hume's Treatise of Human Nature (Oxford: 1886), p. 66.Google Scholar

83 Leibniz, G., “Critical Thoughts on the General Part of the Principles of Descartes”, as contained in Loemker, p. 386.

84 Lucas and Grint, p. 40.

85 Lucas and Grint, p. 41.

86 Loemker, p. 167.

87 Loemker, p. 293.

88 Loemker, p. 319.

89 Parkinson, p. 62.

90 See Loemker, p. 647.

91 Philosophy of Leibniz, p. 174.

92 See, e.g., Parkinson, p. 51, where Leibniz says ‘“existent’ can be defined …”.

93 See, e.g., Loemker, p. 167.

94 Parkinson, p. 65.

95 Principia Mathematica, vol. I, p. 175.

96 Philosophy of Leibniz, p. 27.

97 Loemker, p. 203.

98 As cited in Curley, E., “The Root of Contingency” as contained in Frankfurt, p. 88.

99 Gerhardt, vol. VII, p. 195n.

100 Critique of Pure Reason, B628.

101 Couturat, p. 9.

102 As cited in Curley, pp. 83-4.

103 Floeck, K. tr, Koeniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Kant's gesammel te Schriften, Band II (Berlin: 1912), p. 72.Google Scholar

104 Loemker, p. 463.

105 I am indebted in this essay for the help of my friends Norman Callegaro and Kim Floeck.