FRAN(:OIS DUCHESNEAU

LEIBNIZ'S 'HYPOTHESIS PHYSICA NOVA': A

CONJUNCTION OF MODELS FOR EXPLAINING
PHENOMENA

Commentators like Hannequin,i Dugas,2 and Gueroult 3 have tended to

consider the Hypothesis physica nova (1671)4, dedicated to the Royal
Society, as a mere appendix to the Theoria motus abstracti, which
Leibniz had sent that same year to the Academie des sciences in Paris.
Both texts were intended as shows of skill on behalf of the young
German philosopher in the area of natural philosophy, at the time he
was planning his diplomatic mission to France. When Oldenburg,
secretary of the Royal Society, received the Hypothesis, he requested
Leibniz to send him a copy of the Theoria so as to cast more light on
his theses in physics. s Also Wallis, who had been mandated to examine
these for the Royal Society, did not fail to consider the Theoria as the
true ground for the Hypothesis and to agree that the object of physics
cannot be analyzed without resorting to reasons in geometry. Leibniz
himself connected the physical construction, which is real yet exact,
with the geometrical construction, which is both imaginary and exact.6
He was convinced that everything in the physical world obeys the laws
of phoronomia elementalis. However, these abstract laws do not suffice
to account for the determination of material parts to circular motion
nor for the effects resulting from mass. Is therefore the Hypothesis an
attempt to correct the untoward consequences of an abstract geometry
of conatuses? Is it a kind of vast ad hoc hypothesis to save the
phenomena in view of abstract inadequate reasons?
Such views, akin to those of Gueroult, would outdo the case. Leibniz
never pretended that phenomena could be deduced from abstract
reasons. The physical construction need rely on a complex set of
theoretical postulates, but part of these at least would outstretch the
compass of the geometry of conatuses. Yet, were the principles hetero-
geneous, it would not mean that we end up with an artificial apparatus
of reasons like those which Leibniz denounced in phoronomia experi-
mentalis, because then piecemeal inferences from empirical data are
f. R. Brown and f. Mittelstrass (eds.), An Intimate Relation, 153-170.
© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
154 FRANC;:OIS DUCHESNEAU

blended with mixed constructions'? Hannequin follows closely on the

texts, and he suggests that Leibniz's is an integrated system in which
metaphysical and physical considerations harmonize with the analytic
statements of the conatus theory. However, Hannequin believes that the
abstract reasons rule over the system deductively. Analyzing the impli-
cations of the concept of motion, one would show the coherence of the
geometry of conatuses with the original principles of the system of
nature. What is lacking in this otherwise faithful account of the
Hypothesis is an assessment of the epistemological features of Leibnizian
physical constructions. Our proper objective is to fill up this gap.
On this aspect of Leibniz's endeavor, the letter to H. Fabri of 1676
gives interesting information. 8 In his correspondence with Pardies,
Fabri had attempted to dissociate his case from that of the corpuscular-
ians and for that purpose he had criticized the systems of both
Gassendi and Descartes. In an additional attack on Hobbes's De
corpore, he took objection to Leibniz's treatise. Leibniz initiates his
defense by showing what he kept from Aristotelian science, how he
differed from atomists and from Gassendi in particular, and why he
could not adopt Descartes's methodology. His admiration goes to
Aristotle's contributions to "civil science" and to the natural history of
animals. He is ready to incorporate and reinterpret some developments
in the Physics concerning principles, motion, continuum, soul. He
objects to Democritean natural philosophy on the ground that incor-
poreal substances ought to be admitted, that it is impossible to derive
motion from body, that naturally indivisible corpuscles are incon-
ceivable, that any theory about simulacra is extravagant. He notes with
interest that Gassendi drew a significant distinction between extension
and the essence of material realities, thus starting on phenomenalizing
the extensum. His position regarding Descartes is far more radical.
Leibniz denies that he had adequate knowledge of the Cartesian theory
when writing the Hypothesis. He did not yet master the mathematical
techniques of the Cartesian school. Also his purpose was not, contrary
to Descartes's, to frame hypotheses that pointed to mere possibilities
without allowing physics to reach anything real.
The methodological stand Leibniz favors consists in "deducing" more
complex phenomena from simpler ones which have been previously
investigated. This makes it possible to discard fictitious hypotheses
(jictitiae hypotheses) from natural philosophy.9 Indeed, the postulated
causes are then homologous with those phenomena referred to in
 LEIBNIZ'S 'HYPOTHESIS PHYSICA NOVA' 155

explaining observed effects. The transition from causal models to

resulting effects is secured by means of such laws as those one derives
from geometrical phoronomia. Causal models refer to the simplest and
most general phenomena instantiated in nature; their capacity for
deductively generating more specific phenomena is considerable. lO
Two demonstrative ways from effects to causes are indeed possible.
In some instances, from a mere collection of effects one can identify the
causal process which they issue from. This Baconian approach is
subject to difficulties when effects can be explained by reference to a
plurality of possible causes. Secondly, the demonstrative way can be
vouched for when causes express themselves directly in the field of the
observable or can be derived through unproblematic analyses and
inferences. If physics is to be raised to demonstrative certainty, there
will need to be explanations of more specific phenomena by more
general ones: the latter are meant to be the simplest elements at the
phenomenal level. This type of explanation depends upon the avail-
ability of conceptual analytical tools. The 1671 developments take the
geometrical conatus theory to be of that kind, as well as rules for
algebraic summation which can be applied to motion indivisibles. In
view of this jointly phenomenal and analytic approach to hypotheses, the
Hypothesis points in the direction of an original research programme. l l
How can science develop under these conditions? Its point of
support resides in experiences. These may have already been achieved,
or analysis itself suggests achieving them. The proper function of
analysis is to unify the known facts or empirical elements in a chain of
sufficient reasons. The conceptual ground of analysis consists, as we
suggested, in abstract elements provided by geometry, in particular,
motion indivisibles or conatuses. In 1676, after his stay in Paris,
Leibniz seems to add to these the specific laws of physical mechanics,
such as the laws of Wren or Huygens. These laws formalize more
directly the sensible data of motion in the phenomenal world. But then,
Leibniz does not yet question the fact that in principle these empirical
laws might conform with his mathematical system for the summing up
conatuses. In any event, by means of analysis, a chain of sufficient
reasons can allow for a demonstrative rendering of specific phenomena,
provided one has already proceeded to the required empirical inven-
tories and experimental verifications. The principles of scientific
knowledge consist in notions about the fundamental motions of the
physical world to which the analytic means of geometry and mechanics
156 FRAN<;OIS DUCHESNEAU

can be applied. The consecutive derivation of phenomena from such

principles may allow us to uncover the combinatorial order implied in
these phenomena; and so one will know ''what is the nature of the
elements and by which combinations everything is formed"P
One of Leibniz's preoccupations is with the logic of discovery. In
1676, he protests the strategy of raising arbitrary hypotheses, as
Descartes among others did. He proposes instead a process that is
more in accordance with the practice of mathematical analysis. One
need inventory the available data for solving the problem and specify
the experiments to be performed so as to account demonstratively for
the phenomena and substitute certainty for mere probability. Indeed,
the inventory could have been achieved haphazardly (bona fortuna),
but the demonstrative process can always be obtained by methodical
search. Such a process may increase our knowledge significantly and
prevent waste of time and effort. These views of 1676 rest on Leibniz's
growing confidence in the analytic methodology which mathematics
exemplifies. This analytic potential of mathematics had formed a major
object for consideration during his stay in Paris, but the same method-
ological trend was immanent in the Hypothesis. This is well expressed
in this passage:
From these few elements, I believe one may understand what a large field is open to us
for accurate philosophizing without hypotheses, provided from now on experiments
(which diligent men have noted or which true analysis has shown should be undertaken)
be 'connected with geometric elements and mechanical laws; and I do not doubt that
with due application something certain can be demonstrated concerning the system of
things and the principal motions which take place around us: hence afterwards the
various phenomena of particular things will be explained and our dominion over nature
will be secured.D

The phenomenalist and analytic methodology Leibniz puts forth is

probably the main distinguishing element in a comparison drawn with
Descartes. Commentators, like Mouy 14 and Dugas, have tended to
overlook this difference because the succession of themes is similar for
both Descartes and Leibniz. Indeed, Leibniz's criticism of Cartesian
methodology and physics will expand mostly in the period when he is
working out his dynamics (1676-1686). However, the 1671 project is
already quite original in its methodological aspect. If Hobbes had
influenced the conatus theory, the construction plans for physics in the
Hypothesis represent a revised empiricist strategy, better structured and
fitter for drawing demonstrative chains of sufficient reasons.1S In his
 LEIBNIZ'S 'HYPOTHESIS PHYSICA NOV A' 157

letter to Hobbes,16 Leibniz had stated his reservations concerning the

English philosopher's theory of cohesion, and he had opposed the
causal reduction of motion to a mere order of material changes.
Conspiring motions as a ground for the formation of discrete masses in
extension and the global economy of phenomena outride the capacity
of Hobbes's theory. In the Hypothesis, Leibniz tried precisely to
account for such requisites through a process of empirico-analytic
construction. We shall now try to describe and analyze this process.
While excluding any preliminary recourse to a corpuscular theory,
Leibniz postulates a minimum of prerequisites for the generation of the
physical phenomena out of diversified motions in homogeneous space.
Insofar as concerns the planetary system, a simple model contains the
solar sphere, the earth and the "mass at rest" of the ether, a subtile fluid
occupying the intermediary space. 17 The parts of the sun and earth
rotate about the axis of their respective globes. These celestial bodies
have resulted from a primordial differenciation in ether, which could
only come about through conspiring circular motions. For the penetra-
tion by conatuses issuing from the ether would be total, were it not for
a sui generis determination to motion causing the dissociation of
celestial bodies from the ether. Apart from the gyratory motion of solar
particles because of axial rotation, one must suppose a specific motion
of these parts causing the emission of light and the resulting mechanical
effects. These effects have been wrongly assigned by Torricelli and
Hobbes to gyration proper: were it the case, projection along the
tangent would exhaust the solar matter and the required differenciation
among the ether particles would not be secured. Therefore, Leibniz
supposes a large number of circular motions in the sun so that accord-
ing to the angles of convergence of these motions the resulting paths
follow the direction of external bisectors. 18 Determinations to motion in
the ether are modified accordingly: this phenomenon corresponds to
the emission of light. In the letter to Fabri, Leibniz appeals to argu-
ments that are both notional and empirical 19 to justify indefinite
transmission in all direction in such fluid and resistance-free medium
(=imponderability). Based on the analogy of sight experience, one may
grant any sensible point a capacity of transmitting light, and hence
identify a fluid matter of the heavens, in which conatuses of light
expand without impediment. Due to the analytic implications of the
plenum notion, one needs to admit that all those motive determinations
compensate mutually but one need also suppose a functional hetero-
158 FRAN(:OIS DUCHESNEAU

geneity between these various determinations underpinning differences

among the masses in the diaphanous ether.
Indeed, Leibniz partakes with Descartes in the view that the main
mechanical effects in the physical world can be derived from the nature
and action of light. But his theory excludes the corpuscular models the
author of the Principia had set up. Let us suppose the rotation of the
earth, a sphere initially formed with matter whose density holds the
middle between air and earth, namely of the order of density of water.
Light emissions produce impacts in the fluid mass of the earth: hence
the various significant phenomena arise. Ex hypothesi, the earth moves
on its axis from west to east; the subtile ether undergoes the motive
determinations of light and presses on our globe; there follows an
apparent motion from east to west, which we can take as a real motion
if we consider the earth as motionless on its axis. Such is the universal
motion out of which the explanation of all phenomena is to be drawn. 2o
Under this pattern, Hannequin is right in pointing out that the letter
to Fabri sketches an hypothesis about the formation of the terrestrial
sphere, when Leibniz writes: "Fluids surrounded by heterogeneous
fluids, gather in the form of a round drop"Y Due to the various
internal motions in fluids, the convergence of heterogeneous fluids
disrupts the overall equilibrium. The denser fluid gathers naturally
under the volume and shape that will secure the greater resistance to
change caused by external impacts. Hannequin does not perceive
anything essential in that addition, which would not provide sufficient
reason for the functional heterogenity of fluids and the resulting
figures. 22 This criticism does not hold. After all, Leibniz tries to
account for the structural conditions of gravity when it operates in all
points of the sphere along a centripetal tendency. If one considers axial
rotation alone, the conatuses of light emissions should produce pressure
following a ratio related with cylindrical surface. This problem, which
arose also in Descartes's vortex theory, meets with a solution that
Leibniz deems adequate, by means of the bubble theory. Proposition 7
in the letter to Fabri develops the argument pertaining to that theory,
which was also central in the Hypothesis.
The bubble theory is built on empirical analogies and on the analytic
requirements arising from the conatus theory. The phenomena suggest-
ing it are boiling and fusion, whether they result from heat or from the
mechanical action of light emissions. The analytic rule implies attribut-
ing conspiring inner motions to the spherical structures of the denser
 LEIBNIZ'S 'HYPOTHESIS PHYSIC A NOVA' 159

fluids. Subtile fluids penetrating dense structures increase the endogenous

tendency to resist, which their "hard crust" opposes to surrounding
fluids. Glass blowing suggests an experimental process that conforms to
this mechanism: the glass bubble results from the circular motion of fire
and from the rectilinear motion of air as it is insufflated in the cane;
both motions act jointly on the vitrescible fluid matter. "Similarly, from
the circular motion of the earth and the straight one of light, there arise
bubbles." 23 The analogy is to be understood by means of an inversion
in hypotheses: the earth is supposed motionless as the vitrescible fluid
matter; it would be acted on by the ether in circular gyration and
subject to impacts of light perpendicular to the axial diameter. Yet
Leibniz seemed to acknowledge the need for a determination to
spherical shape. This determination would depend on those motions
which, within a mass of fluid parts, are occasioned by the multidirec-
tional impacts of a surrounding fluid. The hollowing of those bubbles,
the increase of their endogenous conatus to react would result from
such a combination of circular and rectilinear motions. As the matter
stands, one glimpses here at the composedness of material elements,
since heterogeneous conatuses produce the bubble structure. The
synthesis of these dispositions issues from the gyration of bubbles about
their own centre.
Leibniz borrows from the bubble notion the main tool for raising a
physical theory.24 If we suppose an original fluid state of the earth, the
terrestrial particles will possess a dominant conspiring motion along the
Equator, due to the cohesion resulting from axial rotation; and the
same will happen for the successive parallels. The parts located on the
same parallel benefit from a cohesion pertaining to conspiring rotative
motions. From one parallel to the next, cohesion will be, if not null,
very weak. Hence, the ether particles moved by the light emissions
penetrate the sphere along the lines of lesser resistance and combine
with the parts of the generic terrestrial fluid to form bubbles. As a
result, a sum of individualized elements of various sizes and densities
compose the successive layers of the sphere, with infinite gradation in
the constitutive materials.
Also, as noted by Hannequin,25 a Leibnizian bubble has no similarity
with a Democritean atom: first, because it is subject to many transfor-
mations following surrounding motions, secondly, because bubbles
comprehend other bubbles, and these latter yet others of a lesser size,
without our being able to mark out the end of that regress. And so, one
160 FRAN(:OIS DUCHESNEAU

may take bubbles to represent individualized and complex elements

with nested structural determinations. Interestingly enough, Leibniz
connects with this concept of the element, observations about micro-
scopical organizations, which micrographers like Kircher and Hooke
had collected. 26
Indeed, this theory about integrated bubbles representing nesting
microcosms will provide, in the correspondence with Herzog Johann
Friedrich,27 a material basis for the analogy to be drawn between the
circle of influence of the mens and a convergence point for motions in
the phenomenal world. But this is a metaphysical view forecasting the
concept of a finite substance or monad at later stages of Leibniz's
philosophy.
From the point of view of scientific construction, the characteristic
feature of this theory rests in the cohesion of the explanatory system
restricted to the four elements: ether, air, water, and earth, insofar as
ether, according to the geometrical properties of conatuses, achieves
the functional diversification of the large "masses" of bubbles forming
the other elements; indeed, within those masses there occurs a diversifi-
cation of bubbles ad infinitum in terms of density, size, and specially
dynamic properties (due to conspiring internal motions in connection
with ether impacts). Leibniz discards the hypothesis of an even more
subtile ether which would form a fifth element. 28 On the one hand, no
phenomenon suggests the need to appeal to such a postulate; on the
other hand, the structural conditions of the physical universe require a
type of element that can generate gravity and the other analogous
properties of bodies, without having to depend on properties similar to
those that need explanation. Indeed, the structure of the ether and its
action form an abstract theoretical construct. If the latter is coherent
and suffices to explain the sensible effects, why would one need to
regress further in the order of hypotheses, contrary to Occam's
principle? It seems preferable to segment the masses of the other
elements in an infinite variety, according to the modalities of ether
action on the material constituents of bubbles. As stated by Hannequin:

Ce qu'i! faut noter, c'est l'effort de Leibniz pour deriver des actions de I'ether, soumis
exclusivement aux lois du mouvement abstrait, et cette nature et cette densite [des
elements materiels[, et en meme temps cette division en builes qui va it I'infini et qui, en
supprimant leur continuite et en les faisant 'interrupta', confere enfin aux corps cette
puissance proportionneile it leur grandeur de resister au mouvement qui est ce que les
modernes entendent par la masse. 2"
 LEIBNIZ'S 'HYPOTHESIS PHYSICA NOVA' 161

In line with this theory, Leibniz attempts to work out a model to

explain the phenomenon of weight (gravitas) and analyze its effects.
This model would be a drawing pattern for building a system of the
phenomena that could be extended into more specific explanations. 3D
The proposed model relies on the equivalence of hypotheses on
circular motion and rest between the earth and ether.3l Let us suppose
once again the earth motionless and surrounded by an ocean of ether
which would move from east to west. This ocean does not only enfold
the globe; through an infinite network of conduits, it exerts its moving
action in the interior of masses and of the bubbles they consist in. Any
heterogeneous body which opposes the free circulation of the subtile
ether particles, provokes a reaction: the ether particles push back
towards the centre of the earth any body or part of a body whose mass
cannot be dissociated or dispersed through subtilization to a degree
similar with ether. The centripetal motion of heavy bodies seems to
correlate with the spherical surface of the ether layer which they
disturb. Leibniz then states a false but logical law on the increase of
gravity in a double ratio to the diameter of the sphere of circulation of
ether. Moreover, this law seems to account for the accumulation of
successive impacts in the effect of falI,32 So the rate of increase in
velocity would decrease with the distance gone through in the process
of fall. This error is indeed perfectly coherent with the notions of the
Thearia matus abstracti, since the effect of mass is discarded and we
only deal with conatuses that are subject to the algebraic summing up of
impacts which decrease as the square of the diameter. Gravity measures
the effort of ether in restoring the uniformity of its motion broken up
by the insertion of bodies with a different density; the letter to Fabri
adds that this effect is due to the same cause that produces the
spherical figure of fluids contained in less dense media; such a cause
operates through conspiring motions of the inner parts under the
impact of surrounding parts. 33
The explanation of elasticity builds up in a parallel way: it is a
general phenomenon caused by the disruptive and expansive action of
the ether, when it tends to reduce to the same subtilty as its own, those
heterogeneous material parts comprised in its circular flow. 34 Here,
Leibniz undertakes to analyze phenomena pertaining to the physical
economy and not merely to the abstract geometry of motion as
amended by auxiliary hypotheses on the formation of the planetary
system. For instance, Leibniz relates with elasticity conceived as a flow
162 FRAN(:OIS DUCHESNEAU

of ether in more or less cohesive bodies, the physically assignable laws

of reflection and refraction whether about light or mechanical effects.
The laws of impact of Wren and Huygens, which the Theoria motus
abstracti could not account for, seem to him to be compatible with the
basic mechanical hypothesis, once the conception of elastic action and
reaction has been established. 35 In the same way, one can give a
theoretical representation of causes for the oscillatory motions and
isochronism of pendula, for the dioptrical and catoptrical effects, and
even for a manifold of more specific physical effects, for instance the
accelerated and then decelerated motions of projectiles in the atmo-
sphere. Air is indeed the basic support for elastic phenomena in the
sensible world. It is important to note the discontinuous structure of
material parts, which alone justifies the effects of mass and the reaction
of bodies to impulse by ether parts. Discontinuity is achieved by the
conspiring gyratory motions of bubbles, which represent the "hard"
elements in the physical world; and reaction depends on the dispersive
power of ether particles disturbing endogenous gyration. At least, that
interpretation of sensible data is allowed, granted the relativity of our
cinematic representations. 36
Starting from these basic theoretical concepts, Leibniz aims at
connecting the statics of fluids with a coherent representation about the
elementary structure of bodies interacting because of gravity and
elasticity.37 Then, the endeavour will extend to phenomena described
through specific aspects. The specific aspects can indeed be analyzed
down to associations of sensible qualities, which in turn refer to subtile,
though properly imperceptible, motions. 38 Yet Leibniz sets himself the
task of reconstructing a general model that could link these phenomena
with gravity and elasticity beyond sensible appearances and seemingly
inassimilable motions.
This applies particularly to so-called sympathetic and antipathetic
motions, that is to say magnetism and electric attractions on the one
hand, chemical reactions on the other. The mechanism of magnetic
attractions gets explained through a variant of gravity.39 The pressure of
ether on the parts of the globe repels solid corpuscles towards the
centre of the earth, but, because of axial rotation, when the centripetal
motion of these corpuscles is impeded by the impact on denser parts,
there occurs a deflection of "magnetic" matter towards the poles along
the meridian lines. In short, as made clear about the spherical con-
solidation of denser fluids in the letter to Fabri,40 the motion of
 LEIBNIZ'S 'HYPOTHESIS PHYSICA NOVA' 163

magnetic declination happens through the convergence of centripetal

conatuses (connected with the forming of drop-like structures) and
conatuses of gyration along the parallel lines. Along the same line of
thought, magnetization gets explained by a porosity of iron, congruent
with the flow of ether particles along meridian lines. Similarly, electric
attraction is accounted for by the dynamic of exchanging fluid bodies so
as to reach a stage of equilibrium relative to the circulation of ether.
The general model drawn up by Leibniz does not only bring together
electromagnetic and gravitational effects, which is an interesting pro-
grammatic thesis, but the same model tends to connect chemical
phenomena with the explanation of elasticity by means of disruptive
ether flows. Thb effects deriving from elasticity are then varied to
infinity through the combinatorial relating of containers with contents,
of bubbles with their endogenous motions under the impact of ether
particles. A frame is thus set for collecting a plurality of chemical
phenomena under analytical concepts provided by the geometry of
conatuses. Article 46 of the Hypothesis is a significant statement in this
regard: there Leibniz justifies his model in view of the general concilia-
tion it achieves between abstract rules of motion and the integrated
economy of natural processes:

In order that the reader struck by a slight appearance of contrary experiment do not
disturb at once the entire harmony, since most of the time experiments as I showed in
the case of motion, disagree plainly at first sight with the inner principles of things, and
since they cannot be reconciled with them except by the considerable artifice of a
universal economy, with the admirable wisdom of the Creator enfolding the origin of
things; it must be shown a priori briefly that our hypothesis is slightly more than an
hypothesis. For, without bubbles and containers (vasa), the most subtile corpuscles
cannot be constrained. There must therefore be two types of bodies: containers and
contents or small contents (and I would not deny that some escape out of bubbles, even
though perhaps these also consist in smaller bubbles), solids and liquids, bubbles and
masses. 41

As noted by Hannequin,42 one must consider in this instance the full

scope of Leibniz statements concerning the composition of elementary
structures and the state of dynamic equilibrium which the system of
bubbles tends to produce. Masses or the so-called indetermined prin-
ciples of composition, correspond with the typical elements taken in
their extensive quantity without further differenciation: these are ether,
air, water, and earth. The conspiring motions inside these masses
generate spherical structures which diversify and get endowed with
164 FRAN<;:OIS DUCHESNEAU

dynamical properties in connection with impacts by ether particles.

Masses determined in bubble structures form then the contents of those
"vasa" which relate to the motions and densities of surrounding fluids.
The relation of inner densities and motions to external ones can be
"ordinary" when there occurs an equitable compensation of effects: this
state then tends to subsist and restore itself if disturbed. Major changes
can nevertheless happen, breaking the equilibrium between the
mechanical actions and reactions in the range of low amplitudes: then
the conatus relationships between surrounding fluids and bubble com-
ponents produce abrupt transfers in ether circuits: a phenomenal effect
suggesting explanatory analogies consists in permutation between
density and rarefaction states. Precisely, Leibniz attempts to annex
various concepts from previous and contemporary chemistry to such a
physical model: for instance the "deflagration" resulting from some
struggle between fire and water, the fermentation known to the
ancients, the sulfur and nitre of Paracelsians, the various principles
called upon by the moderns, such as acids and alkalis. In order to
promote a physical model concerning agents and processes of chemical
reaction, attempts such as Boyle's, jointly empirical and mechanicist,
seem to develop along the line drawn in Leibniz's programme, as
witnesses his reference to the Sceptical Chemist (1665). The termi-
nological variations among chemical doctrines reflect probably the
complexity of the phenomena that have to be described from experi-
ence or discovered through experiments. Leibniz suggests that attempts
be made to account for the system of reactions through a representa-
tion of the presumed generic mechanism. After referring to density and
rarefaction to account for motions generating ebullition, Leibniz
concludes:
The same can be said about all the other reactions, diversified in their origin solely
because of the size and number of bubbles, their position and figure, and the degree of
exhaustion or compression. 43

The rather extensive developments in the Hypothesis about the

variations in bubble characteristics result in a table of combination for
the elementary properties of bodies. This is a significant attempt at
setting a theoretical cipher for unravelling specific processes which
could be inventoried through experience alone. This representation is
subject to a principle of architectonic order: a host of diversified effects
are generated by a most limited system of causes, factors, or elements
 LEIBNIZ'S 'HYPOTHESIS PHYSICA NOVA' 165

acting as general sufficient reasons, Indeed, such a fiction requires some

a posteriori justification which has to be gained through empirical
analysis; yet without this type of fiction conformable to the general
analogy of facts, the phenomena under observation would remain
illegible, The hypothetical framing of this table produces a possible
schematism under cover of an architectonic idea. 44
The resulting schema is probably the first reasoned table of the
chemical elements according to a general physical hypothesis. That was
the programmatic objective Leibniz had set for this presentation. Did
he not aim then at giving a simple set of interconnecting concepts to
link the physical theory with experience through conciliating the
methodologically acceptable principles which belonged to partially
antagonistic theories? This schema for theorizing would probably allow
a progressive unfolding of scientific knowledge and its applications. 45
This Leibnizian schema manifests its "theoretical functionality"
mostly in the critique of corpuscularian physics. Yet Leibniz will not
question the maxim of the moderns that everything in the physical
phenomena is to be explained mechanically. In fact, he agrees that there
is a perfect continuity between explaining phenomena by geometrico-
mechanical reasons and building "machines of the art" which exemplify
the laws of motion operating in the case of duly specified material
structures, for instance clocks built according to the functional pro-
perties of gravity or elasticity.46 But proper to Leibniz's model is the
aptness to produce the theoretical sufficient reasons for the mechanisms
involved. There are three possible grounds for the property of increas-
ing the power of bodies, meaning for instance the lifting considerable
weights with reduced forces being applied: the distance of bodies from
the terrestrial centre of gravity, the impetus produced by falling, and
finally the nisus which certain types of things possess because of their
inner arrangement and intrinsic convergent motions: for example, the
blowing force of gunpowder or the moving force of animal muscles.
The first two grounds are clearly accountable for through the concepts
of weight and elasticity; the third one should also be by means of a
more indirect analysis focusing on a complex interplay of "micro-
systems". Now in this Leibnizian procedure, one tends to spare the use
of Democritean properties: antitypy or primary density, elementary
figures for such and such types of solid particles or atoms; vacuum is
also discarded to the benefit of some relative ratio between the dense
(densum) and the rare (exhaustum): this ratio is derived from the sole
166 FRAN<::OIS DUCHESNEAU

primary tenet, namely that motion generates structures which differen-

tiate because of their relative discontinuity. Leibniz builds on the
perfect conformity of his basic hypothesis, which avoids postulating
unanalyzable physical properties, with the theory of conatuses.
Yet justifying the theoretical concepts he adopts goes along with de-
nouncing the relative inaptness of corpuscularian physics in offering
any "ultimate" account for empirical properties. Leibniz criticizes Boyle
for imagining helixes in order to explain the elastic force of air, as it
exceeds that of water. It is easy to get rid of Boyle's model if one
hypothesizes a greater agitation of the air bubbles due to dispersive
impacts by ether particles; hence gyratory motions make it more
difficult for air to penetrate narrow tubes, while the water particles,
denser and less compressible, are less capable of resuming the specific
form of their "mass" in its cohesive disposition. So, Leibniz shows that
he can avail himself of a model, which Boyle lacked, to study capillarity
in narrow tubes. The followers of Gassendi, and this applies to Boyle,
as well as Descartes, entertained a false conception of density as the
cause of cohesion. This conception made them assume the existence of
specific figures of the elementary corpuscles, whether these were to be
considered as atoms or not. For Leibniz, assuming these figured
corpuscles or, which gets to the same, vortex motions of solid particles
with various sizes, is tantamount to creating pure fictions void of
explanatory power because they cannot "harmonize" with a coherent
and systematic analysis of the phenomena. On the contrary, one should
try to combine the resources of a uniform and coherent geometrico-
mechanical model for all phenomena with specific inferences based on
the observation of those phenomena which seem to express the inner
structure of the bodies (bubbles for instance). Construed in this
manner, the Leibnizian hypothesis should not fail when accounting for
the sufficient reason of natural realities and processes. On the one
hand, one has to abide by a rule of simplicity in postulation, on the
other hand, one has to set up a network of explanations patterned after
the specific phenomena without superfluous ad hoc hypotheses. On that
account, the contrast between the corpuscularian approach and his own
is well stated by Leibniz:
I have always believed that what we are told about variously figured atoms, vortices,
ramifications, hooks, globules, and such other arrangements, is appropriate for
entertaining the mind, remote from nature's simplicity and from all experiences, and
sterile, so much so that there is no question of being able to connect it manifestly with
the phenomena. Our Hypothesis, on the contrary, unifies the separate and flowing
 LEIBNIZ'S 'HYPOTHESIS PHYSICA NOVA' 167

corpuscles by means of bubbles; it deduces the motions and effects of bubbles and
finally of all apparent objects from the sole universal motion of the universal system,
and so originating from the first and abstract principles, raising itself on the basis of the
most essential experiments of chemists, applying to the case of the most simple
phenomenon of gravity and elasticity an explanation drawn from the total state of our
globe, it connects theory and mechanical observation with great clarity and harmony.47

En resume, this paper has aimed at describing and analyzing the

Leibnizian model for empirico-scientific theorizing which the Hypothesis
physica nova (1671) sketched. Leibniz never really revised it in the
later expressions for his physical theories. Evidently, the Theoria motus
abstracti and the initial formulations of the conatus theory were
abandoned with the advent of the dynamics. On the other hand, the
Hypothesis was essentially programmatic: it provided only some direc-
tive ideas on how to secure a system of scientific explanations in
dealing with the indefinite inventory of phenomena. The specific
models Leibniz had cast, for instance in connection with the bubble
analogy, were probably not marking any significant progress on the
models of corpuscularian philosophy he was challenging on the basis of
their sterile adhocness. Yet, the Hypothesis is worth re-examining
insofar as it embodies the provocative view that scientific theorizing
depends on an analytic process, which endeavours at systematizing the
inventory of specific phenomena through an economy of models: these
models are to be cast and progressively reframed in the light of
architectonic norms. These norms spell out the necessity of harmoniz-
ing abstract mathematical or quasi-mathematical patterns for explana-
tions with a systematic networking approach to the various phenomena.
Observational and experimental data are to be considered as more or
less provisional expressions for tentative conceptual links in a complex
system of sufficient reasons.48

Universite de Montreal
Montreal, Quebec
Canada

NOTES

I Arthur Hannequin, "La premiere philosophie de Leibniz", in Etudes d'histoire des

science et d'histoire de fa philosoph ie, Paris: F. Alcan, 1908, I, pp. 17-224.

2 Martial Gueroult, Leibniz: Dynamique et meraphysique, 2nd ed., Paris: Aubier-
Montaigne, 1967, chap. 2. Les premieres conceptions de physique, pp. 8-20.
168 FRAN<;:OIS DUCHESNEAU

3 Rene Dugas, La mecanique au XVIIe siec/e, Neuchatel: Ed. du Griffon, 1954, chap.
14. La pensee mecanique de Leibniz, pp. 460-466.
4 G. W. Leibniz, Die philosophischen Schriften, hrsg. von C. J. Gerhardt, Hildesheim:
G.Olms,1965,IV,pp.177-219.
5 Letter of Oldenburg to Leibniz, 14 April 1671, in G. W. Leibniz, Mathematische
Schriften, hrsg. von C. J. Gerhardt, Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1971, I, p. 17.
6 Fran,<ois Duchesneau, "The Problem of Indiscernibles in Leibniz's 1671 Mechanics",
in K. Okruhlik and J. R. Brown, The Natural Philosophy of Leibniz, Dordrecht: D.
Reidel, 1985, pp. 7-26. Cf. P. IV, p. 235: "Triplex constructio est: Geometrica, id est
imaginaria, sed exacta; Mechanica, id est realis sed non exacta; et Physic a, id est realis
et exacta."
7 Cf. P. IV, p. 240.
8 P.IV,pp.244-261.
9 P. IV, pp. 248
10 Leibniz confirms these various points thus, cf. P. IV. p. 248: "Nimirum tentandum

putabam, an non phaenomena naturae difficiliora ex aliis quibusdam phaenomenis

manifestis atque exploratis deduci possent. Hoc enim praestito patebat frustra causas
possibiles assumi pro veris, dum ipsae verae atque certae causae in promptu essent ...
Volui harum causarum tam potentium tamque late fusarum [the question is about the
motions of celestial bodies and the transmission of light] consequentias scrutari
adhibitis Mechanices legibus."
II P. IV, pp. 248-249: "Credidi tamen excitari posse ingeniosores hoc exemplo, ut

imposterum quoad ejus fieri posset sine fictitiis Hypothesibus Philosophiam naturalem
tractare conentur, assumtis causis, quas revera in natura esse constaret ... Ad novam
enim et ni fallor veriorem de rerum natura ratiocinandi viam homines vocavi."
12 P.IV,p.257.
13 P. IV, p. 256.

14 Paul Mouy, Le developpement de la physique cartesienne, 1646-1712, Paris: J. Vrin,

1934, pp. 218-29.

15 Hannequin seems to have been justified in linking Leibniz's and Hobbes's
approaches in physics. However, one should be more careful in drawing strict analogies
between the Hypothesis and the De corpore, since there are significant methodological
differences involved, cf. Hannequin, op. cit., pp. 133-135.
16 Letter of Leibniz to Hobbes, 13/22 July 1670, P. I, pp. 82-85.

17 P. IV, 1, p. 181.
18 P.IV,7,p.182.

19 P. IV.1-2,p. 249.

20 P. IV, 10, p. 184: "Atque hic est ille Universalis motus in globo nostro terr-aqu-
aereo, a quo potius, quam atomorum figuris aut ramentorum ac vorticum varietatibus,
res sunt repetendae."
21 P.IV, 7,p. 251.
22 Hannequin, op. cit., p. 111.
23 P. IV, 11, p. 184.

24 Cf. P. IV, 12, p. 184: "Hae jam bullae sunt semina rerum, stamina specierum,
receptacula aetheris, corporum basis, consistentiae causa et fundamentum tantae
varietatis, quantum in rebus, tanti impetus, quantum in motibus admiramur: hae si
 LEIBNIZ'S 'HYPOTHESIS PHYSIC A NOVA' 169

abessent, omnia forent arena sine calce, avolaretque gyratione densorum expulsus
aether, ac terram nos tram mortuam damnatamque relinqueret Contra a bullis,
gyratione circa proprium centrum firmatis, omnia solidantur et continentur. Quae ratio
est etiam, quod fornicata, ea quam admiramur firmitate polleant, cur vitra rotunda in
experimentis Elasticis subsistant, alterius figurae dirumpantur."
25 Hannequin,op. cit., p. 115.
26 P., IV, 43, p. 210: "Sciendum est enim, ut praedari illi Micrographi, Kircherius et
Hookius, observavere, pleraque quae nos sentimus in majoribus, lynceum aliquem
deprehensurum proportione in minoribus, quae si in infinitum progrediantur, quod
certe possibile est, cum continuum sit divisibile in infinitum, quaelibet atomus erit
infinitarum specierum quidam velut mundus, et dabuntur mundi in mundis in
infinitum."
27 Cf. Letter of 21 May 1671, P., I, pp. 52-53: "Dann auch meine Demonstrationen

gegriindet sein auff der schwehren doctrina de puncto, instanti, indivisibilibus, et

conatu; dann gleich wie Actiones corporum bestehen in motu, so bestehen Actiones
mentium in conatu, seu motus, at sic dicam, minimo vel puncto; dieweil auch mens
selbsten eigentIich in puncto tantum spatii bestehet, hingegen Ein Corpus einen platz
einnimbt. Welches ich, nur populariter davon zu reden, daher klarlich beweise, dieweil
das gemiith sein musz in loco concursus aller bewegungen, die von den objectis
sensuum uns imprimirt werden."
28 P. IV, 49, p. 203.

2~ Hannequin, op. cit., pp. 116-117.

30 P. IV, 15, p. 186: "Porro has bullas, haec vitra varie intorta, figurata, glomerata esse,
facile cogitatu est, ad tantum rerum apparatum producendum, de quo mox in origine
specierum, nunc totius systematis affectionem, id est gravitatem praeoccupemus: ac
merito quidem, cum gravitas plerorumque in globo nostro extraordinariorum motuum
causa, aut certe davis sit, eorum etiam, qui in speciebus privatim exeruntur, et danda sit
Physico opera, ut ad mechanic as rationes, quippe simplicissimas, quoad ejus fieri
potest, omnia reducantur."
31 P. IV, 2, p.181.

32 P. IV, 18, p. 186: "Cum enim turbent circulationem, expelluntur; non sursum, nam
eo magis turbabunt (quia superficies sphaericae crescunt in duplicata ratione, non in
eadem cum diametris ratione; ac proinde sectionum quoque in idem corpus agentium
inaequalitas major evenit) ergo deorsum, id est descendent. Hinc porro incrementum
impetus ob novam ubique inter descend urn in qualibet aetheris liberi aut liberioris,
quam rei illius ratio fert, parte impressionem."
33 P. IV, 10 p. 251.

34 One should note that, according to Leibniz, heavy bodies are never without some
degree of elasticity and that the most elastic bodies, approximating the subtilty of ether,
are nevertheless subject to some degree of descent towards the centre of the globe.
35 P. IV, 22, p. 190.
36 P. IV, 21, p. 188: "At corporum sensibilium alia plane facies: omnia enim dura sunt
motu quodam intestino in se redeunte; omnia discontinua sunt, unde caeteris paribus
plus efficit moles; omnia Elastica sunt, seu compressa ac mox sibi relicta, ab aetheris
gyratione in statum priorem restituuntur."
37 P. IV, 23-29,pp.191-195.
170 FRAN<;":OIS DUCHESNEAU

38 P. IV, 30,p. 195.

39 P.IV,33*-34*,p.197-199,17,p.254.
40 P. IV, 7-8, p. 25l.
41 P. IV, 46, pp. 202-203.
42 Hannequin, op. cit., p. 127 n. 3
43 P. IV, 40, p. 20l.
44 P. IV, 51, p. 204: "Et hic certe Hypothesin condituro, nisi temerarius haberi affecta,
subsistendum est; specialior enim applicatio ab experientia pendet. Credidi tamen
semper admirabilem Conditoris sapientiam ita res instituisse, ut paucis multa gerantur.
Unde si somniandum esset, dice rem ..."
45 P. IV, 54, p. 206: "Sufficit causam omnibus motibus explicandis suffecturam
reddidisse, sufficit ex simplicissimis et liquidissimis et intellectu facillimis, ad hanc
usque experientiae portam volatiles, alioquin et usui vitae atque analysi practicae
inconciliabiles Theorias deduxisse; sufficit ea attulisse, quae sectae omnes, salvis
domesticis opinionibus, ferre possunt."
46 P. IV, 58 pp. 210-21l.
47 P. IV, 57, p. 209.
48 Work on this paper was supported by a research grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research council of Canada.