Abstract
Here the young Leibniz (he was only 18 years old when writing the Specimen) advances his original and bold thesis that, despite the jurists’ contempt for philosophy, the law without the guidance of philosophy “would be an inextricable labyrinth”. On the other hand, as he argues deploying an impressive array of sources, both canonical law and civil law contain a considerable amount of philosophical content, pertaining not only to practical philosophy, but also to logic, physics, and other disciplines, including mathematics and metaphysics (a point on which Leibniz will insist, with an explicit reference to the Specimen, in the preface to the Nova methodus [A VI/1 265]).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
D. 1.1.10.2.
- 2.
D. 1.1.1.
- 3.
D. 50.16.158.
- 4.
D. 8.2.23.
- 5.
“More liberal”.
- 6.
D. 34.2.7.
- 7.
Inconsistent.
- 8.
C. 4.19.23.
- 9.
D. 10.1.13.
- 10.
D. 5.3.38, 36.
- 11.
D. 41.2.3.5 (De adquirenda vel amittenda possessione).
- 12.
D. 42.2.1.pr.
- 13.
“Everything would be in everything”.
- 14.
D. 8.4.11.1 (Communia praediorum tam urbanorum quam rusticorum).
- 15.
D. 45.1.54.
- 16.
Inst. 2.1.25; D. 41.1.7.7.
- 17.
D. 6.1.3.2, 5.1.
- 18.
D. 41.1.12.
- 19.
The correct reference is D. 6.1.23.5.
- 20.
D. 11.7.44 (De religiosis et sumptibus funerum et ut funus ducere liceat).
- 21.
C. 9.47.17.
- 22.
D. 48.19.16.6 (De poenis).
- 23.
I.e., considering the aspects common to the whole genus.
- 24.
I.e., considering the aspects proper to the particular species.
- 25.
Inst. 1.2.
- 26.
D. 9.1.3.
- 27.
In the text Ungebauerus.
- 28.
Affections.
- 29.
Analogy.
- 30.
Inst. 2.1.14 (De rerum divisione).
- 31.
D. 41.1.5.2.
- 32.
“The bee is a wild animal”.
- 33.
D. 10.2.8.1.
- 34.
Inst. 2.1.15.
- 35.
“Doves, peacocks, and other feathered game which are not wild, fly over the fields and are therefore common”.
- 36.
Inst. 2.1.15.
- 37.
D. 47.2.37.
- 38.
Inst. 2.1.15.
- 39.
Rustic.
- 40.
Inst. 2.1.16.
- 41.
D. 9.1.10 and D. 9.2.2.
- 42.
Inst. 4.3.1 and D. 9.2.
- 43.
D. 32.1.65.4. (De legatis et fideicommissis).
- 44.
Inst. 2.1.14.
- 45.
“Wild nature is everything that cannot be tended through shepherds”.
- 46.
Timid.
- 47.
Inst. 4.3.1.pr.
- 48.
Inst. 3.19.1.
- 49.
D. 45.1.97.
- 50.
C. 8.37 (De contrahenda, et committenda stipulatione).
- 51.
D. 46.3.31.
- 52.
D. 12.6.26.12.
- 53.
D. 32.1.12.
- 54.
D. 4.8.16.6 (De receptis arbitris, et qui arbitrium recipiunt, ut sententiam dicant).
- 55.
D. 35.2.88.
- 56.
D. 50.17.65.
- 57.
The bald man.
- 58.
“When I say the following: Now I am lying”.
- 59.
D. 28.7.16.
- 60.
D. 45.1.9.
- 61.
D. 45.1.80.
- 62.
Justinian’s Novels, I. c. 2 (De haeredibus et Falcidia); Authentica Sed cum testator (at C. 6.50[49].7).
- 63.
On Interpretation.
- 64.
D. 45.1.75, 100.
- 65.
D. 28.3.16 (De iniusto, rupto, et irrito facto testamento).
- 66.
D. 5.1.28.5 (De iudiciis, et ubi quisque agere, vel conveniri debeat).
- 67.
Inst. 3.15.6.
- 68.
D. 5.1.76 (De judiciis: ubi quisque agere ven conveniri debeat).
- 69.
D. 45.1.83.5.
- 70.
D. 30.1.22, 65.
- 71.
D. 50.16.209.
- 72.
D. 41.2.1.3.
- 73.
D. 5.1.76.
- 74.
D. 45.3.5.
- 75.
D. 7.4.25 (Quibus modis ususfructus vel usus amittatur), D. 43.17(16).1, D. 6.1.3.2, 76.1.
- 76.
D. 41.3.30 (De usurpationibus et usucapionibus).
- 77.
Separate, from διίστημι (meaning, as a medical term, to “separate”, to “distinguish”).
- 78.
Teophilus Antecessor, Paraphrases to Institutions 2.20.18 and 19.
- 79.
D. 6.1.23.5.
- 80.
One constitution.
- 81.
Joined properties of the body.
- 82.
Pneumatic union.
- 83.
D. 30.1.34.15.
- 84.
D. 21.2.56 (De evictionibus, et duplae stipulatione).
- 85.
D. 41.1.7, 9.
- 86.
D. 50.16.72.
- 87.
Absurd.
- 88.
D. 39.5.6.
References
Antognazza, M.R. 2009. Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dascal, M. 2008. Leibniz Two-Pronged Dialectic. In Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist? ed. M. Dascal, 37–72. Dordrecht: Springer.
MacDonald Ross, G. 2007. Leibniz’s Debt to Hobbes. In Leibniz and the English-Speaking World, ed. P. Phemister and S. Brown, 19–33. Dordrecht: Springer.
Riley, P. 1996. Leibniz’ Universal Jurisprudence: Justice as the Charity of the Wise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smullyan, R.M. 1978. What is the Name of this Book? The Riddle of Dracula and Other Logical Puzzles. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Artosi, A., Pieri, B., Sartor, G. (2013). Specimen of Philosophical Questions Collected from the Law. In: Artosi, A., Pieri, B., Sartor, G. (eds) Leibniz: Logico-Philosophical Puzzles in the Law. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 105. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5192-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5192-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5191-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5192-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)