Abstract
Chemistry and dynamics are closely related in G.W. Leibniz's thinking, from the corpuscularism of his youth to the theory of conspiracy movements that he proposes in his later years. Despite the importance of chemistry and chemical thought in Leibniz's philosophy, interpreters have not paid enough attention to this subject, especially in the recent decades. This work aims to contribute to filling this gap in Leibnizian studies. In this first part of the work I will expose the theory of matter that the young Leibniz conceives under the influence of chemical corpuscularism. Leibniz uses R. Boyle's interpretation of the Aristotelian idea of form in order to give an explanation of the unity and cohesion of bodies. As opposed to the Cartesians, Leibniz puts forth the idea of a dependence between the variables of extension, movement and figure, without losing analytical clarity and with the aim of extending the explanatory power of physics to natural phenomena difficult to approach by Cartesian mechanics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Very important for understanding Leibniz´s early thought, among other things, is the influence exerted upon him by J. B. van Helmont and R. Boyle. Boyle, for his part, also got in touch with van Helmont’s theses in the Hartlib Circle, before he moved to Oxford in 1655. Van Helmont’s impact on Boyle’s education, whether direct or through G. Starkey, was crucial (Clericuzio 1990, p. 567; Newmann and Principe 2002). For the influence of van Helmont senior and junior on Leibniz, see Orio de Miguel (1993) and (2002), Duchesneau (1998), chapters I and X.
We will have to wait for their publication by the Leibniz Edition in Berlin, which is where the texts on this subject are included. I have been able to consult the catalogue of texts that P. Rubini has carried out for this edition. In the catalogue you can find about thirty manuscripts dedicated to chemistry or related to it. After a first glance I can highlight at least three texts: the manuscript LH 37, 4 Bl. 24-31 ‘Aufz. betr. korpuskulare Zusammensetzung chemikalischer Substanzen (Molekülen)’ whose first pages are dedicated to the idea of molecule and the theory of acids and bases (later it seems that Leibniz focuses on an analysis of the organs of the body); the manuscript LH 37, 6 Bl. 5–13 ‘Observationes chymicae et physicae (1)–(5)’ which begins with a text devoted to the method of decomposition into elements or principles used by Basilius Valentinus; and manuscript LH 37, 6 Bl. 25–30 ‘Bericht, an welchen orten die Metalla, und Minera, alsz Materien zu operationibus chymicis, anzutreffen und zu finden’. I also find a text not written by the hand of Leibniz on the search for ‘Liquor Alchahest’, a substance that would supposedly have the property of dissolving all compounds in their most elementary components. The rest of the texts in the catalogue are composed of small fragments and two commentaries, one on Johann Gottman's work ‘Das Güldene Testament’ and the other on J. Bernoulli's work ‘Diss. chymico-physica de effervescentia et fermentatione [...]’. There are other interesting texts that have already been published in other editions, such as the texts of the controversy with G.E. Stahl and others included in vol. II of the Dutens edition (I will mention some of them later)—among the latter we find a brief letter from Leibniz without an addressee where he outlines a history of chemistry and mentions some things we can expect from it in the field of medicine; see Dutens II, pp. 128–130.
Leibniz published a well-known article in the Journal de Sçavants of August 2, 1677 (pp. 190–191) on the properties of phosphorus. Interested in the possibilities presented by this compound, Leibniz ordered the construction of a chemical laboratory in Hannover and hired H. Brandt, the inventor of phosphorus, to continue its manufacture there. When Brandt started the laboratory, Leibniz himself reproduced the process, verifying Brandt's procedure (see Aiton 1985, p. 119). From this period arose his writing ‘On how to arrive at the true analysis of bodies’ of 1677. In 1710 Leibniz published a report on the invention of phosphorus (Dutens II, pp. 102–108). Also in the Journal de Sçavants of February 17, 1681 (pp. 46–47) a note of Leibniz was published where he informs of the discovery of a smoking substance when he was working on his project of the Harz mines. To these texts should be added another that was published in 1701 in the Mémoires de Trévoux (Dutens II, pp. 88–89) where Leibniz offers an explanation of the generation of ice based on different velocities of the air inside water. In relation to the phosphorus issue, it should be added that Leibniz had a special interest in substances that had the property of reacting violently in certain circumstances or environments. One of the reasons was that he thought that living bodies obtained energy, which they used or differentiated in multiple ways, in a similar way (on this issue see Smith 2011, cap. II). On flammable oils we find a couple of letters from Leibniz to F. Hoffmann collected by Dutens in the section devoted to chemistry (Dutens II, pp. 97–101).
See the comments he makes at this time to Stahl's Aristotelian metaphysics (A VI, 1, pp. 1–22).
The first reference corresponds to the edition of the text in the original, the second to the translation used. For the abbreviations of the original editions see the list of references at the end of the paper.
There are few works on Gassendi's influence in Leibniz (Moll 1982; Higueras 2013). Regarding Boyle, the Latin translations of The Sceptical Chymist (1661) and Origin of Forms and Qualities (1666) did not appear until 1668 and 1669 respectively. The first quotation by Leibniz of Boyle, precisely relative to the first of both works, is from 1668 or 1669 (A VI, 1, p. 496). The study of Boyle's work intensified from year 1670, when the correspondence with H. Oldenburg, secretary of the Royal Society begins. Other authors who belong to this orbit of chemical atomism and who had a great influence on the young Leibniz are D. Sennert and J.C. Scalinger (Blank 2010, 2011; Arthur 2003). The impact of the knowledge of the study of the complexity of bodies that Hooke presented to the public in his famous Micrographia on the young Leibniz is a partial, but not negligible mention. We know, from a letter Leibniz sent to Thomasius in 1669, that the young philosopher already knew Hooke's work at that time (Leibniz knew either the plates with English illustrations, the whole work, or some of the reviews).
An important step in this direction was taken by the Royal Society when, in 1668, it commissioned the most important students of mechanics to produce a model of explanation of shocks alternative to the Cartesian one. Those who joined this project were C. Huygens, C. Wren and J. Wallis. Leibniz learns about the work that resulted from this project in 1669 through E. Mauritius. And in 1670 he sends a contribution proposal to Oldenburg through Mauritius himself. This is how Leibniz first made contact with the secretary of the Royal Society.
Leibniz points out this same problem in a letter to Oldenburg sent in the same year (A II,1, p. 102).
There are many possible influences behind this idea of bubble. Among them, R. Hooke's idea of a globular figure or F. Bacon's idea of a cell stand out.
I am offering only one of the aspects collected in the complex analysis and discussion that the young Leibniz makes of the idea of form (I have expanded on this issue in other works). The most significant texts are the letters exchanged with J. Thomasius at this time, especially Leibniz's letter of 20/30 April 1669 (A II,1,N. 11). I am only interested in analysing Leibniz's interpretation of this idea in his New Physics (quoted fragment) in relation to the understanding of compound bodies. Although Leibniz does not cite Boyle here (he does so in the letters to Thomasius), he is a direct source of these ideas and what Leibniz says about Aristotelian forms coincides with what Boyle says in multiple passages, for example, in his Origin of Forms and Qualities (Boyle 2017, The theoretical part, IV, VII).
Texture, shape, form or schematism are terms used by authors such as Boyle, Hooke or Beeckman to refer to the corpuscular structure of bodies (it is from the latter that Gassendi derives his idea of moleculae). For Boyle see for example: Boyle (1911), pp. 201–202 and 2017, pp. 17, 28, 30–31. The origin of these terms can be traced back to Francis Bacon’s interpretation of the notion of σχêμα, present in Diogenes Laertius’ work, which he preferred to translate into Latin as schematismus instead of the usual figura, forma, formatio or configuratio, and which in his theory is also a synonym of the term ‘textura’, coming from Lucretius (to both of them Bacon attributes various meanings, all linked to the comprehension of the dynamics of systems or corpuscular structures, see Manzo (2006), pp. 161–181). Leibniz also uses the term ‘textura’ in this sense in a letter to Des Bosses from 1716 (GP II, p. 521), in the discussion with Stahl (Dutens II, p. 138) or in his manuscript On the cause of gravity (GM VI, p. 187).
Both Sylvius and T. Willis were among the first thinkers to stress the importance of chemistry for anatomical and physiological research: The parts that make up bodies are qualitative, functional, not quantitative minimums, as they cannot be both minimal and corporeal at the same time. A contribution that had been pointed out by another renowned chemist of the time, N. Lefevre in his 1670 work A complete body of chymistri (part I, pp. 9–10). This is the vindication of the nature of the principles of matter that chemists will face against mechanistic and atomistic metaphysics. Thus, analogous to Boyle, T. Willis states in his De fermentatione «I mean by the name of Principles, not simple and wholly uncompounded Entities, but such kind of Substances only into which Physical things are resolved into parts, lastly sensible» (De fermentatione, Practice of Physick, p. 2; references taken from Debus (2001), p. 67).
In 1671 Leibniz exposes to Oldenburg other differences with the Cartesian position: Leibniz does not accept the identification of body and space, nor the Cartesian theory of relative motion (A II, 1, p. 272).
Leibniz will develop this conception of form as an internal principle of activity over the years to identify (substantial) form with (active) force. For the young Leibniz, every body is characterised by two properties: extension (positive property) and resistance (negative property). However, both properties can only be understood on the basis that the essence of the body is movement (A II, 1, p. 167): extension and resistance are characteristics derived from the dynamic essence of the body (and its complexity, i.e. its form). A problematization of Leibniz's youth position in this respect is found in: Fazio (2017), pp. 240–252.
They confronted the daunting problem of how to justify the coexistence of these energetic phenomena (light, magnetism, gravity, chemical affinity…) in view of the corpuscular physics model they championed against orthodox mechanism such as of Hobbes or Spinoza. Newton’s physics is a clear example of a model in which both approaches to the nature of matter coexist uneasily—on the one hand, we find forces of attraction and repulsion and on the other, an atomism that basically implies interactions by contact (Henry 1986, p. 342; Casado 2000, p. 23). Thinkers such as Hooke or Boyle swung vaguely between giving priority to matter or motion; Boyle opted for the latter in his mature period (Solís 1985, p. 187). There were others who went so far as to defend openly the identity between matter and force (or spirit and body), such as Anne Conway or Matthew Hale (Observations touching the principles of natural motion from 1677).
For a historical exposition of the problem of chemical affinity within the theory of force fields, see Berkson (1974), chap. I.
«Nature's main instrument is reaction» (A VI, 2, p. 240). Leibniz refers here to the reactions studied by chemists. Leibniz cannot here understand by reaction a mechanical reaction (resistance) of one body to the impact of another. On the shortcomings of the notion of mechanical reaction to explain natural phenomena, see the first letter that Leibniz sends to Hobbes: A II, 1, p. 92.
The strictly mechanistic interpretation of Boyle, prevalent throughout the 20th century (e.g. Boas 1952 and 1958; Kuhn 1952; see Solís 1985) can be traced back to the interpretation left for the posterity by Leibniz in his exchange with Newton. This was further reinforced by the rise of the atomic theory of matter in Physics and Chemistry at the beginning of the century. In this sense, the perception of Boyle’s thought, which he himself encouraged in order to distance himself from his predecessors, was shaped by this first attempt to reduce chemical phenomena to mechanical-corpuscular explanations, avoiding the obscure and mystical paraphernalia of alchemy, full of deceptive imagery. Works criticising an exclusively mechanistic reading of Boyle include Clericuzio (1990), Henry (1986), Chalmers (1993) or Wilson (1995), 53–54, who conclude that Boyle’s complex corpuscles do not only have mechanical, but also chemical properties. Another argument in favour of such non-mechanical interpretation of Boyle is the nature of his debate with Spinoza via Oldenburg (see Spinoza 1972, vol. 4, Letters 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 14 and 16).
We also find tables of this type in J. Jungius (Disputationes, 1642), in D. Sennert or in E. de Clave. But this way of classifying and investigating the relationship between completeness and natural activity of matter comes from afar, going back to the investigations that were already carried out in the Middle Ages in relation to salts and metals (a technique linked to practical and commercial purposes and thus not obscurantist). To mention some of the works that exerted major influence on modern chemists: Liber Secretorum by the Arab author al-Razi (9th century), De anima in arte alkimiae by an unknown author (11th century, erroneously attributed to Avicenna), Theorica et practica by Paolo de Taranto (13th century), or Summa perfectionis attributed to Geber but certainly also written by Paolo de Taranto (13th century). All these works are good examples of alchemy's attention to rationalizing its operations, creating batteries of experiments, meticulously described, destined to distinguish between substances (metals or salts), and even providing quantitative balances of these operations (see Newmann and Principe (2002), chap. II).
For this programmatic aspect of Leibniz’s relationship with chemistry as an experimental science, see Arana (2013).
The fact that bodies are actually infinitely divided does not hinder Leibniz at all from carrying out this research project. He gives the following justification: «and thus just as those who drive a harvester through soil do not pay attention to the tiny stones embedded in it nor are thereby in the least occupied; in the same manner we should believe that the effects of those utmost subtle bodies on the bodies we are examining do not have more to do with our phenomena than what imperceptible corpuscles making up the soil have to do with the robustness of a fortress. […] If invisible bodies, latent in visible bodies and concurring notably in the production of the effect of the observed experiments were so varied, they would be also very subtle. And if they were so subtle, then they would change for very brief instants, so that bodies such as nitro or sulphur would not remain so long in their state nor would they give rise to the same experiments. If the bodies concurring in the production of the phenomena were so remote from us and so subtle, it would not be possible for a light and superficial mix of liquids to have so many effects, or it would follow that any mix can also produce the maximal effects» (GP VII, p. 268).
«It is undoubtable that when the sage Creator weaved the first warp of a still soft earth, He created something similar to the structure of animals or plants, but fires, floods and landslides disfigured and altered the surface to such extent that it can hardly be recognised now.» (Dutens II, p. 209). «Something similar to the structure of animals or plants» means ordered matter, full of life, but it does not mean, as Leibniz explains to Arnauld, that the Earth should have a substantial form. Arnauld addresses the following question to our philosopher: «Do you believe that it is necessary for this, for instance, that the Earth, composed of so many heterogeneous parts, should have its own substantial form that endows it with this unity? You do not seem to believe this much» (Finster, p. 167). And Leibniz retorts that the planet is nothing more than an aggregate of substances or a natural machine: «I do not know if the body, when the soul or the substantial form is detached from it, can be considered a substance; it can rather be a machine, an aggregate of several substances, so that if I am asked about what I have to say about the form of a corpse or of a marble cube, I should say that they are united perhaps by aggregation, as a mound of stones, and they are not substances. The same thing can be said about the Sun and the Earth.» (Finster, p. 188)
Leibniz distances himself here from Descartes’ position (Principles of Philosophy, part 4) (1) in detaching geological causes from mechanics and approximating them to the contingent reasons of history (for the French philosopher the Earth stems from a chaotic material state inexorably ordered by the laws of nature whereas for Leibniz God created the World as ordered and it is this order that has been contingently changing throughout history) and (2) in considering the planet a closed system, which allows attributing a structure and a history to it. (Álvarez Muñoz 2013, pp. 72,74)
«It is thus necessary to set aside the bodies equipped with radii, the polygons and regular forms we encounter in crystals, garnets, in rests of gems, in fluors, as well as different minerals; we also do not consider hexagonal snow, nor bee cells, nor vitriol, nor alum, nor common salt, nor nitro, nor salt of hartshorn, nor starring martial regulus, nor any other geometry of inanimate matter, which could easily be explained by addition of parts, such as in crystallization.» (Dutens II, pp. 221–222)
See in particular §53 (A VI, 2, pp. 245–246): «The Kingdoms relate to each other as source of nourishment, but on a scale [which implies an «increase in subtlety» and a «superior activity» or «force»], so that minerals nourish plants, the latter nourish animals, and vice versa. Thus everything is remedy for everything, even by leaps.»
In a letter to J. Friedrich of the 21st of May 1671, Leibniz claims that this biological metabolism regenerates the parts of a body each year (A II, 1, p. 174).
Here we can observe a clear influence of the Kabbalistic doctrine of comestio (see Orio de Miguel 2002, chap. III, in particular: ‘Digestio and vita media: the legacy of J.B.’, 2002, pp. 275–283). These doctrines, taking nutrition as a basis for the analysis of bodily substances, can be traced back to Paracelsus, for whom to live is to feed, that is, to continue existing through the transformation and assimilation of the world within oneself. One of the principal characteristics of these doctrines is the defence of a dynamic principle in the living body (fire, vital heat, archeus…) endowed with the capacity to mediate such digestive processes (Smith 2012, pp. 205–206). A whole strand of thought (iatrochemistry, alchemy or chemistry) can be distinguished here based on the characterisation made by each of its champions of the nature of this dynamic principle (called ‘mind’ by the young Leibniz).
References
Aiton, Eric J.: Leibniz. A Biography. Adam Hilger, Bristol & London (1985)
Álvarez Muñoz, E.: Del origen del planeta al significado de los fósiles: la geología de Leibniz. In: Arana, J. (ed.) Leibniz y las ciencias, pp. 153–178. Plaza y Valdés, Madrid (2013)
Arana, J.: Leibniz y la química. Cultura 32, 105–123 (2013)
Arthur, R.: The Enigma of Leibniz’s Atomism. Oxford Stud. Early Mod. Philos. 1, 243–302 (2003)
Berkson, W.: Fields of Force. The Development of a World View from Faraday to Einstein. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London (1974)
Blank, A.: Biomedical Ontology and the Metaphysics of Composite Substances 1540–1670. Philosophia Verlag, Munich (2010)
Blank, A.: Sennert and Leibniz on animate atoms. In: J.E.H. Smith & O. Nachtomy (eds.) Machines of Nature and Corporeal Substances in Leibniz, pp. 115–130. Springer Synthese New Historical Library 67, Dordrecht (2011)
Blank, A.: Sixteenth-century pharmacology and the controversy between reductionism and emergentism. Perspect. Sci. 26, 157–184 (2018)
Boas Hall, M.: The establishment of the mechanical philosophy. Osiris 10, 421–541 (1952)
Boas Hall, M.: Robert Boyle and Seventeenth-Century Chemistry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)
Boyle, R.: The Origine of Formes and Qualities. Printed by H. Hall ... for Ric. Davis, Oxford (1666). Digital edition of Jonathan Bennett (2017). https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/boyle1666.pdf
Boyle, R.: The sceptical chymist by H. Robert Boyle. Published by J.M. Dent & Sons, ltd., E.P. Dutton & Co., London, New York (1911)
Busche, H.: Leibniz' Weg ins perspektivische Universum. Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg (1997)
Casado Váquez, J.M.: R.G. Boscovich y el atomismo. Llull 23, 551–575 (2000)
Chalmers, A.: The lack of excellency of boyle's mechanical philosophy. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 24, 541–564 (1993)
Clericuzio, A.: A redefinition of Boyle's chemistry and corpuscular philosophy. Ann. Sci. 47, 561–589 (1990)
Clericuzio, A.: Gassendi y el atomismo del siglo XVII. In: Los orígenes de la ciencia moderna. Actas XI–XII, pp. 375–378. Gobierno de Canarias, La Orotava-Canarias (2004)
Debus, A.G.: Chemistry and Medical Debate: Van Helmont to Boerhaave. Science History Publications, Canton MA (2001)
Duchesneau, F.: Leibniz’s ‘hypothesis physica nova’: a conjunction of models for explaining phenomena. Boston Stud. Philos. Sci. 116, 153–170 (1989)
Duchesneau, F.: La dynamique de Leibniz. Vrin, Paris (1994)
Duchesneau, F.: Les Modèles du vivant de Descartes à Leibniz. Vrin, Paris (1998)
Duchesneau, F.: Leibniz's model for analyzing organic phenomena. Perspect. Sci. 11(4), 378–409 (2003)
Duchesneau, F.: Leibniz le vivant et l'organisme. Vrin, Paris (2010)
Dugas, R.: La mécanique au XVIIe siecle. Editions du Griffon, Neuchatel (1954)
Fazio, R.: Movimiento, cuerpo y sustancia corpórea en Leibniz: la defensa de la relatividad del movimiento y su impacto en el desarrollo de la metafísica de los cuerpos. Eidos 26, 238–267 (2017)
Garber, D.: Leibnizian Hylomorphism. In: Manning, G. (ed.) Matter and Form in Early Modern Science and Philosophy, pp. 225–243. Brill, Leiden (2012)
Gueroult, M.: Leibniz. Dynamique et métaphysique. Aubier-Montaigne, Paris (1967)
Hannequin, A.: La première philosophie de Leibniz. In: A. Hannequin. Etudes d'Histoire des sciences et d'Histoire de la philosophie, vol. 2, pp. 17–149. Felix Alcan, Paris (1908)
Henry, J.: Occult qualities and the experimental philosophy. Hist. Sci. 24(4), 335–381 (1986)
Higueras, M.: El atomismo molecular de Gassendi y la concepción corpuscular de la materia en el joven Leibniz. Cultura 32, 255–271 (2013)
Hooke, R.: Micrographia, or, Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses: with Observations And Inquiries Thereupon. Printed for James Allestry, London (1667)
Kuhn, T.: Robert Boyle and structural chemistry. Isis 43, 12–36 (1952)
Leibniz, G.W.: [A] Sämtliche Schriften und, Briefe edn. Akademie Verlag, Darmstadt/Leipzig/Berlin, Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften (1923)
Leibniz, G.W. (1989) [Dutens] G.G. Leibnitii Opera Omnia. L. Dutens (ed.). 6 vols. Ginebra (1768. Reimpr.: Olms, Hildesheim 1989)
Leibniz, G.W. (1997) [Finster] G.W. Leibniz, Der Briefwechsel mit Antoine Arnauld. R. Finster (ed.). Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg (1997)
Leibniz, G.W. (1960) [GP] G.W. Leibniz. Die philosophischen Schriften. C.I. Gerhardt (ed.). 7 vols. Berlin (1875–90) (Hildesheim, 1960–61)
Hobbes, T.: The correspondence of Thomas Hobbes. N. Malcolm (ed.). Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)
Manzo, S.: Entre el atomismo y la alquimia: la teoría de la materia de Francis Bacon. Biblos, Buenos Aires (2006)
Moll, K.: Der junge Leibniz (3 vols.). Bad Cannstatt, Stuttgart (1978, 1982, 1996)
Newmann, W.R., Principe, L.M.: Alchemy tried in the fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the fate of Helmontian chymistry. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2002)
Orio de Miguel, B.: Leibniz y la tradición teosófico-kabbalística. Ed. Universidad Complutense, Madrid (1993)
Orio de Miguel, B.: Leibniz y el pensamiento hermético (2 vols.). Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia (2002)
Pasini, E.: Corpo e funzioni cognitive in Leibniz. FrancoAngeli, Milano (1996)
Rey, A.-L.: Alchemy and chemistry. In: Antognazza, M.A. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leibniz, pp. 500–507. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2018)
Ross, G.M.: Leibniz and the Nüremberg Alchemical Society. Studia Leibnitiana 6, 223–248 (1974)
Ross, G.M.: Alchemy and the development of Leibniz's metaphysics. Studia Leibnitiana Supplem. XXII, 40–45 (1982)
Smith, J.E.H.: The body-machine in Leibniz's early physiological and medical writings: a selection of texts with commentary. Leibniz Rev. 17, 141–179 (2007)
Smith, J.E.H.: Divine Machines: Leibniz and the Sciences of Life. Princeton University Press, New Jersey (2011)
Smith, J.E.H.: Spirit is a stomach: the iatrochemical roots of Leibniz theory of corporeal substance. In: Manning, G. (ed.) Matter and Form in Early Modern Science and Philosophy, pp. 203–224. Brill, Leiden (2012)
Solís, C.: Robert Boyle. Física, química y filosofía mecánica, introducción, traducción y notas de C. Solís Santos. Alianza, Madrid (1985)
Spinoza, B.: Opera. 4 vols. Ed. by C. Gebhardt. Carl Winter, Heidelberg (1972)
Wilson, C.: The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope. Princeton University Press, New Jersey (1995)
Funding
Funding was provided by Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (Grant No. FJCI2017-33649, PID2019-104576GB-I00 and PGC2018-094692-B-I00), Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (Grant No. FJCI-2017-33649), Eusko Jaurlaritza (Grant No. IT1228-19).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Escribano-Cabeza, M. Chemistry and dynamics in the thought of G.W. Leibniz I. Found Chem 23, 137–153 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-020-09382-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-020-09382-4