(Please note that the page numbers below may not be exact, as revisions are periodically made and computer scince, such as it is, may make creative adjustments to the lcoation. Nevertheless, the numbers might assist the reader in working back go the reference).

1. (p. 21). Leibnitzian philosophy frequently defies comprehension. Leibnitz may have attempted too many things and tried to integrate too much. Professor Randall, Woodbridge Professor of Columbia University, makes a heartening statement when he says that it is most difficult to provide "any unified picture of Leibnitz's thought... The historian may feel less sure of Leibnitz than of any other major figure in the philosophical record...his thought contains such a rich variety of incompatibles... an account of Leibnitz is impossible (1965, p. 5)." Randall further states that "... while Leibnitz has a wealth of intellectual imagination... he has quite literally very little sense... Much that he says is profound, and much is nonsense; he cannot tell the difference (Randall, 1965, p. 10)."

Although these statements provide solace, we cannot dismiss Leibnitz as unimportant. Although his philosophy may not always be coherent, his contributions and influence are tremendous. Some years ago, the New York City Public Library published a report of those books with the greatest circulation. Leibnitz' books headed the list.

2. (p. 39). In 1702, Anne, (the second daughter of James II), ascended the throne. She was raised a Catholic, loyal to her father, and tireless in her efforts to place her brother upon the throne. Since Scotland was united to England during this period, Anne became the last monarch of the Stuart line and the first queen of Great Britain. In Austria , the Hapsburg Charles VI, succeeded to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire and resided in Vienna at the Schroenbrunn Palace, constructed to rival the Parisian Versailles. In 1740, his daughter, Maria Theresa, in turn succeeded him and became one of the enlightened despots of Europe. She was a true women's liberator. Her father, through tireless efforts and the "pragamatic sanction," established for her a position secure against any counter claims of succession through the male line. Frederick II of Prussia, male chauvinist that he was, gallantly offered to defend her weakened female position in return for Silesia. When she rejected that offer as too severe, he promptly launched an invasion and took the property for himself.

3. (p. 40). This noticeable decline in religion is vividly illustrated by the bold statement of Montesquieu who said in 1731 that "there is no religion in England (Durant, v. 9, p. 116)." Apparently, according to Durant, people were ashamed to reveal themselves as Christians. In spit of this, John and Charles Wesley found vigorous support when leading a religious revolution in Christ Church, Oxford, the school attended by John Locke. The new religion, branded as "methodism" abhorred institutionalized religion. The public also lost confidence in instituionalized religion when the unpopular return of the Jacobites under James II was supported by the church.

4. (p.40). Benjamin Franklin put it this way in illustrating the continuous chain of events which leads back from an effect:

". . . for want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost." --Poor Richard's Almanack, 1757.

5. (p. 41). The rest of Great Britain was both good and bad. Ireland, in comparison to Scotland, was not so well blessed; it was oppressed. The people, worse_off than Negroes in the United States, paid rents to England, drugged themselves with food and drink, gambled, lived in mud hovels, and paid duties on all products exported to countries other than England. Those who were ablest migrated from Ireland (Durant, v. 9, p. 106). In England, however, conditions were not as bad; it was a time of prosperity. For twenty years there was peace under Robert Walpole, by no means uncorrupt, but one of England's best prime ministers, a Whig serving under George II.

6. (p. 48). Since the time of Aristotle, there had been numerous explanations for how simple ideas get connected together to form more complex ideas. These explanations were so-called "laws." Historically, there were four such laws -- similarity, contrast, succession in time, and coexistence in space. Eventually, all of these laws were incorporated into one general law, that of contiguity.

Return to Unit 3 table of contents.