Monads, situation, and infinite explanation

Many scholars hold that Leibniz's monads are not located in space at all, and some attribute situations to simple substances directly. A more nuanced position is that monads have a situation only indirectly, namely through the situation of their bodies. It has been objected, however, that this intermediate position is untenable since it involves a viciously circular argument. Leibniz is clear that the situation is the basis for the extension. But if a substance is situated only through its own (extended) body, then the situation would appear to presuppose the extension of the body. Thus extension presupposes situation, but the situation would presuppose extension. In this paper (1) we present textual evidence that Leibniz did indeed hold that monads are situated via their own bodies; (2) we suggest that, even if what is properly speaking situated are (extended) bodies, there is no circularity in holding that the extension of a body results from the mutual situations of its parts: a non-vicious infinite regress of explanations in terms of extended parts is possible; and (3) we defend this solution against a possible objection.