First and Only Latin Edition, in Quarto
B. d. S., Opera posthuma. n. pl. [Amsterdam], printer: Israel de Paull, for: Jan Rieuwertsz père (bookseller), 1677.
Two states: plain version and large-paper copy. Works included: Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata, Tractatus politicus, Tractatus de intellectus emendatione, Epistolae doctorum quorundam virorum ad B. d. S. et auctoris responsiones, and the Compendium grammatices linguae Hebraeae. Edition prepared by Spinoza’s Amsterdam friends: Jarig Jelles Lodewijk Meyer (Latin translation of Jelles’s original Preface in Dutch), and Jan Rieuwertsz père (publisher). Specifics known about the role played by Pieter van Gent, Johannes Bouwmeester, and Georg Hermann Schuller are either restricted or indistinct. Spinoza’s initials are on the book’s title-page. Contains illustrations, indexes, and lists of errata. Archetypes: Spinoza’s autographs and/or apographs are no longer extant, except for a small number of surviving autographs, drafts, and copies of letters included in the book’s correspondence section. Van Gent’s faithful copy of the Latin Ethica text (late 1674–early 1675) survives in the Vatican codex V.
First and Only Dutch Edition, in Quarto
B. d. S., De nagelate schriften. n. pl. [Amsterdam], printer: Israel de Paull, for: Jan Rieuwertsz père (bookseller), 1677.
Two states: plain version and large-paper copy. Works included: Zedekunst, Staatkundige verhandeling, Handeling van de verbetering van ’t verstant, and Brieven van verscheide geleerde mannen aan B. d. S. met des zelfs antwoort. Lacks the Hebrew grammar. Edition prepared by Jelles (Preface) and Rieuwertsz père (publisher). Translator: Glazemaker. The roles by Meyer, Van Gent, Bouwmeester, and Schuller are either limited or unclear. Apart from the translation of all the other works and the correspondence section, Glazemaker translated the Ethica’s Parts 3, 4, and 5. He also redacted the already existing Dutch translation (by Pieter Balling) of Parts 1 and 2. Spinoza’s initials are on the book’s title-page. Contains illustrations, indexes, and lists of errata. Exemplars: autographs and/or apographs of Balling’s and Glazemaker’s translations (now all lost). Extant are several autographs, drafts, and copies of letters in the book’s correspondence section. Three extant holograph letters, by Willem van Blijenbergh, served as printer’s copy.
∵
1 Spinoza’s Philosophical Legacy: The Opera Posthuma and De Nagelate Schriften (1677)
After completing the Ethica in the summer of 1675, Spinoza probably began composing shortly afterwards his last writing project, the Tractatus politicus, centring on practical and theoretical politics. In this unfinished treatise, he investigates three model constitutions, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, in relation to their benefits and interaction with the polities’ citizens living in and experiencing those systems. His conclusion, or what at least can be inferred from eleven extant chapters to be such, is that the optima Republica’s main purpose is and should be securing the ‘bonum commune’ and human freedom alone. Spinoza composed his ‘Political Treatise’ with an eye to the applicability of his theories to the constitutional and economic crisis in the Dutch Republic in the first half of the 1670s. Hence, in the Tractatus politicus he propounds a theory of the nature and foundations of the state, firmly undergirded by the equation God/nature first presented in the Korte verhandeling.1
Spinoza had already briefly laid out the basics of this social and political system in his Ethica’s Part 4, called ‘On Human Bondage, or the Powers of the Affects’. By the second half of 1676, the Dutch philosopher probably had completed six chapters and subsequently began composing chapter 7 of the Tractatus politicus.2 The work remained however unfinished. In about January 1677, severe health problems forced Spinoza to stop advancing his tract on politics.3 On Sunday 21 February 1677, he died unexpectedly in The Hague in the house of decorative painter Hendrick van der Spijck, his landlord, located on the Paviljoensgracht.4 By then, ten chapters of the ‘Political Treatise’ were ready; chapter 11 still was in a rather embryonically-arranged state.
Immediately upon Spinoza’s death, Van der Spijck conveyed the philosopher’s ‘lessenaar’ (writing desk), presumably containing his philosophical papers and letters, by barge poste-haste to Amsterdam. He had them delivered to the town’s bookdealer and publisher Jan Rieuwertsz père. Two autonomous sources support this claim: the travel diaries (1703) of the previously-mentioned German travellers Gottlieb Stolle and ‘Hallmann’ and Johannes Colerus’s 1705 Korte, dog waarachtige levensbeschryving van Benedictus de Spinosa. According to the account of Stolle and ‘Hallmann’ transporting the writing desk to Amsterdam of Spinoza’s desk to Rieuwertsz was made at his own explicit request:
Spinoza had never made a will nor written arrangement what should be done with his books. But when he came to realize he would [soon] pass away he [subsequently] instructed his trusted [friends] to convey his writings and his own books to Rieuwertsz in Amsterdam, [and that is] what also happened….5
Colerus in his Spinoza biography, including an account of his conversations with Van der Spijck many years after the philosopher’s demise, puts forward the following:
But Spinoza’s landlord, Mr Van der Spijck, still alive, tells me Spinoza had instructed [him] that his writing box, with the writings and letters in it, should be sent immediately upon his death to Amsterdam to the city printer Jan Rieuwertsz, and this is what he has taken care of. And Jan Rieuwertz, in his reply to the aforesaid Mr Van der Spijck of 25 March 1677, affirms he received the foregoing writing box.6
Thus, the terminus ante quem of the shipment to Amsterdam is established by the letter by Rieuwertsz to Van der Spijck dispatched on 25 March. In this now-lost letter, the former furthermore informed the latter ‘Spinoza’s relatives’ had apparently asked bargees in Amsterdam to make known to them the name of their freight’s recipient. Meant by Rieuwertsz are Rebecca d’Espinosa (fl.1632–1695), the philosopher’s sister, and her stepson Daniel de Caceres (fl.1651–1677), both legal heirs liable for their late relative’s debts. Here is what Colerus writes about Rieuwertsz père’s letter:
His words at the end of the letter were thus: ‘Spinoza’s relatives were eager to know to whom the writing box had been sent to because they were of the opinion it contained a lot of money. They wanted the bargees to disclose to them to whom it had been addressed.’. Since in The Hague parcels sent by barge are not inventoried, I don’t believe they will ever find out. It is best they do not know of this….7
After Spinoza’s burial in the Nieuwe Kerk at The Hague on 25 February 1677, a dedicated group of his closest friends in Amsterdam deliberated how they should deal with his written legacy, including the seminal Ethica which work the Dutch philosopher himself had planned to put to press in 1675. Because of its contents, qualified as dangerous and outright atheistic by theologians and other rivals (dubbed by Spinoza ‘stupid Cartesians’), he had postponed the book’s publication.
Ultimately, the friends decided to edit Spinoza’s writings and a selection of his correspondence surreptitiously in their entirety, both in Latin in the Opera posthuma and in the vernacular in De nagelate schriften. Both editions were prepared in parallel. On the title-pages of the two bulky language volumes, Spinoza’s name is suppressed to his initials: ‘B. d. S.’ That of Rieuwertsz père is absent as well as the place of publication. The finished and unfinished works and selected letters, well-introduced to readers in the Preface, are marshalled in the twin volumes in the following order:
Ethica/Zedekunst, composed in the self-explanatory Euclidean geometrical order, a philosophical way of presentation popular at the time.8
Tractatus politicus/Staatkundige verhandeling (unfinished and interrupted at chapter 11), prefaced by a letter from Spinoza to an addressee not further specified.9
Tractatus de intellectus emendatione/Handeling van de verbetering van ’t verstant (seven parts, five of those text portions are finished).10
Epistolae doctorum/Brieven van verscheide geleerde mannen, seventy-four philosophical and scientific letters to and from Spinoza, the majority of them with their replies.11
Compendium grammatices linguae Hebraeae (unfinished).12 This text is included only in the Opera posthuma, for readers who were Latinate and wanted to gain active command of the biblical and of the living Hebrew language.13
Apart from the volumes’ publisher Rieuwertsz père, involved in this more than hastily-executed project were Jarig Jelles, Lodewijk Meyer (the author and the translator of the posthumous writings’ lengthy Preface, respectively), together with the professional scribe Pieter van Gent.14 In some capacity, the physician Georg Hermann Schuller, a knowledge broker who frequently informed Spinoza’s correspondent, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, in his letters about the pre-press preparations of the posthumous works, was probably a member of the editing team, too.15 Yet his role (if any) is still undefined.16 Johannes Bouwmeester, Spinoza’s trusted confidant, is also assumed to have contributed to this project. His role is also undetermined. The team commissioned the professional translator Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker to render the Latin edition of the posthumous writings into Dutch.17
When exactly the Amsterdam team started work on the twin language volumes is uncertain, but can roughly be inferred from the following. The group must have begun assiduously subediting Spinoza’s papers and letters shortly after 25 March 1677, when Rieuwertsz in a letter informed Van der Spijck the philosopher’s writing desk and papers had safely arrived in Amsterdam. Already in the summer of 1677, editorial work for the Latin and Dutch edition had been finished; a project worthy of the team’s labour to issue Spinoza’s philosophical legacy publicly in print. The team’s subediting of the twin volumes was in any case finished before 27 July 1677 when Schuller in a letter informed Leibniz the edited copy-texts of the Opera posthuma and De nagelate schriften had been conveyed to the printer. Bibliographical research has also revealed the Amsterdam editing team had enlisted the Tuinstraat office of Israel de Paull in the Jordaan quarter to print the two books.18
Subsequently, the larger portion of the logistical and technical process to publish the two volumes, their typesetting, printing, and proofreading, was more or less finished between late July and 5 November 1677. On the latter date, it was again Schuller who told Leibniz, in a letter, that the main work of the two volumes had now been printed, except for the general index. The latter piece was very probably compiled during the start of that year’s mild winter, in the month of November or December. Commonly, freezing weather conditions caused the seizure or slowdown of printing activities: ink could not be used and printed paper would simply not become dry. Next, on 31 December 1677, Schuller in another letter informed Leibniz copies of the posthumous works were to be distributed ‘in the next new year’. In January 1678, the first copies hit the streets of Amsterdam.
2 ‘Ethica, Quam Penes Ipsum Vidisti’. A Manuscript up for Sale
Thus, in the weeks and months following Spinoza’s death and burial, his Amsterdam friends began preparing for the press his unpublished and partly unfinished philosophical writings, his correspondence, and the Hebrew grammar. On 16/26 February 1677, Schuller wrote a new letter to Leibniz, this time bringing up quite an extraordinary and also surprising proposal.19 One of the issues raised in it is the autograph manuscript of the Ethica which Leibniz had seen in late November 1676 when visiting Spinoza at The Hague.20 Schuller in his letter told his German correspondent that ‘the’ or ‘an’ autograph of the work was now up for sale, at the price of about 150 guilders.21 He lobbied Leibniz to convince his new master, Duke Johann Friedrich, to purchase Spinoza’s holograph for the latter’s ducal Hanoverian library.22 Here is what Schuller writes to Leibniz:
Furthermore I had to tell you that the excellent and acute Mr Spinoza passed away on 21/11 February, after having suffered from extreme atrophy. It seems, though, that death’s unexpected debilitation took him by surprise, since he passed away without a testament to indicate his last will. Of the Ethica, which you saw at his house, the autograph is being kept by a friend, and it is for sale, if one pays the price (150 guilders, I believe) the work is worth. I thought I should let you know rather than anyone else, for since you are aware of the importance of the work, you might convince your prince to buy it at his cost.23
Schuller wrote to Leibniz only one day after Spinoza’s burial in the Nieuwe Kerk. This makes the former’s proposal even more startling, to say the least. Moreover, the Amsterdam friends probably will not have started editing the twin volumes as yet. Does then Schuller’s offer to Leibniz suggest that, by the time Spinoza was buried, the Amsterdam friends no longer needed his Ethica’s holograph to edit the Opera posthuma and De nagelate schriften? Was there, one might ask, perhaps already a better, well-edited fair copy of the ‘Ethics’ at hand by late February 1677? In theory that might indeed have been the case and would explain Schuller’s proposal.
If this proves to be correct it would however also indicate that the Amsterdam friends were given access to Spinoza’s autograph beforehand. Whether they had ‘authorized’ Schuller to sell the manuscript or if, in the end, he landed himself in hot water by offering it to the German scholar is not known. It seems in any case far from realistic to assume Schuller received the team’s permission to sell the Ethica’s autograph when they were not even preparing Spinoza’s chef-d’oeuvre for the press and if a fair copy was not at their disposal. Moreover, being experienced Latinists and editors/translators with scholarly backgrounds, most friends involved in the project would, by all means, value the importance of having access to the Ethica’s holograph while editing it. For the present, alas, Schuller’s proposal to Leibniz will remain a mystery.
Both the team’s editors of the Latin edition and Glazemaker, the translator of De nagelate schriften, probably worked with one or, perhaps, even more copies of the Ethica’s text. It has been argued that Spinoza, when visiting Amsterdam between 22 and 29 July 1675, perhaps had someone fair-copy the text of the ‘Ethics’. This suggests that, after having put off publication, he perhaps took along that copy with him back to his The Hague residence.24 It may have been the very Ethica text version Van der Spijck directed between 21 February and 25 March 1677 to Rieuwertsz père to have it prepared for the press and include it in the posthumous works. The Ethica’s holograph was perhaps contained in the writing box, too. This would explain why Schuller, in his letter of 16/26 February 1677, told Leibniz that (‘the’ or ‘an’) Spinoza’s autograph was put for sale, simply because it was no longer of use to the editors of the ‘Ethics’. Schuller may also have acted entirely on his own initiative.
As the matter now stands, the sole manuscript copy of the Ethica still extant is the codex Vaticanus Latinus 12838 (V). The professional Amsterdam scribe Pieter van Gent made it, between late 1674 and early January 1675, at the request of Spinoza’s German friend Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus. While touring Europe on a traditional Grand Tour, he took Van Gent’s copy along with him to England, France, and Italy.25 How many other transcripts, aside from Spinoza’s own autograph manuscript of the Ethica alone, were circulating and/or in the possession of the publication team is impossible to tell.26 The Preface to the Opera posthuma and De nagelate schriften explicitly states, though, that copies of the Ethica made by various people were circulating amongst friends and admirers.27
How Leibniz reacted to the offer to buy the Ethica’s holograph, made by Schuller, in mid-March 1677 is not further known: his letter unfortunately went missing.28 It seems logical, though, to assume his reply will have brought up both Spinoza’s death as well as the opportunity to buy the latter’s autograph manuscript of the Ethica. Shortly afterward, in a letter dated 19/29 March, Schuller suddenly rescinded the rash offer, now pointing out to Leibniz plans to publish Spinoza’s philosophical legacy had been only recently changed. He now claimed in that letter to have brought round the philosopher’s friends and accommodated ‘the vast differences of opinion’, since they all had decided by consensus how the written legacy was to be dealt with in print. This then would underline Schuller had a prominent position in Spinoza’s following of some sort but the letter to Leibniz may also have been just a bluff. Actually, compared to the roles of Jelles, Meyer, Van Gent, and Rieuwertsz père, Schuller’s role is objectively indistinct.29
Schuller in the aforementioned letter first informs Leibniz the Ethica was now planned to be published, together with all the fragments of manuscripts that, he writes, had ‘fallen into my hands, in autograph’. Said more concisely, meant by the former were specifically copies of the Tractatus de emendatione intellectus, the 1662 letter to Oldenburg on nitre, fluidity, and solidity, and the Tractatus politicus.30 Plans to making publish them all, including Spinoza’s correspondence, Schuller confidently tells Leibniz, were effectively in the making and promising, to say the least.31 In the letter of 19/29 March 1677, he writes about this editing scheme thus:
I am most relieved that you have said nothing yet to your Prince about buying the ‘Ethica’, for I changed my mind so completely that I would not even want to be responsible for such a bargain – even if the owner raised the price. The reason is that I have accommodated the vast differences of opinion among his friends, to the effect that I got them to publish for the public good not only the ‘Ethica’, but also all the manuscript fragments (the greater part of which – viz. 1. on the ‘Improvement of the Understanding’, 2. on nitre, 3. on politics, 4. several letters – has fallen into my hands, in autograph). I am telling you this confidentially, and I am certain that you will not reveal this to anyone, not even the friends, lest the proposal falls through.32
In summary, Schuller’s intriguing claim he possessed a vast collection of Spinoza’s writings reveals he must have had free access to the philosopher’s papers.33 Nevertheless, it is uncertain how he had obtained the majority of the manuscripts now published in the posthumous works.34 His foregoing letter to Leibniz proves, though, the Hebrew grammar manual was not in his possession. All now being said, the letter to the German scholar of 19/29 March is the first historical document revealing in detail the Amsterdam friends’ intention and plans to issue Spinoza’s posthumous philosophical written legacy and correspondence for the public benefit in their entirety.
3 Initial Deliberations and Pre-Press Preparations of the Posthumous Writings
Schuller’s letter to Leibniz thus suggests by the second half of March 1677 Spinoza’s Amsterdam friends had agreed about whether the Dutch philosopher’s papers and letters should be posthumously published and in what manner. From Spinoza’s own exchange it becomes evident, for instance, that he had been displeased with the incomplete Tractatus de emendatione intellectus, as it had stood. It is not easy to imagine that the issue of possibly publishing the latter work and, highly likely, also the correspondence must have divided the friends about to begin editing the posthumous writings for the press.35 Nonetheless, they finally appear to have agreed that certain texts should be in any case issued and also settled in what particular form the publication of the book should be made available for the general public.36 Apparently, they were committed to issue in a comprehensive both Latin tome and in a Dutch translation the Ethica, the publication of which Spinoza himself had ordered.37
The Amsterdam friends also decided by consensus that the two unfinished treatises Tractatus de intellectus emendatione and Tractatus politicus should be included in the twin volumes, plus a selection of Spinoza’s letters. In short: the Opera posthuma and De nagelate schriften now contain the Ethica/Zedekunst, Tractatus politicus/Staatkundige verhandeling, Tractatus de intellectus emendatione/Handeling van de verbetering van ’t verstant, respectively. Particularly, the ‘Political Treatise’ was a work Spinoza wanted to be published as it is upheld in the posthumous works’ Preface. There, its author, Jarig Jelles, writes thus about the Dutch philosopher’s explicit request: ‘He ordered to print his “Ethics”’ (‘hij beval, zijn Zedekunst te doen drukken’). Included in the twin language volumes is also a selection of seventy-four chronologically-arranged letters on matters philosophical, with responses by their correspondents: Epistolae doctorum/Brieven van verscheide geleerde mannen.
The team further decided to issue the Compendium grammatices linguae Hebraea, the first ever Hebrew grammar manual written by an author of Jewish descent in Latin, only in the Opera posthuma. In the prologue to the posthumous works, this decision is detailed thus in Jelles’s version:
Our author has also, besides all what we have said before, left behind a Hebrew Grammar in the Latin language, in manuscript, yet unfinished. And although it is much praised by various learned men who own several copies [of it], we considered it not really useful to have it made public in the Dutch language in printing, but we thought it advisable for the Latinists to have it printed in the Latin language. Because one seldom starts learning Hebrew before one has mastered the Latin language.38
The ‘Notice to the Reader’, appended to the Hebrew grammar in the Opera posthuma, states explicitly Spinoza composed that work ‘at the request of certain friends diligently studying the Sacred Tongue’ and for ‘those who desire to speak Hebrew and not just to chant it’. The Latin noun-based grammar contains one portion on nouns and verbs (phonetics, alphabet, and morphology). Another part focuses on syntax, particles, and conjunctions, and was to be extended through the inclusion of grammatical tables.39 Because of his illness and death, Spinoza only managed to finish the greater part of the grammar manual’s first portion, the one on nouns and verbs. The grammar, comprising rules and practices for a kind of secularized living Hebrew (and not the Scripture’s Hebrew), includes four introductory chapters covering Hebrew letters, vowel points, and accents. Another additional eight chapters are dedicated to nouns, whereas twenty-one chapters are devoted to Hebrew verbs.40
De nagelate schriften, translated by Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker except for the Ethica’s Parts 1 and 2 which were translated by in the early 1660s by Pieter Balling, were published simultaneously with the Opera posthuma. Of the Ethica, Glazemaker also translated Parts 3, 4, and 5 and redacted Parts 1 and 2 by Balling as well. Without doubt, the decision to publish the two twin volumes at the same time, must have complicated the two volumes’ editing, proofing, and printing process to a great extent. Nevertheless, to all appearances the team must have worked hard and prevailed in preparing the Opera posthuma and De nagelate schriften for the press in only a few months’ time; given the bulky character of the language volumes an impressive achievement.41
The Amsterdam editors further agreed to append several annexes and lists of errata, correcting printing flaws and textual errors, to both editions.42 Although work on the twin volumes was related in more than a complex way, the editors executed those two projects rather independently; each was done at a different pace within a relatively short time. In what way team members coordinated their work with each other and clearly strove to achieve uniformity between the two volumes is revealed by a letter of 11 February 1676 from Oldenburg to Spinoza. It was immediately rejected for inclusion in the correspondence section of the Opera posthuma, but initially edited and also printed in De nagelate schriften. After deliberation, the letter in the Dutch rendering was cancelled and replaced by another letter, one by Spinoza to Oldenburg, dated 7 February 1676. This unique example of balanced and effective interaction, aimed at editorial homogeneity, will be dealt with later in this chapter.
About the prime objective of the group, i.e., the comprehensive publication of Spinoza’s finished and unfinished texts in a neat, orderly manner, the posthumous writings’ Preface states the following:
Although the writings, contained in this book, [are] largely unfinished and less reread, polished, and augmented by the author, it was thought to be helpful to publish them….43
The selections published in the posthumous works included everything, it appears, they had dug up from Spinoza’s manuscripts, papers, and the like:
This is all that, being of some value, we have been able to gather from the papers he left behind, and from some transcripts, held by his friends and acquaintances. It may be assumed that one or another person still owns something of our author not found here: however, one can have trust it will contain nothing the reader will not find repeatedly expressed here.44
When the Amsterdam group exactly started subediting the writings and letters is uncertain. They gathered, very likely, in the house of the Collegiant orphanage ‘De Oranjeappel’ at the Amsterdam Keizersgracht: a large quantity of letters to and from Spinoza, either in autograph, or draft and copy, survived in the manuscript collection ‘Archief van het Weeshuis der Doopsgezinde Collegianten de Oranjeappel’, now extant in the Amsterdam city archives. As evinced by the aforementioned letter of Rieuwertsz père to Van der Spijck, dated 25 March 1677 and stating the writing desk had arrived in good order in Amsterdam, the team will have begun the larger portion of its work after the latter date.45
Having this now said, it thus becomes evident the group of friends diligently copied, translated, edited, and revised Spinoza’s writings and correspondence for presentation as his written legacy to the general reading public within a period of hardly four months. Where necessary, they also added explanatory notes and glosses in the external margins of the twin volumes until, finally, all material was ready for typesetting, printing, and proofreading. Editorial work was more or less completed during the summer of 1677, when the editors conveyed the copy-texts of the posthumous works to Israel de Paull’s printing workshop, presumably in bits and pieces. Particularly the lists of errata included in the Opera posthuma and in De nagelate schriften reveal the team must have worked under pressure and in great haste.
4 The Amsterdam Editors: Individual Team Members and Their Roles
Who among Spinoza’s friends actually prepared the posthumous works for the press and what was their particular role, one might ask? This is certainly a moot question which needs more consideration. In the first place, there was Jan Rieuwertsz père, Spinoza’s publisher, who approved of the team’s plans and the broad specifics of their publication proposal to edit and publish the Opera posthuma and De nagelate schriften in parallel. Even though historical documents are unfortunately lacking, I tend to assume that the Amsterdam bookseller and publisher was primarily involved at the practical level of decision-making, logistics, and finance. Second, other individuals involved in the book project beyond doubt were Jarig Jelles and Lodewijk Meyer.46 The former composed the anonymously-published Dutch ‘Voorreeden’ (Preface) in De nagelate schriften whereas the latter was responsible for the Praefatio, its augmented Latin translation issued in the Opera posthuma, a conclusion primarily supported by a host of stylistic reasons.47
The style and the contents of the ‘Voorreeden’ bear fair resemblance to Jarig Jelles’s Belydenisse des algemeenen en christelijcken geloofs (Profession of the Universal and Christian Faith), a work initially sent by the latter Amsterdam merchant-grocer to Spinoza in manuscript in the spring of 1673.48 As for Lodewijk Meyer, it has been argued to a wide extent in this study’s chapter 2 that the latter had been already involved as Spinoza’s editor in the publication of the philosopher’s adumbration of Descartes’s ‘Principles of Philosophy’ in 1663. Moreover, he composed the cross-references and captions (all written under Spinoza’s direction) of Renati Des Cartes Principiorum philosophiae pars I et II; Cogitata metaphysica. In addition, Meyer also composed the latter book’s prologue. That Meyer translated and also improved Jelles’s Preface is beyond any scholarly discussion.
In regard to the pre-press preparations of the posthumous writings, the acts of Nil volentibus arduum in any case evince that Meyer, one of their members, was not present in early July 1677 during their meetings. Whether this may account for his contribution to the editorial team’s effort to publish posthumous writings is uncertain, but it would explain his absence from the Amsterdam literary society’s weekly meetings.49 What Meyer’s contribution was in preparing the Opera posthuma for the press is not known. Perhaps he was just one of the book’s editors. In the case of De nagelate schriften, there is also the distinct possibility that he served as an adviser to Glazemaker while loyally translating Spinoza’s writings and letters into Dutch.
It was the Huguenot writer Pierre Bayle who in a letter to the Dutch physician Theodorus Jansonius ab Almeloveen of 7 March 1686 first brought up the involvement of Jelles and Meyer.50 Bayle comments in it upon the third edition of Johann Deckherr von Wallhorn’s De scriptis adespotis, a work published earlier that same year.51 Bayle’s letter, which is also appended as an annex to the same book, provides detailed information about Spinoza’s posthumous works and remarks by Deckherr about the authors responsible for the two volumes’ prefaces:
On page 333 the author [Deckherr] says that to Spinoza’s ‘Opera posthuma’, published in 1678 [read here: 1677], a most sophisticated preface was added by an unknown author. I was told recently that this preface was originally written by a Mennonite, Jarig Jelles, who after having been a merchant in Amsterdam, lived a life of leisure off the proceeds – a man, for that matter, of little education. The preface is believed to have been translated into Latin, as it occurs in Spinoza’s book, by the Amsterdam physician Lodewijk Meyer, who died a few years ago; the author, as rumour has it, of the paradoxical tract ‘Philosophia S. Scripturae interpres’, which displeased the theologians, and rightly so, for its heretical smell.52
There is also a short Spinoza biography by Johannes Monnikhoff reporting on the prologues to the printed posthumous works. That biography, included around 1750 to codex B, the latter’s copy of the Korte verhandeling, supports the attribution of the Preface’s combined authorship to both Jelles and Meyer.53 It should be noticed that for his account, Monnikhoff might have borrowed elements from the aforementioned work by Deckherr. Monnikhoff in the biography underlines the following:
That he [Jelles] was the maker of the Preface to Spinoza’s ‘Nagelate schriften’ can be very clearly inferred from his ‘Belydenisse des algemeenen en christelijcken geloofs’…: in which we encounter the same style and topics, though ordered and arranged somewhat differently than in the said Preface is expressed. And some have considered as the author of this Preface not only him [Jelles] but also doctor Lodewijk Meyer; but that [conjecture] may have possibly been inspired [by the fact] that the latter translated it perhaps from Dutch into Latin….54
The same information is also provided in Het leven van Philopater, the theological roman à clef anonymously published in 1691, already mentioned in the previous chapter.55 Also its disguised author, the Amsterdam schoolmaster Johannes Duijkerius, briefly refers in the novel to the Preface by Jelles and Meyer, be it only with their initials:
However, to satisfy you a little because of a Preface of this kind, please know, this one here is at least as appropriate as the [Preface] to the famous ‘Zedekunst’ of B. d. S. by doctor L.M. and J.J. has been composed….56
Another report along these lines is contained in the travel diaries kept by the German travellers Gottlieb Stolle and ‘Hallmann’.57 According to an account of one of their trips in the Netherlands, they had made the acquaintance in June 1703 in Amsterdam of a ‘certain old man’ in a hostel located at the Zeedijk, called ‘the Captain of Bremen’.58 During this rendezvous, the latter had told them about people in Amsterdam who once had befriended Spinoza. According to him, Jarig Jelles had composed the Preface to the posthumous works. The old man’s further claim, that Lodewijk Meyer was Spinoza’s friend and had been long dead when Glazemaker translated the posthumous writings’ prologue into Latin, is evidently incorrect. Here is the account by Stolle and ‘Hallmann’ about the Preface:
The friends with which Spinoza usually discussed were Glazemaker, Van den Ende, Rieuwertsz, (his astute father Rieuwertsz), Balling, Jarig Jelles, and a physician, Mr Lodewijk Meyer. Jarig Jelles was initially a Mennonite. He wrote the Preface to Spinoza’s posthumous works in Dutch, which later Glazemaker translated into Latin. When the Preface was made, Meyer was already dead.59
The role of Pieter van Gent, the professional scribe who copied the text of the Ethica for Tschirnhaus in the mid-1670s now extant in codex Vat. Lat. 12838, is far from clear. There is however solid evidence he in any case collaborated with those on the team responsible for preparing the correspondence section.60 That is evinced by an autograph draft of a letter from Spinoza to an unknown Amsterdam ‘special friend’, handed in to be incorporated in the posthumous works. On the leaf’s verso, it has an editorial remark in what seems to be Van Gent’s handwriting. There, it is stated briefly ‘Is of no value’ (‘Is van geener waarde’), which tells Van Gent probably believed the letter’s contents only discussed topics other than philosophy.61 A transcript of another letter to Spinoza, from the knowledge broker and secretary of the London Royal Society Henry Oldenburg, was undeniably copied by Van Gent.62 Initially, his transcript served as printer’s copy-text, but it was cancelled afterwards.63 Another autograph letter, sent by Spinoza in mid-November 1675 to Georg Hermann Schuller, proves Van Gent made a copy of that document, too. Below the letter’s salutation, the word descripta (transcribed) is scribbled in his handwriting.64 Unfortunately, both the autograph letter and Van Gent’s copy have gone missing.65
Taken together, this then proves that, apart from taking copies, the team apparently had given Van Gent permission also to take decisions about which letters to and from Spinoza were to be included in the correspondence section.66 It is uncertain, though, whether any fair copies by Van Gent were eventually conveyed to the printing office of Israel de Paull and served as printer’s copy.67 Intriguingly, Van Gent himself, in a letter to Tschirnhaus of 23 March 1679, claimed he had produced copies of Spinoza’s writings ‘for the most part’, at the request of Schuller. Apparently, these copies had been had given in trust to mutual ‘friends’; perhaps the posthumous writings’ editors.68 Schuller, it appears from Van Gent’s letter of 23 March, had been ungrateful for the latter’s generosity and all the work he had loyally done on his behest. With palpable disappointment, Van Gent makes the following remarks about Schuller in his letter to Tschirnhaus:
I conferred so many benefactions upon him, inviting him to my table, copying out Spinoza’s works for the most part and depositing them with our friends, that I cannot understand what malice led him to deride me as a drunkard before you.69
Arguably, Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker was, in his capacity as translator of De nagelate schriften, crucially involved in the posthumous writings’ editing process.70 Glazemaker also redacted the Dutch rendition of Pieter Balling’s translation of the Ethica’s Parts 1 and 2 (composed before late December 1664), incorporated in De nagelate schriften. Parts 3 to 5 are however translated by Glazemaker himself. Hence, it would be fair to claim Balling contributed to the 1677 Dutch rendering as well, albeit posthumously. Glazemaker’s original Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus, made as early as either late 1669 or early 1670, would also form the basis for the first Dutch translation of Spinoza’s treatise published in 1693: De rechtzinnige theologant. As it has been already pointed out in the previous chapter of the present study, Glazemaker’s role as translator of both the Tractatus theologico-politicus and the Opera posthuma was first discussed in the clandestinely-issued Vervolg van ’t leven van Philopater, the 1697 sequel to Duijkerius’s ‘Philopater’ novel.71
Next in order is Schuller’s rather dubious role in the editing process. There is no doubt that the latter had access to Spinoza’s papers. That is evinced by a letter Schuller sent to Leibniz on 6 February 1677, comprising the demonstration of proposition 5 (on substance) in the Ethica’s Part 1. Clearly, E1p5dem was copied from Spinoza’s autograph manuscript, or a fair copy of it, but is markedly differing from the redactions contained in the printed posthumous works and in the Vatican manuscript V.72 It has already been underlined that Schuller, in another letter of 16/26 February 1677, had offered Leibniz the opportunity to purchase ‘the’ or ‘an’ autograph of the Ethica, a proposal rescinded by Schuller in a letter of 19/29 March 1677. The closing section of the latter’s letter conveys Schuller’s regards to Leibniz from Jelles and Van Gent.73 This proves he was in close contact with the Amsterdam friends preparing the posthumous writings for the press. In spite of the foregoing, Schuller was technically unfit to work as an autonomous editor of the Opera posthuma because of his mediocre command of Latin, he may well have played a part in the pre-press preparations of its Dutch rendering, or read proofs of it.74 Schuller, in evidence, had lived for some time in the house of Van Gent, which suggests he probably was well-informed about how the editing project was advancing, too.
Seven years after Schuller’s death (1679), an inventory of his estate was made by the Amsterdam notary public Jacobus van der Ende (1656–1716). According to this legal instrument, dressed up 29 April 1686, his estate included chemical instruments as well as ‘36 folios, 92 quartos, also 368 in octavo and [in] smaller format, and some sewn books’, all worth 63 guilders, and ‘badly damaged and for the most part eaten by rats’ (‘seer beschadigt en voort merendeel vande ratten gebeten’). The inventory does not however detail a description of his books unfortunately.75
Finally, there is the role of Johannes Bouwmeester. Because of his close friendship with Spinoza and his membership in the Nil volentibus arduum society, he too may have been involved in editing the posthumous works, although in a way not further known. From Nil volentibus arduum’s resolutions, it becomes apparent that Bouwmeester, like Meyer, was unable to fulfil his weekly obligations when the friends were hurriedly preparing the posthumous writings for the press.76 To be sure, Bouwmeester can be safely connected with Spinoza’s writings. He is credited for composing the poem ‘Ad Librum.’ which is published in Renati Des Cartes Principiorum philosophiae pars I et II; Cogitata metaphysica and its 1664 Dutch rendition as well. After Pieter Balling’s death (December 1664), Spinoza asked a ‘special friend’ in Amsterdam in the first half of 1665 to translate the Ethica from Part 3 onwards. Bouwmeester, but also Lodewijk Meyer, are suitable candidates for being that ‘amice singularis’.77 Because Glazemaker was employed to translate Parts 3 to 5 from the Latin into Dutch, it is hard to imagine that either Bouwmeester or Meyer have been responsible for those text portions. In regard to Bouwmeester’s contribution to the posthumous writings’ correspondence section, he allowed the Amsterdam editorial team to include one of his letters exchanged with Spinoza in the Opera posthuma and De nagelate schriften.78
5 The Latin Ethica versus the Dutch Zedekunst. Editorial Principles
Evidently, both the redaction and translation of Spinoza’s posthumous writings must have been, to all appearances, an intricate and particularly time-consuming enterprise. The Amsterdam team faced the challenge of arranging, editing, and revising a set of kaleidoscopic texts, left behind by the Dutch philosopher in markedly varied and sometimes still embryonic states, both finished and uncompleted.79 Schuller, by his own account, had looked through all of Spinoza’s ‘things thoroughly one by one before and after his death’ in order to detect new material that could be of any value. As evinced by previously- mentioned letter of 3/13 November 1677 to Leibniz, he found among those things, ‘apart from the manuscripts committed to the press’, only a puny slip of paper comprising a list with thirteen highly-obscure book titles.80 Possibly, the titles were desiderata or perhaps books borrowed by the Dutch philosopher to friends. None are however listed in the inventory of Spinoza’s private library, made on 2 March 1677. When reporting those titles, Schuller asked his German correspondent on 19/29 March the following:
I would like to hear from you whether you have ever seen any of the following books, a list of which – captioned ‘very rare books’ – I found among the posthumous papers. 1. Florentinus de rebus Sacris. 2. Joh. Beneventensis de nefandis Christianae religionis erroribus. 3. Alius Beneventensis de Sodomiae laudibus. 4. Averrois argumenta de aeternitate Mundi. 5. Anonymus quidam Italus de commercio Sanctorum et Sanctarum. 6. Idem de Stultitia gentium. 7. Idem de Magia Mosis et Muhamedis. 8. Francisci Datisii Homo politicus liber rarissimus. 9. Du Mas Abbas opuscula missoria. 10. A Sancto Bernardo Monachus Hispanus de commercio daemonum. Idem de eorundem in hoc Mundo Politia et actionibus. Ejusdem cum ipsis familiaria colloquia. Idem de examine 3 quaestionum Joh. 22. Papae sc. de existentia Dei, animae immortalitate et inferno Opus rarissimum. 11. Vir de Religione Bona dictus ubi de Novis Religionis Christianae reformatoribus verbi gr. Luthero, Calvino et Melanthone, idem de examine duorum regum Caroli 5 et Francisci 1 author Hispanus est. 12. Abavillus Hispanus Monachus Turca factus de Authoritate Politices in Eccles. deque suae Mutationis rationibus. Ejusd. Problemata politica. Ejusd. dicta Christiana. 13. Prophetiae Malachiae Hibern. Episcopi de Pontificibus.81
To put it differently, the Amsterdam editors must have been confronted with a pile of unconnected miscellaneous notes written on loose sheets and slips of papers. Many of these notes, I assume, must have been related to Spinoza’s unfinished writings and to the complex structure of particularly the Ethica. Of the latter work, the editors probably had an autograph manuscript and, perhaps, one or more fair-copied texts. Possibly, they had on their desks a single, well-edited copy of the Ethica, made by someone in the summer of 1675 in Amsterdam under Spinoza’s supervision, meant to be put in the press but later postponed. Team members also had the uncompleted Tractatus de intellectus emendatione, the incomplete Tractatus politicus, and the unfinished Hebrew grammar, as well as autographs, copies, and drafts of letters sent and received, aside from any other texts not known.82 With respect to the Tractatus de intellectus emendatione, its text in the Opera posthuma varies considerably from the text printed in De nagelate schriften. This then suggests they must have had two redactions of it.83
The concise introduction to the Tractatus politicus, a letter by Spinoza written to an unknown recipient in the summer of 1676, reveals by then he had finished six chapters and had begun work on that treatise’s chapter 7.84 At the time of the philosopher’s untimely death, all ten chapters of the ‘Political Treatise’ were more or less finished. Only chapter 11 was still in a rather embryonic state.85 Thus, the team had to work also with another readable, semi-definitive manuscript (the last version of several transcriptions), ready in rough up to at least chapter 7 and a portion of chapter 8. From paragraph 24 of chapter 8 onward, things were probably less worked out and had been written up in haste.86 There is the strong likelihood, the editors may have reconstructed chapter 8, the remaining chapters 9 and 10, and the uncompleted chapter 11 from a manuscript of interspersed material composed by Spinoza. This suggests the material available to them comprised many marginal notes and corrections, cancellations, variations, and underlines, all made during the months prior to the Dutch philosopher’s death.87
Particularly Spinoza’s holograph comprising the Compendium grammatices linguae Hebraeae’s presented the Amsterdam editors with even more editorial challenges when preparing its text for the press. Those team members who took on the task to edit Spinoza’s grammar manual must have been not only proficient in Latin. In order to handle its specific grammatical contents and its typographical complexity they must have been well-versed in the Hebrew language, too. Writing out the manual and completing a flawless fair copy which could serve as a final printer’s copy must have entailed their careful thought. For, a sloppily-subedited copy-text would result in a comparatively badly-printed text version whereas resetting sheets in type would drive up the costs of printing.88 In addition, precisely because of the interchangeability of Hebrew consonants and the precision of Hebrew punctuation, the typesetting of Hebrew texts always demanded a seasoned compositor.
The printing workshop of Israel de Paull in any case was well-equipped to print books in Hebrew. At its disposal, his workshop had four different Hebrew types as this chapter’s section on the typesetting and printing process of the posthumous writings reveals: ‘Text’/‘Ascendonica’ Hebrew, ‘Augustyn’ (english)/‘Paragon’ Hebrew, ‘Garmont’ (long primer) ‘Text’ Hebrew, and ‘Brevier’/‘Descendiaen’ Hebrew (small pica). With respect to the exemplar of the grammar manual at the disposal the Amsterdam editors, Hillesum has argued the Compendium grammatices linguae Hebraeae was printed after an apograph. Porges, pace Hillesum, defended the stance the editors of the Opera posthuma had on their desks Spinoza’s autograph manuscript of his Hebrew grammar. Gebhardt, for his part, was convinced the grammar’s printing had been the work of a compositor well-versed in the Hebrew language. Since Amsterdam had a Jewish community actively engaged in printing one might claim therefore the Tuinstraat office may have employed one or more Jewish typesetters. This however is at odds with 263 Hebrew words, found by Gebhardt, that actually would need correction. Only thirty-one of them were inventoried in the ‘Errata in Compendio Grammatices Hebraeae’.89
In summary, the Amsterdam team members committed to publish Spinoza’s writings and correspondence had not only to decide by consensus which logical editorial principles they should follow and what was to be ignored and omitted. Their editorial skills were also particularly put to the test when they had to overcome difficult textual inconsistencies or lacunas in the material available. To gain deeper insight into how in 1677 in hardly four months’ time the editors worked their way towards preparing two comprehensive language volumes for the press this section will further focuses exclusively on a key component of their printing: the Ethica and its Dutch rendition, the Zedekunst.
The Ethica’s Latin apograph contained in codex Vat. Lat. 12838, made by Van Gent on behalf of Tschirnhaus between late 1674 and early 1675, shows Spinoza had developed its final text purposely in five parts. By the time Tschirnhaus took this copy on his educational European Grand Tour, starting by travelling to England in May 1675, Spinoza had already definitively put aside his autograph manuscript. He considered the Ethica’s text to be perfected and by then ready for publication. Thus, the definitive Latin text, contained in the Opera posthuma, was in any case completed before May 1675.90 Apart from flaws and evident differences in spelling, phrasing, expressions, and internal references, as well as variations caused by transcription errors, the two extant text states of the work are markedly close.91 This suggests that after abandoning work on the ‘Ethics’ only now and then Spinoza must have made some minor amendments to the text.
To better assess the practicalities of the principles of the editorial procedure followed by the Amsterdam team some closer inspection of the Ethica text and the Zedekunst is required. To begin with, the Zedekunst’s Dutch part-title leaf (sig. ******4r) does not reflect the original Latin wording of the title written by Spinoza as is presented on the part-title leaf (sig. *****4r) included in the Opera posthuma. This is confirmed by the captions in Roman codex Vat. Lat. 12838. The part-title leaf title in the Latin tome aims to give readers a more sophisticated and coherent impression of this text.92 In regard to the Zedekunst, it has been previously mentioned that Glazemaker translated its Parts 3 to 5 into Dutch, more or less on the basis of the early Dutch version the team already had of Parts 1 and 2, in an earlier translation made by Pieter Balling.93 More precisely, a clear watershed can be observed between the Zedekunst’s Part 2 and Part 3.94
This division is supported by Spinoza’s own remarks in a (rejected) letter (< 1665.[06].[13], Ep 28) of which the addressee unfortunately remains still unidentified. As evidenced by this letter, Spinoza started looking for a new translator after Balling died in December 1664. The letter is addressed to a close friend in Amsterdam whom Spinoza apparently considered to be an experienced translator, someone like Johannes Bouwmeester or Lodewijk Meyer, both members of Nil volentibus arduum and well-equipped to translate the Ethica into ‘philosophical’ Dutch. In that letter, he asked the unknown Amsterdam correspondent whether he or their mutual friend Simon Joosten de Vries would perhaps translate the Ethica’s Part 3 (comprising of what is now known as Parts 3 and 4), a portion apparently then ready up to proposition 80:
As for the third part of our philosophy, I shall soon send some of it either to you (if you wish to be its translator) or to friend De Vries. Although I had decided to send nothing until I finished it, nevertheless, because it is turning out to be longer than I thought. I don’t want to hold you back too long. I shall send up to about the 80th proposition.95
Evidence though the letter’s unknown addressee ever translated Part 3 is further lacking. Thus, as has been conclusively shown by Akkerman, Pieter Balling should be considered the ‘true’ and first translator of the two first portions of the Ethica text now integrated in the Zedekunst; Glazemaker translated Parts 3 to 5 of the ‘Ethics’ in 1677.96
Spinoza himself, in another now-lost letter to his London correspondent Henry Oldenburg dated 5 July 1675, first made mention of the new organisational five-part principle of the Ethica which work by then he apparently still intended to put to press soon. This is shown in a letter from Oldenburg of 22 July 1675 in which he responded to Spinoza’s remark thus:
From the reply you gave me on 5 July, I understand that you intend to publish that Five-part Treatise of yours.97
Soon thereafter, Spinoza, in another letter to Oldenburg written after 22 July, he told him that when in Amsterdam he was about ‘to commit to the press the book I wrote you about’, but soon thereafter he had decided to postpone its publication. He added to this the remark he had taken that decision because of many rumours going around he was about to launch a book about God in which ‘I tried to show that there is no God’.98 The very possibility that, when Glazemaker started work on the Zedekunst in 1677, he had a Latin text at his disposal which was already typeset and printed seems unlikely.99
Glazemaker, in evidence, had a long career as an outstanding, experienced translator who worked for several Amsterdam publishers, like Rieuwertsz père. From 1643 until his death in 1682, he translated many historical and philosophical key works from the Latin and French language into Dutch (about seventy titles). For example, those by Livy, Seneca the Younger, Montaigne, Descartes, and of course Spinoza’s Opera posthuma. De rechtzinnige theologant, Glazemaker’s Dutch translation of the Tractatus theologico-politicus made in late 1669 or early 1670, was published posthumously.
Closer inspection of the Zedekunst reveals its text includes several passages and shorter phrases not present in the Latin text printed in the Opera posthuma.100 Such textual irregularities between the twin volumes should be explained by reading mistakes and ‘Augensprung’ during slapdash editing and translating. Tellingly, in several instances, the Zedekunst’s text even offers a better and more reliable text than its corresponding Latin version, and vice versa.101 In the Latin Ethica text, for example, an intriguing case in the prologue to Part 5 concerns ‘vir Philosophus’. There, Glazemaker adopts a far freer Dutch translation in the Zedekunst: ‘zulk een groot Wijsbegerige’.102 His aim, by his own account, was clearly to reflect in meticulous detail each single author’s sentence (‘de zin van de schrijver op het naauste te treffen’).
Another example proves Glazemaker commonly chose to adhere to a particular semantical tendency. Frequently, he translates one Latin word by using two Dutch words, a longstanding tradition rooted in antiquity.103 In E2p43s, for instance, in his revised redaction of Balling’s text, Glazemaker translated ‘quod veritas sui sit norma’ far more elegantly. His solution is the following: ‘dat de waarheit de regel en ’t richtsnoer van zich zelve is’.104 Moreover, to further emphasize Glazemaker’s semantical creativity, it is striking that throughout the Zedekunst he translated at least sixteen markedly different variants of the Latin phrase ‘Quod erat demonstrandum’, often abbreviated ‘Q.E.D.’ in the Opera posthuma. The Zedekunst has several different elegantly-translated doublings for ‘Q.E.D.’ instead: ‘gelijk te betogen stond’, ‘gelijk voorgestelt wierd’, ‘gelijk wy voorgaven’, etc.105
Glazemaker even ‘contributed’ to the Dutch text of the Zedekunst printed in De nagelate schriften, but probably unintentionally. For example, in his revised redaction of Balling’s Dutch translation of Part 2 he is assumed to have expanded its axiom 2. In the Opera posthuma, E2ax2 reads briefly: ‘Homo cogitat’. Glazemaker supplemented ‘De mensch hdenkt;’ with the following: ‘of anders, wy lweten dat wy denken’.106
In this particular context, Akkerman has put forward the following scenario. During their meetings in the early 1660s, Spinoza’s friends perhaps added the aforementioned gloss to Balling’s Dutch translation of Part 2 of the Ethica, by then still circulating in Amsterdam in a manuscript copy.107 Possibly, they borrowed the Dutch phrase ‘of anders, wy weten dat wy denken’ in E2ax2 from Glazemaker’s own translation of Descartes’s ‘Principles of Philosophy’: the Principia philosophiae: of Beginselen der wysbegeerte published in 1657.108
There, in the first part of the latter work, Glazemaker’s translation reads thus: ‘… en dewijl wy zekerlijk weten dat wy denken’. Akkerman’s hypothesis suggests Glazemaker ‘copied’ the Dutch gloss from a manuscript of Balling’s early translation, annotated by the friends who had studied and discussed the early E2. Accordingly, in the Zedekunst he then supplemented E2ax2 with the gloss, without however realizing the phrase ‘of anders, wy weten dat wy denken’ was actually a variant of his own translation into Dutch made in the Beginselen.109
In the Zedekunst, other minor omissions and/or additions are difficult to distinguish from Glazemaker’s genuine translation errors.110 His attentive devotion to realize a reliable translation and his zealous urge to correct ‘errors’ in the Latin Ethica text printed in the Opera posthuma is for instance clearly shown in the ‘Betoging’ (demonstration) of proposition 3 in Part 5.111 E5p3dem contains an internal back-reference to the scholium of E2p22 in the Latin: ‘(per Prop. 22. p. 2. cum ejusdem Schol.)’.112 While translating proposition 3 in Part 5, Glazemaker apparently noticed proposition 22 lacked the very scholium in Part 2. Accordingly, he remedied this omission in Part 5 in the following way of the Zedekunst: ‘volgens de tweeëntwintigste 1Voorstelling van het tweede deel’, thus adjusting the reference to the scholium absent in E2p22.113 This correction may also indicate that proposition 3 of Part 5 of the Ethica in the Opera posthuma was already printed before the corresponding section in De nagelate schriften was translated and turned out. To put it differently, the entire printed Latin Ethica may even have been ready when Glazemaker began translating the Zedekunst’s Part 5 anyway.
The expanded Dutch text of E2ax2 in De nagelate schriften and the short Latin text in the Opera posthuma.
Unlike the Ethica, internal back-references and ordinal proposition numbers in the Zedekunst are systematically written out in full in a systematic fashion.114 Divergences in both the Opera posthuma and De nagelate schriften, such as Arabic numerals in cross-references versus words, can be readily discovered in the outer apparel of the intimidating geometrical presentation of the text of Spinoza’s ‘Ethics’ throughout.115
Lastly, it should be pointed out that technical notes in the Zedekunst are all placed in the external margins. These concern 6864 Latin nominatives or infinitives, about twenty-three per page, keyed with letters, all ordered alphabetically, but without j and u.116 A few of those glosses in the Zedekunst can be divided into three categories. First, clarifications: notes providing words implied in Spinoza’s Latin Ethica text.117 In second place, additions: notes on phrases lacking in the Latin text.118 Thirdly, obvious ‘faults’: notes supplying a Latin term clearly at variance with what is actually given in the Latin Ethica text.119 Arguably, these supplementary glosses, concerned with strict technical philosophical terms and keywords, were made by one or perhaps more members of the Amsterdam editing team after the main text of the Dutch translation of the ‘Ethics’ was either finished or nearly completed.120
Copy of De nagelate schriften (page 247) with reader’s corrections in brown ink in E4p70 and E4p70dem.
In several cases, Glazemaker simply misread the Latin of the Ethica manuscript. This led to a series of flaws and unfortunate translations in certain notes now contained in the Zedekunst.121 For instance, in Part 4, in proposition 70 (‘Zeventigste Voorstelling’) and its demonstration he read in the Latin manuscript ‘ignavi’ and ‘ignavus’, instead of ‘ignari’ and ‘ignarus’. Thus, in the ‘Zeventigste Voorstelling’ and its ‘Betoging’, Glazemaker translated this on page 247 as ‘bloden’ (l. 36) and ‘blode’ (l. 30), respectively.122 Because of this obvious flaw, in the ‘Misstellingen, in dit Werk ingeslopen’, the first of two lists of errata added to De nagelate schriften, the reader is instructed to change ‘bloden’ into ‘onkundigen’ and also alter ‘blode’ into ‘onkundige’.123
In spite of the foregoing suggested correction in the ‘Misstellingen’, the Amsterdam editors who proofread the trial sheets of E4 in the Dutch translation in order to remedy errors contained in it, refrained from correcting Latin glosses z and d (for E4p70 and E4p70dem), now still reading ‘ignavi’ and ‘ignavus’. Probably because of De nagelate schriften’s hasty subediting, this indicates the editors ignored several of the Zedekunst’s printed marginal glosses containing sloppy errors and flaws in the Latin. Presumably, because readers who were not Latinate and would read the Dutch rendition of Spinoza’s ‘Ethics’ could not spot those textual inconsistencies.
6 ‘Letters from Certain Learned Men to B. d. S. with the Author’s Responses’
Spinoza corresponded with friends, admirers, and intellectual companions about a gamut of issues: philosophy, experimentation in corpuscular Boylean chemistry, fluid dynamics, biblical criticism, optics, contemporary politics, war, the probability calculus, and even alchemy. Not surprisingly, the Amsterdam editorial team clearly understood his correspondence was of vital importance and therefore intentionally published his letters as well-edited, balanced texts complementary to his philosophical writings. In so doing the letters in the posthumous writings’ correspondence provide an invaluable tool for getting a grip on how and when Spinoza developed his philosophical notions and brought them to maturity in his writings, in the Ethica in particular.
Letters sent to and from the Dutch philosopher, spanning the period from 26 August 1661 to late October 1676, further reveal his key interests and engagements, his achievements, his doubts and disappointments. They also lay bare his social and intellectual epistolary networks and uncover details about the publication of his writings. The exchange also contains explanations, qualifications, and clarifications of claims and doubts appearing in his philosophical works, too. In addition, the letters further demonstrate how Spinoza, in specific periods of his life, conceived and understood complex philosophical key definitions. Among them are substance, modification, the nature of definition, and infinity, as for example is shown in letters he exchanged (1661–1676) with Henry Oldenburg, one of his most important correspondents, and Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus.124
For reasons of clandestinity, the editors of the posthumous writings suppressed Spinoza’s name both on the title-page and on the part-title leaf of the printed correspondence section and they mention the philosopher with his initials only: ‘B. d. S.’. This might have been in compliance with Spinoza’s own wish the Ethica in particular should be connected with his philosophy, but not with his name. The Preface to De nagelate schriften (Jelles’s text) informs readers about this thus:
The name of our author on the title-page, and also elsewhere, is only expressed with initials. This is done for no other reason than that, little time before his death, he had explicitly requested that his name was not to be given in full for his ‘Ethica’, which he ordered to be printed, without [however] giving an explanation, which, in our opinion, was no other than that he did not wish his system was to be named after him.125
Spinoza in the Appendix (XXV) to Part 4 of the Ethica explains the following which also reflects the Preface’s aforementioned remark:
For one who desires to aid others by advice or by action, so that they may enjoy the highest good together, will aim chiefly at arousing their Love for him, but not at leading them into admiration so that his teaching will be called after his name.126
In the Opera posthuma and De nagelate schriften, the editors’ final selection of the letters is presented under the following programmatic part-titles:
EPISTOLAE | Doctorum Quorundam Virorum | Ad | B. d. S. | Et Auctoris | RESPONSIONES; | Ad aliorum ejus Operum elucidationem non pa-|rum facientes.127
BRIEVEN | van verscheide geleerde Mannen | Aan | B. d. S. | Met des zelfs Antwoort | Grotelijks tot Verklaring van des zelf andere Wer-|ken dienende.128
Without doubt, it has already been stated, the printed correspondence section must have been difficult for the team to arrange and edit by consensus. First, all team members had to assent to the decision specifying precisely which letters and replies to them were to be included in the printed correspondence section (‘largely serving for the explanation of his other works’), and also in what form this would take. As a complication, those to Spinoza were in differing hands, languages, and in divergent styles. Stolle and ‘Hallmann’ have put forward in their travel diaries of that it had been Rieuwertsz père who read and arranged Spinoza’s letters and stored them with the writings hidden away in his house. True or not this claim cannot be corroborated by historical evidence. Here is what the German travellers propound in one of their journals’ entries:
… he [Rieuwertsz père] consulted his friend, Jelles, [and] inspected and arranged [the writings], read the letters and [also] arranged them afterwards. Although almost everybody knew he was the publisher of Spinoza’s works no one ever interviewed him. Yet, he was afraid this [would happen] and [he had hidden] all things related to Spinoza not in his printing workshop among the other books, but in his house at a special place.129
The Preface’s remarks about the printed correspondence selection show how eventually, after reaching consensus, the Amsterdam team carefully edited Spinoza’s exchange and organized the letters:
Regarding the letters, these are not arranged according to the subjects they deal with, nor in accordance with the importance of the one who wrote [them] or to whom they are addressed, but according to the time in which they wrote them. Yet, in such a way, that all letters of the same person, with their replies, are arranged one after another. That few names are fully indicated, some only with initials, and some are not expressed, has been done because it does not matter who writes, but only what is written.130
When editing, members of the team had to handle not only autograph letters and drafts, but also copies and minutes of the correspondence. From a total of 133 letters dispatched to and from Spinoza between 26 August 1661 and mid-October 1676, incidentally with enclosures, only a small number survived as original autograph letters (eighteen), minute (an autograph draft version, three), or as manuscript copy (nine). The text of another letter has survived in a facsimile version of the autograph letter. Thirteen others were rejected for publication, surfaced much later, or were otherwise transmitted.131 Based on internal or circumstantial textual evidence, my research has confirmed that for the present forty-seven new letters in Spinoza’s correspondence can be postulated with historical certainty. Two others in the known letter corpus are evidently ‘hors système’. One concerns a letter about the Tractatus theologico-politicus which was exchanged in 1671 by two correspondents of Spinoza. The other was an ‘open’ letter addressed to Spinoza, published in 1675 in Florence, which the latter actually never read.
The total number of letters at the editors’ disposal from the start of their publication project is uncertain. Moreover, unfortunately it is also unknown what particular letters and how many, from and to letter-writers unknown to Spinoza scholarship, were rejected by the team and are now lost.132 On principle, if letters were lacking Spinoza’s replies the editors put those aside.133 It is claimed by Stolle/‘Hallmann’ in their travel diaries that less important letters had been burnt, but several surviving autographs and apographs prove otherwise. This is what they report in their journals:
More letters were found than they had printed. But they were of no importance. Therefore they were burned.134
The Amsterdam team had in any case at its disposal all autograph letters directed to the Netherlands by Oldenburg (August 1661–December 1665, [April/May] 1675–mid-October 1676). The existence of a set of thirty-five letters from their exchange can now be confirmed, twenty-five of which are also printed in the posthumous works.135 Apart from the edited letter commenting on Boyle’s Certain Physiological Essays (1661), the team published ten letters by Spinoza to Oldenburg in the posthumous works.136 Because during editing the holographs of those letters were in London, these must have been copied from Spinoza’s drafts or from their minutes, in 1677 apparently still extant. Four letters from Spinoza’s communications with Simon Joosten de Vries and Pieter Balling were also included in the correspondence section.137 Another eight letters of his exchange with the Dordrecht amateur philosopher and retailer Willem van Blijenbergh were selected, too. The texts of those sent to the latter were available for the editors in drafts or minutes made by Spinoza, too.138 More importantly, three of Van Blijenbergh’s surviving holographs abundantly show they were used, as copy-texts, by a typesetter at Israel de Paull’s Amsterdam Tuinstraat printing office when processing De nagelate schriften.
Three of Spinoza’s letters to Johannes Hudde were also included in the posthumous works, but these were probably for the editors also available only in drafts or minutes.139 Yet, those sent by Hudde to Spinoza are absent in the posthumous writings for reasons unknown. A copy of Lambertus van Velthuysen’s judgement of the Tractatus theologico-politicus, sent in 1671 to the Rotterdam physician Jacob Ostens, was probably at the disposal of the editors through an enclosure, sent by Ostens in a now-lost letter to Spinoza.140 It seems likely also the philosopher’s reply ended up in the hands of the team in the form of a draft or minute.141 The letters sent to an otherwise unidentified merchant by the name of Johan or Johannes van der Meer, those from and to Leibniz, Johann Ludwig Fabritius, Hugo Boxel, as well as those from and to Albert Burgh were included in the correspondence section, too. Again, the majority of Spinoza’s replies to these men must have been available to the editors in the form of an apograph, a draft version, or a minute.142
The editors themselves too handed in letters exchanged with the Dutch philosopher. Five letters from Spinoza’s correspondence with Jelles were selected.143 One letter from his exchange with Lodewijk Meyer (the noted account on the infinite) was included in the correspondence section as well.144 From Schuller’s own exchange with Spinoza five letters, including two by Tschirnhaus (copied by Schuller and with their text and/or questions and replies communicated to Spinoza) were also published in the posthumous writings.145 One letter by Bouwmeester, now surviving in a draft version copied by Pieter van Gent, was chosen for publication, too.146 None of Van Gent’s own letters exchanged with Spinoza are however contained in the correspondence section, although it is known he dispatched at least one letter to him, addressing the ‘treacherous’ behaviour by Schuller.147 After their selection by the editing team, seventy-five letters were finally published in the Opera posthuma and in De nagelate schriften: thirty-three dispatched letters to Spinoza and forty-one sent by him.148
7 The Correspondence Section’s Pre-Press Preparations. Editorial Interventions
Before being conveyed to the Tuinstraat firm of Israel de Paul for printing, all letters selected by the Amsterdam editors were first arranged in the correspondence section along with their responses, systematically sorted according to correspondent and in chronological order. For publication, the team fitted out all selected autographs, manuscript copies, and the drafts or minutes with captions, each comprising their number and the names and titles of both sender and recipient, respectively. In those headings, several names were suppressed intentionally, either by initials or by replacing names with asterisks (Opera posthuma) or simple dots (De nagelate schriften). Team members, for instance, handing in letters are mentioned in the following manner: ‘L. M. P. M. Q. D.’/‘L. M.’ (Lodewijk Meyer), ‘J. J.’ (Jarig Jelles), etc. The putative team member Johannes Bouwmeester is referred to as ‘J. B.’. The identity of Georg Hermann Schuller, another presumed editor, and of Spinoza’s correspondent Tschirnhaus, is fully withheld.
An exception to this editorial principle, though, can be observed in those letters included in De nagelate schriften that were exchanged between Van Blijenbergh and Spinoza. Letters 31 (‘Eenendartigste Brief’) and 32 (‘Tweeendartigste Brief’) suppress Van Blijenbergh’s identity (‘W. v. B.’). In the caption to Letter 33 (‘Drieendartigste Brief’), on page 536, his name is also still cloaked by the use of initials. Yet, surprisingly, in the same letter’s closing section (p. 551) his name is suddenly printed in full: ‘U.E. Dienstw. Dienaer. | W. van BLYENBERGH’. Subsequently, Van Blijenbergh’s name is not withheld any longer in the letters numbered in De nagelate schriften, in Roman numerals, 34, 35, 36, and 37. In the Opera posthuma, however, the latter’s name in each letter of the exchange with the Dutch philosopher is given in full.
In the Opera posthuma, in the introductory part of Letter LXVII (p. 539), written by Spinoza to Jarig Jelles in mid-February 1671, the name of a Dutch professor has also been concealed (‘N. N.’). In De nagelate schriften, ‘N. N.’ is replaced by six dots. Since Simon Joosten de Vries and Pieter Balling had long been dead when the posthumous works were published in 1677, cloaking their names in captions of letters was done in De nagelate schriften only. The same principle was followed in the twin volumes in the case of Albert Burgh’s letter to Spinoza and the latter’s reply.
In the case of the two letters known to be exchanged between Leibniz and Spinoza in late 1671, members of the team responsible for subediting the correspondence section made no efforts whatsoever to withhold the former’s name, possibly because only few people in the Netherlands knew Leibniz by name. As is evinced by Schuller’s letter to Leibniz of 19/29 March 1678, the German scholar was shocked, finding out the Amsterdam editors had published his name in full, thereby linking him with Spinoza openly in print. In that letter, Schuller apologized for this blunder, though, he also explained to him the contents of those two letters mainly concerned matters optical only.149 If this suggests Schuller had little to do with the editing of the posthumous works’ correspondence section is an unanswered question.
For editorial reasons, the team heavily revised the correspondence section. They changed and/or formalized salutations of original letters but also several of their closing sections.150 For instance, the original manuscript draft of Spinoza’s letter to Ostens has ‘amice’ in its salutation. Nevertheless, in the Opera posthuma this word has been changed to ‘Doctissime vir’. In De nagelate schriften, though, Glazemaker has translated the salutation of the same letter (‘Negenenveertigste Brief’) in more informal Dutch: ‘Goede Vrient’.151
In the Dutch language volume, letters commonly lead off with the neutrally-sounding ‘Myn Heer’ or ‘Waardste Vrient’. Though, letters 31 (‘Eenendartigste Brief’) and 32 (‘Tweeendartigste Brief’) are exceptions. In the Latin edition, the salutation of Letter XXXI reads ‘Mi Domine, & Amice ignote’, a salutation faithfully translated by Glazemaker and printed as ‘Myn Heer, en onbekende Vrient’.152 The (lost) Dutch autograph of Letter XXXII, starts thus: ‘Myn heer, en seer aangename vrient’.153 In the Opera posthuma that letter however only simply begins with ‘Amice ignote’. Nonetheless, in De nagelate schriften its formalized translation now reads ‘Waardste Vriend’ only.154 In few cases, salutations of the edited letters are even completely left out. Why is not known, but perhaps because of hastily editing and printing. Letters in the printed posthumous works often close with formalized expressions lacking in the original surviving manuscripts.
All letters in the correspondence section are translated from Dutch into Latin, and vice versa. Of course, Glazemaker was responsible for the translation into Dutch. Who translated Dutch letters into Latin is not known. Those translated are fitted with the term ‘version’ (‘Versio.’). Seventeen of Spinoza’s letters have the caption ‘version’ in their heading of the Latin edition.155 Since in the Opera posthuma the term versio is for the first time included in the caption of Letter XXX, one might ask whether this was an intervention the editors of the Latin edition came up with when the book was already in production. In De nagelate schriften, though, translations from the Latin are not indicated. In the cases of a series of letters originally composed in Dutch, it is unclear whether either Spinoza or the editors produced their Latin translations.156 Akkerman has put forward the theory it has been Lodewijk Meyer who translated all letters into Latin.157
The team shortened, changed, but also heavily revised the text of many original letters. Their word order was altered and plural forms were for example changed to singular expressions, necessitating emendations due to subject-verb agreement.158 Perhaps, such editorial interventions were introduced to present future readers with better and more elegantly-edited Latin and Dutch text versions than what could be given when their original wording was loyally followed.159 Take, as an illustration, a clear instance in Letter 39 in the twin volumes.160 The surviving draft of its autograph letter has the following phrase in Latin: ‘nisi omnia perrumpendo et a nullo absurdo, quamvis turpissimo cavendo’. Its edited Latin version in the Opera posthuma though reads differently: ‘nisi omnia perrumpendo, et absurda etiam absurdissima admittendo’.161 How in several instances team members chose to drastically revise and edit the correspondence can also be observed in Letter 6, which is one by Spinoza to Oldenburg discussing Boyle’s Certain Physiological Essays.162 Compared to its surviving holograph, according to Akkerman, its edited text printed in the Opera posthuma has about three hundred modifications in the Latin.163
In summary, the correspondence section’s text of several letters thus fairly proves to have been heavily edited. In many instances they even break off abruptly, only mentioning ‘& c.’, often only followed by a place of writing and date. Evidently, the Amsterdam team mainly trimmed the contents of several letters only for editorial reasons, privacy, or the lack of philosophical issues. They may also have left out those topics deliberately team members thought were objectionable, harmful, politically sensitive, or inconvenient. For example, affairs like the condemnation, imprisonment (1668), and death of the Amsterdam doctor of medicine and legal scholar Adriaan Koerbagh, or the assassination (1672) of the two De Witt brothers, which must have been discussed in letters.
Van Vloten and Land have argued Glazemaker was explicitly instructed to preserve in De nagelate schriften specific Latin words and expressions in his Dutch translation of the letters (‘Wortlaut’). Their hypothesis has however also met with opposition (Leopold, Crapulli, Akkerman).164 As with the translations of the Ethica, the Tractatus politicus, and the Tractatus de intellectus emendatione in De nagelate schriften, key terms in the correspondence section were also printed in the external margins.165 Finally, it should also be underlined that a few marginal glosses to letters in De nagelate schriften and the Opera posthuma are markedly differing from one another. These inconsistencies may indicate Glazemaker aimed for a ‘free’ translation of their Latin originals into Dutch.166 Whether he made his translations straight from autograph letters, apographs, or drafts that were directly available to him is not known.
As it turns out, certain holographs of Dutch letters, apparently those presenting no editorial difficulties and in a handwriting eligible enough to be read by a compositor, were almost straight away passed to the Tuinstraat workshop of Israel de Paull to be typeset and printed there. The surviving autograph of a letter of 27 March 1665 by Van Blijenbergh to Spinoza, for instance, contains a projected caption scribbled by one of the editorial team members in the upper margin of folio 1r. Clearly, this is an editor’s instruction for a compositor. The heading mentions its subsequent number in the correspondence section of De nagelate schriften and also the names of both sender and recipient.167 The caption, the result of a final stage in the editing process, reads in brown ink the following:
Sevenendartigste brief. | Antwoort op [de] voorgaende. |
W. van WillW. van blyenberg aen b. d. s.’ (Letter 37. Reply to the preceding.W. van WillW. van Blijenbergh to B. d. S.’).168
Handwritten editorial notes in the upper margin of the autograph manuscript of Van Blijenbergh’s letter to Spinoza of 27 March 1665 indicating the printed caption for the ‘Zevenendartigste Brief’ in De nagelate schriften.
In De nagelate schriften, this caption is printed in its remedied form:
Zevenendartigste Brief. | Antwoort op de voorgaande | W. van BLYENBERG. aan B. D. S.’.169
Printed caption on page 569 for the ‘Zevenendartigste Brief’ (Van Blijenbergh to Spinoza, 27 March 1665) in De nagelate schriften.
Aside from a few extant autographs and apographs of letters comprising instructions for and remarks by the compositor included in them, none of the other copy-texts of the Opera posthuma and De nagelate schriften have unfortunately survived. When exactly the Amsterdam team finalized editing is not documented. Nevertheless, a letter from Schuller to Leibniz dispatched on 17/27 July 1677 in any case provides for the twin volumes’ completion a reliable terminus ante quem. Schuller informed his German correspondent about the posthumous writings thus:
All the posthumous works of Mr Spinoza have been conveyed to the printer who proceeds diligently with the edition. They will be published simultaneously in Latin and in Dutch.170
∵
OP: pp. 265–354; NS: pp. 301–403; G 3/269–360. Critical edition of the TP: Benedictus de Spinoza, Œuvres complètes. V: Tractatus politicus/Traité politique, Omero Proietti and Charles Ramond (eds.) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2005). Cf.: Steven B. Smith, ‘Spinoza’s Democratic Turn: Chapter 16 of the Theologico-Political Treatise’, in Genevieve Lloyd (ed.), Spinoza: Critical Assessments. Vol. 3: The Political Writings (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 167–169, at p. 184. Synopsis: Van Bunge, etc. (eds.), The Continuum Companion to Spinoza, pp. 355–358. For the key concepts potentia/‘magt’, ‘kragt’ and ‘mogentheid’, and potestas: ibid., pp. 292–297.
Spinoza knew the works by Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn (1612–1653) which favour restriction of the powers of a supremus gubernator as for instance embodied in the House of Orange. Probably, Boxhorn’s commentaries, on Tacitus, were once in his library, too. Boxhorn’s Institutiones politicae (1657) was possibly also familiar to the Dutch philosopher: Offenberg, Spinoza’s Library, p. 321, no. 157; Musschenga and Van Sluis, De boeken, pp. 83–84. Spinoza’s library contained more works by political authors: Antonio Perez, Arnoldus Clapmarius, Thomas More, Hugo Grotius, and Gregorio Leti: W/Cz, vol. 2, pp. 213–216. For Spinoza’s theory of politics: Robert J. McShea, The Political Philosophy of Spinoza (New York, NY, and London: Columbia University Press, 1968), pp. 78–204; Haitsma Mulier, The Myth of Venice, pp. 170–208 (Spinoza and the ‘Venetian model’); Wolfgang Bartuschat, ‘The Ontological Basis of Spinoza’s Theory of Politics’, in De Deugd (ed.), Spinoza’s Political and Theological Thought, pp. 30–36; Emilia Giancotti Boscherini, ‘Réalisme et utopie: limites des libertés politiques et perspective de libération dans la philosophie politique de Spinoza’, in De Deugd (ed.), Spinoza’s Political and Theological Thought, pp. 37–43; Hans W. Blom, ‘Politics, Virtue and Political Science: An Interpretation of Spinoza’s Political Philosophy’, in Lloyd (ed.), Spinoza: Critical Assessments. Vol. 3: The Political Writings, pp. 3–19; Edwin Curley, ‘The State of Nature and its Law in Hobbes and Spinoza’, in Lloyd (ed.), Spinoza: Critical Assessments. Vol. 3: The Political Writings, pp. 122–142; Smith, ‘Spinoza’s Democratic Turn’; Moreau, Spinoza. État et religion; Hans W. Blom, ‘Spinoza on Res Publica, Republics and Monarchies’, in id., etc. (eds.), Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment: Liberty, Patriotism, and the Public Good (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), pp. 19–44; Martin Saar, Die Immanenz der Macht. Politische Theorie nach Spinoza (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2013).
Nanne Bloksma (Spinoza. A Miraculously Healthy Philosopher [Rijnsburg: Uitgeverij Spinozahuis, 2018] [Mededelingen vanwege het Spinozahuis, no. 113]) argues Spinoza probably died of an illness involving an unknown chronic inflammatory disease, causing cachexia and/or of cachexia itself. Not though as the result of a pulmonary disease, such as terminal tuberculosis (TB) or terminal Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), progressive massive fibrosis, or lung cancer, all potential consequences of respiratory exposure to crystalline silica. Cachexia is a poorly-understood complex multi-organ syndrome. It is characterized by involuntary body weight loss and muscle mass loss with or without the loss of fat mass, systemic inflammation, metabolic abnormalities, and lack of appetite. Background: Jerjena Farkas, et al., ‘Cachexia as a Major Public Health Problem: Frequent, Costly, and Deadly’, Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 4 (2013), pp. 173–178; Josep M. Argilés, etc., ‘Cachexia and Sarcopenia: Mechanisms and Potential Targets for Intervention’, Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 22 (2015), pp. 100–106. TB is a bacterial infection, caused by tubercle bacilli, identified (1882) by Robert Koch and labelled by him as mycobacterium tuberculosis. It frequently causes pulmonary TB, but any other organ can be infected, too. TB has been referred to as: phthisis, consumption, scrofula, wasting illness, white plague, and king’s evil. See: James A.R. Friend and John M. Watson, ‘Tuberculosis’, in Michael E. Ellis (ed.), Infectious Diseases of the Respiratory Tract (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 244–267; David Rees and J. Murray, ‘Silica, Silicosis, and Tuberculosis’, International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, 11 (2007), pp. 474–484; ‘The History of Tuberculosis’, Respiratory Medicine, 100 (2006), pp. 1862–1870.
Van der Spijck: BL.
‘Spinosa habe niemahls weder ein Testament noch schriftliche Disposition gemacht, wie es met seinen Büchern sollte gehalten werden. Sondern als er gemerkt, dass er sterben würde, habe er denen Vertrauten, so umb ihn gewesen, ordre ertheilet, alle seine Scripturen und eigene Bücher nach Amsterdam an den Rieuwertsz zu senden, welches auch geschehen; ….’ (S/H, ms. A, quoted in W/Cz, vol. 1, p. 94). Rieuwersz père: BL.
‘Dog de nog levende Huisheer van Spinoza, Sr. Hendrik van der Spyk verhaalt my, dat Spinoza verordineert hadde, dat zyn lessenaar met de Schriften en brieven daarin leggende terstond na zyn dood naar Amsterdam aan Jan Rieuwertzen Stadsboekdrukker zouden gezonden worden, gelyk hy dan ook gedaan heeft: En Jan Rieuwertzen in zyn rescriptie aan voornoemde Sr. van der Spyk de dato Amsterdam den 25. Maart 1677. Bekent zodanigen lessenaar ontfangen te hebben.’ (Colerus*, in: W/Cz, vol. 1, p. 140). Van der Spijck/Rieuwertsz père: BL.
‘Zyn woorden luiden op ’t einde van den brief aldus; de vrienden van Spinoza wilden garen weten, aan wien dat de lessenaar gezonden was, wyl zy oordeelen, dat ’er veel geld in was, en wilden het by de Schippers onderstaan, aan wien dat se bestelt was, zoo men in den Haag niet aanteekent de pakjes, die aan de schuit bestelt worden, zoo zie ik niet, hoe zy ’t te weeten zullen krygen; ’t is ’t best dat zy ’t niet weeten, ….’ (ibid.).
OP: pp. 1–264; NS: pp. 1–300. The ordo geometricus concerns a model with definitions and axioms, developed in a chain of postulates, propositions, and demonstrations: Van Bunge, etc. (eds.), The Continuum Companion to Spinoza, pp. 278–281. Background: Gueroult, Spinoza, vol. 1: Dieu, pp. 25–37; Herman Schüling, Die Geschichte der axiomatischen Methode im 16. und beginnenden 17. Jahrhundert: Wandlung der Wissenschaftsauffassung (Hildesheim and New York, NY: G. Olms Verlag, 1969), 1969; Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 139–180, at p. 148, n. 1. For studies on the ‘Ethics’: Chapter 2, n. 114.
OP: pp. 265–354; NS: pp. 301–403. The letter to the unknown addressee is: > 1676.[07].00a, Ep 84.
OP; pp. 355–392; NS: pp. 405–446. For the TIE: Chapter 6, n. 47.
75 letters (OP: pp. 393–614; NS: 447–666). Textual history: G 4, pp. 382–431.
more Geometrico demonstratam (OP, Preface, sig. *****2r). Clarifying the alleged geometrical method behind the work is complex and problematic cecause of its embryonic state. Cf. Nathan Porges, ‘Spinozas Compendium der hebraïschen Grammatik’, Chronicon Spinozanum, 4 (1924–6), pp. 123–159, there at pp. 127 and 152–157; Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, p. 147; Jacob Gruntfest, ‘Spinoza as a Linguist’, Israel Oriental Studies, 9 (1979), pp. 103–128, there at p. 115; Ze’ev Levy, ‘The Problem of Normativity in Spinoza’s “Hebrew Grammar”’, Studia Spinozana, 3 (1987), pp. 351–390, there at pp. 357–358. For discussion if and in what way the CG reflects the metaphysical system in the E (noun/substance): ibid., pp. 383–385.
OP: pp. 1–112 (G 1/283–403). Textual history: G 1, pp. 623–631. English translation: Benedictus de Spinoza, Compendium of Hebrew Grammar, Maurice J. Bloom (ed.) (New York, NY: Philosophical Library, 1962); id. (ed. and transl.), Hebrew Grammar (London: Vision Library, 1963). Synopsis: Van Bunge, etc. (eds.), The Continuum Companion to Spinoza, p. 358. See: Philippe Cassuto, Spinoza hébraisant. L’Hébreu dans le ‘Tractatus theologica-politicus’ et le ‘Compendium grammatices linguae hebraeae’ (Leuven: Peeters, 1999). Background: Jean Baumgarten, etc. (eds.), Spinoza, philosophe grammairien. Le Compendium grammatices linguae hebraea (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2019). The latter work also contains: id., ‘De quelques possibles sources juives du Compendium de Spinoza’, pp. 127–158. For background on Hebrew grammars in the European diaspora: Moisés Orfali, ‘On the Role of Hebrew Grammars in the Western European Diaspora and the New World’, in Yosef Kaplan (ed.), Religious Changes and Cultural Transformations in the Early Modern Western Sephardic Communities (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2019), pp. 431–451.
In 1663, Meyer* edited the Latin PP/CM. Jelles/Van Gent: BL.
Between [18] and [21] November 1676, Leibniz* went to The Hague. There, at the Paviljoensgracht, he met Spinoza to discuss with him the Cartesian rules of motion, the ‘characteristica universalis’, their ontological arguments demonstrating the existence of an all-perfect, infinite God, and the question whether the universe God chose to exist is the best of all possible worlds. Cf. Kurt Müller and Gisela Krönert, Leben und Werk von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Eine Chronik (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1969), p. 46.
Schuller/Leibniz: BL.
Glazemaker: BL.
Cf. Jagersma and Dijkstra, ‘Uncovering Spinoza’s Printers’, p. 293. De Paull* processed the first Latin quarto edition [T.1] of the TTP in late 1669 or early 1670, its later quartos, the Latin octavos, and perhaps also the French duodecimo editions X and Y. See further: Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
By early 1677, the German scholar resided in Hanover, at the ducal ‘Leineschloss’, with his new master, Johann Friedrich, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg-Calenberg (1625–1679). Leibniz* had been appointed as the new ducal counsellor and Geheimer Rath (privy counsellor) on 27 January 1676. Cf. Müller and Krönert, Leben und Werk, p. 43; Antognazza, Leibniz, pp. 174–175 and 195–208 (Hanoverian period).
Spinoza restarted exposition of his own philosophical system in the E between 1669/70–1674/5. His correspondence (< 1665.[06].[13], Ep 28; G 4/163.19–23) proves an early version in progress of E3, up to proposition 80, was ready by June 1665. In E3, as it is now printed in the posthumous works, 59 propositions remain. Other propositions must therefore have been transferred to what is known now as E4 (CW, vol. 1, pp. 396–397, at n. 25). This suggests that, by the early summer of 1665, the E had probably already reached a more or less mature outline. Spinoza kept reordering and advancing the work, adding, amending, and deleting several passages until July 1675 when he put aside its text to focus on other writing projects.
Steenbakkers (Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 55) points out the Latin formulation permits two readings: ‘the autograph copy, or an autograph copy’. Schuller* perhaps meant ‘the author’s unique autograph’.
Cf.: Müller and Krönert, Leben und Werk, p. 45; Antognazza, Leibniz, pp. 175–176.
‘Caeterum te minime celare debui Clarissm et acutissm Virum Spinozam maxima atrophia conflictatum 21/11 Februar. vitam suam cum morte commutasse; Videtur autem quod inexpectata mortis debilitate praeventus sit, quoniam sine testamento, ultimae voluntatis indice, a nobis discessit; Ethica, quam penes ipsum vidisti, in autographo penes amicum asservatur, venalisque habetur, si pretio (credo 150 florenor.) opere tanto condigno persolvatur, id quod nulli melius, quam Tibi significandum censui, utpote qui operis conscius principis animum dirigere poteris, ut suis sumtibus coematur.’ (Leibniz*, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Series I–VIII, 2:1, p. 475, no. 136; 3:2, p. 46, no. 19; quoted with English translation in: Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 55).
Cf.: ibid., p. 57.
Rome, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 12838. When Tschirnhaus* visited Rome, the Roman Catholic convert and Danish anatomist Niels Stensen* managed to run off with Van Gent’s copy and informed (4 September 1677) the Roman Congregation of the Holy Office about it, thereby touching off a search for more information about Spinoza and his writings in the Netherlands. On 23 September, a Holy Office’s clerk booked in manuscript V (Spruit and Totaro, The Vatican Manuscript, pp. 11–20). For background: Chapter 9, Banned Unconditionally. See also: Schuller* to Spinoza, 1675.07.25, Ep 63 (G 4/274–276); Tschirnhaus to Spinoza, 1675.08.12, Ep 65 (G 4/279); Schuller to Spinoza, 1675.11.14, Ep 70 (G 4/301–303); Spinoza to Schuller, 1675.11.18, Ep 72 (G 4/304–306); Tschirnhaus to Spinoza, 1676.06.23, Ep 82 (G 4/333–334); Spinoza to Tschirnhaus, 1676.06.15, Ep 83 (G 4/334–335). The auction catalogue of Tschirnhaus’s private library contains no works by Spinoza (Catalogus und Specification unterschiedener gebundener und ungebundener Bücher, … des Hrn. Raths von Tschirnhaus, … [Görlitz: 1723]). The latter work was published long after his death (1708). A second manuscript version (1709) of the catalogue (Staatsarchiv Dresden, 10026 Geheimes Kabinett, Loc. 00379/03) contains several general entries in German lacking in the one printed. Listed are: eleven packages with mathematical calculations and letters; a parcel with Tschirnhaus’s letters and manuscripts; ‘practical’ letters and manuscripts; other letters and manuscripts; several ‘common’ letters; a parcel with miscellaneous, ‘practical’ letters; one package with exchanges (cf. Mathias Ullmann, ‘Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus. Der Modernisierer Sachsens und seine verschollene Bibliothek’, in Elisabeth Tiller [ed.], Bücherwelten – Raumwelten. Zirkulation von Wissen und Macht im Zeitalther des Barock [Cologne, etc.: Böhlau Verlag, 2015], pp. 171–186, at p. 174). For background on the Grand Tour: Edward Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations since the Renaissance (Abingdon and New York, NY: Routledge, 1998); Rainer Babel and Werner Paravicini (eds.), Grand Tour. Adeliges Reisen und europäische Kultur vom 14. bis 18. Jahrhundert. Akten der internationalen Kolloquien in der Villa Vigoni 1999 und im Deutschen Historischen Institut Paris 2000 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke Verlag, 2005).
Apart from the fair-copy assumed, when preparing the NS for the press Glazemaker* perhaps worked with a different copy (Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 58 and 134).
OP, Preface, sig. ******r; NS, Preface, ******r–v. Cf.: Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, pp. 146–147, no. 74. As evinced by a letter of Spinoza to Schuller* of 18 November 1675, Tschirnhaus* was in the possession of a Latin copy of the work. The philosopher refers in this letter probably to the copy made by Van Gent*: 1675.11.18, Ep 72 (G 4/305.10). There, it reads: ‘in his copy’ (‘in ipsius exemplari’). The only other manuscript copy of the E in the possession of Spinoza’s friends I am aware of is one owned by Simon Joosten de Vries*, comprising an early instalment in progress of in any case E1 in Latin, with definitions, axioms, and at least nineteen propositions and some scholia. It was circulated in a Dutch translation (by Balling*) among members of the Amsterdam study group, headed by De Vries. The latter wrote to Spinoza (1663.02.24, Ep 8 [G 4/39.5–7]): ‘But though our bodies are separated from one another by such a distance, nevertheless you have very often been present in my mind especially when I meditate on your writings and hold them in my hands.’ (CW, I, p. 190; my emphasis).
Cf. Leibniz*, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Series I–VIII, 3:2, p. 50, no. 21.
Cf. also Tschirnhaus* to Leibniz*, 17 April [1677], replying to a lost letter by Schuller* (26 February, or later). Sometimes, Schuller annoyed Spinoza and overstepped his boundaries. Spinoza in turn reproached (< [1675].[07].25a*) him for disclosing his doctrines without his permission. Yet, Schuller also changed his behaviour (to Spinoza, 1675.07.25, Ep 63 [G 4/274–276]; 1675.11.14, Ep 70 [G 4/301–303]) and Spinoza clearly appreciated him as a friend. According to the aforementioned letter of 17 April dispatched by Tschirnhaus to Leibniz, Schuller (by his own admission) had attended Spinoza in his last hours.
The TIE (Chapter 6, n. 47) was Spinoza’s first project on first principles, definitions, and method which he hesitated of finishing. The work was probably circulated by him in the late 1650s and early 1660s among friends and admirers in Amsterdam. About the TIE, the editors write in the ‘Notice to the Reader’, annexed to the work in the OP/NS, the following: ‘This Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect etc., which we give you here, kind reader, in its unfinished state, was written by the author many years ago now. He always intended to finish it. But hindered by other occupations, and finally snatched away by death, he was unable to bring it to the desired conclusion…. And so that you would be aware of, and find less difficult to excuse, the many things that are still obscure, rough, and unpolished, we wished to warn you of them’ (‘Tractatus, quem de Intellectus Emendatione etc. imperfectum hic tibi damus, Benevole Lector, jam multos ante annos ab Auctore fuit conscriptus. In animo semper habuit eum perficere: At, aliis negotiis praepeditus, et tandem morte abreptus, ad optatum finem perducere non potuit….; et, ut etiam multa obscura, rudia adhuc et impolita, quae in eo hinc inde occurrunt, condonare non graveris, horum ne inscius esses, admonitum te quoque esse voluimus. Vale.’; G 2/4; CW, vol. 1, p. 6). For the letter to Oldenburg* on Boylean chemistry: 1662.[01–06].00, Ep 6 [G 4/15–36]. For the TP, see: n. 1.
For the correspondence section of the OP/NS, see in this chapter: ‘Letters from Certain Learned Men’ and The Correspondence Section’s Pre-Press Preparations.
‘Gaudeo sane quod de coëmenda Ethica nihil adhuc Principi Tuo dixeris, nam plane animo mutatus sum, ut (licet possessor pretium adauxerit) de illo commercio instituendo jam tibi author esse nolim, ratio est, quod amicorum animos plane dissentientes ita ad consensum disposuerim, ut non solum hanc Ethicam, verum etiam omni Manuscripta Fragmenta (quorum potior pars, nimir. 1 de Emendatione Intellectus, 2. de Nitro, 3. de Politia, 4. Epistolae variae, in autographo ad manus meas devoluta est) in commune bonum typis publicare contituerim, quod Tibi confidenter communico, cum nullus dubitem, Te id, quominus propositum hoc impediatur, omnes, etiam Amicos, celaturum.’ (Leibniz*, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Series I–VIII, 3:2, pp. 52–53, no. 24; quoted with an English translation in: Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 56). Schuller* refers to the letter ‘on nitre’ (to Oldenburg*, 1662.[01–06].00, Ep 6) as if it were rather a brief treatise which it is not. The latter piece comprises however only the first portion of Spinoza’s letter. The letter to Oldenburg* may have been an edited letter scribally put into circulation among friends and admirers.
Confirmed by Tschirnhaus* in the aforementioned letter to Leibniz* of 17 April [1677].
As evinced by a letter (19 September 1677) of Schuller* to Leibniz*, he had searched the estate ‘one by one before and after his death’.
‘Caeterum de reliquis, nimirum de motu, quaeque ad Methodum spectant, quia nondum ordine conscripta sunt, in aliam occasionem reservo.’ (‘As for the other things, concerning motion and Method, because they aren’t yet written out in an orderly fashion, I reserve them for another occasion’; Spinoza to Tschirnhaus*, > 1675.01.05, Ep 60; G 4/271; CW, vol. 2, p. 433). Cf. also the Preface by Jelles*/Meyer* to the OP/NS: sigs ****4v–*****1r and ******6r–v.
Cf.: Stein, ‘Neue Aufschlüsse’, p. 561.
Preface by Jelles*/Meyer*: ‘… zijn Zedekunst, die hy beval te doen drukken….’ (NS, sig. *3v); ‘… [E], cujus impressionem mandabat….’ (OP, *3r). Cf.: Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, pp. 112–113, no. 10.
‘Onze Schrijver heeft noch, boven ’t geen, dat wy hier voor gedacht hebben, in de Latijnsche taal een Hebreeusche Grammatika, of Letterkunst, in geschrift, doch onvolmaakt, nagelaten; en hoewel de zelfde van verscheide geleerde lieden, onder de welken verscheide afschriften berusten, grotelijks geprezen word; zo hebben wy echt niet dienstig geacht, haar in de Nederlantsche Taal door de druk gemeen te maken, maar geraden gevonden de zelfde voor de Latijnen in de latijnsche Taal in druk te laten: dewijl men zelden tot het leren van ’t Hebreeus toetreed, voor dat men de Latijnsche taal machtig is geworden.’ (NS, Preface, sig. ******2v).
Cf. Gruntfest, ‘Spinoza as a Linguist’, p. 116. For Spinoza’s grammarian approach: Jacob Bernays, ‘Über die Grammatik Spinozas’, in Carl Schaarschmidt (ed.), Descartes und Spinoza (Bonn: Koschny, 1850), pp. 195–203; Adolph Chajes, Ueber die hebraïsche Grammatik Spinozas (Breslau: Jungfer’s Buchdruckerei, 1869); Porges, ‘Spinozas Compendium’; Gruntfest, ‘Spinoza as a Linguist’; Anthony J. Klijnsmit, Spinoza and Grammatical Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 1986); Baumgarten, etc. (eds.), Spinoza, philosophe grammairien.
Cf. Van Bunge, etc. (eds.), The Continuum Companion to Spinoza, p. 358. Porges (‘Spinozas Compendium’, pp. 127–128) noticed the CG’s first part lacks the treatment of the formation of nouns (promised in CG, ch. 6) as well as a chapter on conjunctions and interjections. Whether the treatment of numerals (also missing) was intended to be inserted in the first or second portion is not known.
The auction catalogue of Glazemaker’s private library (published by Rieuwertsz* père), Catalogus instructissimae bibliothecae Joannis Henrici Glazemaker, lists copies of the PP/CM, the TTP, the NS (‘Nagelaten Schriften van B.D.S. als Zedekunst/Staetkunde/Verbetering van Verstant/Brieven en Antwoorden/1677’ [p. 44, no. 759]), and of the OP. The catalogue’s entry on the OP (a large-paper copy) discloses its masked author’s identity: ‘Bened. de Spinosa. Opera Philosophica posthuma charta maj. 1677’ (p. 27, no. 203). Balling: BL.
The NS lacks the ‘Index rerum’.
‘Schoon de Geschriften, in dit boek begrepen, ten meestendeel onvolmaakt, veel minder van de Schrijver overgezien, beschaaft en verbetert zijn, zo heeft men echter niet ondienstig geoordeelt de zelfden in ’t licht te geven….’ (NS, sig. *2r). Cf.: Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, p. 110, no. 1. OP, sig. *2r: ‘Licet scripta, Lector benevole, hoc libro contenta, maximam partem imperfecta, multò minus ab ipso Auctore examinata, polita, ac emendate sint; eat amen luci exponere non abs re visum fuit.’. Cf.: Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, p. 113, no. 10.
‘Dit is ’t alles, dat, van eenige waarde zijnde, wy uit zijn nagelate papieren, en uit enige afschriften, onder zijn vrienden en bekenden berustende, te zamen hebben konnen rapen. ’t Is gelooffelijk dat ’er by d’een, of by d’ander noch wel iets van onze Schrijver berust, ’t welk hier niet gevonden zal worden: maar men vertrout ook dat daar in niets bevat zal wezen, ’t welk de Lezer hier niet meermalen gezegt zal vinden.’ (NS, sig. *3v). Cf.: Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, p. 112, no. 9. OP, sig. *3r: ‘… sunt verò haec omnia, quae ex adversariis, & quibusdam apographis inter amicos, ac familiars delitescentibus colligere licuit. Et quanquam credibile est apud hunc, aut illum aliquid, à nostro Philosopho elaboratum, absconditum esse, quod hîc non invenietur; existimatur tamen, nil in eo inventum iri, quod saepius in his Scriptis dictum non sit….’. Cf.: Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, p. 113, no. 10.
Until 1929, ‘De Oranjeappel’ (founded in 1675) was located at the Keizersgracht (between the houses nos. 345–347). In 1930, the institution rehoused to the Jacob Pennweg (no. 12a) in Hilversum. In 1944, a bombardment destroyed most of its archives. The remaining papers are kept by the Amsterdam Stadsarchief. See: Adriaan Loosjes, Het weeshuis der collegianten ‘De Oranjeappel’ 1675–1925 (n. pl. [Hilversum]: Weeshuis ‘De Oranjeappel’, 1925); Simon Groenveld, ‘De Oranjeappel, 1675–1975. Drie eeuwen opvoeding in het weeshuis der Doopsgezinde Collegianten’, Holland. Regionaal-historisch tijdschrift, 8 (1976), pp. 153–176; J.H.M. Verkuijl-Van den Berg and Mechteld Gravendeel, Archief van het Weeshuis der Doopsgezinde Collegianten de Oranjeappel (Amsterdam: Stadsarchief Amsterdam, 2008).
‘Chances are that Lodewijk Meyer edited the complete text of the Opera posthuma.’ (Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, p. 107). The involvement of Meyer* in the preparations of the OP cannot be either proven or disproven by comparing his own works and Spinoza’s texts when, for instance, zooming in on conventions in accentuation. About diacritical usage in the OP, see: Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 205. For a study of the Preface and its textual differences: Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’ (with an edition in Latin and Dutch). Jelles* in his Preface provides readers with about one hundred citations from the New Testament. Biblical quotations in the Dutch Preface are from the Dutch Statenvertaling (1637).
‘Yet, striking characteristics of Meyer’s linguistic usage are clearly to be found in the Praefatio too, such as: a strong tendency to variation … (especially in his prefaces), a predilection for proverbial expressions, which even here, where in translating he had less opportunity to use it, is not lacking…, a certain idiosyncrasy in the choice of words, epithets, grammar.’ (Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, p. 105). Cf.: Akkerman, Studies, pp. 207–208.
Jarig Jelles*, Belydenisse des algemeenen en christelijcken geloofs, vervattet in een brief aan N.N. (Amsterdam: 1684). Cf. Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, p. 107.
Cf. Dongelmans, Nil Volentibus Arduum, pp. 17–18: 22 and 29 June, 6 July 1677.
Bayle/Almeloveen: BL.
Johann Deckherr* von Wallhorn, De scriptis adespotis, pseud- epigraphis, et supposititiis conjecturae cum additionibus variorum (Amsterdam: 1686). Cf. Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 18.
‘Pag. 333. dicit Autor operibus posthumis Benedicti de Spinoza anno 1678. typis exscripta praefixam esse tersissimam incogniti Authoris praefationem. Dictum est mihi nuper praefationem illam fuisse primo Belgicè conscriptam ab viro quodam è Menonitarum Secta cui nomen Jarich Jelles qui postquam Mercuraturam exercuisset Amstelodami, in privato otio & exquaesitis reditibus vixit, vir caeteroquin literis haud ita instructus; Eam vero praefationem creditur postea latinè vertisse prout extat in libro Spinozae Ludovicus Meyer Medicus Amstel., ante paucos annos vivis exemptus, Autor ut fama est Dissertationis paradoxae cui titulus Philosophia sacrae Scripturae interpres, quae non immerito displicuit Theologis, utpote sapiens Haeresim.’ (Deckherr* von Wallhorn, De scriptis adespotis, pp. 387–388). The English translation is borrowed from: Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 19. Bayle’s letter: Œuvres diverses, vol. 4, pp. 162–167.
The Hague, KB, ms. 75 G 16. Paper, 159 fols, 235×180 mm. Codex B is also set with the Adnotationes which Spinoza composed from late 1675 onwards as clarification of the TTP’s contents to defend himself against the vituperation of his doctrines. It also includes a lengthy prologue by Monnikhoff* on Spinoza’s philosophy. See further: Kees Thomassen, ‘A. Bogaers: jurist en letterkundige, 1795–1870’, in Marieke van Delft, etc. (eds.), Verzamelaars en verzamelingen. Koninklijke Bibliotheek 1798–1998 (Zwolle: Waanders, 1998), pp. 108–112. The source of Monnikhoff’s manuscript copy (acquired by Boehmer in 1851) was codex A (The Hague, KB, ms. 75 G 15), a late-seventeenth-century manuscript copy with marginal annotations from a later period. This codex A, once in the hands of Monnikhoff, includes a text version of the KV and ‘Aantekeningen bij het Godgeleerd-Staatkundig Vertoog’ (Additional Notes to the Theological-Political Treatise [Adnotationes]). To his copy of the KV, Monnikhoff added a ‘Kritische voorrede’. See for Monnikhoff: Lotte Jensen, ‘Johannes Monnikhoff. Bewonderaar en bestrijder van Spinoza’, Geschiedenis van de wijsbegeerte in Nederland, 8 (1997), pp. 5–32, esp. pp. 33–44.
Codex B: ‘Dat hij den Maaker der Voorreeden van Spinoza’s Nagelate Schriften was, is zelf heel duijdelijk af te neemen uijt zijn Belijdenis des Algemeene en Christelijken Geloofs [both titles underlined in the ms.]…: als waar in de zelve stijl en zaaken, hoewel in order en zamenbinding iet verschillende, als in de gedagte Voorreeden ons te vooren komt. En schoon zommigen neevens hem ook Dr. Lodewijk Meijer voor den Schrijver deezer Voorreeden hebben gehouden, zoo zal dit mogelijk daar uijt gesprooten, dat hij misschien dezelve uijt ’t Nederduijtsch in ’t Latijn heeft overgebragt….’ (The Hague, KB, ms. 75 G 16, ‘Voorreeden’, fols 25v–26r; quoted in Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 19). The other work referred to is: Jelles*, Belydenisse.
See: Chapter 7, Vervolg van ’t Leven van Philopater.
‘Evenwel om U.E. eenig genoegen te geven wegens dusdaenig een slag van Voorreden, soo weet, dat dese hier ten minste immer soo wel voeglijck is, als die voor de vermaerde Sedenkonst van B.D.S. door Doctor L.M. en J.J. gesteld is….’ (anon. [Duijkerius*], Het leven van Philopater, p. 55).
For their travel diaries: Chapter 2, A Book ‘Now in the Press’ and Selling Spinoza’s First Book.
For the Amsterdam hostel: Chapter 2, n. 76.
‘Die Freunde, so mit Spinoza zu conversiren pflegten, wären Glasemaker, van Ende, Rieuwertz, (des itzigen Riewertz Vater), Balling, Jare Gillis, u. ein Medicus, D. Ludwicg Meyer. Jare Gillis sey anfangs ein Mennist gewesen, er habe die praefation zu denen Operibus posthumis Spinozae niederländisch gemacht, welche hernach Glasemacher ins Lateinische übersetzet. Als die Praefation gemacht worden, sey Meyer schon tod gewesen.’ (S/H, ms. B, quoted in W/Cz, vol. 1, p. 84). Meyer* died in 1681. Glazemaker* never translated a Dutch text into Latin, but the other way around. Cf.: Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, pp. 104–105. For another account about him by Stolle and ‘Hallmann’: Chapter 7, n. 4.
Importantly, Van Gent* knew both Spinoza and Rieuwertsz* père. Schuller* to Spinoza: 1675.07.25, Ep 63 (G 4/276): ‘Mr. van Gent sends you his greetings, as does J. Riew.’ (‘D. a. Gent officiose salutat una cum J. Riew.’). Two letters from Van Gent’s exchange with Spinoza can also be postulated: < [1675].[07].25*; < [1675].[07].25a*.
< 1665.[06].[13], Ep 28 (G 4/162–163).
1676.02.11, Ep 79 (G 4/329–330). A letter to Christiaan Huygens* of 18 December 1682 (Œuvres complètes, vol. 8, p. 403) offers tangible evidence proving the handwriting of the letter is by Van Gent* (cf. Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 43–44). Steenbakkers doubts Van Gent’s transcript ‘was the manuscript from which Glazemaker translated the letter into Dutch….’ (ibid., pp. 46–47). Against this, he argues, there ‘is a slip of the pen in the Latin transcript, “inexcusabiles” for “excusabiles” which has not influenced the translator’.
For this, see: Simpson, Proofreading.
1675.11.18, Ep 72 (G 4/304–306). When the remark ‘descripta’ is compared with the word ‘praescripta’ in E5p41 on fol. 132r of manuscript V in the handwriting of Van Gent* the conclusion is that the latter must have scribbled the note on the foregoing letter’s holograph.
Spinoza’s letter to Schuller* of 18 November 1675 survives in facsimile in: Nachbildung der im Jahre 1902 noch erhaltenene eigenhändigen Briefe des B. de Spinoza, mit Erläuterungen und Übersetzungen, Willem Meijer (ed.) (The Hague: W. Meijer, 1903), XI. Letter sent through the regular mail system. Postal due: 3 stuivers. One sheet folded, in 4, 29 and 15 lines (fols 1r and 1v).
Curt Reinhardt, Briefe an Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus von Pieter van Gent (Freiburg: Gerlach, 1911), p. 14; Rienk Vermij, ‘De Nederlandse vriendenkring van E.W. von Tschirnhaus’, Tijdschrift voor de geschiedenis der geneeskunde, natuurwetenschappen en techniek, 11 (1988), pp. 153–176, pp. 174–175; id., ‘Le Spinozisme en Hollande: Le cercle de Tschirnhaus’, Cahiers Spinoza, 6 (1991), pp. 145–168, there at pp. 160–161.
Cf. Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 45.
Ibid., p. 38.
‘Ego tanta in illum contulli beneficia, invitando ad mensam, Spinosae opera maximam partem describendo et commendando apud amicos nostros, ut videre nequaem, quaenam illum impulerit malitia, ut me apud te tanquam ebriosum traduxerit.’ (quoted and translated in: Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 37–38). Yet, Van Gent* perhaps produced copies of Spinoza’s less important writings and letters (1666.06.10, Ep 37 [G 4/187–189]; 1676.02.11, Ep 79 [G 4/329–330]) on Schuller’s initiative (ibid., pp. 38–39) for scribal circulation.
Akkerman, Studies, p. 128; id., ‘Tractatus theologico-politicus’, pp. 234–235. Based on a close examination of his spelling, ‘grammar, style, terminology, translating technique, faults and qualities’ Akkerman’s key conclusion is that Glazemaker* composed the Zk, the Dutch translation of the E.
Anon. [Duijkerius*?], Het leven van Philopater, p. 195. See: Chapter 7, Vervolg van ’t Leven van Philopater.
E1p5dem. Cf.: Leibniz*, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Series I–VIII, 3:2, pp. 37–38, no. 9; see also 2:1, p. 474, no. 135. The text passed to Leibniz has several textual differences compared to the OP and manuscript V: (1) Schuller*: ‘(per prop. 4.)’; V: ‘(per praeced.)’; OP: ‘(per Prop. praeced.)’. (2) Schuller: ‘una’; V: ‘una’; OP (corrected in): ‘unam’. (3) Schuller: ‘(per defin. 4. et 6.)’; V: ‘(p. defin. 3. \ax/ 6.)’; OP: ‘(per Defin. 3. & 6.)’. (4) Schuller: ‘(per prop. 4.)’; V: ‘(per praec.)’; OP: ‘(per Prop. praeced.)’. Put more concisely, Schuller must have had access to another now-lost manuscript copy of the E. Thanks are due to Steenbakkers for the foregoing information.
‘… nec ne Dus Jellisius et Hospes meus Dominus de Gent summopere Te resalutant.’ (Leibniz*, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Series I–VIII, 3:2, p. 55, no. 24).
According to Stein (‘Neue Aufschlüsse’, p. 558; Leibniz und Spinoza, p. 263), Schuller* was the OP’s mastermind, a conclusion not supported by any solid historical evidence.
5075: ‘Archief van de notarissen ter standplaats Amsterdam’, 202: Van der Ende, ms. ‘Minuutacten’, inv. no. 5103, fols 178–182. It is beyond doubt that Schuller’s small reference library must have contained books by Spinoza, perhaps even annotated copies of the OP and/or NS. The inventory of 29 April makes no explicit mention of any manuscripts in the estate, but there must have been many, including his correspondence. Cf.: Lambour, ‘De alchemistische wereld’, p. 136.
In 1672, Bouwmeester* composed Het leeven van Hai Ebn Yokdhan, the Dutch rendition from a printed Latin translation, by Edward Pococke*, of an Arabic novel by Abu Jafaar Ebn Tophail: Risālat Ḥayy ibn Yaqẓān. See for background: Chapter 7, n. 31. For the Nil volentibus arduum’s acts on Bouwmeester’s rendering: there, at n. 30.
Spinoza to an unknown addressee, < 1665.[06].[13], Ep 28 (G 4/ 162–163). Evidently, the team members preparing the OP and NS for the press must have had copies of the printed works containing their personal annotations, but no such copies have yet been found in libraries or turned up at book auctions. The auction catalogue of Bouwmeester’s private library (sold in Amsterdam on 15 April 1681) proves he owned several copies of Spinoza’s books. See further for the latter catalogue: Chapter 2, n. 58.
To Bouwmeester*, 1666.06.10, Ep 37 (G 4/187–189). Printed from the ALS, not from the surviving draft version: Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 17. Bouwmeester’s personal correspondence with Spinoza proves he was a trusted, special friend and the philosopher’s confidant. His letters exchanged with Graevius* in 1673 firmly underline that conclusion. More significantly, Bouwmeester was the intermediary who directed information and passed the necessary travel documents (through Lieutenant Colonel Jean Baptiste Stouppe*) to and from Spinoza for his trip to Utrecht in late summer 1673. The Bouwmeester – Graevius correspondence includes nineteen (unnumbered) letters covering the period 18 April 1673 to 8 February 1676. They are kept in the Thott collection (Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, 1258 4o and 1267 4o, folder ‘Breve til Graevius uden Underskrift’). Bouwmeester’s letters dealing with Spinoza’s trip to Utrecht, a set of six, were discovered, transcribed, and translated by Albert Gootjes. For a preliminary remark: Gootjes, ‘Sources inédites sur Spinoza’. On the Utrecht jaunt: Van de Ven, ‘“Crastinâ die loquar”’; Gootjes, ‘Spinoza between French Libertines and Dutch Cartesians’ (also on the Bouwmeester – Graevius exchange).
Edwin Rabbi, ‘Editing Neo-Latin Texts’, Editio, 10 (1996), pp. 25–48.
Schuller* to Leibniz*, 3/13 November 1677 (Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Series I–VIII, 3:2, p. 267, no. 100). Cf.: Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 61–62.
‘Pervelim ex Te discere num ex sequentibus libris, (quorum catalogum (: cum hac inscriptione libri rarissimi) inter posthuma reperi) unquam aliquos videris. [followed by Schuller’s list].’ (Leibniz*, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Series I–VIII, 3:2, pp. 53–54, no. 24; see also 2:1, pp. 476–477). Item 2 may have been Il capitol sopra il forno by Giovanni della Casa (1503–1556), a poem also known as ‘De sodomiae laudibus’. Furthermore, item 8 may refer to a work mentioned by Spinoza in a letter to Jelles* (1671.02.17, Ep 44, G 4/227–229): Pacificus a Lapide (Christophe von Rappe), Homo politicus, hoc est: Consiliarius novus, officiarius & aulicus, secundum hodiernam praxin (Cosmopoli: 1664).
Cf. Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 57.
Cf. G 2/319–340. The TIE’s original holograph, or an apograph of it, together with some other of Spinoza’s writings, seems to have been later directed by *Schuller to Tschirnhaus*. Cf. Tschirnhaus to Leibniz*, 10 April 1678: ‘… nec ad eas [i.e., definitiones] formandas praestantiora praecepta unquam Vidi quam quae habet Dn. Spinoza de Emendatione intellectus; quod manuscriptum a Dn. Schüllero Mihi transmissum penes Me habeo, utinam omnia relique ejus opera….’ (Leibniz*, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Series I–VIII, 3:2, p. 381, no. 154).
A letter to an otherwise unidentified friend (possibly the individual who had urged Spinoza to write a theory of politics) was added to preface the TP. See: > 1676.[07].00a, Ep 84 (G 4/ 335–336).
‘Tractatum politicum Auctor noster paulo ante obitum composuit.’ (Our writer composed the ‘Political Treatise’ on politics only shortly before his death; Preface to OP, sig. ****4v; Akkerman/Hubbeling, pp. 142–143); ‘Onze schrijver heeft de Verhandeling van de Staatkunde weinig tijts voor zijn doot gemaakt, die ook belet heeft dat zy volmaakt is geworden.’ (Our writer composed the ‘Political Treatise’ only shortly before his death, which prevented it from being perfected; Preface to NS, sig. ****4v; id., pp. 142–143). A couple of variant readings can be observed between the TP’s text in the OP and the NS. For a synopsis of the TP: Van Bunge, etc. (eds.), The Continuum Companion to Spinoza, pp. 355–358.
This is, for example, demonstrated in the abbreviation resp. for: respublica (Spinoza, Œuvres complètes. V: Tractatus politicus/Traité politique, pp. 54–55).
Ibid., 2005, p. 57.
In the NS, Jelles in the Preface (sig. ******2v) tells readers manuscript copies of Spinoza’s Hebrew grammar manual were circulating amidst ‘several learned men’. In this context, the following remark in a letter (24 June 1813) to the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) by his former Dutch pupil Petrus Gabriel van Ghert (1782–1852) is highly intriguing, to say the least: ‘Beim Aufsuchen der Spinozistischen Papiere bin ich nicht so glücklich gewesen, wie ich hoffte. Das Manuskript von seiner hebräischen Grammatik habe ich nur allein bis jetzt aufgefunden, aber ich denke noch immer, mehrere zu erhalten durch meine jetzige Konnexion mit zwei portugiesischen Juden, welche zu allem Zugang habe.’ (Johannes Hoffmeister [ed.], Briefe von and an Hegel [4 vols., Hamburg: F. Meiner Verlag, 1969], vol. 2, p. 10). So, apparently, Van Ghert was hunting for anything Spinoza and got hold of a ‘manuscript’ of the Hebrew grammar. About one year beforehand, on 12 April 1812, he had informed Hegel already thus: ‘Vor wenigen Wochen habe ich wiederum eine Rede in Felix-Meritis über Spinoza’s Philosophie gehalten, welche sehr gerühmt [worden] ist. Vorzüglich habe ich dieses getan, weil Spinoza hier in seinem Vaterlande noch allgemein verketzert und zum Atheisten gestempelt wird. Es ist möglich, daß ich einige seiner Manuskripte bekomme. Ein portugiesischer Jude hat sie mir versprochen; und ich hoffe, daß er wort halten wird.’ (ibid., vol. 1, p. 399). The Portuguese-Sephardic men indicated are still unidentified. I owe this reference to Steenbakkers.
G 1, p. 624. Cf.: Porges, ‘Spinozas Compendium’, p. 123. For the discussion holograph-apograph: Jeremias M. Hillesum, ‘De Spinozistische spraakkunst’, Chronicon Spinozanum, 1 (1921), pp. 158–177, p. 176; Porges, ‘Spinozas Compendium’, pp. 128–129.
Presumably, the sloppy Vatican copy (V) by Van Gent* was, as it stood, neither authorized by Spinoza nor meant for publication. Yet, a few readings in the former’s apograph (and in the NS) are evidently superior to the OP. For instance, the Cicero quotation (from Lealius de amicitia, 22) in: E4app5 (vita vitalis, ‘a liveable life’). The NS confirms Spinoza wrote vitalis, not rationalis (OP).
One example of slapdash copying by Van Gent* can be found on folio 25v of ms. V. The text of E2p3s reads: ‘(quod ostendit Deum hominem, vel instar hominis a vulgo concipi)’. Van Gent’s copy has ‘(quod ostendit Deum hominem, vel instar hominis a Deo)’. For those transcription errors: Spinoza to Schuller*, 1675.11.18, Ep 72 (G 4/304–306).
Cf. Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 33–35; id., ‘The Textual History of Spinoza’s Ethics’, p. 37.
Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethics, p. 129; id., ‘The Textual History of Spinoza’s Ethics’, p. 26. For a study of the ‘free’ translation in the Zk by Balling*: Akkerman, Studies, pp. 153–158.
Ibid., pp. 169–170.
‘quod ad 3am partem nostrae philosophiae attinet, ejus aliquam brevi vel tibi, si translator esse vis, vel amico de Vries mittam. et quamvis decreveram nihil mittere antequam eam absolverem; tamen, quia praeter sententiam longior evadit, nolo vos nimis diu detinere. mittam usque ad 80. propositionem circiter.’ (G 4/163; CW, vol. 2, p. 396). E3 now has fifty-nine propositions. Steenbakkers (‘Spinoza’s Life’, in Don Garrett [ed.], The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming second revised edition]) notices: ‘From inconsistencies in the cross-references in the Vatican manuscript it can be conjectured that Spinoza first cut Part III in two, and at a later moment detached Part V from what now remains of Part IV. That Part V originally was a section of Part IV may also account for the fact that it is the only part of the Ethics without definitions of its own.’. Thanks are due to Steenbakkers for providing me with the manuscript version of his contribution. De Vries: BL.
Cf. Akkerman, Studies, pp. 145–176. A further indication Balling translated E1 and E2 can be found in the last section of a letter from De Vries* to Spinoza: 1663.02.24, Ep 8 (G 4/38–41).
Spinoza to Oldenburg*, 1675.07.05*; Oldenburg to Spinoza: ‘… Tractatam illum tuum Quinque-partitum publici juris facere, ….’ (1675.07.22, Ep 62; G 4/273).
> 1675.[07].22, Ep 68 (G 4/299). For Spinoza’s reaction, see the longer quotation from the letter in: Chapter 3, n. 116. Theodorus Ryckius (1640–1690), a Leiden professor of history and eloquence, spread a rumour by letter about Spinoza’s then upcoming book on ‘God and reason’, which he wrote, was ‘one even more dangerous than the first’ (Gilles D.J. Schotel [ed.], Epistolae ineditae Theodori Ryckii, Joh. Georgii Graevii, Nicolai Heinsii ad Adrianum Blyenburgum, et Adriani Blyenburgi ad diversos, [The Hague: Noordendorp, 1843], p. 6). In this letter, he turned to the Dordrecht Orangist magistrate and jurist Adriaen Adriaensz van Blijenburg (1616–1682), imploring him to use his political influence to stop Spinoza’s work when published. Van Blijenburg (Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek, vol. 4, col. 174) was one of few urban regents who backed the first Dutch Orangist uprising (24 June 1672) in Dordrecht. Whether he lobbied for any action against the E is not known. For Ryckius: Abraham J. van der Aa (ed.), Biographisch woordenboek der Nederlanden, … (21 vols., Haarlem: J.J. van Brederode, 1852–1878), vol. 16, p. 604.
Akkerman points out ‘the Ethica cannot, like the Principia philosophiae or the Tractatus theologico-politicus, have been translated from a printed text.’ (Studies, p. 78). Differences between text and translation, together with external evidence, prove this abundantly.’. Akkerman argues that Spinoza, while staying in Amsterdam, might have the text fair-copied and took the copy back to the Hague (ibid., p. 57).
‘Differences between OP and NS occur more often at the end of the demonstrations. I counted 32 cases in the Ethica: in 9 instances there is more text in the NS than in the OP (all these passages are found in Parts I and II; …).’ (ibid., p. 80).
Ibid., p. 46.
OP, p. 235 (l. 19); NS, p. 266. See: G 2/279.20. Cf. Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 133.
A special case of doubling is E5p24. Cf. Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 83–84. For more examples: ibid., pp. 130–132. The remark by Glazemaker* is in the foreword to: Alle de brieven van L. Annaeus Seneka aan Lucilius geschreven, … (Amsterdam: 1654), sig. *3r.
G 2/124.38. Cf. Akkerman, Studies, pp. 133 and 194–197.
Ibid., p. 135. Cf.: Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 28–29, 85, and 88.
OP, p. 41; NS, p. 48 (G 2/85). Cf. Akkerman, Studies, pp. 145–146; Piet Steenbakkers, ‘Purisme et gloses marginales dans la traduction néerlandaise de 1677 de l’Ethica’, in Totaro (ed.), Spinoziana, pp. 243–244; id., ‘The Textual History of Spinoza’s Ethics’, p. 39. For a list of places in the E where the NS has more text than or differs from the OP: ibid., pp. 147–148. In few instances, the OP has more text than the NS in turn.
NS, p. 145.
Descartes*, Principia philosophiae: of Beginselen, …, part 1, § 8.
Cf. Akkerman, Studies, pp. 97–98 and 145–146.
Cf. for this: Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 133. For instance: ‘usu’ (OP, p. 234, not in the NS); ‘zeg ik’ (absent in the OP, grammatical addition in the NS, pp. 265–266).
Part 5 of the Latin E text ‘can be shown to be the only independent source of the text’ and is nowhere ‘overridden by Glazemaker’s translation’ in the NS (Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 130).
OP, p. 238. In the errata list, the error is absent. For other examples: Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 134–135.
NS, p. 270. E2p22: G 2/109–110. Back-references forced Spinoza to specify the part of the E.
Cf. Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, p. 64.
Ibid., pp. 28–29.
On the system of glosses in the Zk: Steenbakkers, ‘A Seventeenth-Century Reader’, pp. 243–246. On the tradition of including explanatory notes to contemporary texts: Frederick M. Rener, Interpretatio: Language and Translation from Cicero to Tytler (Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. 1989), esp. p. 107.
For example: ‘aevenredige getallen’; ‘a Numeri proportionales’ (E2p40dem, NS, p. 89). Cf.: Steenbakkers, ‘Purisme et gloses marginales’, p. 244.
Example: ‘of het mvoorwerpelijk wezen van een zaak voor zo veel ’t alleenlijk in denking bestaat’; marginal note: ‘m Esse objectivum’ (E2p48s; NS, p. 97). Cf. ibid., p. 245.
Ibid., pp. 245–246.
For the glosses, especially in E5: Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 136–138.
Cf. Akkerman, Studies, pp. 109–113; Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 86–87. For example: ‘arcte’ (OP, p. 236); ‘met kunst’ (NS). Cf.: ibid, p. 134.
In the NS’s margin, pp. 247–248, the Latin key words are indicated: ‘ignavi’ (3×), ‘ignavus’ (1×).
OP, pp. 218–219.
Substance is claimed (E1p6) to be causa sui and (E1p7) to exist necessarily. The argument is worked out in E1p11: ‘God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists’. E1p11dem (the classical ontological argument for God’s existence): ‘If you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore (by A7) his essence does not involve existence. But this (by P7) is absurd. Therefore God necessarily exists, q.e.d.’ (G 2/53). ‘Infinitum’/‘oneindigheid’, ‘oneindig’: Van Bunge, etc. (eds.), The Continuum Companion to Spinoza, pp. 237–239. Tschirnhaus/Oldenburg: BL.
‘De naam van onzen Schrijver is op de Tijtel, en elders alleenlijk met de voorste letteren daar af uitgedrukt; ’t welk om geen andere reden is gedaan, dan om dat hy, weinig tijts voor zijn overlijden, uitdrukkelijk begeert heeft dat men zijn naam niet voor zijn Zedekunst, die hy beval te doen drukken, zou stellen, zonder echter reden daar af te geven, de welke, naar onz oordeel, geen andere heeft geweest, dan dat hy niet gewilt heeft dat zijn wetenschap naar zijn naam genoemt zou worden.’ (NS: sig. *3v–*4r). OP: sig. *3r–v. Cf.: Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, pp. 112–113, no. 10.
‘Nam qui reliquos consilio aut re juvare cupit, ut simul summo fruantur bono, is apprime studebit eorum sibi amorem conciliare, non autem eos in admirationem traducere, ut disciplina ex ipso habeat vocabulum.’ (G 2/273; CW, I, p. 592). The text is an allusion to Terence (Eunuch, 263). Despite Spinoza’s wish his name was not to be connected with the E, he reveals himself as the author of his 1663 exposition of Descartes’s ‘Principles of Philosophy’ in E1p19s. The latter adumbration was published under his full name, so probably he saw the book only as just an exposition of Cartesianism. Also in the TP (ch. 1, § 1 [G 3/276]) he declares to be the TTP’s disguised author.
‘Letters From Certain Learned Men to B. d. S. with the Author’s Responses, Which Contribute Highly to an Elucidation of His Other Works’; OP, p. 393.
NS, p. 447.
‘… dieser hätte hernach seinen Freund, den Jilles, consultirt und sie in diese Ordnung bracht, die Briefe ausgelesen und rangirt. Ob nun gleich fast jedermann wüsste, dass er den Verleger operum Spinosae seÿ, so habe mann doch niemahls inquiriret. Gleichwohl habe er diese Befürchtet und die Spinosistische Sachen nicht in seiner Druckerey unter den andern Büchen sondern in seinem Hause an einem aparthen Orthe.’ (S/H, ms. A, quoted in W/Cz, vol. 1, p. 94). For a synopsis of Spinoza’s correspondence: Van Bunge, etc. (eds.), The Continuum Companion to Spinoza, pp. 358–360. Jelles: BL.
‘Wat de Brieven aangaat, zy zijn niet volgens de stoffe, daar af zy handelen, noch volgens d’aanzienelijkheit der gener, van, of aan de welken zy geschreven zijn, maar volgens de tijt, daar in men hen geschreven heeft, in ordening geschikt: doch echter in dier voegen, dat alle de Brieven van een zelfde persoon, met d’Antwoorden, na malkander geplaatst zijn. Dat sommige namen volkomentlijk, sommigen alleenlijk met de voorste letteren, en sommigen gantschelijk niet uitgedrukt zijn, is om reden geschied, dewijl men toch hier niet te zien heeft wie schrijft, maar alleenlijk wat geschreven word.’ (NS, sig. ******6r). Cf. also: Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, p. 146, no. 1. In the OP, it reads: ‘Epistolae nec secundùm materiam, nec secundùm eorum Authoritatem, à quibus, vel ad quos scriptae sunt, in ordinem sunt redactae, sed juxta tempora, in quibus extaratae sunt: eâ tamen ratione ordinatae sunt, ut omnes unius ejusdemque Viri Epistolae, & ad eas Responsiones se invicem sequantur. Quia verò non quis scribat, sed quid scribatur attendendum est, quaedam Scribentium Nomina omnibus literis, quaedam tantùm initialibusm quaedam nullis planè expressa sunt.’ (OP, sig. *****1v). Cf.: Akkerman and Hubbeling, ‘The Preface’, p. 147, no. 1.
The last autograph letter unearthed (1663.07.26, Ep 12A) was one by Spinoza to Meyer* (Offenberg, Brief van Spinoza). Perhaps, others survived in libraries of former Eastern Bloc countries, or in private collections not catalogued on the internet. As far as I know, in the last decades no letters or manuscripts related to Spinoza have come to any international auction rooms or have been found in private collections. Databases with lists of looted property by the Nazis mention no letters or manuscripts by Spinoza. The more interesting is the fact that, during the NWO ‘Spinoza’s Web’-project, Albert Gootjes discovered a note in Spinoza’s own handwriting scribbled on a letter from Bouwmeester* to Graevius* (14 August 1673). It reads briefly: ‘op de Pavelioens graght tusschen de bier, en veerkay ten huyse van Monsr Spyck’. (At the Paviljoensgracht, between the Bierkade and the Veerkade at the house of mister Van der Spijck; Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, ms. Thott 1267 4o, folder ‘Breve til Graevius uden Underskrift’). When leaving Utrecht in the late summer of 1673 to return to Holland, Spinoza must have jotted his address in The Hague on the backside of the letter’s address for Graevius so he could write to him. For background: Gootjes, ‘Spinoza between French Libertines and Dutch Cartesians’, pp. 15–16.
Several rejected surviving letters were known to the editors: Spinoza to Meyer*, 1663.07.26, Ep 12A (G 4/179–180); to Meyer, 1663.08.03, Ep 15 (G 4/72–73); to ***, < 1665.[06].[13], Ep 28 (G 4/ 162–163 [for its unknown recipient: Chapter 2, n. 114]); Schuller* to Spinoza, 1675.11.14, Ep 70 (G 4/301–303); to Schuller, 1675.11.18, Ep 72 (G 4/304–306).
Two letters by Oldenburg* to Spinoza were rejected: 1665.09.14–28, Ep 29 (G 4/164–165); 1676.02.11, Ep 79 (G 4/329–330). Another letter (1665.12.18, Ep 33; G 4/176–179) by Oldenburg was included in the posthumous works (OP, Letter XVI, pp. 442–444; NS, ‘Zestiende Brief’: pp. 498–500), but lacks a rejoinder. In the NS, the following statement is printed (p. 500) below the postscript: ‘d’Antwoort op deze brief word gemist.’ (The reply to this letter is missing). The statement is not contained in the OP.
‘Es wären mehr Episteln gefunden worden, als man gedruckt hätte; allein sie wären von keiner importanz gewest, daher sie verbrandt worden.’ (S/H, ms. A, in: Freudenthal, Die Lebensgeschichte Spinozas, p. 231). Twelve apographs and three autograph drafts (Spinoza, Van Blijenbergh*, Leibniz*, Schuller*) are still extant.
For background on the seventeenth-century letter and material aspects: Rudolf Rasch, Driehonderd brieven over muziek van, aan en rond Constantijn Huygens (Hilversum: Verloren, 2007), pp. 54–79.
1662.[01–06].00, Ep 6 (G 4/15–36). Boyle*, Certain Physiological Essays.
1663.02.24, Ep 8; > 1663.02.24, Ep 9 (G 4/42–46); 1663.[03].00, Ep 10 (De Vries*; G 4/47); 1664.07.20, Ep 17 (Balling*; G 4/76–78).
1664.12.12, Ep 18 (G 4/79–85); 1665.01.05, Ep 19 (G 4/86–95); 1665.01.16, Ep 20 (G 4/96–125); 1665.01.28, Ep 21 (G 4/126–133); 1665.02.19, Ep 22 (G 4/134–144); 1665.03.13, Ep 23 (G 4/145–152; issues matching E4p37); 1665.03.27, Ep 24 (G 4/153–157); 1665.06.03, Ep 27 (G 4/160–161).
1666.01.07, Ep 34 (G 4/179–180; almost verbatim in E1p8s2); 1666.04.10, Ep 35 (G 4/181–183); 1666.[06].[00], Ep 36 (G 4/183–187). Hudde: BL.
1671.02.03, Ep 42 and 1671.02.4–17*. Van Velthuysen: BL.
1671.02.4–17, Ep 43 (G 4/219–226).
Van der Meer: 1666.10.01, Ep 38 (G 4/190–193). Leibniz*: 1671.10.05, Ep 45 (G 4/230–231); 1671.11.09, Ep 46 (G 4/231–234). Fabritius: 1673.02.[26], Ep 47 (G 4/334–335); 1673.03.30, Ep 48 (G 4/335–336). Boxel: 1674.09.14, Ep 51 (G 4/242); 1674.09.15–20, Ep 52 (G 4/242–245); 1674.09.21, Ep 53 (G 4/245–250); 1674.[10].00, Ep 54 (G 4/250–254); 1674.[10/11].00, Ep 55 (G 4/254–258); 1674.[10/11].00a, Ep 56 (G 4/258–262). Tschirnhaus*: 1674.10.08, Ep 57 (G 4/264–264); 1675.01.05, Ep 59 (G 4/268–270); > 1675.01.05, Ep 60 (G 4/270–271); 1675.08.12, Ep 65 (G 4/279); 1675.08.18, Ep 66 (G 4/280); 1676.05.05, Ep 81 (G 4/332); 1676.06.23, Ep 82 (G 4/333–334); 1676.06.15, Ep 83 (G 4/334–335). Burgh*: 1675.09.03/11, Ep 67 (G 4/292–298); [1675/76].00.00, Ep 76 (G 4/316–324).
1667.03.03, Ep 39 (G 4/193–195); 1667.03.25, Ep 40 (G 4/196–201); 1669.09.05, Ep 41 (G 4/202–206); 1671.02.17, Ep 44 (G 4/227–229); 1674.06.02, Ep 50 (G 4/238–241).
1663.04.20, Ep 12 (G 4/52–62).
> 1674.10.08, Ep 58 (G 4/265–268); 1675.07.25, Ep 63 (G 4/274–476); 1675.07.29, Ep 64 (G 4/277–278); 1675.08.18, Ep 66 (in modern editions attributed to Tschirnhaus*; G 4/280); 1676.05.02, Ep 80 (also attributed to Tschirnhaus; G 4/331).
1666.06.10, Ep 37 (G 4/187–189).
On 23 March 1679, Van Gent* wrote to Tschirnhaus* in a letter (< [1675].[07].25*) he had informed Spinoza about a ‘scandal’ caused by Schuller*. Apparently, the latter would have disclosed doctrines to an alchemist by the name of ‘Vieroort’ related to Spinoza’s philosophical system, without however asking the latter for his permission. According to Van Gent’s testimony, he had sent Spinoza the letter so he could reprimand Schuller. Whether Spinoza wrote back to him is not known.
One letter was not printed in the correspondence section. It serves as an introductory letter to the TP (Spinoza to ***, > 1676.[07].00a, Ep 84 [G 3/272]: OP, p. 266; NS, p. 302).
1671.10.05, Ep 45 (G 4/230–231); 1671.11.09, Ep 46 (G 4/231–234).
Cf. Akkerman, Studies, p. 51.
1671.02.4–17, Ep 43 (G 4/219–216). Letter XLIX in the OP.
Van Blijenbergh* to Spinoza, 1664.12.12, Ep 18 (G 4/79–85). Letter XXXI in OP: p. 473. NS (‘Eenendartigste Brief’): p. 528.
1665.01.05, Ep 19 (G 4/86–95). First published by François Halma (1653–1722) in: ‘Myn heer, en seer aangename vrient’, De boekzaal der geleerde werreld, (March/April) 1705, pp. 352–359 (chapter XVI). Cf.: Spinoza, Briefwisseling, p. 518. Halma gives a transcript of either the original letter or a draft version passed to him by the unknown owner. See also: Chapter 9, n. 63.
1665.01.05, Ep 19 (G 4/86–95). Letter XXXII (OP)/‘Tweeendartigste Brief’ (NS) in the correspondence section.
1664.07.20, Ep 17 (G 4/76–78); 1665.01.05, Ep 19 (G 4/86–95); 1665.01.28, Ep 21 (G 4/126–133); 1665.03.13, Ep 23 (G 4/145–152); 1665.06.03, Ep 27 (G 4/160–161); 1666.01.07, Ep 34 (G 4/179–180); 1666.04.10, Ep 35 (G 4/181–183); 1666.[06].[00], Ep 36 (G 4/ 183–187); 1666.10.01, Ep 38 (G 4/190–193); 1667.03.03, Ep 39 (G 4/ 193–195); 1667.03.25, Ep 40 (G 4/196–201); 1669.09.05, Ep 41 (G 4/202–206); 1671.02.17, Ep 44 (G 4/227–229); 1674.06.02, Ep 50 (G 4/238–241); 1674.09.15–20, Ep 52 (G 4/242–245); 1674.[10].00, Ep 54 (G 4/250–254), and 1674.[10/11].00a, Ep 56 (G 4/258–262). Cf. Steenbakkers, p. 26.
Cf. Akkerman, Studies, p. 48. Cf. also: Jan P.N. Land, ‘Over de eerste uitgaven der brieven van Spinoza’, Verslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke Academie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, second series, 9 (1880), pp. 144–155, there at p. 148; Jan H. Leopold, Ad Spinozae Opera posthuma (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1902), pp. 58–59; G 4/369–370. These studies mistakenly claim Spinoza made the Latin translation himself. Thijssen-Schoute (Nederlands Cartesianisme, p. 254) however rejects that claim. Cf.: Akkerman, Studies, pp. 48–50; Steenbakkers, Spinoza’s Ethica, pp. 26–27.
Cf. Akkerman, Spinoza’s tekort aan woorden, p. 25; id., Studies, p. 263. According to Akkerman, Meyer* polished the Latin of the TIE, too.
Ibid., pp. 40–41.
Ibid., pp. 46 and 49–50. Cf. about the editing of the letters: Akkerman, Studies, pp. 37–59; Spinoza, Briefwisseling, 1992, p. 11.
Spinoza to Meyer*, 1663.04.20, Ep 12 (G 4/52–62). OP: pp. 465–470; NS: pp. 520–525.
Cf. Akkerman, Studies, p. 46.
1662.[01–06].00, Ep 6 (G 4/15–36). OP: pp. 405–416. For Boyle’s Certain Physiological Essays: Chapter 2, n. 8.
Akkerman, Studies, p. 41. For an overview of other editorial interventions in comparison to surviving manuscript copies (1663.04.20, Ep 12 [G 4/52–62]; 1675.12.[01], Ep 73 [G 4/306–309]; [1676].[01].[01], Ep 75 [G 4/311–316]; [1675/76].00.00; Ep 76 [G 4/ 316–324]; 1676.02.07, Ep 78 [G 4/326–329]) made by Leibniz*, see: ibid., p. 45.
The theory was put forward in the 1895 reprint of: Spinoza, Opera quotquot reperta sunt. Cf. its commentaries for Letters XIX, XXI, XXXIV, XL, XLI, L, LIII, and LIV. The hypothesis was rejected by: Leopold (Ad Spinozae Opera posthuma, p. 22); Giovanni Crapulli, ‘Le Note marginali latine nelle versioni olandesi di opera di Descartes di J.H. Glazemaker’, in id. and Emilia Giancotti Boscherini (eds.), Richerche lessicali su opere di Descartes e Spinoza (Rome: Edizione dell’Ateneo, 1969), pp. 5–117; Akkerman, Studies, pp. 49–56.
Ibid., p. 47. For a brief typology of the idiomatic translating by Glazemaker*: ibid., pp. 101–126; id., ‘J.H. Glazemaker, an Early Translator of Spinoza’, pp. 24–27. For his marginal notes in his translation of Descartes*: Crapulli, ‘Le Note marginali latine’.
Cf. Akkerman, Studies, pp. 46–49 and 84.
1665.03.27, Ep 24 (G 4/153–157).
The following surviving letters have editors’ captions: Schuller* to Spinoza, 1675.07.25, Ep 63 (G 4/274–276); Spinoza to Schuller, 1675.11.18, Ep 72 (G 4/304–306); Oldenburg* to Spinoza, 1676.02.11, Ep 79 (all for the OP; G 4/329–330); Van Blijenbergh* to Spinoza, 1665.01.16, Ep 20 (G 4/96–125); 1665.02.19, Ep 22 (G 4/134–144); 1665.03.27, Ep 24 (NS; G 4/153–157).
OP, I, p. 515; NS, ‘Eerste Brief’, p. 569. Letter XXXVII in the OP (1665.03.27, Ep 24; G 4/153–157) has the following heading: ‘EPISTOLA XXXVII. Viro Clarissimo, | B. d. S. | GUILIELMUS DE BLYENBERG. | Responsio ad praecedentem. | Versio.’ (Letter 37. Willem van Blijenbergh to the Very Distinguished B. d. S. Reply to the preceding. Rendering).
‘Omnia posthuma Domini Spin. opera Typographo tradita sunt, in illorum editione sedulo pergitur. Edentur autem in idiomate Latino et Belgico simul.’ (Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Series I–VIII, 3:2, p. 202, no. 66). Leibniz* replied to it on [2 October 1677] from [Linsburg]: ibid., pp. 239–241, no. 84. The letter contained no remarks about Spinoza or the OP/NS.