Dates in this study are given according to the Gregorian calendar unless indicated otherwise. This calendar, also known as ‘New Style’, was introduced in Roman Catholic countries in 1582. The Gregorian year starts on 1 January. In specific cases, when primarily historical events are discussed from those Provinces in the Dutch Republic adhering to the ‘Old Style’ (such as Utrecht and Gelderland, until 1700/01), dates of particularly letters are designated according to both the Gregorian and the Julian (‘Old Style’) calendars. German-speaking countries went over to the Gregorian calendar in 1700. Britain used the Julian calendar until 1752. Previously, in England the civil or legal year had begun on 25 March (Lady Day). Hence, an event happening on 1 January 1670 was therefore recorded as 1 January 1669/70 (‘Old Style’).
Conjectural dates and places are always put between square brackets. Conjectures, such as authors’ names for (semi-)clandestinely published writings, are also placed between square brackets. Other conjectures in this study in notes and in the bibliography, such as authors’ names hiding behind aliases, are also placed between square brackets. Notice in this context that a set of parentheses nested inside round brackets are also designated with square brackets; they are, arguably, not conjectures.
If relevant, dates are given according to the neutral BCE/CE notation system. Generally, quotations are translated into English and given according to their manuscript or most reliable printed source. Quotations of Spinoza’s seventeenth-century printed Latin works and letters are given with their diacritics. With respect to the Dutch philosopher’s correspondence, quotations from letters are given according to the (most likely) language in which they were originally written, i.e., either Latin or Dutch, and translated into English. Translations from the Bible follow the King James version. Church records, notarial deeds, and other historical records are given with their archives’ access and inventory numbers if known.
Since there were no strict rules in orthography in seventeenth-century Dutch and other languages, the rendering of words was multiform and variants of identical words and names may occur in historical documents. Variant readings in quotations and abbreviations are commonly dealt with silently. Ligatures, accent marks, ampersands, and other typographical irregularities, such as the e caudata (tailed e), the long s (ſ), and the sharp s (ß), are only given in instances if they are relevant or functional, for instance, in full quasi-facsimile descriptions of the text of seventeenth-century title-pages.
In this study, the anachronistic terms ‘science/scientist’ are largely avoided. The term ‘scientist’ was only coined by William Whewell (1794–1866) in 1833 and first published in the Quarterly Review in Whewell’s review (1834) of Mary Somerville’s On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences. In general, I prefer to use ‘natural philosophy/natural philosopher’ instead. Moreover, the empty terms ‘spinozist’ and ‘spinozism’ are also ignored. Nevertheless, Spinoza’s adversaries preferred to refer with these qualifications to contemporary authors they considered to belong to a specific intellectual sect sharing a fascination for Spinoza’s philosophical system.
The widely-used yet confusing term ‘printer’s device’ in bibliography is, in my opinion, to be considered historically totally inappropriate and will be completely ignored. For, commonly, title-pages’ imprints and their accompanying vignettes, if veracious and not fictitious, were that of booksellers acting as publishers, unless expressed otherwise. The exception concerns imprints with devices explicitly declaring to be produced by a printer who was at the same time also serving as a publisher. Such an exception is for example Een brief aan een vriendt (Letter to a Friend), a work declaring on its title-page to be turned out (1678) by the Amsterdam compositor-printer Israel Abrahamsz de Paull: ‘Ghedruckt by Israël de Paull, in de Tuyn-straet, 1678’. In general, in this bibliography I opt for the term ‘title-page imprint’, or simply ‘imprint’.
Back references in this study are indicated with chapter number and section. In footnotes books and articles are generally referred to according to the full reference-short reference system. The first reference mentions author(s), title, year of publication, relevant pages or columns, and notes. Second references give author(s), short title, relevant pages or columns, and notes. Likewise, all titles in footnotes are given in full in the Bibliography. Refences to works up to 1800 are indicated with year(s) of publication without publisher, unless useful. The Bibliography includes manuscript sources related to Spinoza, printed primary sources up to 1800, reference and text editions, auction catalogues, as well as secondary sources. Publishers of works issued before 1800 as well as the names of separate institutions and their (sub)series are generally ignored in the Bibliography and notes. Unpublished PhD theses are only indicated with their year of publication.
Digitized seventeenth-century editions of Spinoza’s writings are given with their permanent hyperlinks (all last accessed and checked in 2020). All references to the Amsterdam city archives are given in the notes without reference to both place (Amsterdam) and institution (Stadsarchief). These references begin with the access number of the archive indicated, followed by collection name, number and notary’s surname, manuscript, period, inventory number, and further specifics. For example: 5075: ‘Archief van de notarissen ter standplaats Amsterdam’, 85: Van Loosdrecht, ‘Minuutacten van testamenten, huwelijkse voorwaarden etc. In “Protocol”, 1645–1677’, inv. no. 1981/4, 1 January 1661–4 September 1665, fols 170v–171r.
Proper Names and Place Names
In the seventeenth century, Dutch spelling was inconsistent. Family names were spelled in a variety of ways and academics, aside their vernacular names (plus the variants in the local dialect), used also Latin monikers. Because no standardized spelling existed proper names are given in the modern forms now preferred: Descartes instead of Cartesius, Wittich instead of Wittichius, but Casearius instead of Keezer.
The Dutch prefixes ‘de’ and ‘van’ are not part of a family name, but mentioning people by using these prefixes is good practice: Lambertus van Velthuysen, or Van Velthuysen (instead of: Velthuysen), Regnerus van Mansveld, or Van Mansveld (instead of: Mansveld), etc. Seventeenth-century naming practice took the name of the person’s father (or in some cases the mother): e.g., the genitival patronymics Rieuwertsz (Rieuwert’s son) or Jaspersen (Jasper’s son).
Names of people from or working in the United Provinces are commonly given according to the Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek (Leiden: 1911–37), edited by Philipp C. Molhuysen, etc. German names follow their spellings in VD17 (‘Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 17. Jahrhunderts’, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, in collaboration with the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel). For English names, in principle I follow their spellings in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. French family names are spelled according to the general catalogue of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BN-OPALE PLUS).
Topographical names are indicated by their local forms (e.g., Amsterdam, Utrecht, Leuven) unless a more common equivalent in English is in vogue: The Hague (instead of ’s-Gravenhage) and Cologne (not Köln). Dutch institutions and technical terms are given in italics should no satisfactory English equivalent be available (see: Explanatory Notes).
Key figures in Spinoza’s life and times are discussed in more detail in the Biographical Lexicon (BL) annexed to this study; in notes and indexes they are marked with an asterisk following the commonly given family name (Descartes*). Others at first mention are referred to with the years of their birth and death, if known.
A New Letter Numbering System
During my long-term research into Spinoza’s exchange, I have reconstructed the Dutch philosopher’s correspondence anew, mended dates, in a few instances corrected even the name of some of the letters’ correspondents, and studied their enclosures. Redated letters can vary, arguably, with those dates previously in Spinoza scholarship assigned to letters. With respect to dating, in this descriptive bibliography letters in the Dutch philosopher’s correspondence are assigned a special code (yy, mm, dd), all conforming to the Gregorian calendar (‘New Style’). The mathematical symbols < or > in front of a code indicate ‘before’ or ‘after’ any given date. Conjectures are always put between square brackets. If a month and/or day of a letter is unknown the code ‘00’ is provided. Codes keyed with an asterisk signify a postulated letter.
To avoid any confusion, single letter codes (if applicable) are followed by the in Spinoza scholarship commonly used ‘Ep’ number, introduced by Van Vloten and Land (Opera quotquot reperta sunt, 1883: vol. 2). For example: 1661.08.26, Ep 1, or: > 1662.[07].[15], Ep 7. Generally, a letter code is followed by a reference to the standard 1925 Gebhardt edition, with volume and relevant numbering. For example: 1665.01.16, Ep 20 (G 4/96–125). A postulated letter is referred to thus: 1663.01.11*, evidently without traditional ‘Ep’ number and reference to the Gebhardt edition.
A Newfound Postulated Letter to Spinoza
During research for this study, in 2019 Piet Steenbakkers and I have been able to postulate a letter to Spinoza hitherto unknown. This letter is no longer extant and its contents are unknown, but quite possibly its sender might have discussed issues related to the Tractatus theologico-politicus. Presumably, the letter was written by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716). It was sent to The Hague via an intermediary from Mainz, through the diplomatic bag in all likelihood. The unidentified letter’s sender had it enclosed in another letter, dated 25 March 1672, written by Leibniz’s friend Johann Lincker von Lützenwick (1615–1698), privy counsellor to the archbishop of Trier in Mainz. Lincker dispatched his letter with its enclosure to Johann Daniel Crampricht von Kronefeld (1622–1693), a diplomat representing the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I in The Hague. Soon thereafter, the latter informed Lincker, in another still extant letter (4 April 1672), he had delivered the letter to Spinoza on his behalf.
The new letter has received the following letter code: < 1672.03.25*. For the letter, see in this study further: Chapter 3, n. 133. I am indebted to Anja Fleck (Hanover, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek – Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek) who kindly helped me out locating Crampricht’s letter and forwarded a digital photo to me.