JBY Notes:

1.  Unless  noted,  the  texts  are  the translations of the "Selected Letters"
     by  R. H. M. Elwes, (based on Bruder's 1843 Latin Text),  as printed by
     Dover Publications  (NY: 1955) in Book I.  This is, the book assures us,
     "an unabridged and unaltered republication  of the Bohn Library edition
     originally published  by  George  Bell and Sons in 1883.''  As  it  is more 
     than a century old, it is incontestably in the public domain. 

2.  Page numbers given refer to Book I except where otherwise noted.

3.  See  Terry Neff  for  Selected Correspondence  from  Book 1.

4.  See Shirley's Bk.XIII for Shirley's translation and an "Introduction
     and Notes" by Steven Barbone, Lee Rice, and Jacob Adler.  
     See Note 8.  

5.  Paragragh numbers, added by JBY, are shown thus [x].

6.  Symbols:
             (Spinoza's quote or the Latin word),  
             [ Curley's Book VIII Translation variation or Footnote ],  
             ] Shirley's Book XIII or Book XIII Translation variation or Footnote [, 
             < Parkinson's Book XV Translation variation or Endnote >, 
            { JBY Comment }.         LINKS.  

7.   For letters not included see Book 1 or Book XIII Correspondence.

8.  Elwes's  Letter  Numbering  ( sorted according to correspondent )
     is  as  found  in  the  written-in-Latin  Opera  Posthuma.  
 
     Letter Numbers shown green (xx) are as arranged in Van Vloten's
     edition (sorted according to date) and are those used in Book XIII
     (see Bk.1:2751). I recommend reading the Letters in Bk, XIII because 
     of its Introduction and informative footnotes.  
 
     For introduction to Oldenburg correspondence see LT:Bk.XIII:8.

9.  See Photocopy of end of L52(46):371 from Spinoza to Leibniz.
                Book XIII:248  

10.  Please report errors, clarification requests, disagreement, or  
       suggestions to josephb@yesselman.com.  

 
          Letters 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 25A, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
                    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 41A, 42, 49, 50, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 
                    65, 66, 68b, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75. 

From Shirley's Bk.XIII:8—Introduction to Oldenburg correspondence.

The period from 1661 to 1665 includes an extended correspondence with       Bx. XIII:200183
Spinoza and  marks  a continued effort on Oldenburg's part to obtain a full 
understanding  of  Spinoza's  philosophy.  Spinoza's  reply to Oldenburg's 
offer  to  initiate  an  exchange  of  letters  (Ep2, dated September of 1661 
and sent from Rijnsburg)  reveals  both the enthusiasm generated by their 
earlier   meeting   and  his  respect  and  affection  for  his  correspondent. 
Hampered  in  part  by  his  theological inclinations and also by his lack of 
formal  training  in  philosophy,  Oldenburg was never to achieve this goal 
of  a  deep understanding of Spinoza's philosophy.  Spinoza's patient and 
detailed  replies to his queries, often elaborated with examples, make this     { Importance of 
block  of  correspondence  extremely valuable for understanding the more     correspondence } 
complex  sections  of the Ethics.  Meinsma's remark on this count is worth 
quoting:  

What  he  lacked  in  understanding  was  made up for by Oldenburg
with  friendship and moderation.  At no time did he forget the respect 
which the mind and character of his friend had inspired, never did he 
become  sidetracked  on  the  false routes pursued by the vociferous 
and  the  fanatics  who  hatefully  assaulted  the  philosopher,  whom           condemn  
they  in  no  way understood, treating him as an anti-christ and as an 
apostle of disbelief. 
]Meinsma 465, translation ours[  

Despite  their  continual disagreements and misunderstandings in matters           JBYnote1 
of  philosophy  and  of  physics,  the  two  thinkers  retained  both respect 
and  deep  friendship  for  one  another throughout their many exchanges. 
The  first  four  letters (Ep l-4),  dated 1661, deal with general questions of 
philosophical  method,  and  probably  relate  directly to the conversations 
between them during Oldenburg's visit. 
 

From Bk.I:293
LT:L16(33):293.

                   Oldenburg to Spinoza. London, 8 Dec. 1665
                          {Oldenburg responds to Spinoza Letter 15.}
                                 {Oldenburg correspondence.}

[After some remarks on Spinoza's last letter, and an account of experiments at the Royal Society and at Oxford, Oldenburg mentions a report about the return of the Jews to Palestine].

                                        *         *         *         *        *       *
But I pass on to politics. Everyone here is talking of a report that the Jews, after remaining scattered for more than two thousand years, are about to return to their country181. Few here believe in it, but many desire it. Please tell your friend what you hear and think on the matter. For my part, unless the news is confirmed from trustworthy sources at Constantinople, which is the place chiefly concerned, I shall not believe it. I should like to know, what the Jews of Amsterdam have heard about the matter, and how they are affected by such important tidings page 294 which, if true, would assuredly seem to harbinger the end of the world. * * * * *
Believe me to be                                            ]a world crisis ^ [ 

                                                                                         Yours most zealously, 
                                                                                                     HENRY OLDENBURG  

P.S. I will shortly, (D.V.) tell you the opinion of our philosophers on the recent comets.
 

Henry Oldenburg
London, 8 Dec.,16651 & 183 

[End] - L16(33):293

]Bk. XIII:200181.  The reference is to a movement led by Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676), who was a false messiah rather than a proto-Zionist. Spinoza's reply to this letter, unfortunately, is lost; but we know (see the TTP, Chapter 3) that he had no sympathy for proto-Zionism. For a summary of the Marrano {a Spanish or Portuguese Jew forced to convert to Christianity during the late Middle Ages} origins of many of the Zionist movements in the seventeenth century, see Gabriel Albiac, La synagogue vide: Les sources marranes du spinozisme, trs. M.-L. Copete and J.-F. Schaub (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1994). On Zevi see Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973 [note spelling as 'Sevi']. Contemporary sources of Zevi's works include The Restauration of the Jewes (London: R.R., 1665); Several New Letters Concerning the Jevves (London: Printed by A. Maxwel, 1666); and God's Love of His People Israel (London: Printed by A. Maxwell, 1666) [note different spellings of 'Maxwel(l)]. Peter Serrarius was no doubt Oldenburg's main source of information regarding Zevi. He was known to have been in contact with Oldenburg.[

]Bk. XIII:200183.  Following this Letter 16 there is a gap of approximately ten years in the correspondence between Spinoza and Oldenburg. This gap is partly explained by the war between England and Holland (1665-1667), the Great Fire (1666), and the imprisonment of Oldenburg in the Tower of London (30 June until 26 August 1667).[  
{See Footnote 1.}
 

From Bk.I:294
LT:L17(61):294. 

                    Oldenburg to Spinoza. London, 8 Dec.,16751 & 183
                ] Known only From the O.P. The original is lost. The data, wrongly given
                                  in the Latin, is correctly given in the Dutch edition. [
                                         {Oldenburg correspondence}

[Oldenburg thanks Spinoza for the Tractatus Theoligico-Politicus despatched but not received, and modifies an adverse verdict expressed in a former letter (now lost).]

[L17:1]  I was unwilling to let pass the convenient opportunity offered me by the journey to Holland of the learned Dr. Bourgeois, an adherent of the Reformed religion, for expressing my thanks a few weeks ago for your treatise forwarded to me, but not yet arrived. But I am doubtful whether my letter was duly delivered. I indicated in them my opinion on the treatise; but on deeper and more careful inspection I now think that my verdict was hasty. Certain arguments seemed to me to be urged at the expense of religion, as measured by the standard supplied by the common run of theologians and the received formulas of creeds which are evidently biassed. But a closer consideration of the whole subject convinced me, that you are far from attempting any injury to true religion and sound philosophy, but, on the contrary, strive to exalt ]commend[ and establish the true object ]purpose[, {Mark Twain} of the Christian religion {Hampshire:202, JBYnote1} and the divine loftiness of fruitful philosophy.  

[L17:2]  Now that I believe that this is your fixed purpose ]intention[ , I would most earnestly beg you to have the kindness to write frequently and explain the nature of what you are now preparing and considering with this object to your old and sincere friend, who is all eager for the happy issue of so lofty a design ]divine undertaking[. I sacredly promise you, that I will not divulge a syllable to anyone, if you enjoin silence; I will only endeavour gently to prepare the minds of good and wise men for the reception of those truths, which you will some day bring before a wider public ]some day bring forth into the broader light of day[, and I will try to dispel the prejudices, which have been conceived against your doctrines ]thoughts[. Unless I am quite mistaken, you have an insight deeper than common into the nature and powers of the human mind, and its union with the human body. I earnestly beg you to favour me with your reflections on this subject. Farewell, most excellent Sir, and favour the devoted admirer of your teaching and virtue,  

                                                                                                   HENRY OLDENBURG.

London, 8 June, 16751 & 183
 

Oldenburg to Spinoza
London, 8 Dec.,16751

[End] - L17(61):294

1. The old edition gives the date 8 Oct., 1665; but this is obviously incorrect,
as the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus was not published till 1670. 183
  

From Bk.I:295
L18(62):295.

                  Oldenburg to Spinoza. London, 22 July.,1675
                     ] Known only from the O.P. The original is lost. [
                                {Oldenburg correspondence}

[Oldenburg rejoices at the renewal of correspondence, and alludes to the five books of the Ethics which Spinoza (in a letter now lost) had announced his intention of publishing.]

[1]  Our correspondence being thus happily renewed, I should be unwilling to fall short of a friend's duty in the exchange of letters. I understand from your answer delivered to me on July 5, that you intend to publish your treatise in five parts.303 Allow me, I beg, to warn you by the sincerity of your affection for me, not to insert any passages which may seem to discourage the practice of religion and virtue; especially as nothing is more sought after in this degenerate and evil age than doctrines {that there is no good or bad} of the kind, which seem to give countenance to rampant vice.304 

[L18:2]  However, I will not object to receiving a few copies of the said treatise. I will only ask you that, when the time arrives, they may be entrusted to a Dutch merchant living in London, who will see that they are forwarded to me. There is no need to mention, that books of the kind in question have been sent to me: if they arrive safely to my, keeping, I do not doubt that I can conveniently dispose of some copies to my friends here and there, and can obtain a just price for them. Farewell, and when you have leisure write to

                                                                              Yours most zealously,
                                                                                         HENRY OLDENBURG.

Oldenburg to Spinoza
London, 22 July.,1675

[End] - L18(62):293

]Bk. XIII:200303.  In L(28) (1665, to Bouwmeester), Spinoza's plans appear to have been to divide the Ethics into three parts. By 1675 its division was the fivefold one138 in which it was finally published after his death.[

]Bk. XIII:200304.  For the historical reasons for Oldenburg's adopting of a more cautious and perhaps even fearful attitude than that expressed in his earlier letters, see our Introduction, section 2.[  

From Bk. XIII (L28):179.

                To the learned and experienced Johan Bouwmeester, from Spinoza.

[This letter is extant, but does not appear in the O.P. It was first published by Van Vloten in 1860. On the back of the letter is a note, presumably by one of the editors of the O.P., to the effect that the letter was 'of no value'. Hence its omission. It is undated, but can be assigned to June 1665.]

My very special friend, 

[L(28):1]  I don't know whether you have completely forgotten me, but there are many circumstances which make me think so. First, when I was about to set out on my journey and wanted to bid you good-bye, and felt sure, being invited by you yourself, that I would find you at home, I was told that you had gone to the Hague. I returned to Voorburg, confident that you would at least call on me in passing; but you, if it pleases the gods, have returned home without greeting your friend. Finally, I have waited three weeks, and in all that time I have seen no letter from you. So if you want to banish this opinion of mine, you will easily do so by a letter, in which you can also indicate some way of arranging our correspondence, of which we once talked in your house.

[L(28):2]  Meanwhile I should like to ask you in all earnestness, indeed, to beseech and urge you by our friendship, to apply yourself with real energy to serious work, and to prevail on yourself to devote the better part of your life to the cultivation of your intellect and your soul. Now, I say, while there is yet time, and before you complain that time, and indeed you yourself, have slipped by.  

[L(28):3]  Next, to say something about our proposed correspondence so as to encourage you to write more freely, you should know that I have previously suspected and am practically certain that you have rather less confidence in your abilities than is right, and that you are afraid that you may ask or propose something unbefitting a man of learning. But is it not seemly for me to praise you to your face and recount your gifts. Still, if you fear that I may communicate your letters to others to whom you would then become a laughing-stock, on this matter I give you my word that I shall henceforth regard them as sacred and shall not communicate them to any mortal without your leave. On these terms you Bk,XIII:180 can begin our correspondence, unless perchance you doubt my good faith, which I don't believe. However, I look to hear your views on this from your first letter.

[L(28):4]  At the same time I also expect some of the conserve of red roses136 which you promised, although I have now for a long time felt better. On leaving there, I opened a vein once, but the fever did not abate (although I was somewhat more active even before the bloodletting because of the change of air, I think). But I have suffered two or three times with tertian fever, though by good diet I have at last rid myself of it and sent it packing. Where it went I know not, but I don't want it back.  

[L(28):5]  With regard to the third part of my Philosophy, I shall soon be sending some of it to you, if you wish to be its translator, or to our friend de Vries.137 Although I had decided to send none of it until I had finished it, yet since it is turning out to be longer than expected, I don't want to keep you waiting too long. I shall send it up to about the eightieth proposition.138

[L(28):6]  I hear much about English affairs,139 but nothing certain. The people do not stop suspecting all kinds of evil, and no one can find any reason why the fleet does not set sail. And indeed the situation does not yet seem secure. I fear that our side want to be too wise and far-sighted. Still, the event will show in due course what they have in mind and what they are after—may the gods prosper it.140 I should like to know what our people there are thinking, and what they know for certain, but more than that, and above all else, that you consider me ...

                                                                                                   
                                                                                                     {Signature added.}

]Bk. XIII:180136  Bouwmeester was a physician (see our introduction, section 3), and, as it was held that a conserve of red roses is remedial for diseases of the lungs, he probably prescribed this remedy to Spinoza. Note that this letter is the earliest indication we have of the tuberculosis which eventually killed Spinoza.[

]Bk. XIII:180137,  Concerning de Vries, see our introduction, section 3.[

]Bk. XIII:180138. The third part of the Ethics has only 59 propositions, not 80. We believe that Spinoza had originally thought that this work would include only three parts and that he decided to divide it into five parts.[

]Bk. XIII:180139. At the time, the Dutch were at war with the English, and the Dutch navy remained in the harbours instead of engaging the English. Spinoza's worries turned out to be reasonable since when the Dutch did finally attack on June 13, 1665, it was a disastrous defeat for them.[

]Bk. XIII:180140. There is more than one passage in which Spinoza refers to the gods (dei). Rather than reflecting any type of polytheism on Spinoza's part, it was probably just an idiomatic expression. Certainly Spinoza could not say 'G-D willing' and remain consistent with his own teaching. 'May the gods prosper it' is just a way of expressing a certain hope for the future.[
 
 

Letter 31(18):327—William De Blyenbergh to Spinoza. S91
                               Dordrecht, 12 Dec., 1664. 
   [See Elwes Introduction, p. xvi. The correspondence with Blyenbergh was originally conducted in Dutch.]
        Amusing testimonies to Spinoza's reputation are afforded by the volunteered effusions of Blyenbergh.
 
[L31:1]  Unknown Friend and Sir,—I have already read several times with attention your treatise and its appendix recently published. I should narrate to others more becomingly than to yourself the extreme solidity I found in it, and the pleasure with which I perused it. But I am unable to conceal my feelings from you, because the more frequently I study the work with attention, the more it pleases me, and I am constantly observing something which I had not before remarked. However, I will not too loudly extol its author, lest I should seem in this letter to be a flatterer. I am aware that the gods grant all things to labour. Not to detain you too long with wondering who I may be, and how it comes to pass that one unknown to you page 328 takes the liberty of writing to you, I will tell you that he is a man who is impelled by his longing for pure and unadulterated truth, and desires during this brief and frail life to fix his feet in the ways of science, so far as our human faculties will allow; one who in the pursuit of truth has no goal before his eyes save truth herself; one who by his science seeks to obtain as the result of truth neither honor nor riches, but simple truth and tranquillity; one who, out of the whole circle of truths and sciences, takes delight in none more than in metaphysics, if not in all branches at any rate in some; one who places the whole delight of his life in the fact, that he can pass in the study of them his hours of ease and leisure. But no one, I rest assured, is so blessed as yourself, no one has carried his studies so far, and therefore no one has arrived at the pitch of perfection which, as I see from your work, you have attained. To add a last word, the present writer is one with whom you may gain a closer acquaintance, if you choose to attach him to you by enlightening and interpenetrating, as it were, his halting meditations.

[L31:2]  But I return to your treatise. While I found in it many things which tickled my palate vastly, some of them proved difficult to digest. Perhaps a stranger ought not to report to you his objections, the more so as I know not whether they will meet with your approval. This is the reason for my making these prefatory remarks, and asking you, if you can find leisure in the winter evenings, and, at the same time, will be willing to answer the difficulties which I still find in your book, and to forward me the result, always under the condition that it does not interrupt any occupation of greater importance or pleasure; for I desire nothing more earnestly than to see the promise made in your book fulfilled by a more detailed exposition of your opinions. I should have communicated to you by word of mouth what I now commit to paper; but my ignorance of your address, the infectious disease, (The plague, which had prevailed on the Continent during 1664, was introduced into London in the very month in which this letter was written, perhaps from Holland.) and my duties here, prevented me. I must defer the pleasure for the present.

[L31:3]  However, in order that this letter may not be quite page 329 empty, and in the hope that it will not be displeasing to you, I will ask you one question. You say in various passages in the "Principia," and in the "Metaphysical Reflections," either as your own opinion, or as explaining the philosophy of Descartes, that creation and preservation are identical (which is, indeed, so evident to those who have considered the question as to be a primary notion); secondly, that God has not only created substances, but also motions in substances—in other words, that God, by a continuous act of creation preserves, not only substances in their normal state, but also the motion and the endeavours {conatus} of substances. God, for instance, not only brings about by His immediate will and working (whatever be the term employed), that the soul {'soul' is not clear, not distinct—not hypothesized} should last and continue in its normal state; but He is also the cause of His will determining, in some way, the movement of the soul—in other words, as God, by a continuous act of creation, brings about that things should remain in existence, so is He also the cause of the movements and endeavours existing in things. In fact, save God, there is no cause of motion. It therefore follows that God is not only the cause of the substance of mind, but also of every endeavour or motion of mind, which we call volition {free-will - Mark Twain}, as you frequently say. From this statement it seems to follow necessarily, either that there is no evil in the motion or volition of the mind, or else that God directly brings about that evil. For that which we call evil comes to pass through the soul, and, consequently, through the immediate influence and concurrence of God. For instance, the soul of Adam wishes to eat of the forbidden fruit. It follows from what has been said above, not only that Adam forms his wish through the influence of God, but also, as will presently be shown, that through that influence he forms it in that particular manner. Hence, either the act forbidden to Adam is not evil, inasmuch as God Himself not only caused the wish, but also the manner of it, or else God directly brought about that which we call evil. Neither you nor Descartes seem to have solved this difficulty by saying that evil is a negative conception, and that, as such, God cannot bring it about. Whence, we may ask, came the wish to eat the forbidden fruit, or the wish of devils to be equal with God? page 330 For since (as you justly observe) the will is not something different from the mind, but is only an endeavour or movement of the mind, the concurrence of God is as necessary to it as to the mind itself. Now the concurrence of G-D, as I gather from your writings, is merely the determining of a thing in a particular manner through the will of G-D. It follows that God concurs no less in an evil wish, in so far as it is evil, than in a good wish in so far as it is good, in other words, He determines it. For the will of God being the absolute cause of all that exists, either in substance or in effort, seems to be also the primary cause of as evil wish, in so far as it is evil. Again, no exercise of volition takes place in us, that God has not known from all eternity. If we say that God does not know of a particular exercise of volition, we attribute to Him imperfection. But how could God gain knowledge of it except from His decrees? Therefore His decrees are the cause of our volitions, and hence it seems also to follow that either an evil wish is not evil, or else that God is the direct cause of the evil, and brings it about. There is no room here for the theological distinction between an act and the evil inherent in that act. For God decrees the mode of the act, no less than the act, that is, God not only decreed that Adam should eat, but also that he should necessarily eat contrary to the command given. Thus it seems on all sides to follow, either that Adam's eating contrary to the command was not an evil, or else that God Himself brought i