1 See Freudenthal 5, 1:148ff.

2 A stronger reason, perhaps, is the fact that we know that Spinoza preferred not to write in Dutch (IV/95) and that Balling had a good knowledge of Latin. See AHW, 459-460.

3 Wolf 3, 51; AHW, 45.

4 Akkerman (2, 145-160) makes a very strong case for regarding Balling as the translator of EI-II in the NS, and Gebhardt has suggested him as the translator of the KV.

5 AHW, 47.

1 This subheading in the OP generally signals a translation from the Dutch. But AHW plausibly conjecture that in this case the original may have been written in Spanish. Cf. the Preface, p. 351.

2 Since Spinoza moved from Rijnsburg to Voorburg in April 1663, he is probably referring to the winter of 1662-1663, rather than the winter just ended.

3 I.e., Descartes’ “Principles” and the Metaphysical Thoughts.

4 An allusion to a line from the Greek poet Epicharmus (AHW).

5 Probably this language was Spanish, the language used in the Amsterdam Jewish community for instruction in the schools, and for literary and religious discussions. Portuguese was the language of daily life and of business; Hebrew, the language of prayer. See AHW, Wolf, Roth and Freudenthal 5, 1:316.

6 Here van Blijenbergh quotes in Latin from the Metaphysical Thoughts (I/247/34-35).

7 So A and NS; the OP corrects to: “essence.”

8 At this point van Blijenbergh quotes in parentheses from the Latin text of Principles P15S (I/175/29-31): “but [assenting to confused things contains imperfection] only insofar as we thereby deprive ourselves of the best liberty, which belongs to our nature and is in our power.”

9 Here van Blijenbergh quotes again from the Latin text of Principles IP15S (I/174/14-17).

10 A quotation from Principles IP15S (I/175/31-33).

11 So A and NS; the OP again corrects to: “essence.”

12 Van Blijenbergh here quotes a passage from IV/94/27ff.; but not accurately.

13 A not very exact quotation of I/174/15-16.

14 AT VII, 59-60.

15 Westerbrink notes that there is an echo of Ecclesiastes here: “I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men that God is testing them to show them that they are but beasts. For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other” (3:18-19 RSV). Westerbrink thinks Spinoza is not conscious of setting himself in opposition to scripture, though this seems doubtful to me.

16 AHW note (following Dunin-Borkowski, 4:113-117) that Spinoza’s inaccurate conception of Socinianism probably stemmed from his contact with Meyer.

17 OP: “fifth argument.” I follow AHW (and the NS). I also accept Wolf’s emendation of the punctuation.

18 The quotations, which are not very exact, come from IV/128/26ff.

19 A, NS: “existence.” Cf. IV/100.

20 This is Spinoza’s first reference in the correspondence to his Ethics under that title. The fact that the topic referred to is taken up only late in the Ethics as we have it (IVP37S2, IVP72) indicates that the work must already have been well-advanced. But neither of the passages cited is precisely parallel, an indication, as AHW suggest, that in 1665 the manuscript had not yet reached its definitive form.

21 The bracketed portion is not printed in the OP or NS.

22 I/132/8-17. Van Blijenbergh here paraphrases Balling’s Dutch translation.

23 In October 1664 the English had seized the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam. When Dutch protests were ignored, war broke out in March 1665.

24 Robert Hooke’s Micrographia.

25 In the form in which it has come down to us, Part III of the Ethics contains only fifty-nine propositions. But Spinoza is evidently close to the end of the work as he conceives it at this time; since the work in this state clearly contains material which in the finished Ethics occurs only late in Part IV (cf. IV/151, II/136), it appears that at this stage the Ethics was a three-part work. On this, see Freudenthal 5, 1:147-148.