1. Ludwig Stein, Leibniz und Spinoza (Berlin: George Reimer, 1890); see especially chapter V, ‘Die Spinoza freundliche Periode (1676–1679)’, pp. 60–110.
2. Third edition (Paris: Gallimard, 1975). See especially Appendix II, `Note sur le livre de Ludwig Stein’, and pp. 276–9.
3. For Adams, see his Leibniz. Determinist, Theist, Idealist (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 123–34 (the section entitled, `Is Leibniz’s Conception of God Spinozistic?’). For my own perspective, see `Did Leibniz Incline towards Monistic Pantheism in 1676?’, International Leibniz-Congress, Leibniz und Europa 1 (1994): 424–28. It should be noted that Christia Mercer’s much-awaited book on the young Leibniz — Leibniz’s Metaphysics: Its Origin and Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming) — will take an opposing view.
4. I argue more generally for the claim that the private papers in Leibniz’s De Summa Rerum quite often took a more radical turn than we might be led to expect on the basis of his mature writings in `Roads Not Taken: Radical Suggestions of Leibniz’s De Summa Re rum’. A version of that paper was read at the Woburn conference that prompted the present anthology but it could not be included here because of a prior commitment.
5. The name comes from the Academy editors, who grouped together most of the philosophical papers of this period under the label.