An anti-haecceitist version of spacetime substantivalism--"sophisticated substantivalism"--is defended. Part I looks at classical mechanics. The historical origins of the substantivalist-relationalist debate are examined. I argue that Descartes' definition of motion has been widely misunderstood but that Newton's criticisms of Cartesian relationalism are nonetheless on target. I examine Leibniz's arguments against substantival space, as presented in his correspondence with Clarke. My conclusion is that their real target should have been haecceitism, not substantivalism. I outline an anti-haecceitist version of classical spacetime substantivalism as a response to the static and kinematic shift arguments. I then review Mach's and Po...