I. Versions and variants

Since the Paris manuscript BNF Fr. 12265 reveals many revision stages, it was crucial for the editors to make explicit the main stages of revision in structure and content made by Émilie Du Châtelet, through establishing them as textual versions on their own, rather than placing them in the variant apparatus. On the one hand, this makes it easier for the reader to perceive the differences by presenting the versions as distinct texts, so that the reader does not need to reconstruct all revision stages from the entries in the variant apparatus, which at times is quite a complicated task. On the other hand, in order to analyze the differences between the revision stages in detail, the reader needs to compare the online edited versions by arranging them in separate windows on the screen or display. This might be demanding at times, yet it is still easier than reconstructing all revision stages from the variant apparatus.

However, in order to make the comparison between the distinct versions easier, we decided to offer, in these introductory notes, a survey of some striking differences between the versions. We continue to provide a variant apparatus, however, representing the finer-grained revisions made by Émilie Du Châtelet.

By consequently establishing versions as texts on their own, and as distinguished by the amount of changes in structure and content, we also establish revision stages as variants which might only consist of one word being changed.

We have identified nine revision stages: seven handwritten stages (sigla A to G) and two printed ones (sigla H and I).

Of the eight handwritten revision stages, the fourth and seventh are established as full versions (D and G). Other handwritten revision stages are available in the edition as variants: A through C in the variant apparatus of version D, and E and F in the variant apparatus of version G.

In addition to the manuscript drafts, we have also edited the 1740 Paris printed version (siglum H), where due to reordering, this material appears as the ninth chapter. Due to a large number of changes, the substantially revised 1742 Amsterdam printed version of this chapter has also been edited as a separate version (siglum I).

VERSIONS AND VARIANTS	SOURCE
A = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION D	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 146r–159v
B = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION D	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 146r–159v
C = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION D	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 146r–159v
D = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 146r–159v
E = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION G	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 146r–159v
F = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION G	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 146r–159v
G = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 146r–159v
H = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Paris: Prault, 1740, 179–199
I = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions physiques, Amsterdam: Aux Depens de la compagnie, 1742, 188–206

II. Short survey of the main manuscript versions D and G

Efforts at a first draft culminate in version D, after which Du Châtelet appears to have reviewed the manuscript and added extensive marginal notes, most of which signal the need for revisions. These revisions are significant, occurring in one main stage that appears here as version G, with variants E and F as steps along the way. This chapter is also noteworthy for the extent of changes between the two published versions of 1740 (here sigla H and I). The later sections of the chapter were totally rewritten in the 1742 version; the chapter title was also changed to remove any reference to subtle matter.

III. Some significant differences between versions

A first major change concerns the opening of the chapter. In the earliest drafts, we find a fairly standard summary of the content of a previous chapter, which stresses that matter is always in motion, that its parts are all different from one another, and that it contains nothing that can be regarded as an atom (146r). The later versions, such as version G, instead begin with a new discussion of extension and its dimensions, and only gradually move towards explicit discussion of matter. This structure remains in the published versions of the chapter (where it appears as Chapter IX).

Second, an important set of additions in versions E through G introduce some of Du Châtelet’s most important views on matter theory. In Version E, she adds a claim that the principle of sufficient reason banishes all indiscernible entities from the universe, as well as atoms (153v). (The claim that no two parts of matter are indiscernible is also found elsewhere.) Then, in version G, she changes the passage so it concerns not indiscernibility, but a void between parts of bodies. She now says that such a void is ruled out by the principle of sufficient reason. This anti-atomist thesis plays an important role in the published version of her Institutions.

Third, Du Châtelet significantly revises a discussion of Leibniz’s criticisms of Nicolas Hartsoeker’s matter theory. Per Hartsoeker, matter is made up of two basic kinds of elements, one perfectly elastic and the other perfectly hard. In all versions, Du Châtelet holds that Hartsoker's theory violates the principle of sufficient reason. But the details of her criticisms differ. Among the many changes in version G, she adds the claim that the principle of sufficient reason is the touchstone (piere detouche) that distinguishes truth from falsity (156v). However, she goes on to suggest that the principle of sufficient reason does not tell us, positively, how many kinds of matter there are: a demonstrative role is left to experience or experiment (l’experience).

IV. Note on the technical and editorial presentation of the edition

There are still changes to come in the technical presentation of the edition. The design and structure as well as the information implemented in the XML files will be refined. Due to the work required to program all these refinements, it will take some time until the final edition can be presented online. Also to be added is the commentary on the texts.

For now, we show a preliminary version, a work in progress, which is the basis for all future refinements.