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. The three initial stages (sigla A to C) are handwritten fair copies—where this chapter is numbered tenth, rather than eleventh—plus handwritten corrections. Siglum D corresponds to the initial 1738 proof sheets, which are then corrected to the latest manuscript version (siglum G) which combines handwritten and printed material. Finally, there are the two published printed versions from 1740 and 1742 (sigla H and I).

Of the manuscipt revision stages, the first, fourth, and seventh are established as full versions (sigla A, D, and G). Other revision stages are available in the edition as variants.

VERSIONS AND VARIANTS	SOURCE
A = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 208r–218v
B = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION D	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 208r–218v
C = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION D	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 208r–218v
D = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 194r–207v
E = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION G	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 194r–207v
F = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION G	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 194r–207v
G = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 184r–208v
H = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Paris: Prault, 1740, 215–242
I = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION H	Du Châtelet: Institutions physiques, Amsterdam: Au Depends de la Compagnie, 1742, pp. 226–253

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

This chapter of the manuscript is uniquely complicated compared to the other chapters, as it involves text in three main formats: a fair copy, proof sheets of the unpublished September 1738 printing of the Institutions, and Du Châtelet's additions and corrections to each of these. Textual evidence for the partial printing can be found in an Avertissement du libraire, written by the publisher, at the beginning of the 1740 printed edition of the work. This Advertissement includes the following: “Ce premier tome des Institutions de Physique étoit prêt à être imprimé dès le 18. Septembre 1738...& l’Impression en fut même commencée dans ce temps-là: mais l’Auteur ayant voulu y faire quelques changemens, me la fit suspendre.” The extant manuscript, however, contains only the proof sheets from the current chapter.

To briefly summarize the chronology of revisions, as we reconstruct it: first, a fair copy of the chapter is written out, in a hand other than Du Châtelet’s. Although the fair copy is chronologically first—we can assume, prior to June 1738—it is placed later in the manuscript as we now find it, beginning at fol. 208r. In the fair copy, brackets appear to have been initially left empty, then later filled in with section numbers. In a second phase, the fair copy is extensively corrected and changed by Du Châtelet, and section numbers are added, some of which are not in Du Châtelet’s hand, which clarify the order for the 1738 printing. For an example of section numbers inserted into the corrected fair copy, see §242, in the right column of fol. 214r, which may have been added after corrections in the right column that are in Du Châtelet’s hand. These corrections were probably completed before June 1738, at which point correspondence suggests a manuscript of the Institutions was delivered to the printer in Paris. At a third stage are the printed proof sheets (194r–207v), which largely correspond to Du Châtelet’s corrections to the fair copy (though there are some significant differences). These proof sheets contain references to previous sections that do not correspond to the published versions (such as a reference to ‘§. 29’ in §. 203): this is evidence that proof sheets of earlier chapters, though no longer extant, were produced in 1738. Fourth and finally, Du Châtelet extensively edits the 1738 proof sheets and adds around ten handwritten pages of entirely new material to the beginning of the chapter. The handwritten additions run from fol. 184r to 190r, and include some additional small sheets of paper (188r–189v) that also feature diagrams and equations in Du Châtelet’s hand (at 188v). These additions probably date from 1739 and possibly early 1740, as Du Châtelet gave her final manuscripts to the printer only gradually, starting in September 1739.

To reflect this development, our edition includes three main versions of Chapter 11. Version A provides the original version of the fair copy, before Du Châtelet began to edit it in her own hand. Version D follows the uncorrected printed proof sheets, with variants B and C marking corrections to the fair copy that were not incorporated into the version in the proof sheets. To make it easier to follow which parts of the manuscript are printed proof sheets, printed portions of the manuscript are set in italics. Finally, version G gives the final version of the chapter in the manuscript, which begins with substantial handwritten additions, and then continues with corrected versions of the proof sheets.

III. Some significant differences between versions

One of many important revisions is to Du Châtelet’s Second Law of motion. In the fair copy version A, the law reads as follows: “Le changement qui arrive dans le mouvement d’un corps est toujours proportionnel a la force motrice qui en est la cause, et ce changement se fait toûjours dans la ligne droite dans laquelle cette force est dirigée” (208r). But in the final manuscript version G, the law instead reads: “Le changement qui arrive dans le mouvement d’un corps est toujours proportionnel à la force motrice qui agit sur lui; et il ne peut arriver aucun changemens dans la vitesse etla direction du corps en mouvement que par une force exterieure, car sans cela cechangement se feroit sans raison sufisante” (195r). Some notable differences in the latter version include (i) describing force as acting rather than as a cause; (ii) the deletion of any reference to direction of motion; (iii) the addition of a reference to an external force; and (iv) the addition of a reference to sufficient reasons for change. This version of the Second Law is kept, more or less unchanged, in the published versions.

Second, there is an important change to a discussion of active and passive force. The initial fair copy states that there is a “preuve Bien palpable… que sans Resistence jl ne peut y avoir d’action” (214r). The so-called proof is that bodies that are already in motion “se Refusent au mouvement qu’on veut leur jmprimer a proportion de celui qu’ils ont déja” (214v). This entire passage is later deleted by Du Châtelet, and replaced with a new section. Instead of an attempted proof, in later versions we find an appeal to what we can imagine: “dans toute action l’agent & le patient lutent entr’eux; & sans cette espéce de lutte, il est impossible d’imaginer aucune action” (201r). This echoes a claim about conceivability already made in the fair copy, which remains in later versions: “Il n’y a point d’action sans résistance; car je demande comment on peur concevoir qu’une force agisse contre ce qui ne lui resiste pas” (214r).

A third noteworthy addition appears in corrections to the initial, 1738 proof sheets. In the proof sheets, we first find a general definition of force as “ce qu’a le corps en mouvement, & qu’on ne trouve pas dans le meme corps quand il est en repos,” and then a subsequent claim that “la quantité de cette force se connoît par le nombre & la grandeur des obstacles, que le corps en mouvement peut déranger en épuisant sa force” (206r). Du Châtelet, in her own hand, later deletes the first general definition of force. She retains much of the second claim, concerning how the quantity of force is known. However, there is a crucial change: “la quantité de cette force” is changed to “la quantité de la force vive.” In other words, only the quantity of living force (vis viva), rather than the quantity of force in general, is to be known through the number and magnitude of obstacles a body in motion can overcome (206r).

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.