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 seven revision stages: five handwritten stages (sigla A to E) and two printed ones (sigla F and G).

Of the handwritten revision stages, the second and fifth are established as full versions (B and E). Other handwritten revision stages are available in the edition as variants.

In addition to the edition of the manuscript drafts, we have also edited the 1740 Paris printed version (siglum F), where this material appears as the tenth chapter. The variant apparatus documents the substantially revised 1742 Amsterdam printed version of this chapter (siglum G).

VERSIONS AND VARIANTS	SOURCE
A = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION B	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 160r–170r
B = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 160r–170r
C = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION E	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 160r–170r
D = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION E	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 160r–170r
E = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 160r–170r
F = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Paris: Prault, 1740, 200–214
G = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions physiques, Amsterdam: Aux Depens de la compagnie, 1742, 207–225

II. Short survey of the main manuscript versions B and E

Efforts at a first draft culminate in version B, after which Du Châtelet appears to have reviewed the manuscript and added extensive marginal notes. She then makes a series of revisions culminating in version E. This chapter is also noteworthy for the extent of changes between the two published versions (here sigla F and G). Much of the chapter was totally rewritten in the 1742 version, which is therefore edited as a separate version in the edition.

III. Some significant differences between versions

One important stage in the revision process is a passage at fol. 165v that only appears in variants C and D, as it is later cancelled. In this passage, Du Châtelet lays out a thought experiment: someone who only had the sense of sight, but not the sense of touch, would in her view be unable to grasp the idea of the impenetrability of bodies. This is supposed to reinforce her claim that we know of impenetrability through touch. There are parallels here to the celebrated ‘Molyneux Problem,’ posed by William Molyneux in a letter to Locke. The puzzle is whether someone born blind, but able to distinguish the shapes of solid objects by touch, would be able to distinguish them by sight if he became able to see. A later version of this discussion from version E, at fol. 165r, retains the emphasis on touch, but associates it with “solidity” rather than “resistance,” and no longer includes the thought experiment.

A second significant development in the manuscript is a boxed, marginal note that appears at fol. 166r. The note, which appears to be in Du Châtelet’s hand and is cancelled out in later versions, states a lack of understanding of the difference between the concepts of matière variable and matière interlabens, adding that “I have in no way made use of” these concepts. It is true that the term matière interlabens is not foundin the extant manuscripts of this chapter. Du Châtelet does distinguish between proper matter and foreign or improper matter, but the two concepts she refers to in the note seemingly would be two types of foreign matter. Her contention that she has not used these concepts raises the question of what text or source this note refers to.

Third, there are significant changes in how the concluding paragraph of the chapter describes a later discussion of Newtonian attraction, here described as appearing in Chapter 18 (changed to Chapter 16 in the published versions). For example, earlier versions refer to how “Mr. Newton” uses “his” attraction to explain cohesion, hardness, fluidity, and other properties of matter; later, these explanations are attributed to “the Newtonians,” without further specification (170r). To take another case from the same page, an early version states that it is in detailed explanations of cohesion, fluidity and so forth that—at least according to the Newtonians—“attraction triumphs.” The final manuscript version of this passage changes the wording, but still refers to how “the necessity of admitting attraction” stems from these details. The passage is dramatically modified in the published versions. Now, Du Châtelet denies that attraction can be the literal cause of cohesion and other bodily phenomena (1742, 221).

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.