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 and variants 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.

With regard to the handwritten drafts of the first chapter, the revisions made by Du Châtelet were remarkable. Two manuscript drafts of the first chapter were revised thoroughly by Du Châtelet, both separately and in relation to each other.

We can count up to 3 revision stages of the first draft (Sigla A to C) and 5 revision stages of the second draft (Sigla D to H).

Of those eight revision stages, we decided to establish three distinct textual versions: C from the first draft, and F and H from the second draft. The very first draft A is accessible, together with the first revision stage of A (= B), in the variant apparatus of version C; the revisions D and E are part of the variant apparatus of version F; those of G are made accessible in the variant apparatus of version H.

In addition to the edition of the manuscript drafts, we also edit the 1740 Paris printed version (version J) and document the printed proofsheets sent to the Prussian Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia in spring 1740 (I), as well as the revised 1742 Amsterdam printed version (K) in the variant apparatus of version J.

VERSIONS AND VARIANTS	SOURCE
A = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION C	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 26r-33v
B = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION C	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 26r-33v
C = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 26r-33v
D = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION F	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265,38r-58r
E = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION F	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265,38r-58r
F = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265,38r-58r
G = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION H	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265,38r-58r
H = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265,38r-58r
I = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION J	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Staatsbibliothek Berlin, Mv 4645 (proofsheets Paris 1740), 15-37
J = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Paris: Prault, 1740, 15-37
K = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION J	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions physiques, Amsterdam: Depens de la compagnie, 1742, 16-39

II. Short Survey of the Versions C, F, H, and J

It can easily be seen that the four edited versions (three from the Paris manuscript, one printed version) are quite different in length.

C is the shortest version – its title is Des Principes de nos Raisonnemens, while in F, H, and J it is Des Principes de nos Connoissances – increasing in length in F and in H, which is the longest handwritten version. The printed version from 1740 (J) is apparently even a bit longer than H.

III. A few significant differences between the versions C, F, H, and J

Instead of giving a full account of the differences between the four edited versions, we want to highlight a few changes that were made by Émilie Du Châtelet, so that the reader may get an idea of their possible impact. As editors we will not, however, provide interpretations of the changes Du Châtelet made.

But what kind of differences do we find in the the several versions of Chapter One?

First of all, it is striking that Chapter One was titled Des Principes de nos Raisonnemens in version C (and also in A and B, which are documented in the variant apparatus of C), while, in the later versions, it was titled Des Principes de nos Connoissances.

Then there are some differences which remain open to further interpretation and contextualisation, for instance in C Du Châtelet speaks of the principle of contradiction as being innate in men: “ce principe est inné dans l’home” (C, paragraph 5). There is no mention of the principle of contradiction as being innate in men in the later versions. While in C (paragraph 6) Du Châtelet explains the principle of contradiction by speaking of impossible propositions, this is not the case any more in the later versions where the term proposition is not further mentioned.

As can easily be seen, Du Châtelet refers to Descartes and Leibniz more extensively in the versions F to J than in C by discussing Leibniz’s law of continuity (F, paragraph 33, H, paragraph 34, J, paragraph 38) which is not part of versions A to C.

It is also striking to see that Du Châtelet refers to the Scholastics differently in C (paragraph 17) and in the later versions F (paragraphs 3, 25), H (paragraphs 3, 28), and J (paragraphs 3, 30), where she also discusses plastic natures and the vegetative soul.

Some loose folios (53r to 55r) contain passages discussing examples taken from geometry that very likely belonged to version E, were cancelled in F, and later reinduced in the printed version J (see variant apparatus entry version F, paragraph 41).

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

As for the technical presentation, there are still changes to come. 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.

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

Still lacking is also the commentary on the texts. The editors’ work on the commentary is part of a broader research which is yet to be done.