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 eight handwritten revision stages, the second and final ones and last are established as full versions (B and E). The initial draft is accessible in the variant apparatus as variant A, and the intervening stages are accessible as versions C and D.

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 eighth 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, 124r–140v
B = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 124r–140v
C = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION E	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 124r–140v
D = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION E	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 124r–140v
E = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Émilie Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS fr. 12265, 124r–140v
F = MAIN TEXT = VERSION	Du Châtelet: Institutions de physique, Paris: Prault, 1740, 152–178
G = VARIANT DOCUMENTED IN THE VARIANT APPARATUS OF VERSION F	Du Châtelet: Institutions physiques, Amsterdam: Depens de la compagnie, 1742, 160–187

II. Short survey of the main manuscript versions B and E, and of the variants A, C, and D

Efforts at a first draft culminate in version B, after which Du Châtelet appears to have reviewed the manuscript and added extensive marginal notes, most of which signal the need for revisions. The revisions are ultimately quite significant—large passages are added—and occur in three stages, ending in version E. The chapter is significantly restructured in the course of these revisions. The first published version from 1740 (here version F) involves further changes, some significant, from the final handwritten version E. This chapter is also notable for especially large changes between the 1740 and 1742 editions (the latter is included as variant G).

III. Some significant differences between versions

Here we only offer a sample of changes between versions of the text, without venturing definitive interpretations of these changes.

A first, obvious difference is that this is the first point at which the ordering of chapters differs between the manuscript and the published version. The manuscript chapter transcribed here corresponds to the eighth chapter of the published book. In the published version, the seventh chapter is devoted to the elements of matter, but that discussion appears as Chapter Ten in the manuscript. While it is not clear why this change was made, one possibility is that Du Châtelet came to consider the discussion of the elements of matter to provide a basis or foundation for the current chapter on composite bodies.

A second change, which is implemented as Du Châtelet revises the manuscript, is the addition of a sympathetic discussion of mechanism in physics. For context, the early version B states that all parts of matter are in some state of motion, but the argument for this is brief and appears to invoke only general metaphysical grounds (specifically, the assumption that all parts of matter are different from one another, which is itself based on the principle of the identity of indiscernibles). Later, in the version we have labeled E, Du Châtelet inserts a new paragraph, just before the claim that all parts of matter are in a state of motion. She now states that “la premiere chose que nous comprenons des corps c’est que ce sont des Etres composés de plusieurs parties,” and therefore that bodies must have all the properties of composites (126r). But, she adds, composites alter in virtue of changes “de la figure, de la grandeur, la situation des parties, et du lieu du tout” (126r). Crucially, none of these changes occur without motion. So she takes her conclusion—that all parts of matter are in some state of motion—to follow. But she continues the discussion, stating that all parts of matter “sont des machines” and that philosophers who claimed that all effects in nature “doivent etre Explicables mechaniquement ont raison.” The broader context of this passage is an argument against Cartesians that matter is essentially endowed with forces (an argument which is already complete in the earlier version B). So, however one interprets this passage, it can’t be read as a simple endorsement of mechanism in the Cartesian sense. Still, most of the discussion remains in the published versions of 1740 and 1742.

Third, in revising the manuscript of Chapter Seven, Du Châtelet elaborates on her distinction between the internal and external states of a being. In version B, she states rather elliptically that “l’etat interne d’un etre consiste dans la determination de ce qui est mutable dans lui” (131r). In the later version E, she adds a paragraph here on which an internal state is defined as “les determinations [des] changemens internes” of a being, that is, “des changemens qui peuvent arriver dans lui.” Her example is broadly mechanistic: the internal states of a watch are the possible “dispositions” of its wheels with respect to one another. Meanwhile, a being’s external state is determined “par les relations qui obtient avec d’autres etres.” This is important because it seems as if these outer relations could determine what is changeable in a being, and on her earlier (version B) definition, this would threaten to collapse the distinction between inner and outer states. Nonetheless, there is an open question whether the distinction between inner and outer introduced in version E is consistent with Du Châtelet’s other commitments. One of these would be her statement in the 1740 published text of the seventh chapter (Chapter Ten in the manuscript) that “tout est lié dans le monde; chaque Etre a un rapport a tous les Etres qui coexistent avec lui” (1740, 141).

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.