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.

In this chapter we have identified ten revision stages: seven handwritten stages (sigla A to G), handwritten corrections to printed proof sheets (siglum H), and finally the two published printed versions (sigla I and J). Of the handwritten revision stages, the third and seventh are established as full versions (C and G). 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 I), where this material appears as the eighth chapter. The variant apparatus documents the substantially revised 1742 Amsterdam printed version of this chapter (siglum J).

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

This manuscript has a complicated structure: version C represents a first draft, but then subsequent versions (leading up to version G) both make major additions, and sometimes retain the earlier text but change its order.

III. Some significant differences between versions

A first important revision occurs in a passage where Du Châtelet contrasts force, which makes activity actual, and the mere capacity for activity (177v). In the later version G, Du Châtelet adds to this discussion that the sufficient reason for everything that occurs in composite beings must be found in simple substances. Since she has just argued that force makes activity actual, and takes for granted that composite beings exhibit activity, she can then draw a conclusion that does not appear in earlier versions, namely that "simple beings" have a force (177v).

Second, the chapter contains a suggestive boxed note (later canceled out) asking whether the current chapter "destroys what was said about essence in the preceding chapter" (viz. Chapter III) (179r). The note is adjacent to a passage where Du Châtelet argues that composite beings are not substances in virtue of themselves, but are dependent on simple beings. Therefore, properties of composite beings such as hardness, size, and figure are "nothing more than accidents [ne sont que des accidens]." In any case, the boxed note is later canceled out, and the adjoining passage remains in later versions of the manuscript.

A third noteworthy addition appears in another boxed note at 180r. This boxed note, added after version C, asks if it would be possible for someone entirely similar to her to exist in a different world. While it is not spelled out what this means, the note is attached to a discussion of Leibniz's monads. Therefore, 'different world' may refer to different possible worlds (which she discusses elsewhere, with reference to Leibniz). This in turn recalls Leibniz's reflections on personal identity across possible worlds. On some interpretations, Leibniz could be read as claiming that it is not possible for there to be someone entirely similar to me in a different possible world. Du Châtelet’s views on this point are not made explicit here, however. The boxed note is later cancelled out, and no additional text is added in later versions to this point of the manuscript.

A fourth change is that an argument for the existence of simple substances, which in version A is attributed to Leibniz and "mr. v." (possibly Wolff), is in later versions credited to "the Leibnizians" without further specification (175r).

Finally, there are notable changes to a discussion of first truths ("premieres verités") that Du Châtelet describes as not yet assented to by all thinkers (183r). Version C simply refers to the existence of "the simple beings of Mr. Leibniz" as an example of such first truths. The passage is revised in later versions to include two other examples: the true system of the world ("leveritable sisteme du monde") and living forces ("forces vives"). Additionally, Du Châtelet now classifies these not as first truths but as first principles of things ("premieres principes des choses").

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.