Diotimos Reading Desk

Tap the page, move to the top or bottom edge, swipe down, or press Tab to reveal reading controls. Use the arrow keys or swipe sideways to turn pages.

← ExitThe Notebooks of Joseph Joubert, Volume II

Reading language

YEAR 1814

A dramatically good man.

January 16.

The idea that bodies attract one another through their masses and repel one another through their surfaces. Application of this idea to morals; and indeed how many men in society would suit one another by their nature who repel one another by their manners, their opinions, their habits, etc.

And dying he remembers sweet Argos. (Virgil.) We have seen more, we have seen worse: dying conscripts calling for their mothers.

January 18.

— being practiced in no dissimulation.

All those who open a malicious eye on their friends’ faults, who even watch for them and perceive (discover) them with joy...

Nothing is better than an enthusiasm that is right.

January 20.

In such circumstances it is difficult to keep one’s heart upright and one’s reason upright, to rejoice in no evil, to overlook no good.

January 21.

Of good qualities that are not transmitted or do not enter into the course of heredity. What is delicate evaporates. The son of a grave and robust man is ordinarily a sensible man. The son of a man of wit is rarely a man of wit.

January 22.

Minds rubbed with this phosphorus and thereby seeming luminous. And yet they shine, but do not illuminate.

No one can be wise and nothing can be illuminated unless (as it really is) one places the earth between two heavens (in one’s mind).

January 26.

What deceives us in morals is excessive love of pleasure; and what stops us and holds us back in metaphysics is love of certainty.

Time and truth are friends, although there are many moments contrary to truth.

T13.Dramatically concerns goodness in dramatic presentation, in the context of the preceding distinctions. It is not an intensifier meaning extremely. The brief nominal formulation remains.

T337.In the French source, the nominal fragment is retained without an article, verb or identified person.

T14.The initial idea and application fragments retain their grammatical form. Mutual attraction and repulsion lead into a moral analogy; the conditional would suit remains. Manners, opinions and habits keep their separate places. The single paragraph continues onto page 772; no modern physical correction replaces the analogy.

T338.The complete day 16 is intact. The single paragraph continues in the first line of page 772, before its asterisk. The nominal opening/Application, semicolon, exclamatory que de, conditional se conviendroient and present se repoussent remain distinct. The final continuation and its three repeated leurs relations are intact; no missing text is inferred from adjacent margin artifacts.

T15.The Latin is freshly translated, retaining present remembers and participial dying. Compare Aeneid X.782: the directly read Latin witness includes preceding aspicit and has dulcis, whereas Joubert excerpts Et … and prints dulces. The English follows Joubert’s excerpt without an inserted epic character or geographical gloss. More and worse remain repeated in his separate conscript comparison. The source control covers X.762–789 only, not a complete-book or original-edition-image reading. The italic English counterpart includes initial And and the period; the attribution and following French application remain roman.

T339.The whole Latin sentence, including Et and its final period, is italic; the parenthetic Virgile. and following French are roman. The two on a vu formulations, plus/pis distinction and printed double l in appeller remain. No outside quotation text is substituted.

T16.The detached negative participial phrase remains without an invented subject or surrounding sentence. Dissimulation retains deliberate concealment rather than ordinary silence.

T340.The complete day 18 is intact. The leading dash, lowercase participial fragment and intact negative aucune remain, without a supplied subject.

T17.The initial All those relative fragment and unfinished ellipsis remain. Them provisionally refers to the faults; the parenthetic discover remains an alternative to perceive, not a silently selected replacement. The French retains the qualified printed œïl with its unusual diaeresis; ordinary English eye does not certify normalized French spelling.

T341.The nominal-relative opening remains without a principal predicate, ending in three printed ellipsis dots. Native œïl has two separate raised components above i; this unusual diaeresis reading remains qualified, distinct from a detached thin artifact above the following l. Joye and the parenthetic découvrent remain literal. The abraded right-edge amis retains its identifiable letters.

T18.The superlative negative and the personifying idiom is right remain. No requirement that the enthusiasm be merely reasonable replaces avoir raison.

T342.The negative comparative and relative qui a raison remain without an expanded standard of correctness.

T19.The repeated upright and the paired moral negatives remain. Overlook renders méconnoître as failure to recognize good; it does not assert that every alleged good must be approved.

T343.The complete day 20 is intact. The paired droit/droite, two negative infinitives and mal/bien contrast remain. The right-edge final t of droit and the méconnoître ending are abraded but identifiable; no further word is certified by the detached vertical margin traces.

T20.The Of fragment, alternative transmission formulations and evaporating image remain. Ordinarily and rarely preserve qualified generalizations. Man of wit repeats homme d’esprit, with its intellectual and social range; no scientific inheritance claim is independently certified.

T344.The complete day 21 is intact. The nominal-relative opening, two separate negative relations, evaporation image and ordinarily/rarely contrast remain. The final homme d’esprit has no supplied article; the preceding un homme sensé is distinct.

T21.The nominal participial opening, this, and the shine/illuminate distinction remain. The English plural follows the sentence’s plural frottés, paroissent and ils. The French source literally reads singular Esprit, without a restored terminal s; the English grammatical interpretation does not correct that print.

T345.The complete day 22 is intact. Native Esprit is singular without a terminal s, despite plural frottés, paroissent and ils; no agreement repair is made. The worn final t of right-edge Et remains identifiable. The shine/illuminate distinction and final point negative remain.

T22.The two restrictions, two parenthetic qualifications and the earth-between-heavens image remain in source order. The first parenthesis refers to the earth’s actual situation; no astronomical model is supplied. The French preserves qualified ciel-s with a visible hyphen; ordinary English heavens does not certify a normalized French plural.

T23.The two What formulations, both obstacles in metaphysics and the different loves remain. Excessive modifies the love of pleasure only; it is not added to certainty.

T347.The complete day 26 is intact. Both cleft-like formulations, the repeated nous and arrête/retarde distinction remain. Excessif qualifies only the first amour in the printed wording.

T24.The personified friendship and contrary moments remain together; the concessive clause is not removed as inconsistent.

T348.In the French source, the semicolon and concessive quoiqu’il remain. Momens retains its printed spelling; repeated vérité and the time/moments distinction remain.