S4. Source editor’s annotation First version: “It is better […] what he makes to what he thinks. And he always thinks a little or a great deal about what he sees, if what he sees is a work of art capable of making an impression on his organs.”
T53. The comparative setting, repeated occupies, two always terms and final matching relation remain. Cottage renders chaumière without adding an independently described building. English makes the implicit person in the occupies constructions explicit and uses a semicolon for the source comma. The source variant remains separate.
T59. The printed omission remains. The first version’s thinks, rather than the main occupies, is retained, together with always, little-or-much, if and the bodily organs image. No missing comparison is filled from the main passage.
T301. Both date digits are complete at the qualified color/native level: the 1 has its upper flag, stem and low foot beside the curved 6. No lost prefix is supplied from chronology. The first two occupe constructions, negative, repeated toujours and comparative/predicate relations remain. In the French source, the comma after lui and absence of a comma before et il assortit remain. Left-edge que/de/que have recognizable foreground contours despite abrasion. Raised 4 follows the final occupe before the period.
S5. Source editor’s annotation First version: “[…] of the building. Nothing there is too polished.”
T54. The place, each stone, repeated grandeur relation through that and final not-too qualification remain. Own clarifies the stone’s dimensions without adding measurements or an art-historical assessment.
T60. The opening printed omission and final not-too qualification remain. The truncated construction is not reconstructed from the main entry.
S1. Source editor’s annotation First version: “To translate […] one needs words […] be neither too joined nor too smooth. One must also give everything in the words and in the sentence an air of age. In translating the Gospel, on the contrary: like a stone over which oil has flowed.”
T55. The dependent and-to phrase retains the source’s uneven syntax, along with would need, either-too limit and the three final qualities. Spaciousness, joins, smoothness and age retain the architectural language linked to the preceding entry. This one paragraph continues onto 874; its first-version annotation is on 874 and is not a new main paragraph. English omits the source’s anomalous baseline period between air and de ; the French retains it without attributing an intention to the punctuation.
T69. The two printed omissions, uneven be construction and final subjectless comparison remain. Neither the main text nor an invented completion replaces the variant. The source’s donner que is rendered by an English give construction without adding a new proposition; the concrete stone and oil remain.
T305. The single paragraph continues through the two top lines of 874. The conditional, double ni , dependent et donner , literal phrazes and plain capital E in Evangile remain. The continuation’s aux/tout and all right-edge words are complete. The colon after contraire is retained. Original-size color 874 and native 406 both show a separate baseline period after air before lowercase de . In the French source, it is retained as a reproduced punctuation anomaly, without certifying its authorial origin. Raised 1 on physical 874 follows coulant before the terminal period. The source specialist’s facsimile collation records the dates on page 873, qualified left starts, literal apparatus injustices , punctuation and all six call boundaries, with all stated individual reading qualifications retained.
S2. Source editor’s annotation First version: “Space is a kind of place and time a kind of movement or of surrounding successions outside which and without which we can conceive or imagine no existing object. We perpetually have these two notions in our mind like the walls of a room in which we inevitably place all the objects of our thoughts.”
T61. The two notions, inevitably/perpetually, singular place and plural successions, and both spatial comparisons remain. Them refers to the notions; no philosophical system or physical model is supplied.
T70. The two definitions, alternative, paired outside/without, conceive/imagine and negative object remain. Perpetually, inevitably, all and the room’s walls preserve the extended image. This earlier version is not substituted for the main horizon and river.
T307. The complete date 25 juin and all paragraph endings remain. The singular lieu and plural successions , repeated deux notions , inévitablement/perpétuellement and both final comparisons remain. Raised 2 follows rivière before the baseline period; all text is roman.
S3. Source editor’s annotation First version: “All this was not born of their soil, but of the fertilizer with which their soil has been covered.”
T62. The nominal production, certain, all, not/but and repeated soil retain the agricultural metaphor. Fertilizer is a contextual rendering of engrais , without selecting a modern chemical preparation.
T71. Born remains distinct from the main comes; the negative/positive contrast, repeated their soil and completed covering remain.
T309. The complete 30 juin is retained before the later printed 26 juin . The nominal opening, certain minds, negative/mais and repeated sol remain. Raised 3 follows couvert before the period; all text is roman.
S4. Source editor’s annotation This thought is only in the notebook containing the first version of the thoughts from this period. Joubert did not retain it in his copy.
T63. The opening nominal phrase and two mind/conscience contrasts remain. English reverses the first negative/positive clause order to make the injunction readable, while retaining the affirmative force of mais bien . Both more terms, repeated sense and perhaps remain. The printed June 26 follows June 30 without reordering.
T72. The editor’s only, notebook description and negative retention remain. No new claim of autograph inspection or inference that the printed main entry should be removed is added.
T312. This roman editorial annotation distinguishes the first-version notebook from the author’s copy. The restrictive ne…que and later negative retention remain; no autograph access is asserted.
S5. Source editor’s annotation First version: “[…] corresponding very well […]” And: “What is called movement in the terrain.”
T64. The order of both pairs and perfectly remain. No explanation is imported from the separate earlier variants.
T73. The two separately quoted variants and both printed omissions remain within one source annotation. Terrain retains the concrete ground sense without an independently established technical explanation.
S6. Source editor’s annotation First version: “[…] nothing spacious.”
T65. The place and absolute negative remain without a geographical proof or an inferred exception.
T74. The printed omission and fragmentary negative remain. The main place name is not inserted.
T316. The bracketed ellipsis is a printed source-editor omission. The short roman nominal variant remains without adding the place from the main text.