S2. Source editor’s annotation I do not know whether this thought is Joubert’s. There are quotation marks. On the same leaf, very elliptical notes taken while reading a work concerned with love of order, authority, etc., and, on page 288, with abstractions.
T89. The opening quotation remains unclosed. Something like retains comme une idée without eliminating the repetition of idea/ideas. The source editor’s doubt about Joubert’s authorship appears in the separate source note. The source has no closing guillemet beside the final raised call or period; English supplies none. The entire body is roman.
T97. I is the source editor, not the translator or Joubert. The explicit uncertainty, elliptical note description and external page number remain. English supplies the comma after etc. before and. Page 288 remains an external reference without an invented internal link or identified work. The complete annotation is roman.
T236. In the French source, printed item 58 opens a guillemet but has no closing guillemet before or after its final call 2 and baseline period. No close is supplied. The separate source annotation explicitly leaves authorship uncertain. The complete body is roman.
T237. In the French source, the complete roman source-editor annotation explicitly questions authorship and mentions the quotation marks. Its first-person statement and external page 288 remain; no work is identified from context. The period in etc. is an abbreviation point within the continuing sentence.
S3. Source editor’s annotation Etc. Notes on Euler: astronomy is the principal subject.
T90. The attributed quotation, presumption, also, rest/motion and appearance/truth distinction remain. Language (or speech) provisionally distinguishes langue (ou le langage) without imposing a modern technical opposition. The concluding elliptical sentence remains incomplete in form. English moves the quoted terminal period inside the closing mark. Euler, the quotation and the remaining main prose are all roman; the final source call precedes the period after dénominations .
T98. The source editor’s description remains apparatus; no particular work is identified beyond the printed attribution. English capitalizes Notes after Etc. where French prints lowercase notes . Astronomy is the principal subject rephrases il s’agit principalement d’astronomie . The complete annotation is roman.
T238. In the French source, printed item 59 owns six separate roman paragraphs, with calls 3–7. Euler and Vide remain roman, as does the bibliographical parenthesis: I is a baseline Roman numeral and the small round sign following in-8 is raised. The 1787 year is bibliographical, not a main date. The first quoted period lies outside the closing guillemet. Paragraph 3 literally prints ocmme , n’apperçoit and unhyphenated au delà ; the transposed spelling is not normalized. The period after Etc. precedes raised call 4, and another baseline period follows the call. The stored Etc. . preserves both baseline marks with call metadata anchoring between them. Paragraph 4 has ordinary étendue without a diaeresis; plain initial Etat in paragraph 5 and abrupt Religions. Ont in paragraph 6 remain. No missing subject or doctrine is supplied; each latter call follows its complete word before the terminal period.
T91. Roman Vide is translated See. The colon is an English syntactic adjustment to the elliptical See...that construction; English also supplies the bibliographical commas. The page and 1787 edition information remain in the body and do not supply an entry date or an unverified internal link. The source I is a baseline Roman numeral; the small raised circle in in-8° belongs to the book-format designation rendered octavo. The complete parenthesis and body are roman.
S4. Source editor’s annotation Etc.
T92. The prohibition, beyond, no longer and repeated pronoun remain. Goes astray renders extravague spatially in context while retaining the implication of wandering thought. English as interprets literal transposed ocmme contextually as comme ; this is not a reproduction-loss restoration or an alteration of the French. French retains n’apperçoit and unhyphenated au delà . English moves the quoted terminal period inside its closing mark. Final Etc.. preserves two separate printed baseline points: the abbreviation point before source call 4 and the sentence-final point after it. They are not an ellipsis. The entire paragraph is roman.
T99. The source note consists only of Etc. ; no omitted material is invented.
S5. Source editor’s annotation Same.
T93. The demonstrative, today, repeated such, wish, all/all and fill/absorb images remain. No modern subject boundary is substituted for physique . French has ordinary étendue without a diaeresis. The complete paragraph is roman, and its source call precedes the terminal period.
T100. Same. renders the complete italic Id. , including its period, without expanding its uncertain referential scope. It remains a separate source-apparatus paragraph.
S6. Source editor’s annotation Same.
T94. The nominal fragment and future shall be remain. No matrix verb or doctrinal explanation is supplied. French retains plain initial Etat . The body is roman, and source call 6 precedes its terminal period.
T101. Same. renders the complete italic Id. , including its period, without expanding its uncertain referential scope. It remains a separate source-apparatus paragraph.
S7. Source editor’s annotation Same.
T95. The abrupt full stop, omitted subject in the second sentence, completed action, plural motives and in our eyes remain; no connective is supplied.
T102. Same. renders the complete italic Id. , including its period, without expanding its uncertain referential scope. It remains a separate source-apparatus paragraph.
T103. Virtuti simillimus is freshly rendered Most like virtue, preserving its compressed comparison rather than supplying a missing person or context. The printed attribution remains unexpanded. The title is wise man; always, so/so and the contrast remain. Only Virtuti simillimus. and Most like virtue. are italic through their periods; the enclosing parentheses and literal attribution Vell. Patere. are roman. Though so imprecise gives natural inverse wording to quoique si peu précise . No outside Latin witness or expanded attribution is supplied.
T244. In the French source, printed item 60 owns two complete paragraphs. Only Virtuti simillimus. is italic through its period; enclosing parentheses and literal Vell. Patere. are roman. No attribution expansion or outside Latin witness is supplied. Literal aprécier with one p , éminens and mémoire s’est conservé without a feminine ending remain. Raised call 1 follows conservé before its baseline period. The simple-past fut/mérita/donna and both superlative relations remain.
S1. Source editor’s annotation At the bottom of the leaf, which is torn, one can still read: “...than the wise man. It is what most resembles... man, man par excellence, and far above the wise man.”
T104. Only, praise/appraise, ideal model, scattered traits, seemed, small number and surviving memory remain. The ideal is assembled rather than attributed to one historical person. Both most-perfect and most-beautiful superlatives remain. French retains aprécier with one p , éminens and anomalous mémoire s’est conservé without a feminine ending. Ordinary English surviving memory does not correct that French form. The entire paragraph is roman, and source call 1 precedes its terminal period.
T110. The physical damage, both printed ellipses, incomplete comparison and repeated wise man remain. Than is a contextual rendering of surviving que ; the missing construction is not reconstructed. French explicitly prints homme, à l’homme par excellence . English contextually shares the preceding resembles relation across man, man par excellence instead of giving à a separate to; this does not certify the missing syntactic connection across the ellipsis. The source editor describes a torn original leaf, not a new loss in the page reproduction. The complete annotation is roman, and its quoted terminal period already lies inside the closing mark.