S1. Source editor’s annotation This editor’s notice for a reprint of Lauraguais’s famous discourse is in Joubert’s hand, with corrections: some his own; others by I do not know whom, perhaps the editor.
T144. The first-person judgment and discourse remain. Its relation to the reprint is supplied by the source editor’s separate note, not by an invented title or date. The paragraph is roman. Source call 1 belongs to printed item 69 before its heading period, not to this opening sentence. The italic Bundle 36 label supplies no date.
T154. The source editor distinguishes Joubert’s hand from the unknown corrector and marks perhaps the editor as uncertain. Neither is identified with the present edition’s reviewer. The complete roman annotation belongs to the printed item-69 heading call. Its first-person I do not know belongs to the source editor; no correction is silently applied to the main text.
T261. In the French source, printed item 69 has ten main paragraphs, the last a separate right-aligned roman L’Editeur. signature with plain capital E . Paragraph 4 crosses 935–936. Its heading is not a date; Liasse 36. alone is italic, and call 1 follows 69 before the heading period. Literal événemens , développemens , aprendre with one p , fondemens and assés remain. Main Arrêtons nous has a space without a hyphen. The source c’est celles-là and compressed celui-ci nous aprendre construction remain without grammatical rewriting. Four main italic spans are retained: idées premières ; the complete bad-maxims maxim; l’opinion est reine du monde ; and the extended comparison from à ces châteaux through bien éclairée. The main-body colon/semicolon/dash and sentence boundaries remain. The first numbered 936 call is after société in paragraph 4, not premières . It follows exactly the nine words selon la nature des choses et de la société ; the separate apparatus leaves the deleting hand uncertain. All reported deletions remain in the printed main text rather than being silently applied. The original inline (A) call after Quelqu’un is represented as call metadata, not a new main phrase. Its separate (A.) identification appears above the numbered-note rule. It remains a distinct source-note voice and is not confused with the fifteen numbered 1938 annotations. No date, lexical reproduction-loss bracket or restored wording is supplied.
T262. In the French source, this is the complete separate numbered source annotation, with its stated hand attribution or uncertainty preserved; quotation and punctuation are not editorial instructions to alter the main text.
S2. Source editor’s annotation Joubert had first written “will collect”; the correction is his.
S3. Source editor’s annotation Joubert had first written: “it will take pleasure in considering in these fleeting assemblages of characters and sounds the causes, then past, of important events which are...” The correction is his.
T145. The projected future anterior, some influence, posterity, words-as-facts and collection image remain. The source’s earlier alternatives stay in apparatus. Literal événemens remains in the French; the English semicolon after about replaces the middle French colon, while the other two colons remain. The paragraph is roman, with separate calls after search and unfold.
T155. The earlier will collect remains separate from main search carefully. The source editor assigns the correction to Joubert. The complete roman annotation retains the semicolon after the quoted alternative; its call follows the main verb recherchera /search.
T156. The source editor’s attribution, fleeting assemblages, then past and unfinished which are remain. No completion is supplied. The earlier French quotation literally has singular caractère with plural sons and événemens ; English characters is a contextual count-noun interpretation of the writing/sound image, not a claim that French prints caractères . The ellipsis after qui sont is printed and remains within the quotation; the complete annotation is roman.
T263. In the French source, this is the complete separate numbered source annotation, with its stated hand attribution or uncertainty preserved; quotation and punctuation are not editorial instructions to alter the main text.
S4. Source editor’s annotation This paragraph deleted by the reviser.
T146. The source paragraph remains although the separate note says the reviser deleted it. Cahiers is retained as the historically specific document term, without inventing a date or document identity. The main paragraph is roman; the call follows cahiers before its terminal period. English places commas around by a resolution of its chamber where the French has no corresponding pair.
T157. The source reports deletion; the translated main paragraph remains because the edition prints it. The fragmentary annotation remains roman. English omits the source comma between supprimé and par le réviseur without supplying an auxiliary or identifying the reviser.
T265. In the French source, this is the complete separate numbered source annotation, with its stated hand attribution or uncertainty preserved; quotation and punctuation are not editorial instructions to alter the main text.
S5. Source editor’s annotation At first: “I believe one will find in it.”
S1. Source editor’s annotation The last nine words crossed out by Joubert (I do not know) or by the reviser.
S2. Source editor’s annotation “and when [...] thoughts”: all this deleted by the reviser.
T158. The earlier first-person qualification is retained only in source apparatus. The annotation is roman; its English terminal period is placed inside the quotation, whereas the French period follows the closing guillemet.
T159. The printed count of nine is retained as a count of French words, not asserted for the English. The source editor’s parenthetic uncertainty remains: literal je ne sais has no pas , while English gives the ordinary negative I do not know. The call belongs after société /society, following selon la nature des choses et de la société , not after first ideas. The annotation is roman, and the deleting hand remains unresolved.
T160. The printed omission brackets are the source editor’s abbreviated citation of an extent, not a newly supplied textual loss. Its two English endpoints correspond to the main paragraph. The annotation is roman, and the reviser’s reported deletion is not carried out in the printed main text.
T266. In the French source, this is the complete separate numbered source annotation, with its stated hand attribution or uncertainty preserved; quotation and punctuation are not editorial instructions to alter the main text.
T268. In the French source, the call follows société . Nine is the printed French-word count; (je ne sais ) is literal without pas . Attribution to Joubert or the reviser remains uncertain.
T269. In the French source, the printed [...] is the source editor’s abbreviated quotation, not a reproduction loss. The visible endpoints and attribution remain literal.
S3. Source editor’s annotation At first: “even at this moment.”
S4. Source editor’s annotation At first: “our legislators.”
T148. The three Perhaps openings, would modality, even more and bad/worse comparison remain. The full final clause les mauvaises maximes sont pires que les mauvaises actions. and its counterpart bad maxims are worse than bad actions. are italic through their terminal periods; the preceding text is roman. Separate calls follow moment and legislators, the latter before its period. No date is inferred from about to become legislators.
T161. The earlier even remains separate from the main version. The annotation is roman. English places the terminal period inside the quoted alternative; French places it after the closing guillemet.
T162. The earlier our remains separate from the main version. The annotation is roman. English places the terminal period inside the quoted alternative; French places it after the closing guillemet.
S5. Source editor’s annotation “Truly [...] of the world ”: all this deleted by the reviser.
T149. The exhortation, public law, present regeneration, repeated greatest and enlighten/corrupt opposition remain. The queen metaphor stays feminine and does not become a neutral ruler. French retains unhyphenated Arrêtons nous and literal fondemens . The semicolon followed by a dash remains. Only the final l’opinion est reine du monde. and opinion is queen of the world. are italic through their periods; the raised call after monde /world precedes the terminal period.
T163. The printed omission brackets delimit the source editor’s citation; they do not signal a translator-created gap. Only du monde and of the world are italic within this annotation; the quotation marks, colon and deletion report are roman. The main call follows monde /world before its period. The reported deletion is not enacted in the printed main paragraph.
T272. In the French source, the printed [...] is the source editor’s abbreviated quotation, not a reproduction loss. The visible endpoints and attribution remain literal.
S6. Source editor’s annotation At first: “in this new work.” The correction is Joubert’s.
T150. The six same repetitions, conditional if one wishes and three paired contrasts remain. Censors retains the critical term without asserting an official censorship role. The English omits the source comma after Lauraguais and places the recipient his other works before so many partisans and censors, preserving the relation expressed by donné...à ses autres ouvrages . The whole paragraph is roman, with its call after discourse.
T164. The earlier new work and attribution of the correction remain separate from the main discourse. The annotation is roman. English places the first sentence’s period inside the quotation; French places it after the closing guillemet. The final statement remains attributed to the source editor.
SA. Source editor’s annotation (A.) It is Mr. Céruti.
S7. Source editor’s annotation The reviser corrects it thus: “He compelled criticism to say of him that his head...”
S8. Source editor’s annotation “I believe [...] find it honorable”: all this deleted, doubtless by the reviser.
T151. The original lettered call (A), head/châteaux/windows/rooms comparison, no well-lit room and hasty/honorable response remain. The source reviser’s proposed wording stays in separate apparatus. Italics run from à ces châteaux through bien éclairée. and from like those châteaux through well-lit room., including the final period; the following two judgments are roman. The already present (A) after Someone is rendered once and belongs to the separate original lettered note, not to either numbered call after head and honorable. No expanded identity or date is supplied.
T165. The unfinished quotation and its printed ellipsis are preserved and not substituted for the main Someone said wording. The annotation is roman, with the reviser explicitly named as the agent of this correction. No completion after head is supplied.
T166. The source editor’s doubtless remains a qualified attribution; the abbreviated quote is not expanded. Its printed omission marker is not a reproduction loss. The entire annotation is roman, and the deletion is not applied silently to the main text.
T169. This original lettered note is distinct from Beaunier’s fifteen numbered annotations and is physically printed above their rule. Its printed name Céruti, with the acute and one r , is not expanded. The already present (A.) is rendered once, linked to the main (A) after Quelqu’un /Someone; no second label or extra main paragraph is added. Both this identification and its terminal period are roman.
T275. In the French source, the printed [...] is the source editor’s abbreviated quotation, not a reproduction loss. The visible endpoints and attribution remain literal.
S9. Source editor’s annotation At first: “and even few celebrated men.”
S10. Source editor’s annotation The reviser adds: “Besides, if Mr. de Lauraguais has not yet opened all his apartments, he has their key in his pocket.”
T152. Few, even, enough and deserve retain the qualified compliment. The separate note’s appended key image is not inserted into Joubert’s paragraph. French retains assés and compressed et même célèbres ; English even celebrated ones supplies the nominal continuation naturally without a separate English word for et . The paragraph is roman, with distinct numbered calls after celebrated and epigram, the latter before its period.
T167. The earlier and even few celebrated men remains in apparatus, separate from the main compressed wording. The annotation is roman; English places the terminal period inside the quotation, whereas French places it after the closing guillemet.
T168. The reviser’s key/apartments continuation remains separate source apparatus and is not presented as Joubert’s main wording. French literally has ouverts with final s and touts after n’a pas encore ; English has not yet opened all gives regular English without emending either French form. The complete annotation is roman. Its sentence period is already inside the French closing guillemet, as in English.
T153. This signature belongs to the historical source preface and remains its own right-aligned roman paired paragraph. Literal L’Editeur. has a plain capital E and its terminal period. The Editor. is not the credit of the present translator or Steven Neff; it supplies no date.