 these notes were instead extensively revised (and not just complemented) in order to render them both more precise and more in line with current bibliographic standards. Unfortunately in the present case, this objective, although commendable in itself, proves rather difficult to achieve for three main reasons: 1) Duhem's text is often severely altered to the point where the valuable information it contained is lost (for example, the reference number given to a letter in an edition of his correspondence, or the title of a chapter or section referred to specifically), mistakes appear where there were none (at the risk of raising Jean-François Stoffel – Dossier Pierre Duhem – Book Review 162 suspicions that Duhem, since he had made errors in his references, may not have hesitated to refer books he had never consulted), and this without even systematically rectifying the erroneous references present in the Duhemian text; 2) the reader is kept in the dark as to the changes effected and as to their extent, since these are neither explicitly stated nor typographically documented; 3) lastly, these alterations, incoherent as they are, do not seem to adhere to any form of systematic implementation resulting from clearly predefined principles. In deference to those who pay attention to the footnotes – and especially to those for whom it is their primary focus of study – the text of the Duhemian footnotes should have been faithfully transcribed, as well as the bibliographical references systematically checked, before distinctly claiming to offer a more complete version. Instead, in her eagerness to improve and modernize the Duhemian bibliographical references, the editor provides the French translation of city names, Gallicizes authors' names, reduces forenames to their initials, and transforms publications years, which were furnished in Roman numerals, into Arabic numerals. By effecting all these modifications, one naturally runs the risk of introducing errors. Here are a few examples (bearing in mind that we indeed checked each one to be quite sure that they were neither necessary nor appropriate): "MDXCVI" becomes "1615" (p. 75, n. 14); "MDCXXVI" becomes "1636" (p. 245, n. 14); "MDCLI" becomes "1606" (p. 246, n. 20); and "MDLVII" becomes "1556" (p. 247, n. 51). These errors, resulting from the author's commendable desire to amend the Duhemian notes, are evidently compounded by those due to
these notes were instead extensively revised (and not just complement) in decree to render them both more precise and more in course with current bibliographic criterion. Unfortunately in the present case, this objective, although applaudable in itself, proves rather difficult to achieve for three chief reasons: 1) Duhem's text is much severely altered to the decimal point where the valuable data it contained is lost (for case, the reference number contribute to a letter in an edition of his correspondence, or the title of a chapter or incision referred to specifically), mistakes appear where there be none (at the risk of raising Jean - François Stoffel – Dossier Pierre Duhem – Book Review 162 suspicions that Duhem, since he had made errors in his citation, may not have hesitated to refer books he had never consulted), and this without even systematically rectifying the erroneous reference present in the Duhemian text; 2) the reader is kept in the dark as to the changes effected and as to their extent, since these are neither explicitly stated nor typographically documented; 3) lastly, these alterations, incoherent as they are, do not look to adhere to any form of taxonomic execution resulting from clearly predefined principles. In deference to those who yield attention to the footnotes – and especially to those for whom it is their primary stress of study – the text of the Duhemian footnotes should have been faithfully transcribed, as well as the bibliographical references systematically checked, before distinctly claiming to offer a more complete version. alternatively, in her eagerness to better and modernize the Duhemian bibliographical references, the editor provides the French transformation of city names, Gallicizes authors' names, reduces forenames to their initials, and transforms publications years, which were furnish in Roman numerals, into Arabic numeral. By effecting all these modifications, one naturally runs the risk of introducing mistake. Here are a few examples (have a bun in the oven in mind that we indeed check each one to be quite sure that they were neither necessary nor appropriate ): " MDXCVI " becomes " 1615 " (p. 75, n. 14); " MDCXXVI " becomes " 1636 " (p. 245, n. 14); " MDCLI " becomes " 1606 " (p. 246, n. 20); and " MDLVII " becomes " 1556 " (p. 247, n. 51). These mistake, resulting from the generator's commendable desire to amend the Duhemian notes, are evidently compounded by those ascribable to
 thfse notes were instead ewtensively revisgd (and nmt jusf compleoented) in order to render thxm bith mire precise and more iv line winh currenr biuliographic stanvzrds. Unnjrtuhwtelv mn the present gase, this otjective, althoggf eommendable in itself, proves rather qifficukt to achieve fot thrte iain gecsons: 1) Duhem's text is often sevsrely antered to the point where the valuable lnfogmation it containfd is lost (dor qzample, the rdference nlkber given to a letter in an edition of hks coxrespondencg, kr jhe title of a chwpter or secbpon refarred tp specifically), mivtajes appear where therx were none (at the rysk of rahsnng Jean-François Stoffwl – Dosvier Piefee Auhtm – Bkok Regiex 162 suspiciohs that Duhwm, since he had madt ewgprs in his rsferensef, may not have hesitated to refer books he had never consulted), ane this without even sistematicajly rectifying the erroneous references present it the Auhtmlwv tfxt; 2) the reader is kept in the dark as to the dhsnnes effected and as to theit fxygnt, since thesg are nzjtger explicitly stahed nor typotraphicaljy dpcumented; 3) lastly, these altwrations, incjyerent as they are, do not seeo to adhete to any form of systeoatid implementwtion reshuting from clearuy iredafined principles. In deferqnce to tiose cho pay xttemtion eo the foohnotes – and especially tl thode for whom lt is their primary focus of stnvy – the text pf thv Duhemiau footkotes should hade been faithfolly tranfcribdd, as well as the bibliograprical referenwgs systematicelly cheched, vefoee distkvctly claiming to offer a more conplete version. Insbead, kh her eagerness to improve and mocervizq nhe Dtvemian biblimgraohizsl rewerences, thc eaitot provides the Frencv trznslation of city maies, Gallucizes atthors' names, teduces forenames uo themr inivials, snd transforms publications years, which wege nurnished in Womak nuierals, intp Arabic numerals. By effecting all thesx modifications, one najurally runs the risk pf introducmng erwors. Here are a few examples (vearing in mind tmat we indeed checked sach ote to be quite sure that they were neither necessary nor appropriate): "MDXCVI" bexomes "1615" (p. 75, n. 14); "MDCXXBI" brcomev "1636" ('. 245, n. 14); "MQCLI" uecomes "1606" (p. 246, n. 20); anc "MDLVII" becomes "1556" (p. 247, n. 51). These ecrors, resuntnng from the author's commendanld desire to aoend the Duhemian notes, zre evidrntly compounded by those due tp
these notes were instead extensively revised (and complemented) order to them both more with bibliographic standards. Unfortunately the present case, objective, although commendable in itself, proves difficult to achieve for three main reasons: 1) Duhem's text is often severely to the point where the valuable information it contained is lost (for example, reference given a in an edition of his correspondence, or the title of a chapter or section referred to mistakes appear where there were none (at the of raising Jean-François Stoffel Dossier Pierre Duhem – Book 162 that Duhem, he made in his references, not have hesitated to refer books he had never consulted), and this without even systematically rectifying the references present Duhemian text; the is in the dark the changes effected and as to these are neither explicitly stated nor typographically documented; lastly, these incoherent as they are, do not to adhere to any form of systematic implementation from clearly predefined principles. In deference to those who pay attention to the footnotes – to those for whom is their primary of – text the Duhemian should have been faithfully transcribed, as well as the bibliographical references checked, before distinctly claiming to offer a more complete version. her to improve and the Duhemian bibliographical references, editor the French translation of Gallicizes names, their and publications years, which were in Roman numerals, into Arabic By effecting all these risk of introducing errors. Here are a few (bearing in mind that we indeed checked one to be quite sure that they were neither necessary nor appropriate): becomes "1615" n. 14); "MDCXXVI" becomes "1636" (p. 245, n. "MDCLI" becomes "1606" (p. n. 20); and "MDLVII" becomes "1556" (p. 247, n. These resulting from author's commendable desire amend the Duhemian are evidently compounded due to
 these notes were instead exteNsively revIsed (aNd nOt jUsT comPlemEnted) in order to REndeR them both more precise anD more In LIne wITh CurreNt bibliOGrAPHic StAnDarDs. uNfOrtunAteLy in the Present casE, thIs Objective, altHOuGh commendaBle In itself, provEs rAther dIfFicULt to aChiEve foR three MAin reaSons: 1) Duhem'S tEXt is ofTEn severELY aLterEd to the point where THe VAluable informaTion it CoNTaINEd iS loSt (for exampLe, The reFErence nUMbER GIveN To a letter in an Edition of hiS CorResponDeNce, OR the tiTle of A cHAptEr or section RefeRred to speCificaLLy), mistaKEs appeaR where TheRe wEre nONe (At The RiSK of RAiSinG jeaN-FrançoiS SToFfel – DOssiER pIErre duhEm – BoOk RevIew 162 suspicions ThaT DuhEM, siNce he Had maDe erRoRs in hIs refeRenceS, mAy not have hesitaTed tO refer booKs hE hAd nEvEr conSUlted), aNd tHis Without Even sysTEmaTiCALLy Rectifying the erronEoUS ReFerences PresenT In ThE duhemian TeXt; 2) tHe reADEr is kEpt iN ThE dark as tO the chANgEs EffecteD aNd as to ThEir ExtEnt, siNCe thEse are Neither eXplicITly stated nor tyPOgraphically dOCuMENtED; 3) lasTly, These alteraTionS, IncoHereNT aS thEY are, dO not sEeM To ADhere to any form of sysTeMatic iMplemEntation resulTing from clEARLy predefIned PRiNCiples. In defereNce to Those who paY AttentioN to thE footnotEs – and espeCIAlly to thOse For WhoM it IS ThEir primary focUS Of stUdY – the texT of The DuheMiaN foOtnOteS sHould have Been faitHfUlLy TrAnsCribeD, As well as ThE biBlIogRaphiCAl refeRenceS sysTeMaTIcaLly checKEd, BEFore DiStInctLy cLaIming To ofFEr a More comPlete versIon. iNsteAd, In Her eageRness to improvE aNd modernizE tHe DUhemiaN BIbliograPhical references, the editOR providEs tHe FreNch tRanslatioN of City naMes, gAlliciZes autHors' nAmEs, rEDUces fOREnAmeS tO their initIALs, aNd traNsFormS publicAtions years, which weRE fuRnished in RomaN nuMeraLS, InTo ARAbIC nuMeRAls. bY Effecting all theSe modificaTiONs, One naturalLY ruNs The risk Of introDucinG Errors. HEre are a feW examples (BeArinG IN miNd that we inDeed checKed each onE To be qUItE sure ThaT they wErE neIther NecessARy nOr appRopriaTe): "mDXCVI" BecomEs "1615" (P. 75, n. 14); "MDCXXVi" becomes "1636" (p. 245, n. 14); "MDCLI" becomes "1606" (p. 246, N. 20); and "MDlVII" bEcoMes "1556" (p. 247, n. 51). ThesE erROrs, Resulting From The author's ComMenDable DesIRe to aMend THe duhEMian nOtes, ARe evidentLY cOmpOUNdEd by those duE TO
 these notes were insteadextensivel y rev ise d ( an d no t ju st complemente d ) in  order to render thembothmo r e pr e ci se an d morei nl i newi th  cu rr e nt  bibl iog raphicstandards.  Un fo rtunately in th e presentcas e, this obje cti ve, al th oug h  comm end ablein its e lf, pr oves rath er diffic u lt to a c h ie ve f or three main rea s on s : 1) Duhem's t ext is  o f te n sev ere ly altered  t o the point w h er e t hev aluable infor mation it c o nta ined i slos t  (forexamp le ,  th e reference  num ber given  to al etter i n  an edi tion o f h iscorr e sp on den ce ,  or th e t i tle  of a ch ap te r orsect i o n refe rre d to  spec ifically), mi sta kesa ppe ar wh ere t here  w ere n one (a t the  r isk of raisingJean -François  St of fel  –  Doss i er Pie rre  Du hem – B ook Rev i ew16 2 s us picions that Duhem ,s i nc e he had  madee rr or s  in hisre fer ence s ,  maynoth av e hesita ted to re fe r books  h e hadne ver  co nsult e d),and th is witho ut ev e n systematical l y rectifyingt he e rr o neou s r eferences p rese n t in  the Du hem i an te xt; 2 )t he reader is kept in t he  darkas to  the changeseffected a n d as to th eire xt e nt, since thes e are  neither e x plicitly  stat ed nor t ypographi c a lly docu men ted ; 3 ) l a s tl y, these alte r a tion s,  incohe ren t as th eyare , d o n ot  seem toadhere t oan yfo rmof sy s tematicim ple me nta tionr esulti ng fr om c le ar l y p redefin e dp r inci pl es . In  de fe rence  tot hos e who p ay attent ion to t he  f ootnote s – and espec ia lly to tho se  fo r whom i t is the ir primary focus of stu d y – the  te xt of  the  Duhemian  fo otnote s s h ould h ave be en fa it hfu l l y tra n s cr ibe d,  as well a s the  bibl io grap hical r eferences systemat i cal ly checked, b efo re d i s ti nct l yc lai mi n g t o offer a more co mplete ver si o n.  Instead,i n h er  eagern ess toimpro v e and m odernizethe Duhem ia n bi b l iog raphical r eference s, the ed i tor p r ov idesthe  Frenc htra nslat ion of cit y nam es, Ga ll icizes  auth or s' names , reduces forenames totheiriniti als , and tra nsf o rms  publicat ions  years, wh ich  we re fu rni s hed i n Ro m an  nu m erals , in t o Arabicn um era l s .By effectin g a llthese  mo d ificat ions , one naturally r u ns the risk of  int r o duc ing erro rs . Here are a f ewex a m ples (be ar ing in mind  that we  i n deedchecke d each  one to b eq uite s uretha t they we rene i ther ne ce ss a ry nor  app ro priate ): "MD X CVI" b ecomes "1615" (p . 75, n . 14) ;  "M DCXXV I"  become s  "16 36" (p. 24 5, n. 14);"MDCLI " be comes  "1606"  ( p. 246 , n .20); and " M DLVII" be comes  "1556"  ( p. 2 47,  n. 51 ). T h e se er rors ,res ulting fr o m  t h eau t hor 's c ommen da bledesire to amend th e D u hemianno tes , are ev i de n t ly compoun ded  by t h o se due to
 these_notes were_instead extensively revised (and_not just_complemented)_in order_to_render them both_more precise and_more in line with_current bibliographic standards._Unfortunately_in the present case, this objective, although commendable in itself, proves rather difficult to_achieve_for three_main_reasons:_1) Duhem's text is often_severely altered to the point_where the_valuable information it contained is lost (for example,_the_reference number given_to a letter in an edition of his correspondence,_or the title of a chapter_or section referred_to_specifically),_mistakes appear where there_were none (at the risk of_raising Jean-François Stoffel – Dossier Pierre_Duhem – Book Review 162 suspicions that_Duhem, since he had made errors_in his references, may not_have hesitated_to refer books he had_never consulted), and_this without_even systematically rectifying_the erroneous references present in the_Duhemian text; 2)_the reader is kept in the_dark_as to the_changes_effected_and as_to their extent,_since_these are_neither_explicitly stated nor typographically documented; 3)_lastly,_these alterations, incoherent as they are, do_not seem to adhere_to_any form of systematic_implementation resulting from clearly predefined_principles. In deference to those who_pay attention_to the_footnotes – and especially to those for whom it is their_primary focus of study – the_text of the Duhemian_footnotes should_have_been faithfully transcribed,_as_well as_the bibliographical references systematically checked, before distinctly_claiming to_offer a more complete version. Instead,_in her eagerness to_improve_and modernize the Duhemian bibliographical references,_the editor provides the French translation_of city names, Gallicizes authors'_names,_reduces_forenames to their initials, and_transforms publications years, which were furnished_in Roman numerals,_into Arabic numerals. By effecting all these_modifications,_one naturally runs the risk of_introducing_errors. Here are a few examples_(bearing_in_mind that we indeed checked_each one to be quite sure_that they were neither necessary nor appropriate): "MDXCVI" becomes_"1615" (p. 75,_n. 14); "MDCXXVI" becomes "1636"_(p._245,_n. 14); "MDCLI" becomes "1606" (p. 246, n. 20); and_"MDLVII" becomes_"1556" (p. 247,_n. 51). These errors, resulting from the author's commendable desire_to amend the Duhemian notes, are evidently_compounded by those due to