1. A boarder in the same convent.

  2. Josephine was the portress of the convent.

  3. To understand this passage, it must be remarked, that the Count de Gercourt had quitted the Marchioness de Merteuil for the Intendante de ⸻, who had on his account abandoned the Viscount de Valmont, and that then the attachment of the Marchioness to the Viscount commenced. As that adventure was long antecedent to the events which are the subject of these letters, it has been thought better to suppress the whole of that correspondence.

  4. Not to tire the reader’s patience, we suppress many of the letters of this daily correspondence, and give only them we think necessary for unfolding the events of this society. For the same reason we suppress all those of Sophia Carnay, and several of those of the actors in this piece.

  5. Madame de Volanges’ error informs us, that Valmont, like most profligate wretches, did not impeach his accomplices.

  6. This is the same who is mentioned in Madame de Merteuil’s letters.

  7. The letter that is mentioned here was not found; but there is reason to believe that it is that Madame de Merteuil mentions in her letter which Cecilia Volanges refers to.

  8. Madame de Tourvel does not venture to say it is done by her order.

  9. We shall hereafter suppress Cecilia Volanges and Chevalier Danceny’s letters, being uninteresting.

  10. See Letter the 35th.

  11. Those who have not sometimes had occasion to feel the value of a word, of an expression consecrated by love, will not find any sense in this phrase.

  12. The reader must have long since observed, from Madame de Merteuil’s manners, that she paid little regard to religion. All this detail would have been suppressed; but it was thought, that to show effects, it was necessary to touch upon the causes of them.

  13. It is imagined Rousseau in his Emily; but the citation is not exact, and the application that Valmont makes is false; and, perhaps, Madame de Tourvel had not read Emily.

  14. Mr. Danceny is wrong; for he had already made a confidant of Mons. de Valmont. See Letter the 57th.

  15. Mademoiselle de Volanges having a little time after changed her confidant, as will be seen in the following Letters, there will no more be given in this collection of those she continued to write to her friend in the convent.

  16. This letter was not found.

  17. Hereafter will be seen, in the 152nd Letter, not Mr. de Valmont’s secret, but pretty nearly of what kind it was; and the reader will perceive, that we could throw no more light on that subject.

  18. See Letter the 74th.

  19. See Letter the 70th.

  20. Several persons, perhaps, do not know that a macedoine is a collection of games at hazard, in which each person who cuts the cards has a right to choose when he holds the hand: it is one of the inventions of the age.

  21. The commandant of the corps in which Prevan served.

  22. Danceny does not know the way; he only repeats Valmont’s expression.

  23. Voltaire’s comedy of Nanine.

  24. The same village, halfway on the roads.

  25. New Heloise.

  26. New Heloise.

  27. Regnard’s Amorous Follies.

  28. This letter was never found.

  29. Letters 120 and 122.

  30. See Letter 128.

  31. Du Belloi’s tragedy of The Siege of Calais.

  32. Letters 46 and 47.

  33. Nothing having appeared in this correspondence that could resolve this doubt, we chose to suppress Valmont’s letter.

  34. This box contained all the letters relative to her adventure with M. de Valmont.

  35. Letters 81 and 85.

  36. It is from this correspondence, from that given at the death of M. de Tourvel, and the letters confided to M. Rosemonde, by Madame de Volanges, that the present collection has been compiled; the originals are still existing in the possession of Madame de Rosemonde’s heirs.

  37. This letter remained unanswered.

  38. Particular reasons and considerations, which we shall always think it our duty to respect, oblige us to stop here.

    We cannot at this time give the reader neither the continuation of M. de Volanges’ adventures, nor the sinister events which fulfilled the miseries or ended M. de Merteuil’s Punishment.

    We shall be permitted, perhaps, some time or other, to complete this work, but we cannot pledge ourselves to this: even if we could, we should first think ourselves obliged to consult the taste of the public, who have not the same reasons we have to be concerned in this publication.