referring back to his 1878 “Illustrations” article, “The Order of Nature” (W3, sel. 64), which he usually cited as the beginning of his serious work on cosmology.
17. Peirce made this distinction in his definition of “reason” for the Century Dictionary and quoted Hobbes’s Leviathan, pt. 1, chap. 4, as his source.
18. See the textual headnote for this selection, p. 564. To compare with James’s work, see, for example, Principles of Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 588ff. Much of “The Stream of Thought” had been published under the title “On Some Omissions of Introspective Psychology” in the January 1884 issue of Mind.
19. See annotation 33.2, p. 368.
20. Kee Soo Shin. Paul Carus’s “Positive Monism” and Critique of Other Types of Monism (Mach, Haeckel, Peirce). Dissertation, Philosophy Dept., Temple University, 1973, p. 344.
21. In his 1887 paper on “Logical Machines” (W6, sel. 15), Peirce had made an in-depth comparison of Jevons’s and Marquand’s logical machines and had demonstrated the superiority of Marquand’s.
22. See annotation 99.36, p. 384.
23. This was actually a misquotation: see annotation 38.13–15, p. 371.
24. See Victor F. Lenzen, “An Unpublished Scientific Monograph by C. S. Peirce,” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 5.1 (1969): 5–24, and W6: lxv–lxix, for more details.
25. See Peirce to Thorn, 28 May 1889; Mendenhall to Peirce, c. 4 October 1890; and Peirce to Mendenhall, 15 October 1890.
26. See the textual headnote for sel. 14, pp. 547–48.
27. In the Chronological Catalog for this volume, several manuscripts are noted to be possibly related to Peirce’s work for the Century Dictionary.
28. See the following entries in the Chronological Catalog: 1890.41 and c.1890.17–20, 23–25.
29. W4, sel. 38; W5, sel. 45; W6, sels. 20 and 21.
30. In 1931, Gödel proved that number theory was incomplete, and in 1970 Yuri Matiyasevich gave a negative answer to Hilbert.
31. See the textual headnote for sel. 16, p. 551.
32. Open Court 5 (31 Dec. 1890): 3076.
33. Book Chat 6.1 (Jan. 1891): 11.
34. Ferrel to Mendenhall, 19 October, 1890; see also W6: 481–82, annotation 301.18–19.
35. Peirce would also have noticed that in Schröder’s bibliography he was listed as “Peirce, Charles S(antiago),” just below an entry for his father with guidance for pronouncing his surname: “Peirce, Benjamin (gesprochen: Pörss).” This is no doubt the first occurrence of “Santiago” as Peirce’s middle name. It is not known why Schröder gave Peirce this name but the fact that all but the ‘S’ is in parentheses suggests that it was only a guess. Soon, however, Schröder’s correspondent, the mathematician Ventura Reyes Prósper, would begin using “Santiago” as Peirce’s middle name in letters and publications. In 1903, when Peirce was preparing a personal entry for a biographical dictionary (R 1611), he wrote: “I am variously listed in print as Charles Santiago Peirce, Charles Saunders Peirce, and Charles Sanders Peirce. Under the circumstances a noncommittal S. suits me best.” Eventually, after William James came so crucially to his aid in later years, it occurred to Peirce to honor James by putting “Santiago” (Saint James) to use and by 1907 he had become Charles Santiago Sanders Peirce.
36. W4, sel. 19 and W5, sel. 30.
37. See the annotations on pp. 419–24 for further discussion of these selections.
38. Fisch stated emphatically that his explanation was “pure hypothesis.” Perhaps the Peirce estate had been named for the Arisbe butterfly or for something else. (Max H. Fisch, “Peirce’s Arisbe: The Greek Influence in His Later Philosophy,” Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism, eds. Ketner and Kloesel, n. 40, p. 248.) For a different guess, see André De Tienne’s “The Mystery of Arisbe” in Peirce Project Newsletter 3.1 (1999); see also the introduction to W6, p. lxxii.
39. See the annotations for sel. 35 for further commentary on Peirce’s question and his solution, and annotation 173.29–30, p. 407, for references to Cayley’s publications on trees.
40. Of course sel. 35 is part of the general study of the copula that includes sels. 31–34.
41. James’s Principles also “offended the scientific scruples” of James Sully and G. Stanley Hall, according to Ralph Barton Perry; see his Thought and Character of William James, vol. 1, pp. 104–11.
42. That Peirce took James’s Psychology quite seriously is attested to by the fact that he continued to work with it and correspond with James about it. Sometime between 1894 and 1897, Peirce composed a set of forty-six questions on volume one. On 1 January 1894, Peirce wrote to James to tell him how much he liked his “distinction between substantive and transitive parts of the train of thought” and told him that there was “nothing in your psychology which serves my purposes better.” But Peirce believed that James should choose more appropriate “psychological terms” for this key distinction and “leave grammar-words for logic.” These “Questions on William James’s Principles of Psychology,” will be included in a later volume. Some of the questions were published by Perry, ibid., and some in CP 8.72–90. See Mathias Girel’s “The Metaphysics and Logic of Psychology: Peirce’s Reading of James’s Principles,” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 39.2 (2003): 163–203.
43. See annotation 240.3, pp. 429–30, for the complete editorial.
44. Peirce’s claim that growth is irreversible was promptly challenged and Peirce elaborated and defended his position in the 22 October and 12 November issues of the Nation: see annotation 244.6–7, pp. 432–33.
45. See annotation 123.16–17, p. 389.
46. “Mr. Charles S. Peirce on Necessity,” Monist 2.3 (April 1892): 442.
47. “Mr. Charles S. Peirce’s Onslaught on the Doctrine of Necessity,” Monist 2.4 (July 1892): 560–82.
48. “The Idea of Necessity, Its Basis and Its Scope,” Monist 3.1 (October 1892): 68–96.
49. Monist 3.4 (July 1893): 571–622.
50. See annotation 125.35, p. 389. Except for Carus’s final rejoinder, the exchange will be published in W9 and the controversy will be discussed more fully in the introduction to that volume.
51. See annotation 245.3–4, pp. 433–34.
52. Josiah Royce, “Dr. Abbot’s ‘Way Out of Agnosticism’,” International Journal of Ethics 1.1 (Oct. 1890): 98–113.
53. See John Clendenning’s Life and Thought of Josiah Royce (Vanderbilt University Press, 2nd ed., 1999) for a full discussion of Royce’s health and of his conflict with Abbot.
54. Bruce Kuklick. The Rise of American Philosophy: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1860– 1930 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), p. 250n.
55. See W5: 279–82.
56. See Kuklick 1977, p. 250n.: “For some reason or other, however, Royce had set out to annihilate Abbot’s reputation.”
57. “Abbot Against Royce,” Nation 53 (19 Nov. 1891): 389–90.
58. “The Suppression of Dr. Abbot’s Reply,” Nation 53 (26 Nov. 1891): 408.
59. “Mr. Warner’s ‘Evidence in Full’ Completed,” Nation 53 (3 Dec. 1891): 426.
60. See Clendenning, p. 168.
61. Clendenning, p. 148.
62. See John McDermott’s introduction to The Basic Writings of Josiah Royce (University of Chicago Press, 1969), vol. 1, p. 7.
63.