Jon AS, Mike B,
After the Peirce Centennial in 2014, I attended a one-day workshop
at Harvard about the critical issue of crumbling manuscripts.
JAS
[Digitization] has been done already, unless you are referring to
additional manuscripts that are not included in the Harvard microfilms.
... Ideally, the Peirce Edition Project would be making greater strides
toward #2 and #3, but for various reasons has not been able to do so.
Nearly all the digital copies are low-resolution black & white made
from the old microfiche. The only high resolution images available
were shown at the workshop. Jay Zeman posted them on his web site,
and they were copied to fromthepage.com. As an example of the very
few high resolution color images from that workshop, see
https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-145?page=2
Compare that to the old low res. versions, which were all that the
PEP project had. They had to make repeated, expensive trips to
Harvard to check the many ambiguous or unclear images. But the
Houghton Library did not have the funding to do high res scans for
all the MSS. And they still don't.
Furthermore, there were thousands of pages that were not copied
to microfiche. Nobody knows the exact number, but it's large.
MB
I had previously assembled my own reference collection [derived
from CP, EP, and NEM]... This enables me to do approximate
searches across Peirce's writings.
It would be great to have such tools for *all* the MSS organized
in chronological order and cross-referenced to all the published
versions -- *AND* to various publications about those MSS.
JAS
JFS: I suspect that Peirce replaced 'tone' with 'mark'...
Again, the textual evidence is quite thin that Peirce replaced
"Tone" with "Mark."
In any case, the evidence that Peirce was not satisfied with the
triad tone/token/type seems to be clear. He proposed that in 1906,
but he considered potisign/actisign/famisign as an alternative.
Then on 23 Dec 1908, he explicitly said that he wanted a "really
good" alternative for 'tone' and was considering 'mark'. See
the attached EP2_408.jpg.
Note the passage "For a possible Sign, I have no better designation
than a _Tone_, though I'm considering replacing this by Mark. Can
you suggest a really good name?"
There are some clear conclusions that we can draw: (1) He was not
satisfied with Tone; (2) Mark may be better; but (3) neither Tone
nor Mark is a "really good name".
I admit that this does not conclusively justify "Mark", but it does
indicate that Peirce considered "Tone"toe be no better than "Mark",
and perhaps worse.
John
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
