|
David:
Thanks for the further
clarification. I wonder, though, if it is not going too far to say that it
was meant to be a state of the art encyclopedia, etc. (see below)? I
looked up the word "dictionary" -- which apparently was not defined by Peirce --
and it doesn't seem to to warrant regarding it that way. Here is the
entry for that (minus some word-equivalents in other languages which are too
difficult to reproduce here):
====================================
DICTIONARY (dik' shon-a-ri), n. and a. lit. a
word-book,
First used, it is said, by Joannes de Garlandia (died about A.D.
1250), the compiler of a dictionarius, a classified list of words.
Exactly equiv. in etymological meaning are vocabulary, lexicon,
and word-book.]I. n.; pl. dictionaries (-riz). A
book containing either all or the principal words of a language, or words of one
or more specified classes, arranged in a stated order, usually alphabetical,
with definitions or explanations of their meanings and other information
concerning them, expressed either in the same or in another language; a
word-book; a lexicon; a vocabulary: as, an English
dictionary; a Greek and Latin dictionary; a French-English or an English-French
dictionary. In the original and most usual sense a dictionary is chiefly
linguistic and literary, containing all the common words of the language with
information as to their meanings and uses. In addition to definitions, the
larger dictionaries include etymologies, pronunciation, and variations of
spelling', together with illustrative citations, more or less explanatory
information, etc. Special or technical dictionaries supply information on a
single subject or branch of a subject: as, a dictionary of medicine or of
mechanics; a biographical dictionary. A dictionary of geography is usually
called a gazetteer.
What speech esteem you most? The king's, said I. But the best words?
O, Sir, the dictionary.
Pope, Donne Versified, iv.
The multiplication and improvement of dictionaries is a matter
especially important to the general comprehension of English.
G.P. Marsh, Lects. on Eng. Lang.,
xxi.
=Syn. Glossary, Lexicon, etc. See
vocabulary.II. a. Pertaining to or contained in a
dictionary.
The word having acquired in common usage a vituperative connotation
in addition to its dictionary meaning.
J. S. Mill, Logic, v. 7.
===================================
Of course it is possible that
Peirce misunderstood it that way, but perhaps the idea of hortatory meaning is
sufficient to account for the extended accounts he sometimes gives, though it
does seem that he was stretching things beyond reasonable limits at
times.
Joe
Ransdell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:17
PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: question about
century dictionary
Joseph, all,
There are a number of such
statements of Peirce's expressing his dissatisfaction with the Century
Dictionary. But Peirce's attitude toward the editors (and other contributors,
and the Dictionary itself, etc.) varied widely, from admiration to frustration
and contempt; conversely, the attitude of the Century Co. toward Peirce
fluctuated. You are right in saying that it should be kept in mind that Peirce
worked under special constraints; the thing is that writing for an
encyclopedia (the CD was not just a dictionary proper; it was meant to
be a state-of-the-art encyclopedia and give a picture of the state of
knowledge in almost every field of the day. It is somewhat akin to Diderot and
D'Alembert's Encyclopédie) necessarily raises the issue of authorship
(cf. your discussion of Wikipedia and Digital Universe) because the
responsibility of making decisions about the final state of any piece of text
was unevenly and irregularly spread over several people (the author, editors,
etymologists, other contributors, proofreaders, and so
forth).
==========quote Nathan Houser============
Overall
Peirce was quite satisfied with the results of his work, even
though
he would
often remark, as he did to Paul Carus on 25 September 1890,
"God
forbid I
should _approve_ of above 1/10 of what I insert."
==========end quote============
The
passage you quote from Peirce helps in understanding what Peirce
meant
in the
seemingly negative judgment that Nathan alludes to, namely, that
the
reader of
the definitions in the dictionary should bear in mind that
Peirce
was under
the constraint of being required to give a report on actual
usage
of the
words he is providing definitions for since the Century is not,
after
all, a
philosophical dictionary but rather a dictionary primarily
dedicated
to
reporting popular usage, though it also contains descripitions
of
specialized usage, too,
and perhaps even
preferred -- i.e. implicitly
recommended -- usage now and then as well.
You go on to
say:
Well, in a way the CD
*was* meant to be a philosophical (and botanical, chemical, astronomical,
etc.) dictionary. Its main purpose was to give the reader an idea of the
current state of knowledge in all fields. In any case that is certainly how
Peirce saw things, and that explains that he was sometimes disappointed.
Another point is that the notion of what a dictionary definition should do is
not exactly the same today as it was in 1880; hortatory definitions (that is, definitions that
tell people how they should use
or understand a term or notion, instead of just describing how it is actually used) were sometimes
used and many of Peirce's articles are hortatory definitions. The prime
example is his definition of "university", which was at first rejected by
editors, and finally accepted after he impressed upon them his idea that it
was vital that the conception of a university in America change, otherwise
there would never be an institution worthy of being called a university in the
country.
"It
appears at the end of the "Reply to the Necessitarians" Monist
article.
It could induce some rather severe pessimism about any hopes
we might
have in trusting that Peirce's definitions in the Century
Dictionary can be considered to reflect his own views, but I
can say
he is
being overly pessimistic himself in that passage as we find
many gems
in his CD work, philosophical and otherwise."
Everything considered, I don't think it need be read as
expressing pessimism
but only
as saying something like "Bear in mind what I could and could
not
do
there." What had bothered me about the passage
Nathan quoted was, of
course,
that it seemed that we might be compelled to infer that Peirce
"officially" approved of something which he did not in fact
approve of, thus
behaved
dishonestly. But he put such an extraordinary amount
of time and
labor in
on that dictionary as to make it highly implausible that he did
so
in
violation of his own intellectual integrity.
Yes, but I would rephrase it as "Bear in mind that sometimes I
could have things exactly the way I wanted them, sometimes not at all, and
oftentimes anywhere in between". And sometimes we know whether Peirce
approved, whether he thought that a given article truly reflected his views,
sometimes we have to guess.
David
---
Message from peirce-l forum
to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.4/282 - Release Date:
3/15/2006
|
