[peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

[Benjamin Udell]

Joe, list,   It will be interesting to find out what you thought was wrong about what the editors were saying. Again, thank you for your efforts in this!   So, putting things together, the only numbering by Peirce which we have consists in the ordinal English numbers which match the 10-box triangle at CP 2.264 and which are in the several pages just prior to CP 2.264. The relevant passage is in CP 2.233 through 2.272, and is derived from MS pages 540.2 through 540.23.    From: "Joseph Ransdell" To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 5:49 PM Subject: [peirce-l] representing the ten classes of signs (corrected) 66~~~~~~~~~ qualisigns icons rhemes          (I) sinsigns indices rhemes          (III) sinsigns indices dicisigns         (IV) sinsigns icons rhemes             (II) legisigns symbols rhemes        (VIII) legisigns symbols dicents        (IX) legisigns symbols arguments    (X) legisigns indices rhemes          (VI) legisigns indices dicents          (VII) legisigns icons rhemes             (V) That gives us Peirce's ordering both in the diagram of the ten-box triangle at CP 2.264, where Peirce inserts the Roman numerals in the boxes, and in the several pages just prior to that where he gives paragraph-long descriptions of each of the ten classes, wherein he does not use Roman numerals but does use ordinal English numbers (first, second, etc.). ~~~~~~~~~99   which gives us: 1st ~      rhematic    iconic      *qualisign*   2nd ~    rhematic  *iconic        sinsign* 3rd ~  *rhematic  indexical   sinsign* 4th ~  *dicent*      indexical  *sinsign* 5th ~    rhematic   *iconic        legisign* 6th ~  *rhematic   indexical   legisign* 7th ~  *dicent       indexical   legisign* 8th ~  *rhematic     symbol*  legisign 9th ~  *dicent         symbol*  legisign 10th ~ *argument* symbolic  legisign   Triangle at MS 540-17. CP 2.264 (I've added asterisks to indicate boldfacing, and tildes to help preserve spacing)   ~ Rhematic ~~~ Rhematic ~~ *Rhematic* ~~ *Argument* ~~ Iconic ~~~~ *Iconic* ~~~ *Symbol* ~~~~ Symbolic *Qualisign* ~ *Legisign* ~~~ Legisign ~~~~~ Legisign   ~~~~~~ Rhematic ~ *Rhematic* ~~~ *Dicent* ~~~~~~ *Iconic* ~ *Indexical* ~~~ *Symbol* ~~~~~~ *Sinsign* ~ *Legisign* ~~~~ Legisign   ~~~~~~~~~ *Rhematic* ~~~ *Dicent* ~~~~~~~~~ *Indexical* ~~ *Indexical* ~~~~~~~~~~ *Sinsign* ~~~ *Legisign*   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Dicent* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Indexical ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Sinsign*   One other note. As Steven Ericsson Zenith rightly pointed out, in the triangle of boxes in MS799.2 one doesn't see earlier numbers under _all_ the numbers despite how I described it. I should have said that I saw that as the pattern. What I actually seem to discern is:   CURRENT: 1 ~ 5 ~ 8 ~ 10 ~ 2 ~ 6 ~ 9 ~~ 3 ~ 7 ~~~ 4 EARLIER: ~~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 ~ 5 ~~ 8 The mark under the "2" is arguable not a "5"; it does seem very much like an earlier mark, and is consistent with a "5." One might also argue about the appearances of the supposed earlier "2" & "3". About the earlier "8" there is no doubt, and the earlier "4" seems pretty sure.   Best, Ben Udell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Ransdell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 9:46 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2) Ben and list: As regards the question of which of the three images of the triangle of boxes in the manuscript material is the one which was actually relied upon by the editors of the Collected Papers for the image of it that appears at CP 2.264, it is reasonably certain that it is the second one, i.e. the one from MS page 540.17, that was used.  The passage in the CP that begins at 2.233 and ends at 2.272 is derived from MS pages 540.2 through 540.23.  (If there is any further question about the accuracy of Hartshorne and Weiss's transcription of Peirce's document, let me know what passage you have in mind and I can check it against the original Peirce MS and make a copy of that page of the MS and post it, too, if that seems desirable or necessary.) That seems to me to settle the matter of the origin of the Roman numerals: it is an artifact of the editorial work of Hartshorne and Weiss.  In addition to what Ben says below, there is also what is said in the scribbled note at the bottom of page MS 540.17 towards the left bottom corner, which is by some later editor, who is saying that the rationale for the Roman numerals is to be found in the footnotes to CP 2.235 and 2.243, where Hartshorne and Weiss are giving their interpretation of the modal principles underlying the tenfold classification.. It may be more legible in the copy I have than in the copy I distributed.  To be exact, it reads as follows: "[See [235] and [243] for explanation of the roman numerals]"  So it must be by some later editor, who is referring to what Hartshorne and Weiss did as editors of the CP. I remarked earlier in this discussion that I found a marginal note to myself in my copy of the CP, written many years ago when I was working with this material with some intensity, that I thought Hartshorne and Weiss were making some sort of mistake in their account of what Peirce is saying.  I have not yet attempted to find out why I thought this is so, but I will try to do that now to see if there is anything in that.. Joe Ransdell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 1:45 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2) Looking at all three triangles, I get to feeling that it's unlikely that Pierce, having included no numbers in one triangle, would then in the other two triangles throw numbers in like afterthoughts and, in both triangles, change them, and begin and finish the numbers so that they looked a bit scattered and visually sloppy -- when he has written the sign class names with some care. Especially the MS540-17 triangle. I had noticed in the smaller graphic image of MS540-17 that the lettering looked careful, with serifs -- I thought it might even be medieval style. But in fact it was the bolding which Peirce did, which gave a medieval lookto some of the lettering when seen in the smaller, less-easy-to-read graphic image . I keep wanting to crack a joke here about Peirce being "not a profligate bolder" but showing here that "he was clearly not inexperienced at it ." Anyway, great work, Joe! Thanks for these images of Peirce's own writing. Best, Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:01 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2) Image came through beautifully! Look carefully at the MS799.2 triangle of boxes and you can that the numbers are change from an earlier set of numbers. I originally thought that the little earlier numeral "8" was an extra numeral "3" CURRENT: 1 ~ 5 ~ 8 ~ 10 ~ 2 ~ 6 ~ 9 ~~ 3 ~ 7 ~~~ 4 EARLIER: 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 ~ 5 ~ 6 ~ 7 ~~ 8 ~ 9 ~~~ 10 Best, Ben --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com