64. In this regard, see Carolyn Eisele’s “General Introduction” to New Elements of Mathematics, vol. 1.
65. Peirce delivered his Lowell Lectures on “The History of Science” in Boston, between 28 November 1892 and 5 January 1893. The lectures will be included in W9 and will be discussed more fully in the introduction to that volume.
66. See W6: xxvii–xxx and sels. 2–13.
67. See the following entries in the Chronological Catalog: c.1891.6; 8–10.
68. Lodge to Peirce, 18 Dec. 1891.
69. For more of this letter, see W6: xxxvi.
70. Science 19.466 (8 Jan. 1892): 18.
71. See Victor Lenzen. “An Unpublished Scientific Monograph by C. S. Peirce,” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 5.1 (1969): 5–24, and W6: lxviii.
72. Lenzen, ibid., p. 20.
73. U.S. Coast Survey vs. Naval Hydrographic Office; a 19th-Century Rivalry in Science and Politics (University of Alabama Press, 1988), p. 110.
74. Now we would say “historiometry,” a term Frederick Adams Woods introduced in his book, The Influence of Monarchs, 1913, for which Peirce contributed a promotional comment, as did Royce, to support sales. Peirce told Woods that “biometry” would have been a better word.
75. The added names were: St. Bernard, John Bernoulli, St. Charles Borromeo, Canova, Carlyle, Chopin, Claude Lorraine, Sir Humphrey Davy, Diderot, Dryden, Alexandre Dumas, Froissart, W. L. Garrison, Pasteur, Madame Roland, Marshall [Maurice de] Saxe, Solomon, Swift, Vauban, and Daniel Webster.
76. The five names Peirce removed were: Aristophanes, Grassmann, Haroun-al-Rashid, Riemann, and Sylvester.
77. In 1893, Halsted published an article in the Educational Review on “The Old and the New Geometry” in which he described the “three possible geometries of uniform space” and reported that “Charles S. Peirce claims to have established, from astronomical measurements, that our particular space is hyperbolic, is the space first expounded by Lobatschewsky and Bolyai It is thinkable that our space, the space in which we move, may be finite and recurrent; nor would this contradict our perceptive intuition (Anschauung), since this always relates only to a finite part of space. Just so there is nothing absurd in C. S. Peirce’s claim to have proved that what Cayley calls ‘the physical space of our experience’ belongs to Lobatschewsky-Bolyai, not to Euclid.”
78. Nicholas Murray Butler, editor of the Educational Review, asked Peirce on 15 February 1892 to submit a brief article “following out the hint contained in your Nation paper concerning the teaching of geometry. It would be most interesting and valuable to have clearly stated what changes should now be made in the method of presenting elementary geometry owing to the discoveries of modern mathematics.” Peirce did not write the article requested unless it was his paper on “The Logic of Mathematics in Relation to Education” that appeared six years later, apparently the only paper he ever published in the Educational Review.
79. John Tyndall, New Fragments, 2nd edition, Appleton, 1892.
80. “A look” at his classification is literally what he intended to give his auditors; when he wrote to Lowell on 13 January 1892 to confirm that his twelve lectures would be on the “History of Science from Copernicus to Newton,” he asked if Lowell would like to have “the lectures illustrated with magic lantern slides.” One of Peirce’s drafts of his first lecture confirms that he intended to show a diagram of his classification (R 1274).
81. See the entry, “Herbert Spencer,” Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, New Edition, vol. IX, Philadelphia, 1892.
82. See the first annotation for this selection, p. 447, for an account of the differences.
83. Studies in the Scientific and Mathematical Philosophy of Charles S. Peirce, ed. R. M. Martin (Mouton, 1979), p. 74.
84. Ibid, pp. 73–75.
85. The theory of atomicules may first have been introduced by J. J. Sylvester in 1878, in “On an Application of the New Atomic Theory to the Graphical Representation of the Invariants and Covariants of Binary Quantics” (American Journal of Mathematics 1, pp. 64–82), where he extended “the new Atomic Theory” to include sub-atomic “atomicules” of differing valencies for a better analysis of chemical elements. Peirce referred to Sylvester’s paper when first introducing his reduction thesis (see W4, sel. 20). Boscovichian points are atomicules that are presumed to be centers or fields of force of which matter is composed. See the textual headnote, pp. 649–50, and the annotations, pp. 450–51, for more historical discussion of sel. 48.
86. See W2: xxxi–xxxv for Max H. Fisch’s account of Peirce’s Mediterranean assignment.
87. See the end of the first annotation for sel. 51, p. 454, for more details about the origins of Peirce’s Thessalian tale.
88. “Karolos,” the Greek equivalent of “Charles,” and “Kalerges” taken from the famed Greek military leader, Demitrius Kalergis (1803–1867), who played the leading role in the “Bloodless Revolution” of 1843 that led to the adoption of the Greek constitution the following year and Greece’s transition from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy. Kalergis was granted the title “Great Citizen of Greece” for his wisdom and leadership in the bloodless Revolution (The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction, vol. 1, 1847, pp. 45–49).
89. The two versions of Peirce’s revised preface are reproduced on pp. 453–54.
90. Later Peirce would rename his story “Embroidered Thessaly.” See the lengthy textual headnote for sel. 51, pp. 655–63, for the complicated story of its composition and development.
91. From a letter Peirce wrote to Lady Welby on 9 March 1906 but the letter appears not to have been sent.
92. See the first annotation for sel. 25, pp. 389–90, for a similar quotation from an alternative draft.
93. Five “intermediate attempts” between sel. 25 and Peirce’s earliest notes specifically for sel. 27 are listed in the Chronological Catalog: 1892.50–54. The earliest notes for sel. 27 are dated 10 May (1892.64).
94. See the annotations for sel. 26, pp. 390–91, for more background information on the development of Peirce’s views on time and for more on his views in comparison to those of Cantor.
95. The decorative art in the chancel at St. Thomas’s included works by John La Farge, an acquaintance of Peirce’s.
96. The letter is in RL 482: 12–13. See Joseph Brent’s discussion of this episode in the second (1998) edition of his Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life, pp. 209–212. Also Henry C. Johnson, Jr., “Charles Sanders Peirce and the Book of Common Prayer: Elocution and the Feigning of Piety” in Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 42.4 (2006): 552–73, esp. 562–64.
97. This letter draft is undated but is thought to have been written around the end of April. It is not known if a finished letter was sent.
98. See the textual headnote for sel. 52, pp. 670–72, for a more complete account of the Fales case. Peirce’s views on punishing criminals were developed further in “Dmesis,” an article he published in the Open Court in September 1892. It will be published in W9.
99. Peirce worked closely with Open Court translator Thomas J. McCormack. Writing to the latter on 5 July, Peirce made clear his views on translating: “Now let us not treat Dr Mach’s book as if it were a Bible; but just find out what he means to say & express that.” Work on the translation continued into May 1893 and The Science of Mechanics was published a few weeks later. The section on “Mechanical Units in Use in the United States and Great Britain” will be published in W9, the introduction to which will