[peirce-l] Re: question about century dictionary

[David Lachance]

Joseph, 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): Yes, but I just wanted to stress the fact that the Century Dictionary is not a "simple" dictionary. The complete title of the work actually became "The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia". The end of the "encyclopedia" article you quote in your other post contains this: "3. In a narrower sense, a cyclopedia. See cyclopedia, 1.", which goes (btw not by CSP): "[Short form of encyclopedia, encyclopædia, q.v.] 1. A book containing accounts of the principal subjects in one branch of science, art, or learning in general: as a cyclopedia of botany; a cyclopedia of mechanics.—2.In a broader sense, a book comprising accounts of all branches of learning; an encyclopedia. See encyclopedia." As "Cyclopedia" eventually became the CD's subtitle, this sense 2. is precisely how the project was conceived and understood by its editors, and by Peirce. In that sense, I don't think I went too far in describing Peirce's work as encyclopedic in nature and purpose. David --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com