UKIQUE VALUES O F ARCHIVAL RESEAltCH” THOMAS C. CADWALLADER

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb when I predict that when a history of the history of psychology is written some centuries into the future, that it will be recognized that around 1960-about a hundred years after the modern era of psychology began with the publication of Fechner’s Elements of Psychophysics, and about 2300 years after the writing of what appears to be the first history of psychology, Aristotle’s De Anima-the second phase of the history of psychology began. The decade of the 1960’s was a decade of foundings if there ever was one: the division of the History of Psychology of the American Psychological Associ- ation, the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciemes, the Cheiron Society, the Ph.D. program in the history of psychology a t the University of New Hampshire, the Archives of the History of American Psychology, the summer institutes in the history of psychology. And I certainly would be remiss if I didn’t note that most of those foundings were, in one way or another, associated with Robert I Watson, Sr.

One of the features of the second phase of the history of psychology which I believe will distinguish it from the first is the increasing use of archival materials. Archival materials in the narrow sense are those materials which pertain to an insti- tution and which are officially preserved by the institution (28). Such materials may well concern individual members, employees, students or other persons associ- ated with the institution in some capacity. Many universities, especially the older ones, have archives, as do governmental agencies and some scholarly and scientific societies.

Archival materials in a broader sense include a variety of materials that may bear upon some facet of history and which have been assembled into a collection which is housed in some institution-usually a library. I will confine present examples of archival materials to those concerning individuals. I n this case, archival materials

*The symposium on Archival Research in the History of Psychology was held on 31 August 1973 in Montreal, Canada, in the framework of the 81st Annual Conference of the American Psy- chological Association, loined by the Canadian Psychological Association.

This paper was originally written while the writer was on sabbatical leave from Indiana State University as a Research Fellow in the Department of the Histor of Science at Harvard University. I wish to thank its chairman, Professor Everett Mendelsohn, androther members of the Department for the many courtesies and assistance provided. I also wish to thank Miss Caroline Jakeman and her staff of the Reading Room of Houghton Library for their assistance and patience in providing innumerable manuscripts for examination, and the Philosophy Department of Harvard University for permission to quote from the Peirce manuscri ts Finally, I wish to express my gratitude for a grant from the Penrose Fund of the American Pfiildsophical Society and for one from the Faculty Research Fund of Indiana State University which supported, in part, this research. This aper was originally presented in a symposium, organized by Josef Broiek, “Archival research in tfie history of psychology,” a t the meetings of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada, August, 1973.

THOMAS C. CADWALL~DOR is Professor of Psychology at Indiana State University. He previously taught a t Cornell of Iowa and was, for six years, a research psychologist a t the Army Medical Research Laboratory, Ft. Knox, Ky. Before turning his major research interest to the history of psychology, he was primarily interested in physiological psychology and especially in animal learning which he now says is reduced to one pot on a back burner. In 1972-73 he was a Research Fellow in the Department of the History of Science at Harvard.

27

2s THORIAH C . CADWALLAUElt

inay take the form of any materials that a person iuay lcavc bchiiid, or h a w bcon collected by others, and which may providc additional information about his professional or private life, his ideas or his publications. The most obvious cxaiiiplcs are unpublished writings: manuscripts which wcre not published, drafts of pub- lished papcrs or books, corrcspondcncc, notebooks, notcs, annotated books and papers, diaries and the like. Other sorts of materials may supply a niissirig piece of a puzzle: a scrap book, ticket stub, paasport, bill, ncwspapcr clipping, photu- graph or similar items which may show where the individual was a t a critical point in his life or where he may have gotten an important idea. Such items, diverse as they may be, are all subsumcd under the phrase “manuscript collection,” which may also include some or, potentially a t least, all of the individual’s published writings.’ Whilc the variety of archival inaterials that niay be availablc is extensive, i t is the unpublished writings (in the broad sense) that typically are the most fruit- ful for the historian’s examination. The iricrcasing application of archival research to questions in the history of psychology has becn due to thc fact that archival research does havc certain uniyuc values.

Before going further, I do want to cniphasize that archival research is but one mode of historical research. There arc ccrtairi kinds of yucstions or topics for which archival research may not be necessary. For example, research based solely on publishcd niaterials may be completely adcquatc for some questions or topics; our own work (8) on the ancient physiological psychology contained in The Edwiu Smith Surgical Papyrus (4) is based entirely on published materials. Xloreover, when archival research is nccessary or useful, it should be used in conjunction with other existing source materials to help answer the question or to deal with the topic under investigation. Thus, in addition to archival materials one should draw upon such materials as published books or papers (secondary as well as primary), audio- or video-taped materials or personal intcrvicws as may be appropriate.

The v i ew presented in this paper, along with the examples cited, are drawn largely from the author’s historical research doiic over the past several years. The archival research has been donc primarily in Houghton Library, Harvard’s rare book and manuscript library, where the Charles S. I’circe and William James papers are housed; in the Harvard University Archives in Widener Library; in the Rlanu- scripts Room a t Columbia University’s Butler Library where the Ladd-Franklin papers are located; in the Manuscript Division of thc Library of Congress n-here the Cattell papers are kept and in thc Archives of the National Acadcmy of Sciences. Other collections have becri drawn upon t o a lesser extent.

Now to some of the uniquc values of archival research. The order of listing has no significance; the iiumbcrs are nominal, not ordinal.

1. Unsuspcctcd facets of history may be uncovered. Although Charles l’circe had bccn elected to the National Academy of Sciences (N.A.S.) in 1877, and although we have argucd Peirce was the “first modern American psychologist” (7), he was clectcd as a physicist and astronomer. James RIcReen Cattell, in 1901,

~~

IThe lorat ion of inmuscript rollect ions niny be found in the Naliotiat C ~ I M Calalog: fifanuscrfp~ ~ “ o l ~ e c ~ ~ o 1 i s ( 1 7 ) . Boring ( 2 ) cites the location of ten psy- c-hologists’ papers and describes the extent, of seven of these. The Americaji Archivist (1) and the hooks o f Biirnel fe ( 5 ) arid Schellenberg (2s) roritnin useful information concerning archives in the ~ R I ’ I ’ O W (and sonietiines i n the hro:ul) serrse.

Hanrer (1X) provides a selected listing.

TJNIQ1JE VALITES O F ARCHIVAL RESEARCH 2!1

\ \as thc first pcrson to be elected as a psychologist, despite the greater eminence of William James. There arc a series of letters among the Peirce and James papers a t Harvard, the Cattell papers a t the Library of Congress and records in the Archives of the N.A.S., which reveal a fascinating story of how psychology was accepted by the N.A.S. and hon- Cattell, James, Dewey, Royce and other psychologists were clrcted. While thc complete story awaits further investigation, the following account is of sufficient intrinsic interest to warrant mention as an example. One of the most intcrcsting items is a letter which Peirce addressed to James (22). I’circc apparently had second thoughts about sending it and did not send it, for it is among the I’circe papers, not the James papers, a t Harvard. There is no comparable letter among the James papers addressed to William, but there is one to RIrs. William James (23) on the subject. Both letters were meant to explain why Cattell rather than James had been nominated, but the one to William was much more blunt. I n it Peirce stated plainly that Cattell’s work was of the sort that the other members of the Academy could clearly recognize as science. On the other hand, James’s work, Prirce frared, might br considered as belonging to the “Depart- ment of Literature.”

Peirce also wrote to Cattell (21) after the latter’s nomination and said that while he couldn’t guarantee Cattell’s election, he predicted that he would be elected. Peirce followed his prediction with a very moving statement as to how he and Cattell should be allies in getting James into the Academy. This, incidentally, wasn’t an easy task; for it took two years and included some interesting maneu- vering on Peirce’s part-but that’s another story for another time.

The genesis of ideas may be uncovered or a t least suggested. The publica- tion of a paper or book is usually the final stage of a process that may have had a long and roundabout route before reaching its final form. Earlier versions of a paper, say, may reveal the sources from which the paper came. Notes and note- hooks also may reveal the input which led to the development of ideas.

I suppose that if one were asked what psychological concepts to associate with William ,James, there would be a fairly high probability that one would say, “habit and stream of consciousness.” What follows is not intended as an account of how James got interested in these two concepts, but rather as an example of intriguing possiblities. During his student days a t Harvard, on November 25, 1864, James began a large, indexed notebook (“Index Rerum”; [14]) to which he added a t least as late as 1889 (with a reference [14, Appendix p. 301 to the second Heft of Rfunsterberg’s Reitruge). In this notebook James kept notes from lectures, discussions and his reading on a wide variety of subjects. Entries were either by subject, in which case the source is cited, or by the name of the individual, in which case the views of the individual are noted. Peirce’s views are recorded in both manners-some under “Peirce” and some under certain subjects. It is in the first manner that Peirce’s views on habit are recorded (14, p. re.). Unfortunately the entry is not dated. It appears to be an early one, however, judging from its position on the page, by its content, and by the “hand” in which it is written. Hopefully it will prove datable, but that remains to be seen. Habit was one of Peirce’s central concerns and discussions of it may be found among his writings from a t least the 1860s until shortly before his death in 1914. Is it possible that

2.

30 THOITAS C . CADTVALLADER

Peirce importantly influenced James with respect to the concept of habit as he did with other concepts, notably pragmatism? At this point I cannot say, but it is a fascinating possibility to explore.

Let me interrupt with another interesting point gleaned from this early notc- book of James. In our 1972 A.l’.A. paper (7) in which we presented evidence for considering Peirce rather than James to be the first “modern” American psycholo- gist, my wife and I reviewed the material which indicated that James did not know of Wundt until his 1867-68 European trip. Additional corroboration of this point comes from the finding that thc earliest of Wundt’s papers to be mentioned in James’s notebook (14, p. Wu) is to an 1869 onc (82).

Now to return to the second concept well associated with James-the stream of consciousness. Here the possibility of another input from Peirce to James is from a roundabout source. Among the Peirce papers is a letter written by John Dewey to Paul Weiss, dated October 1, 1931 (9). Weiss was preparing a biography of Peirce a t the time for the Dictionary of American Biography (30). Judging from the contents of Dewey’s letter, he was responding to a request for reminiscences of Peirce. Dewey had been Peirce’s student and a member of his Metaphysical Club a t Johns Hopkins from 1882-1884. Recalling those days, Dewey wrote, “Peirce was then talking about, as i t comes back to me now, what James later came to call the stream of consciousness” (9).

3. Archival research may reveal unsuspected personal influences. Boring and Boring, in their paper, “Masters and pupils among the American psychologists,” cite Christine Ladd-Franklin as one of those few psychologists “who seem to have had no principal psychological teacher in the pre-Ph.D. days” (3, p. 531) . They also cite her as one of the individuals “who acknowledged the intellectual influence of older savants who were not psychologists” (3, p. 528). The Borings then cite C. S. Peirce as the savant who influcnced Ladd-Franklin but who was not a psychol- ogist. But of course P e k e was a psychologist (and thus i t is an interesting question as to why Boring and other historians of psychology failed to recognize him as such). Indeed at the very time Ladd-Franklin was his student at Hopkins-osten- sibIy in logic-Peirce was an active experimental psychologist (6) and was in fact investigating problems in color vision. He had begun his work on color at least by 1877 (19) and was to continue his interest for many years (24). We have found much evidence showing that Ladd-Franklin was exposed to Peirce’s views on psychology. For example, among the I’eirce papers are Ladd-Franklin’s lengthy handwritten notes (15) on Peirce’s 1880 paper, “The Logic of Algebra” (20) which begins with two pages of pure, and very modern, psychology. Ladd-Franklin comments on the psychology portion of that paper as well as on the remainder.

Ladd-Franklin’s first paper in psychology was that on the horopter in the first issuc of the American Journal of Psychology in November 1887 (16). We have found in one of Peirce’s notebooks (18, p. 131) a citation of Wundt’s Physiologische Psychologie on the horopter. We have also found among the Ladd-Franklin papers the letter to Ladd-Franklin from G. Stanley Hall in early 1887 telling her about his plans for his new journal and soliciting a manuscript from her (12). Thus Hall knew of her interest in psychology a t that time. Will more correspondence be found to give an earlier “fix” on Ladd-Franklin’s direct involvement with psy-

U N I Q U E VALUES OF ARCHIVAL RESEARCH 3 1

chology? Will a firm basis for a link between Peirce’s and Ladd-Franklin’s interest in visual processes be found? Time may

While everyone knows that academic and professional politics play a major role in shaping personal careers and otherwise influencing history, it is rare for such influences to be mentioned in published form. Archival materials are prac- tically the only source of information on this sort of matter. We all know why John B. Watson left academia, went into advertising, and made a not-so-small fortune (and probably more than a few of us have wished, at one time or another, that we might “fail” so splendidly). That Watson’s continued exile from profes- sional psychology may have been due to the deliberate efforts of some individuals is suggested by finding among the Ladd-Franklin papers copies of her vigorous letters to prominent psychologists protesting against any connection with profes- sional psychology by Watson in light of his behavior.

The last example to be given of the unique value of archival research is its ability to round out the picture of the personal side of an individual. Charles Peirce is often portrayed as a crotchety, eccentric individual who was hard to get along with, but one sees from an examination of his papers, and especially his diaries, that he was a very tender and loving husband. Only a few years before his death, when he was quite ill and in considerable pain from cancer, and living in very real poverty, Peirce wrote to Arnold, Constable and Co., asking them to recover his wife’s parasol with their best green silk. He reminded them of the handsome job they had done on the parasol some years before and asked that they again give it their most careful attention (26). On another occasion Peirce recorded in his diary that his wife was gravely ill. His entry ended: “God, if she is taken let me not remain one hour” (25, entry for December 27, 1905).

I have presented some of what seem to me to be unique values of archival research and some examples from my own research. I would like, now, to call attention to the best examples of archival research I have found to date. These are among the writings of Max H. Fisch. Fisch is Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus, a t the University of Illinois and is, in addition to being the leading Peirce scholar, an historian of science. He also has the benefit (from our perspective at least) of having taken a graduate minor in psychology a t Cornell in the days of Titchener. Fisch’s painstaking pursuit of answers to certain questions and of topics demon- strate the value of archival research to a degree so far beyond anything I could say, that I hope you will remember to read Fisch if you forget everything else written here.

In his paper “Was there a Metaphysical Club in Cambridge?” (lo), Fisch brings the archival method of research to a fine edge, slicing away the doubts raised by contradictory statements by some of its supposed members (and collated by Wiener [311), and gently dissecting out evidence that enables him to conclude that there indeed had been such a club. ’Fisch’s paper, “Peirce’s Arisbe: The Greek influence in his later philosophy” ( l l ) , is the finest example of historical writing I have ever encountered. It draws upon an enormous background of materials- published and archival-and relates a story as absorbing as any novel. Whether or not one is interested in Peirce or in seeing the fruits of the archival method in

4.

5.

2We have since found a firm link between Peirce’s and Ladd-Franklin’s interest in vision. We hope to recount this as part of R paper on Ladd-Franklin at later date.

32 THOMAS C. CAUWALLADEll

finest form, a reading of this paper will bc n ell rewarded in terms of its sheer beauty. The papers of Max Fisch show archival research a t its best.3 If historians of psy- chology use archival materials as effcctively and judiciously as Fisch does, then the history of psychology will he very much clearcr than it presently is.

What is required for the history of psychology, as for the history of any dis- cipline or for history in general to bc done well, is the incorporation of archival research into the tool bag of its invcstigators. Much of the history of psychology is locked in recesses accessible only by archival research. To the extent to which archival research does become part of the methodology of historians of psychology, then the history of psychology will comc closer and closer to the goals of recounting the development of psychology as it occurred, describing those variables-environ- mental, social, personal and intellectual-bearing on it, and pointing to its influences on contemporary and future psychology.

3A bibliography of Professor Fisch’s papers to 1969 is included in his Festschrift (29). I would like to take this means of thanking Professor Fisch for the great deal of help and encouragement he has provided. Getting to know Professor and Mrs. Fisch has been among the best of many fine fringe benefits of our work on Peirce.

REFERENCES 1.

2. BORING, E. G. Psychologists’ letters and papers. Zsis, 1967, 58, 103-107. 3.

The American Archivist. Washington: Society of American Archivists. Vol. 1, 1938; continuing. Quarterly.

BORING, M. I). and BORING, E. G. Masters and pupils among the American psychologists. Americau Journal qf Psychology, 1948, GI, 527-534. .Reprinted in Boring, E. G. History, psychology, and sciwce. Edited by It. I. Wat,son and 1). T. Campbell. New York: Wiley, 1983, pp. 132-139.

4. BILICISTI.:D, J. H. The Edwin Smi th surgical papyrus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. 2 vols.

5. BURNETTE:, 0. L., Jr. Beneath the foottiote. A guide to the use and preservation of American his- (orical sources. Madison : Society Press, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1969.

6. CIDWALLADICR, T. C. Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914): The first American experimental psy- chologist. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1974, 10, 291-298.

7. C.\DWALLADICR, T. c . and CADWILLADER, J. v. America’s first modern psychologist: kvilliam James or Charles S. Peirce? Proceedings of the 80th Annual Couvention, Americaii Psychological Association, 1972, pp. 773-774.

CADWALLADI~R, T. C., SEMRAU, L. A. and CADWALL.\DE:R, J. V. Early physiological psychology: Circa 3000 B. C. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Co?ii)ention, American Psychological Association,

DF:WICY, J . Letter to Paul Weiss, October 1, 1931. Ms. L 123, Charles S. Peirce Papers, Hough- ton Library, Harvard University.

FISCH, M. H. Was there a Metaphysical Club in Cambridge? In E. C. Moore and R. S. Robin (Eds.) Studies i l l the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce. (Second Series) Amherst: University of Massachtisetts Press, 1964, pp. 3-32.

11 . FISCH, M. H. Peirce’s Arisbe: The Greek influence in his later life. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Sociely, 1971,7, 187-210.

12. HALL, G. S. Letter to Christine Ladd-Franklin, January 29, 1887. Franklin Papers, Manu- scripts Koorn, Builer Library, Colrimbia University.

13. HAMI<:R, P. M. A guide to archizies and manuscripts i u the United States. New Haven: Yale Universi1.y Press, 1961.

14. JAMES, W. Notebook: Index Ijerum. James’s papers, Houghton Library, Harvard University. Call number: b MsAm 3092 U.

15. I,,ZDDI-FI~ANKLIN], C. Notes on C. 8. Peirce’s “On the algebra of logic” [see Ref. (20) below.] MS. L. 237, Charles S. Peirce Papers, Houghton Library, Harvard University.

16. L.IDWFR.ANKLIN, C. A method for the experimental determination of the horopter. American Journal of Psychology, 1887, 1, 99-111.

17. ivational U71ion Calaloq: d4ani~script Collections. Washington: Library of Congress. 10 vols (rontirniirig).

8.

1971, pp. 719-720. 9.

10.

UNIQUE VALUES O F ARCHIVAL RESEARCH 33

18. PEIRCE, C. S. Notebook, Ms. 11.56. [Entries from c. 1865 to c. 18741. Charles S. Peirce Papers,

19. PEIRCI~:, C. S. Note on the sensation of color. American Journal of Science, 1877, 3rd series

20. PICIRCE, C. S. On the algebra of logic. American Journal of Mathematics, 1880, 5, 15-57. Re- printed in Ref. (27) vol. 3, para. 154-251.

21. PEIRCE, C. S. Letter to J . McK. Cattell, March 18, 1901. Container 35, J. McK. Cat,tell Papers, Library of Congress.

22. PEIRCE, C. S. Draft letter to William James, [c. April 4, 19011. Ms. L 224, Charles S. Peirce Papers. Houghton Library, Harvard University.

23. Pfixnci,;, C. S. Letter to Alice James [Mrs. William James], April 12 [1902]. Letter No. 7-52, James Papers, Houghton Library, Harvard University.

24. PEIRCI.:, C. S. The color system. Paper presented a t the meetings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 1.5-17, 1902. Cited in National Academy of Sciences. Report for the year 1902. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1903. P. 13.

25. PEIRCI~, C. S. Diary entry for December 27, 1905. Ms. 1622, Charles S. Peirce Papers, Hough- ton Library, Harvard University.

26. PKIRCIC, C. S. Draft letter to Arnold, Constable and Co., June, 1911. Ms. L 2.5, Charles S. Peirce Papers, Houghton Library, Harvard Universit,y.

27. PEIRCE;, C. S. Collected Papers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vols. 1-6 ed. by C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss, 1931-1935. Vols. 7 and 8 ed. by A. W. Burks, 1958.

28. SCHELLICNBICRG, THEODORI': R. Modern archives, principles and techniques. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.

29. TURSMAN, R. (Ed.) Studies in philosophy and in the hislory of science: Essays i n honor of M a x Fisch. Lawrence, Kansas: Coronado, 1970.

30. WPISS, P. Charles S. Peirce. Dictionary of American Biography, 1934,. 14, 398-403. Reprinted in R. J. Bernstein (Ed.) Perspectives on Peirce. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965, pp. 1-12.

31. WIENER, P. P. Evolution and the fout&rs of pragmatism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949.

32. WUNDT, W. Uber die Entstehung riiumlicher Gesichtswahrnehmungen. Philosophische Mona- tshefte, 1869, 3, 225-247.

Houghton Library, Harvard University.

It?, 247-2.53.