John Dewey's lost manuscript, now available!

In 1947, John Dewey supposedly left the manuscript for his philosophical interpretation of the history of modern philosophy in a cab. Sixty-five years later, we now have that manuscript in which Dewey reveals how “unmodern” modern philosophy is and begins his own account of a truly modern theory of knowing.

Phillip Deen shares how the book was found in the introduction to the book, excerpted here:


So how do we have the present manuscript? The short answer is that it was among the Dewey Papers in the Special Collections at Southern Illinois University, catalogued and waiting for decades to be rediscovered. Archivists at the Special Collections Research Center believe that the manuscript was included in the original collection. The more difficult question is how it made it into the Dewey Papers at all. Each document had been catalogued by Jo Ann Boydston, the esteemed editor-in-chief of the Collected Works of John Dewey. However, in personal correspondence with me, Dr. Boydston recalled some of the chapter titles but had no other recollection of the manuscripts.

As for where it was before it appeared in the Special Collections, there are at least four theories. The first is that Joseph Ratner had it. Dewey frequently gave early chapters to him for comment. Ratner, a noted packrat, may have contributed the chapters to the Dewey Papers. This is possible, since his contributions to the collection were extensive. However, it does not explain why, in 1949, Ratner commiserated with Dewey over the loss of the manuscript and encouraged him to begin again (1949.07.06, 07255). Perhaps he simply forgot that he had them. Nor does it account for the fact that the manuscript was catalogued as part of the Dewey Papers, rather than Ratner’s. The second theory is that Roberta Dewey had it. Shortly after Dewey’s passing, George Dykhuizen asked her, “Have you investigated farther the manuscript which you uncovered in Nova Scotia and which you think may be the one believed to be lost?” (1952.10.01, 13674). In other words, the manuscript might not have been stolen, but left behind in Nova Scotia. We do not know if Roberta ever confirmed her suspicions. Her 1959 comments would indicate that she did not. Third, it is possible that the full manuscript was not lost, as Dewey indicated above that only a few chapters were in the briefcase. It may be that the legend of a missing manuscript, rather than missing chapters, was too tempting and spread falsely through the Dewey community. But why would Dewey speak so often as if the entire manuscript had been lost? Lastly, it is possible that Dewey lost the final draft, and what we have now is an assortment of earlier drafts. But, again, that does not explain why Dewey and Ratner spoke as if the entire thing had been lost and it was necessary to begin again. Dewey’s correspondence also indicates that his work on the manuscript dried up after the burst of activity between 1941 and 1942—the period during which the extant manuscripts were written.
In short, it is presently a mystery how a manuscript thought to be lost by everyone, including the author, should reappear in the archives. Perhaps Dewey’s “grand design—a philosophical interpretation of the history of Western man”—was never truly lost, only incomplete and forgotten somewhere among Dewey’s papers. It would be ironic, after years of speculation on its content and the theft, if we were to discover that the manuscript had been waiting for us all along. Though we would be left to wonder, “What was actually in that briefcase . . . ?”