Editorial Approaches to Wittgenstein’s Nachlass: Towards a Historical Appreciation

Building on the unpublished correspondence between Ludwig Wittgenstein’s literary executors Rush Rhees, Elizabeth Anscombe and Georg Henrik von Wright, this paper sketches the historical development of different editorial approaches to Wittgenstein’s Nachlass. Using the metaphor of a ladder, it is possible to distinguish seven signiﬁcant “rungs” or “steps” in the history of editing Wittgenstein’s writings. The paper focuses particularly on the ﬁrst four rungs, elucidating how Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright developed different editorial approaches that resulted in signiﬁcant differences in their editions. The paper sheds light on how these editorial differences are grounded in the editors’ divergent understandings of their task. It is suggested that future research may investigate the development of editorial approaches to Wittgenstein’s Nachlass as a human story of philosophical inheritance.


I. The Seven Rungs of Editing Wittgenstein
The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP 1922) 1 was the only philosophical book that Ludwig Wittgenstein published during his lifetime, but he left to posterity about 18 000 unpublished pages, which were written between 1929 to 1951.In his will of January 1951, Wittgenstein gave three of his friends the task of publishing from those writings what they thought fit.Following this desire of Wittgenstein, the three literary heirs -Rush Rhees, Elizabeth Anscombe and Georg Henrik von Wrightedited the books (referred to as editions) that made Wittgenstein's later philosophy available to all interested readers (see Table 1a).It is generally known that the literary executors' editions differ considerably in the degree of editorial intervention.On the one hand, the material itself demanded different editorial approaches, since Wittgenstein's way of working led to collections of unpolished remarks as well as to more finished selections and arrangements from several stages in his own editing process.On the other hand, the literary executors had different experiences in editing, and developed different editorial policies as they proceeded with their task.The different condition or status of the sources and the different editorial approaches make it impossible to identify general characteristics of how the books relate to the sources in Wittgenstein's Nachlass.Moreover, as of today, the literary executors' volumes are not the only editions available: there are also the Vienna Edition, the Bergen Electronic Edition and critical editions of Wittgenstein's two main works, the TLP and Philosophical Investigations (PI) (Table 1b).
To clarify this somewhat confusing situation, this paper begins by presenting a perspicuous reconstruction of the editions from Wittgenstein's Nachlass (Figure 1).As a structuring device, the metaphor of ladder rungs has been chosen.The rungs are roughly rather than strictly chronological, and for the sake of perspicuity, not all editions are discussed.For example, even though editions of letters and diaries and editions based on lectures notes are important for the history of editing Wittgenstein, they have been excluded from Figure 1.Nevertheless, the seven rungs represent significant steps in the development of editing Wittgenstein's Nachlass.They correspond to von Wright's suggestion to distinguish several "rounds" of editing Wittgenstein (Figure 1, right side). 2 With the phrase "first round", von Wright referred to the book editions published by Wittgenstein's original literary executors.The ambition at that time was to make Wittgenstein's writings available in readable books without scholarly commentary.By contrast, the subsequent rounds are characterised by the aim to provide more scholarly editions.This paper focuses largely on what von Wright called round one, distinguishing within it four rungs that represent the different editorial approaches of the three literary executors.
Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright did not conceal their editorial interventions, but scholars have criticised how the brevity of their prefaces and the uniform appearance of the books make it difficult for readers to recognise which Nachlass sources were used and how they were used to create some of the editions. 3Although several editorial issues will be addressed while discussing the various rungs, the main purpose of this paper is not to trace editorial details but to show how new archival materials may change the angle from which the editorial history of Wittgenstein's Nachlass is viewed.Exploring the editors' reasons and motives for their unique ways of editing may shed light on the history of editing Wittgenstein's Nachlass -not only as a field for editorial-philological questions, but as a human story of philosophical inheritance.Encouraging this perspective, this paper offers glimpses into the hitherto unpublished correspondence between Wittgenstein's literary executors with the aim of sketching how their editorial approaches developed historically.II.Rung 1: Wittgenstein's Chef d'ouvre: Philosophical Investigations (PI) After Wittgenstein's death in April 1951, the appointed literary executors immediately wanted to make available what they considered to be 3. Cf.Stern (1996: 442-476).(Philosophische Untersuchungen, "Helsinki Edition",

Time of creation
The Seven Rungs of Editing Wittgenstein   Wright (2001:  158-168) called the first round of editing Wittgenstein.Abbreviations of editions (e.g.PI, RFM, BBB, PB, PG) follow Pichler, Biggs and Szeltner (2011: 249-286)   Christian Erbacher  169  the book Wittgenstein envisioned: Philosophical Investigations (PI).However, she continued working on her translation until it was sent to the printer in the summer of 1952.She also continued revising and proofreading pages until the actual printing finally got underway in 1953.In the process of translating and typesetting, other friends and pupils of Wittgenstein, such as Georg Kreisel and Pierro Sraffa, were also consulted.After publication, Anscombe further scrutinised the translation and published a list of corrections in the journal Mind. 5 Her devotion to the project resulted in a translation that has contributed to the popularity of Wittgenstein's philosophy, also beyond the English-speaking world.For 50 years, scholars around the world have quoted Anscombe's text almost on par with the German original. 6evertheless, critical questions have arisen in the wake of Rhees and Anscombe's edition of the PI, particularly regarding their decision to include what they called "Part II".While the typescript for Part I (TS227, dating from 1945-46) 7 is usually regarded as the extraordinary item in Wittgenstein's Nachlass, coming close to what could be called a finished work by Wittgenstein himself, 8 Anscombe and Rhees attached a typescript on the philosophy of psychology as Part II to the PI (TS234, dictated in 1949).They decided to merge that fragment with the relatively finished and composed typescript under the one title Philosophical Investigations.The division of sections and section headings within Part II were also made by Anscombe and Rhees.These interventions were subsequently questioned, not least because the original typescript that was used for printing was eventually lost (as was the typescript from which Part I was printed).In their preface, Anscombe and Rhees did not conceal that it was their decision to include Part II, but scholars have later criticised this decision, partly encouraged by von Wright's study on the "troubled history of Part II". 9 While editing the PI, Anscombe, Rhees and von Wright thought it was uncontroversial to include the typescript of Part II.Anscombe and Rhees -on separate occasions, but both at the turn of 1948-49 -had visited Wittgenstein and received corresponding information.In a letter to von Wright, Anscombe recalled moments of her visit which were important for her understanding of Wittgenstein's intentions: My contribution to the belief that Wittgenstein "would have inserted this, with further material, into the alas considerably expurgated last 30 pages or so of the Investigations["], was based purely on what he said to me when I visited him in Dublin: What he pointed to was not indeed the MS or TS of Part II (which as you remark didn't exist at that time) but those big -or that big -MS volume which contained, as I realized later, the material in the MS of Part II.I realized this because of what Wittgenstein was discussing with me, which was the context of his pointing to that big MS volume (I think in fact he was pointing to only one volume, and thought of "those volumes" because they go together.[)] 10ees made a similar report: The main 'revision' on which he was working in the latter part of 1948 and the beginning of 1949 was Part II (as we have called it).He was working very hard on this when I visited him in Dublin in the Christmas vacation 1948/49 (roughly from December 20th to January 10th).He spoke about those parts he had finished a,d [sic] read some of them to me.But he did not explain just which parts of the "Part I" manuscript they were to replace. 11en today, the status of Rhees and Anscombe's Part II generates controversial discussion among scholars.In light of the stylistic differences 9. Von Wright (1992: 181-192 172

Philosophical Investigations
Wittgenstein had once intended that the PI's second part was to consist of remarks on the foundations of mathematics.Thus, the literary executors wanted to publish a volume on the foundations of mathematics in order to create a more complete picture of Wittgenstein's philosophy.Their problem was that they did not yet know what exactly they ought to publish to complete this picture.While Anscombe was still translating the PI, Rhees and von Wright considered that the next publication should be what they called the "Moore-Volume" (TS209, later published in PB) or the second part of what is known as the "Big Typescript" (TS213).However, in December 1951, before reaching a conclusion, Rhees received a surprise: a box from Trinity College that did not contain the expected books from Wittgenstein's library but a great number of handwritten manuscripts.While the literary executors were studying the new manuscripts, Rhees began to think that it would be wrong to publish the Big Typescript next, because it could encourage misunderstandings of Wittgenstein's philosophy.This concern proved to be decisive for Rhees' way of handling Wittgenstein's Nachlass: I am going through the big typescript now, and I cannot give a considered judgment yet.I think it is obviously an important work -he has not left anything else quite parallel -and it should be published sometime.But I am not sure that it ought to be the first thing we publish on the philosophy of mathematics.In many ways its method of treatment is unlike the way in which he wrote about mathematics later.[. ..]I have an idea that people will expect to find Wittgenstein's later views in whatever we first publish on the subject.And this work would give a false impression. 15 the time Rhees wrote this in a letter, von Wright had resigned from his chair at Cambridge and had returned to his native country, Finland.This of course complicated communication between the literary executors.Since the photographing of documents was expensive in the early 1950s, the three had to organise meetings where they could jointly study the original documents and reach decisions about publications.This being the case, a grant for working on Wittgenstein's Nachlass from the Rockefeller Foundation came as a great help.It allowed Anscombe to work on translation, and it covered costs for travelling and duplicating manuscripts.The first conference of sorts between the literary executors took place in Austria in the summer of 1952.Here, they became acquainted with members of the Wittgenstein's family and some of his friends.Within ten days during their stay, they read through a selection 15.Letter from Rhees to von Wright, 2 March 1952, NLF, COLL:714-200-201.

Christian Erbacher 173
of Wittgenstein's manuscript on the foundations of mathematics and discussed their next editorial project.
After the meeting in Austria, von Wright, along with Anscombe's husband Peter Geach, advocated publishing the so-called Moore-Volume, but Rhees had second thoughts: I had been re-reading the Moore Volume myself, although I did not know that either you or Peter Geach were giving any attention to it.And I had written to Elizabeth that I was strongly in favour of publishing certain parts of it, at any rate.[. ..]But I am doubtful, all the same.About making it the next thing, I mean.I agree with you that "Much in M-V is certainly considerably weaker than anything in the Tractatus or the Untersuchungen."It often expresses views which will seem to foster current misunderstandings of Wittgenstein, and will hinder an understanding of his later doctrines.[. ..]It will certainly be illuminating for those who have really got hold of the later teaching.But I hesitate to publish it before more has been done to make the later position better known.And I am more in favour of trying to carve something from the manuscripts we were reading last summer. 16n Wright agreed that there might be such a danger, thus they turned to editing the manuscripts that would eventually be published in the Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics (RFM 1956). 17he first edition of RFM has five parts: Part I consists of the remarks that Wittgenstein had once considered the second part of the early PI.The remarks in Parts II-V were selected from typescripts and manuscripts that originated between 1937 and 1944.The edition presents these different sources in sequential divisions under a common title.This splicing together of relatively finished and composed parts with less finished fragments and selections was problematic for the subsequent reception and also for the production process: the literary executors had agreed that Rhees and von Wright should divide the editorial work among themselves, while Anscombe was supposed to translate the remarks.However, it was not before 1954 that von Wright actually typed out the selections that were assigned to him.At that time he was a visiting scholar at Cornell University, on the invitation of Norman Malcom.The geographical distance made correspondence more difficult, not to mention the possibility of consulting the originals.Von Wright wrote from Ithaca: Perhaps it was foolish of me not to ask for the originals.For, when one has to ponder over each word and comma, one soon realizes that there 16.Letter from Rhees to von Wright, 22 April 1953, NLF, COLL.714.200-201.17. Letter from von Wright to Anscombe, 7 May 1953, NLF, COLL.714.11-12.174 Philosophical Investigations are a number of places, where one would wish to consult the "Urtext" [. ..] I often very uncertain about the right way of dividing the text into numbered paragraphs.18 Also problematic was that it had been more than a year since they had discussed what exactly to include and what to omit in their edition.Von Wright could not recall every detail, as the following passage suggests: Could you answer the following question: Did we decide to omit from publication the sections 26.IX-23.XI 1940 and 27.V-6.VI 1941?Which is W's last manuscript of mathematics and logic, and what did we decide about it? 19scombe, as she translated the selected passages, began doubting the rightness of their editorial decisions: I have just finished translating the MS (Vol XVIII) written at the turn of 1939-40 & 20 feel rather dubious about it -both in our not having cut it down more, it is so repetitive and dreadfully boring; and in respect of one or two of our very few cuts in it, which seem to me to have been of things essential to some that we have left in. 21milarly, when facing the difficulties of composing selections of Wittgenstein's remarks, von Wright began to question their approach on a more general level: In addition to these difficulties, von Wright and Rhees employed different styles in preparing their parts, especially in headings and indexing.This required many subsequent corrections that took more than one year to complete.RFM was finally published in 1956.
In contrast to the great amount of work put into the RFM, the result was not favourably received.Kreisel's review, for instance, concluded with the words: "I did not enjoy reading the present book.Of course I do not know what I should have thought of it fifteen years ago; now it seems to me to be a surprisingly insignificant product of a sparkling mind." 23Also the editors themselves, as their insight into the interrela-18.Letter from von Wright to Anscombe, 2 January 1955, NLF, COLL.714.11-12.19.Letter from von Wright to Anscombe, 6 November 1954, NLF, COLL.714.11-12.20.Anscombe, in her letters, often uses an abbreviation for "and."Henceforth it is transcribed as "&." 21.Letter from Anscombe to von Wright, 4 July 1954, NLF, COLL.714.11-12.22. Letter from von Wright to Anscombe, 2 January 1955, NLF, and earlier: "Making the selection has been an agonizing job."Letter from von Wright to Anscombe, 19 November  1954, NLF, COLL.714.11-12.23.Kreisel (1958: 158).

Christian Erbacher 175
tions of remarks in Wittgenstein's Nachlass grew, became increasingly aware of the shortcomings of their selection.According to Anthony Kenny, the first edition of RFM even embarrassed von Wright in later years. 24For this reason, Rhees and von Wright heavily revised and extended RFM some 20 years after their first edition (RFM 1978).Yet despite the immense labour of twice shaping the RFM, their efforts could not completely resolve the problems affecting the edition, and it is still criticised today. 25he editorial story of the RFM shows the difficulties of posthumously publishing the complex material that Wittgenstein had worked on for many years but never published himself.These difficulties were exacerbated as Rhees and von Wright began developing different editorial approaches: von Wright would increasingly question the attempt to create a unified whole from selections of Wittgenstein's remarks; Rhees maintained precisely this ambition.Perhaps their diverging editorial positions contributed to the fact that RFM was the only book edited by all three literary executors.Although they regularly corresponded and met, the actual editorial work was more and more divided among them.While Rhees worked on his editions mostly on his own, von Wright edited volumes which Anscombe translated.In retrospect, the diverging editorial approaches may already be recognised in the volumes that followed the RFM, namely the Notebooks 1914-16 (NB 1961, edited by von Wright and Anscombe) and the Blue and Brown Books (BBB 1958, edited by  Rhees).

Notebooks 1914-16
While editing the RFM, von Wright was giving a course on the Tractatus at Cornell University and was experiencing the book in a new way: I give seminars in which I try to explain the Tractatus.I have learned a lot from them and I have the feeling that now I am beginning to understand the book.It is even more wonderful than I had thought.And one of the most wonderful things about it is that it is absolutely straightforward.No metaphors, no allusions, no mystery.The difficulty is to avoid twisting his words, to avoid putting an "interpretation" on them. 26scombe too was teaching courses and writing on the Tractatus at Oxford.In their letters, the two philosophers passionately discussed individual passages of the Tractatus, especially 4.464 and 5.62.This lively 24.Kenny (2005: 342).25.For recent articles, see Mühlhölzer (2012: 19-44), Nedo (2008: 79-105 The literary executors' refreshed interest in the Tractatus was spurred by three notebooks (MSS101-103) which Wittgenstein's sister showed them during their stay in Austria in the summer of 1952.These pre-war notebooks document the work that led to the writing of the Tractatus.Anscombe had them photographed and sent duplicates to von Wright.After RFM was published, von Wright and Anscombe considered their next task to be to edit these notebooks.Already at a very early stage of editing, von Wright suggested an editorial policy that contrasted with their approach to the RFM: I think the notebooks should be published more or less as they arewith some minor omissions and a slight amount of "editing" only.Not everything in them is of equal interest and quality, but to anyone who is seriously interested in the Tractatus they will be an immense help.For the benefit of scholarship too, it seems to me to be our duty to make them public. 29scombe and von Wright supplemented their edition of the Notebooks (NB 1961) with notes by Russell (TS201) 30 and Moore (MS301), as well as with relevant parts of Wittgenstein's correspondence with Russell.Though it may not be justified to call von Wright's approach regarding the NB an editorial policy, the published work shows his disposition to opt for minimal editorial intervention while providing additional 27.Anscombe 1957; Stenius 1960; Black 1964.28  Anscombe, 19 April 1957, NLF, COLL.714.11-12.30.Cf.Costello (1957: 230-245; McGuinness (2002: 243-258).

Christian Erbacher 177
historical documentation.Consequently, von Wright was much more satisfied with the NB than with the RFM.Having received the first proofs from the printer, he shared his enthusiasm with Anscombe: It was a very exhilarating experience to read the proofs.This is an exciting, most important book which we are publishing. 31t the NB still required some editing, since Anscombe and von Wright considered it their duty to cut the passages Wittgenstein had written in his personal code.This was a matter of reverence and loyalty to the friend who had entrusted them with his writings.Nevertheless, a pirate edition of the excluded passages was later published and aroused much curiosity (Geheime Tagebücher, GT 1985, 1991).Another issue regarding the editing of the pre-war notebooks concerned copyright laws.Given that many parts of the NB overlap with the text of the Tractatus, negotiations with the publisher holding the copyright for the Tractatus delayed publication until the new translation of the Tractatus appeared in 1961.

The Blue and Brown books
The first volume that Rhees edited after the RFM was Preliminary Studies for the "Philosophical Investigations" Generally Known as the Blue and Brown Books (BBB 1958).Wittgenstein dictated what has been called "The Blue Book" to students, as a supplement to his seminars in the 1933-34 academic session.During the following academic session (1934-35), he dictated what came to be called "The Brown Book" to two of his students and friends.The Brown Book was a draft for what he envisaged would be his second book.Hence, the BBB originated -not from students' lecture notes, as is sometimes thought -but from sets of dictation in the proper sense of the term.
Even during Wittgenstein's lifetime, private copies of both sets of dictation were circulating.Immediately after Wittgenstein's death, some of these copies were offered to publishing houses.The literary executors wanted to prevent such pirate editions, so they published an announcement in Mind stating that they were the only ones authorised by Wittgenstein to publish his writings. 32In light of the continuing circulation of private copies, Rhees sought to publish an "authorised" version of the dictation sets.In his editing process, he took account of Wittgenstein's corrections to Russell's version of the original dictation, which Russell had given to Rhees at the turn of 1953-54.
Rhees considered it his responsibility to guide the reception of Wittgenstein's works through his way of editing, putting Wittgenstein's writings in the right perspective and minimising the risk of misunderstanding.He pondered how an envisaged edition of the dictated texts might be received and whether Wittgenstein himself would have published them: My only reason for hesitating about the printing of them is the fear that many will read them now instead of the Investigations.I do not think that this is any reason for not publishing them.(Probably Wittgenstein himself would not have wanted them published.But in this case that is not a conclusive reason against it either.)I wonder what we should call them.Neither you nor Elizabeth has said anything about this.I have no ideas myself."Blue Books" and "Brown Book" are all right for the purpose of identification.But they would look a little silly as titles for published works.They were not names which Wittgenstein himself gave them, of course. 33 it turned out, the literary executors chose the title Preliminary Studies for the "Philosophical Investigations" Generally Known as the Blue and Brown Books, indicating that the edition should not be understood as on par with the Tractatus and PI but as part of the work that eventually led to the PI.Accordingly, Rhees wrote in his preface that "[w]hat we are printing here are notes he gave to his pupils, and a draft for his own use; that is all". 34hees went on to explain the main lines of reasoning in the dictated texts, thus further channelling the interpretation.However, when the translator of the German version later suggested including a preface that related the dictated texts to current debates in scholarship, Rhees vetoed the suggestion.He understood his introduction not as a scholarly contribution but rather as exposing main lines of thought in order to prevent misunderstanding.In fact, Rhees' subsequent editing projects would start from this exegetical understanding of his inherited task.

IV. Rung 3: Rhees' Author-Centred Editing
The editions reckoned to be "on the third rung" consist of publications edited from parts of Wittgenstein's Nachlass that were written before and after the PI.Together with the earlier editions, these third-rung volumes completed the publication of remarks which Wittgenstein wrote from 1929 (the year he returned to Cambridge) to 1951 (the year of his last writings).The literary executors' division of labour was further established 33.Letter from Rhees to von Wright, 22 July 1957, NLF, COLL.714.200-201.34.BBB (1958: vi).

Christian Erbacher
at this rung: Rhees concentrated on editing Wittgenstein's writings from the time before the first version of PI (Urfassung; see footnote 14), while Anscombe and von Wright edited, mainly together, writings after the last version of PI (Spätfassung; see footnote 14).Work on these editions led the three to recognise in detail Wittgenstein's way of working and the resulting complexity of his Nachlass.Subsequent editing became an increasingly complex task: now the literary executors had to decide on editorial questions of merging, structuring, selecting, omitting and naming Wittgenstein's writings.Given that at this stage it was primarily Rhees who held a definite opinion on editing, the main concern while discussing this rung is to characterise his editorial approach.

Philosophische Bemerkungen
After the BBB was published, Rhees resumed work on the early parts of the Nachlass, beginning with the already-mentioned Moore-Volume (TS209) from 1929-30 and the Big Typescript (TS213) from 1933-34.These writings stem from the time before Rhees attended Wittgenstein's lectures.Von Wright also resumed reading the two items, and, like Rhees, was fascinated to discover a "middle Wittgenstein" that created a bridge between the Tractatus and the PI: I have in the last five weeks been doing concentrated reading of the two things by Wittgenstein, which we call the "Moore-Volume" and the "Big Typescript".The Moore-Volume I had, of course, read before (twice).But of the Big Typescript I had only read (12 years ago) the mathematical part.Reading the Big Typescript from beginning to end was a terrific experience.[. ..]I am firmly of the opinion that it should in its entirety be published, and that in preparing it for publication and having it translated it must be given priority over the Moore-Volume.
The editorial work which has to be done on the Big Typescript (and the Moore-Volume) is not a major concern.Perhaps Rhees prefers to do it all by himself.If, at the final stage, he wants our assistance, I am sure we could complete the job by joint efforts in one to three weeks.I have written to him and offered him my assistance, if he wants it.I hope he will not misunderstand me.Needless to say, I have not the slightest wish to interfere with his work and I trust it completely. 35ees indeed took the job of editing the Moore-Volume and the Big Typescript, but in contrast to von Wright's prediction, he invested huge editorial efforts.
Rhees began with editing the Moore-Volume.It is the most finished and chronologically first typescript from the middle Wittgenstein period.

Philosophische Grammatik
The natural candidate for the next edition was the document that the literary executors called the Big Typescript.With its 768 numbered pages, preceded by a 19-section table of contents with 140 chapters, the typescript appeared as if it could be printed right away.Indeed, as quoted above, von Wright first thought that only a little editing was needed.However, when Rhees started typing out Wittgenstein's manuscripts, he saw the complex interrelations between the items within Wittgenstein's Nachlass and became convinced that the Big Typescript was only a momentary crystallisation in a continuously mutating working process.In his subsequent years of meticulous study, Rhees elaborated a picture of the corpus of Wittgenstein's manuscripts and typescripts from the early 1930s.It may be roughly summarised as follows: 36 PB contained remarks 36.Cf.Nedo (1993: 126).

Christian Erbacher 181
from ledgers written during 1929-30 (MS105-108, Bände I-IV).However, before the arrangement for the PB typescript was made, another typescript (TS208, 1930) had been produced from the remarks in those ledgers.Using a copy of this typescript together with cuttings from two other typescripts (TS210, 1930 and TS211, 1931-32), which had been distilled from yet other notebooks and ledgers (MS109-MS114, Bände V-X), Wittgenstein produced a collection of cuttings which he sorted and clamped together (TS212, 1932).When this collection of cuttings was retyped, the Big Typescript came into being (TS213, 1933).
Given how Wittgenstein inserted new comments and notes for improvements in one of the three copies of the Big Typescript, Rhees considered that despite its book-like appearance, it was not a work for publication but rather an ordered collection for a further stage of elaboration.Rhees conjectured that there must be another volume that was the result of the reworking.Following Wittgenstein's annotations in the Big Typescript, Rhees discovered what he was looking for in the manuscript called Band X (MS114).He discussed this discovery in a letter to von Wright: What I told you of Bände X and XI in September was wildly inaccurate -as regards Band X especially.On looking through it, I had thought it was of much the same sort as the Bände I-VII; and this is true, on the whole, of the first 60 pages of it (although these are revisions and developments of what he had written earlier).Then comes a passage headed: "Umarbeitung", and under this heading: "Zweite Umarbeitung in großem Format".[. ..]The important point is: a) this is a Umarbeitung of the big typescript, not of the Philosophische Bemerkungen.Do not ask me how I was so stupid before.But I discovered this when I was trying to make a version of the big typescript, taking account of the corrections between the lines and on the opposite pages, and I was referring fairly often to Band X, which I took to be the manuscript Band.It became clear again and again that what was in Band X is a later version than the typed one.[. ..](b) the Band X Umarbeitung is not just a series of revisions.It is a continuous book: Even more than a revised statement of many or most of the passages, it is a new ordering of the material.It is coherent and forceful, and -for me as I typed it -extremely interesting.[. ..]If I can produce a book at all, I think it should be called Philosophische Grammatik".This is what Band X is called [. ..] 37 Having identified the manuscript that confirmed his hypothesis, Rhees knew which book he wanted to prepare for publication in order to present a position between the PB and PI in the development of Wittgenstein's philosophy.His goal was thus to carry out the corrections, alterations and annotations that Wittgenstein had written into the Big 37. Letter from Rhees to von Wright, 8 November 1965, NLF, COLL.714.200-201.182

Philosophical Investigations
Typescript.He wanted to create a book that came closest to the one Wittgenstein himself would have produced if he had followed through with the corrections he made in the mid-1930s.Rhees was aware that carrying out this plan would mean an incredible amount of work, as he wrote to his friend Drury: "What I hoped would be the chief work in this period -what I had hoped was a manuscript with corrections and variants which need to be edited -has now turned out to be not Siamese twins but Siamese quadruplets.And I wish I would see how to make it plain what this quartet is saying." 38Devoting himself completely to the task, Rhees resigned from his post at the University of Swansea.As a result, Philosophical Grammar (PG) appeared in 1969.
Today PG is perhaps best known for being a controversial edition made by one of Wittgenstein's literary executors.Anthony Kenny, who  translated PG in 1972 and 1973 (English Edition: Philosophical Grammar,  PG 1974), has appreciated the enormous complexity of Rhees' editing, but argued that PG is neither a systematic application of Wittgenstein's corrections nor that it would be possible at all to produce an unambiguous edition of the corrected Big Typescript. 39Kenny had planned to include a translator's introduction in the English edition of PG that listed the editorial interventions.Rhees rejected such an introduction on the grounds that it would encourage pseudo-scholarship on Wittgenstein's manuscripts -something Wittgenstein would have loathed. 40However, Kenny remained convinced that "the most prudent editorial policy would have been to print the original Big Typescript as it stood rather than to seek a definite revision of it". 41As is obvious from the quotation above, Rhees would have liked this had it been possible for him.Seven years earlier, he had even contemplated and rejected the option, as he wrote to von Wright: Perhaps you are inclined to ask: Why can you not just print the big typescript as it stands, ignoring all and every correction or revision.
Lord.If you really do want to ask this, I will try to answer in another letter.I really think this is impossible -and I mean that: I do not mean just inadvisable. 42deed, in answer to Kenny's criticism, Rhees wrote a letter explaining the reason for his editing.In it, he summarised his overall guiding editorial principle: 38. Letter from Rhees to Drury, 7 November 1965, edited in Rhees (2006: 257-260) and Rhees (2001: 153-156).39.Kenny (1976: 41-53 Rhees' approach to editing Wittgenstein originated from an understanding of Wittgenstein and his philosophy.He had gained his special insight through knowing and discussing with Wittgenstein and from observing him working on his writings.Like Wittgenstein himself, Rhees cared most of all about paving the way for the right understanding of the remarks, while most of all fearing misunderstanding and abuse.In fact, Rhees was convinced that his own empathetic attitude was one of the reasons why Wittgenstein named him as his executor.This conviction is like a red thread running through all the editions Rhees created.Even so, when taken to the extreme, the attempt to be faithful to Wittgenstein's intentions and to prevent the abuse of his writings could be used to legitimise massive editorial intervention.A striking case is the chapter "Philosophy" in the Big Typescript, the whole of which Rhees omitted from his edition of the PG.Such passages on Wittgenstein's method belong to the most popular remarks in the PI today.But this, it seems, was exactly what Rhees feared, as he explained to von Wright: You will agree that you cannot tell anyone what philosophy is, if he has never been near enough the water to get his feet wet.And it is impossible to tell anyone what Wittgenstein's conception of philosophy is, if (he) has made no long or serious study of what Wittgenstein has written.It would have been impossible for Wittgenstein himself to do this.And the remarks in that section of the Typoscript [sic] 213 can have force or sense only against the Hintergrund of the philosophizing which Wittgenstein does, or has done.Wittgenstein used to say something in this sense to people who wanted to come to his lectures.It is why he used (for example) to speak of the work of philosophy as the work of changing one's way of looking at things, durch lange Übung.When I asked him first if I could come to his lectures, he asked if I had any idea of what went on in them.And when I said (or said something like) obviously I had only such ideas as came from discussion with those attending them, Wittgenstein said: "Suppose you asked someone 'can you play the violin?', and he said: 'I don't know, but I can try.' " Of course those remarks in Typoscript 213 will be published sometime, and people will quote them to show (sic) what Wittgenstein said doing philosophy was.And they will think this is all fairly easy to understand.We cannot prevent this.-You remember various remarks of his about trying to answer the question "What is mathematics?". 44.Letter from Rhees to Kenny, 2 March 1977, WWA; edited in Rhees (1996: 55-61).44.Letter from Rhees to von Wright, 22 January 1976, WWA.184

Philosophical Investigations
Rhees held the opinion that those who actively followed Wittgenstein in his way of treating philosophical problems would recognise in any of his remarks what kind of activity philosophy was for him, but that for those who had not already entered into this way of philosophising, there was no point in trying to describe it.

Zettel, On Certainty and Remarks on Colour
Rhees' development as an editor stood in some contrast to the development of the two other literary executors.Anscombe, for example, was not as fascinated by the middle Wittgenstein as Rhees and von Wright were, and she did not translate Rhees' editions of Wittgenstein's writings from that period.In the 1950s, she taught on the Tractatus and the PI and wrote Intention and An Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus. 45Thus, Anscombe was in lively philosophical discussion with the material she edited and translated.Contrasting Rhees' ambition to fulfil Wittgenstein's hypothetical intentions in intermediate stages of his development, Anscombe favoured staying with the published Tractatus and the quasi-authorised PI and to continue their philosophical discussion.Instead of completely devoting her professional life to the task of editing the papers of her teacher, she increasingly worked on her own writings and lectured internationally in the 1960s.She kept her sense of the spirit of Wittgenstein's philosophising alive, not by incorporating it into her editorial work, but by pursuing her own thinking in a way that was inspired by him.However, together with von Wright, she also continued publishing texts from Wittgenstein's Nachlass, and by no means without editorial intervention.
Zettel (Z 1967), as the name suggests, is made from yet another collection of Wittgenstein's cuttings.Most of its contents stem from documents written between 1945 and 1948.Von Wright conjectured that since the final version of PI (Spätfassung, see footnote 14) was printed from a typescript dating from 1945-46 and since Part II of PI was made from a script typed in 1949, Zettel might fill a gap between the two parts.Wittgenstein had reworked the remarks in the collection of Zettel and had partly bundled them into groups.Yet the organisation in the printed edition does not entirely follow Wittgenstein's own arrangement: what had been clipped together by Wittgenstein remained so, but the rest was posthumously woven into an arrangement by Anscombe's husband Peter 45. Anscombe (1957), Anscombe (1959)

Christian Erbacher 185
Geach.Critics have pointed out that the edition does not distinguish clearly enough between the parts that follow Wittgenstein's arrangement and those arranged by Geach. 46he editions On Certainty (OC 1969) and Remarks on Colour (ROC 1977, edited by Anscombe alone) may be discussed together because, in a certain sense, they belong together: both are made from manuscripts dating from the last 18 months of Wittgenstein's life.OC is a selection of remarks from five manuscripts, three of which are also the source for ROC.According to the editors, the different remarks were marked off by Wittgenstein as belonging to different topics.Although a later edition, namely Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, Volume 2, seems to relativise this opinion, the main editorial issue in creating these two volumes was not selection, but rather giving them a name.Especially in the case of OC, the title might suggest a separate or even new thematic focus, a view which was controversially discussed, for example by Rhees.In a long letter written in March 1970, Rhees responded to a draft for a preface that opened up the possibility of understanding OC as a new work in Wittgenstein's oeuvre -one which had emerged after he made his last modifications to the PI.In the letter, Rhees showed how the remarks in OC were embedded into the whole of Wittgenstein's development; instead of beginning to work on a new topic, Wittgenstein returned to a line of thinking that had been there for a long time.Von Wright was so impressed by this letter that he asked Rhees to write a new preface to OC using the letter as a starting point.Rhees did so, but Siegfried Unseld, director of the German publisher of Wittgenstein's works, eventually refused to publish it.Unseld wanted OC to address a wide audience and regarded Rhees' introduction as too scholarly for this purpose.Taking into account Rhees' attitude towards what he somewhat contemptuously called "scholarship" (described above while discussing PG), it is possible to see that Unseld's refusal to publish the new preface reflects Rhees' almost tragically isolated position: in his faithful loyalty to Wittgenstein's intentions, he was too unscholarly for the scholars and too scholarly for the general public.

V. Rung 4: von Wright's Text-Genetic Editing
Although von Wright also disliked much of what was classified as Wittgensteinian scholarship, he was a natural academic and developed his own rather scholarly approach to editing Wittgenstein's papers.He was 46.Stern (1996: 461-462).

186
Philosophical Investigations sympathetic to Rhees' concerns yet favoured quite a different editorial policy.Von Wright increasingly believed that the documents would speak for themselves when they were presented to the academic community, but that supplementing the documents with historical facts would help readers comprehend them correctly.Thus, in contrast to Rhees' approach of crafting a unified book based on an internal understanding, von Wright sought to preserve and present the historical documents just as they were, but to illuminate them by providing external information on their originary contexts.Of course, von Wright's historical fascination was tremendously encouraged by Rhees' discoveries within the sub-corpus of the middle Wittgenstein, but he also made his own journeys into the Nachlass.In the early 1960s, von Wright searched the whole of Wittgenstein's Nachlass for coded remarks and endeavoured to decode them.A little later, he re-scoured all the available material and selected remarks on topics of a general nature.This resulted in the edition called Vermischte Bemerkungen (VB 1977).VB was closely linked to von Wright's own philosophical development and personal acquaintance with Wittgenstein; it presented Wittgenstein as a man in touch with the currents of his time and as a critic of contemporary civilisation. 47According to von Wright, it was important to recognise Wittgenstein as a person responding to a cultural context in order to understand his philosophy.Thus, although the remarks in VB do not belong to Wittgenstein's philosophical remarks in a strict sense, they provide a frame of cultural criticism for interpreting Wittgenstein's philosophising.However, publishing a selection such as VB is rather untypical for von Wright's editorial work.His approach is most often characterised by little editorial intervention or interpretation.
During the first 15 years of the literary executors' custody of Wittgenstein's Nachlass, some manuscripts were lost or sold, while others were discovered for the first time.On a visit to Austria in 1965, von Wright discovered an early version of the Tractatus.This find revived his desire to describe the origins of the Tractatus.He followed through by preparing his study of The Origins of the Tractatus 48 as an introduction to the facsimile edition of the newly found pre-version of the Tractatus (Prototractatus, PT 1971).Experiences such as this increased von Wright's awareness of both the historicity and vulnerability of the original documents, convincing him that the fate of the material should not depend only on the three literary executors.He then started negotiations which eventually led to a complete microfilm copy of the Nachlass and to the institutionalised preservation of the originals.This in turn gave rise to 47. Cf.Erbacher (forthcoming).48.Von Wright (1982: 63-109).

Christian Erbacher 187
research into the Nachlass by scholars who stood outside the narrow circle of the literary executors and their collaborators.

The Cornell microfilm
Von Wright's friend at Cornell University, Norman Malcolm, who had also been a student and friend of Wittgenstein, became intrigued by Wittgenstein's middle period while writing an encyclopaedia paper about him.In producing this paper, Malcolm studied the relation between the so-called early and late Wittgenstein and was fascinated when von Wright told him about the manuscripts that document the transition.Malcolm suggested it would be worthwhile depositing copies of the corresponding ledgers (Bände) at the Cornell University Library.However, Rhees was against this proposition because he feared that the manuscripts would be copied and privately circulated, as had been the case with Malcolm's notes from Wittgenstein's lectures on the foundations of mathematics.In accordance with his editorial approach, Rhees grounded his refusal in what he thought Wittgenstein himself would have wanted: When I spoke to Wittgenstein about the task ten days before his death he was particularly anxious that care should be taken in what was published and how it was presented.This is vague, I know.But I am certain he would have said "no" to "Just circulate everything." 49 1965, von Wright agreed that it might be too early to create a complete copy of Wittgenstein's Nachlass, yet he was determined that efforts to preserve the original material would eventually be necessary.Thus, he and Malcolm worked on a scheme to accomplish this aim.Malcolm whetted Cornell University's interest in the project, and the university library made an offer to microfilm the entire Nachlass.Von Wright then forwarded the proposal to Rhees: On my way back from Pittsburgh I spent a week at Cornell.I discussed once again with Norman Malcolm the possibility of depositing copies of the Wittgenstein Nachlass in the Cornell Library.We also consulted an expert.I became convinced that the right thing to do is to have the entire Nachlass microfilmed.This microfilm would then be safely deposited in the Cornell Library and developed xerox-copy of it, exclusively of the passages in code, made available for research purposes.[. ..]This plan seems to me good.And I hope you will agree to it.It would solve, once and for all, the problem of taking copies of the originals.The existence of the microfilm, moreover, would be a safeguard of the preservation of the Nachlass in case of a disaster. 50.Letter from Rhees to von Wright, 7 July 1965, NLF, COLL.714.200-201.50.Letter from Rhees to von Wright, 28 April 1966, NLF, COLL.714.200-201.188 Philosophical Investigations With Rhees finally agreeing to the plan, all the parties signed a contract by the turn of 1966-67.Thus in 1967, the parts of the Nachlass that Anscombe and Rhees kept at their homes and the parts that Wittgenstein's family kept in Austria were filmed under the supervision of Malcolm and von Wright.This collection amounted to 117 bound volumes of photocopies.Libraries could purchase from Cornell University the microfilm or photocopy volumes made from it.In the official Cornell copy, the passages written in Wittgenstein's personal code were covered up.However, the literary executors also produced a second uncensored set, which was later used for publishing coded remarks without the executors' consent.
Although the microfilm was never considered to be a true edition, it made Wittgenstein's Nachlass almost entirely available to the public.Furthermore, as a result of negotiations between the three literary executors and Trinity College, it was resolved that the originals should eventually be deposited at the college, and that a consortium, consisting first of the literary executors and then of their chosen successors, should be consulted in questions of publishing.Wittgenstein's writings were thus preserved for future scholarship.
After the Cornell microfilm had been made, a catalogue of the material was produced at Cornell University.When von Wright received this catalogue, he discovered many mistakes.He therefore returned to Cornell to check all the copies.This resulted in the production of his own catalogue. 51Von Wright structured the corpus by using a numbering system that assigned an unambiguous reference to each item.Thus far in the 18 years of editing Wittgenstein's Nachlass, this had not happened.In particular, von Wright distinguished between three categories: he referred to manuscripts using numbers starting with 101; for typescripts, he used numbers starting with 201; and for dictations, he started with 301.The body of manuscripts was divided into (i) "first drafts" and (ii) "more finished versions", the latter being further divided into two series of ledgers (Bände) and notebooks.This "map", together with the Cornell microfilm, provided orientation in the whole corpus and laid the foundation for all subsequent studies and scholarly editions of the Nachlass.

The Helsinki Edition
The first steps towards a scholarly treatment of Wittgenstein's Nachlass were taken by von Wright himself.Using his more than 20 years of accrued knowledge about the Nachlass, plus the Cornell microfilm, he 51.Von Wright (1969: 483-503).TS225, 1938; TS220, 1937-38; TS221, 1938;  MS141, 1935-36), (ii) a worked over version of parts of it (TS239, 1943), (iii) a reconstructed middle version, (iv) the late version (TS227, 1945-46) and ( 5) the last remaining pre-version of the typescript from which Part II had been printed in 1953 (MS144, 1949).All of the versions of PI in the Helsinki Edition are introduced by an editorial and source-genetic preface.The text itself mostly presents a single remark on each page.An apparatus of variants, deletions and so forth are added in footnotes, and a commentary is included on separate pages or even in a separate volume.In addition, cross-referencing tables point out the places where the various versions correspond.The Helsinki Edition has never been published, but several copies have been given to libraries and individual researchers in privately bound volumes.Eventually, it has found its way into the public domain, insofar as it provides the basis for the criticalgenetic edition of the PI (PU 2001, see round 4, below).

Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology
Von Wright's assistant Nyman, in addition to being involved in creating the Helsinki Edition, also assisted in editing the volumes that might be seen as critical supplements to Part II of the PI.Wittgenstein wrote intensively on the philosophy of psychology after he had finished the remarks that became PI Part I.He filled at least eight manuscript volumes (MSS130-138) and used them to dictate two typescripts (TS229, TS232).The notebooks that he wrote during the last months of his life (from which OC and ROC had been edited) also contained remarks on this topic.Before 1980, only Part II of the PI and fragments in Zettel were published from this extensive corpus on the philosophy of psychology.Von Wright now promoted the publication of Wittgenstein's remaining writings on this topic, and his efforts resulted in four volumes: 52.Cf.Maury's studies on the sources of the remarks in Zettel (1981: 135-158) and  Philosophical Investigations (1994: 349-378).53.Von Wright (1982: 111-136).(MS137, 1948-49, MS138, 1949).Because more than half of the remarks in Part II of the PI are said to be taken from these manuscripts, this volume was given the subtitle Preliminary Studies for Part II of Philosophical Investigations.The fourth volume in this series is Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, Volume II (LW II 1992, edited by von Wright and Nyman).The sources for this fourth volume are notebooks written during the last two years of Wittgenstein's life (MSS169-171, 1949-50;  MSS173-174, 1950, MSS176, 1951), parts of which had been published earlier in ROC.
Together, the four volumes display a new critical awareness that resulted from experiencing the editorial difficulties of publishing Wittgenstein's Nachlass.At the same time, they round off the series of printed works produced under the auspices of the literary executors.Anscombe, Rhees and von Wright had developed each their own attitude towards the task they had inherited from Wittgenstein.Anscombe chose to concentrate on the two main works and used them as the starting points for new philosophical discussions; Rhees used his understanding of Wittgenstein's philosophy to produce unified books that presented intermediate stages in the development of that philosophy; von Wright ensured access to the whole corpus of historical documents and provided insight into their historical contexts.These characteristic differences in the work of Wittgenstein's literary executors are easily overlooked by readers when they are confronted with the "smooth" appearance of Wittgenstein's printed works.

VI. Rung 5: The Next Rounds of Editing
The first round of editing (Figure 1, rungs 1-4) is characterised by the editors being students and friends of Wittgenstein.The unique personal relationships, not just to their teacher but to his philosophy, contributed to their respective understandings of what their duty was in caring for the publication of his writings.By contrast, the subsequent rounds of editing often consist of large international editorial projects involving many participants who did not know Wittgenstein personally.This new generation of scholars has had to comply with new editorial standards in academia: in Christian Erbacher  191  particular, to present an unbiased projection of the original manuscripts or typescripts onto the printed page.To meet these demands, the scholars started including variants, footnotes, commentaries and appendices in the editions -precisely those elements the literary executors had deliberately avoided.The rise of computer technology also fuelled these critical editing developments, thus affecting both the preparation and presentation of Wittgenstein's writings.The subsequent rounds of editing may therefore be characterised as the transference of Wittgenstein's Nachlass into the digital age of scholarship.

Round 2 (rung 5): the Vienna Edition
The first large editorial project in what can be called "round two" was already underway when von Wright and Nyman prepared their last volumes.In 1974, the literary executors signed a contract founding the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Tübingen.The aim of these archives was to produce a complete transcription of the Nachlass using the Cornell microfilm as the basis.Unfortunately, the team of researchers broke up because of internal disagreements, so the archives were closed in 1981.Rumours about the circumstances of these events spread to the wider academic community and the public press, thus damaging the scholarly reputation of the whole endeavour of editing Wittgenstein's Nachlass.Nevertheless, the project of transcribing the corpus could continue through other projects.
Ten years passed, however, before the first of the post-Tübingen projects announced the publication of new volumes.The Vienna Edition (Wiener Ausgabe, WA, see Table 1b) was prepared under the directorship of Michael Nedo, who was also part of the group working in Tübingen.Nedo had moved to Cambridge and continued the work that would lead to the WA.In the introductory volume, he states that all the manuscripts and typescripts written between 1929 and 1933 (referred to as the middle period) are to be published in this series.In particular, the project's aim is to "reproduce the manuscripts faithfully, comprehensively and in most readable form possible". 54 Somewhere between 10 to 15 volumes, each covering 250 to 350 pages, were planned.So far, the WA has published Wittgenstein's first series of ledgers (MSS105-114, Bände I-X, published as WA 1-5, 1994-96) and the Big Typescript, including appendices (TS213, TS214-218, published as WA 11, 2000).The first five volumes (WA 1-5) are accompanied by a concordance (1997), a register (1998) and a synopsis (2000).

Philosophical Investigations
The WA presents Wittgenstein's writings with three different critical apparatuses: one at each margin and a third in the footnotes.Additionally, different underlinings, insertions, variants and deletions are represented by different fonts and brackets.The great amounts of time and resources invested into finding this typographic form surely indicate the tremendous challenge faced by any project with editorial ambitions similar to that of the WA.The WA has presented volumes that satisfy the demands of a printed, critical and scholarly edition, but academic philosophers have noted that a more usable complete edition could have been produced using fewer resources and more conventional procedures. 55und 3 (rung 6): the Bergen Electronic Edition Yet another editorial project is rooted in the mid-1970s.In 1975, the philosophy departments of four Norwegian universities bought a photocopy set of the Cornell microfilm.By 1980 members of this group, which was then called the "Norwegian Wittgenstein Project", wanted to use computer technology to make the Cornell photocopies more accessible. 56fter negotiations with the literary executors and with the support of von Wright, this aim could be pursued; the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen (WAB) were established in 1990.By that time, the idea of using computer technology to make Wittgenstein's Nachlass available had become rather definite.A coding language was developed to produce a complete and machine-readable version. 57After yet another ten years of transcribing and coding, Wittgenstein's Nachlass: The Bergen Electronic Edition (BEE 2000, see Table 1b) was released on six CD-ROMs.
The BEE provides a full transcription in "normalised" and "diplomatic" formats: the normalised transcription renders Wittgenstein's emendations easy to read, while the diplomatic transcription carefully preserves the structure and appearance of Wittgenstein's original texts, for example by displaying deletions, variants and underlinings.The BEE also contains facsimiles of 96 manuscripts, 53 typescripts and eight dictations, plus functions for searching all the 157 documents according to names, dates or formulae.Through this rich array of functions, the BEE provides all means necessary for comparing printed editions and their sources.Thus, after the BEE's publication, there have in principle been no more grounds for speculating about the possible repression or restriction of access to the Nachlass.In fact, one motivation for producing the BEE has been to bring clarity to such debates.55.Hintikka (1991: 183-201), Kenny (2005: 341-355).56.Huitfeldt and Rossvoer (1988: 9).57.Huitfeldt (1994a: 275-294), Huitfeldt (1994b: 37-43).
Christian Erbacher  193  One might expect that editorial problems have finally come to an end with the publication of the BEE.Indeed, today the BEE has come to be seen as a standard source for Wittgenstein scholarship, not least because it provides a complete facsimile edition.It has also prepared the ground for further developing von Wright's reference system by creating new sigla, not only for each item, but for each remark.Nevertheless, with the BEE, a Pandora's box full of new editorial difficulties has opened.The way in which the BEE's creators have coped with the technological requirements, such as by inventing a coding language for complex documents, has brought the project to the forefront of digital scholarly editions.Yet the BEE has also exposed the para-technological limitations of digital editions, namely, the problems scholars have with managing the software.Despite the BEE including an extensive user guide, few users have been able to fully exploit the search functions, and most have been dissatisfied when trying to copy or print the pages they found of special interest. 58Moreover, it has now become impossible to run the BEE with the latest operating systems.Thus, while the printed editions have presented readers with one set of challenges, now with digitisation, new challenges related to technological developments and usability have emerged.
Since WAB released the BEE, it has treated these new challenges as opportunities for developing new forms of digital scholarly editions, including converting the BEE to web standards and linking it with other online resources. 59WAB thereby actively welcomes new opportunities for both online editions and philosophical archives in the transition from the digital age to the Internet age. 60und 4 (rung 7): the Critical-Genetic Edition of PI Not all the editorial projects after round one have been sorties into new technological worlds.The latest round of editing Wittgenstein's main work has resulted in a more conventional publication.Von Wright always envisioned a complete printed edition of the Nachlass, the production of which he considered the literary executors' duty.Such a complete edition has not yet been realised, and it is questionable whether it is still desirable, given the many repetitions in Wittgenstein's Nachlass and the digital solutions available for handling them.However, using both von Wright's Helsinki Edition and the digital BEE, it has been possible to produce a critical-genetic edition of the PI (PU 2001, see Table 1b) under the 58.Hrachovec (2005: 405-417); for more reviews of the BEE see: http://wab.uib.no/wab_BEE.page,accessed August 23, 2014.59.Pichler (2010: 157-172).60.Erbacher (2011: 135-146).The BEE provides a complete digitised and searchable transcription with a corresponding complete facsimile collection.In addition, there are now also critical book editions of Wittgenstein's main works that form the basis for new reading versions.The editors of Wittgenstein's Nachlass have created a ladder consisting of seven rungs of editing, and all interested readers should be glad for it.Editors of future projects will add more rungs to the ladder, and it is likely that they will continue to discuss how Wittgenstein's later writings may be appropriately represented.Regardless of how different editors interpret "appropriateness", Wittgenstein scholars can look forward to making new discoveries, thanks to WAB having made large portions of Wittgenstein's Nachlass available on the Internet.Also of great interest is whether, and if so how, future editions will assimilate the spirit of the critical-genetic edition of PI and how the results of that will appear.This paper has aimed to open yet another perspective on the history of editing Wittgenstein's Nachlass.Now that editorial projects have provided access to Wittgenstein's writings with as little filtering and interpretation as possible, Wittgenstein scholarship has reached a stage where it is easier to relaxedly recognise the earlier, more interpretive editing.It is hoped that the selected quotes from the literary executors' letters have shown that it is worth following the development of their unique ways of editing.With precisely this objective, a research project at the University of Bergen has begun to prepare a systematic and comprehensive presentation of the literary executors' archived correspondence.

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: The diagram displays significant steps in the history of editing Wittgenstein's Nachlass by plotting the time of creation and the time of posthumous editions.The first four rungs serve also as a more detailed structuring of what von Wright (2001: 158-168) called the first round of editing Wittgenstein.Abbreviations of editions (e.g.PI, RFM, BBB, PB, PG) follow Pichler, Philosophy of Psychology, Volume I (RPP I 1980, edited by Anscombe and von Wright) presents the first of the typescripts on the philosophy of psychology (TS229, 1947) and Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology Volume II (1980, edited by von Wright and Nyman) the second (TS232, 1948).The third volume, Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, Volume I (LW I 1982, edited by von Wright and Nyman), covers the part of the mentioned manuscripts that had not been dictated Schulte.In contrast to the Helsinki Edition, the critical-genetic edition includes the first version of the PI (Urfassung, MS142), which was discovered in 1993.Like the Helsinki Edition, it replaces the earlier Part II with its last existing pre-version (MS144, see rung 1).The text of the critical-genetic edition contains a typographical apparatus indicating underlining, deletion and variants.It shows the different ideas Wittgenstein had for the form of his book.VII.Not Throwing Away the LadderThe critical-genetic edition of the PI (PU 2001), together with the new reading version(PU 2003) and the revised translation(PI 2009), have brought 50 years of experience in editing Wittgenstein to fruition in book form.Research on discrepancies between the published editions and their actual sources has created a heightened alertness to the implications of editorial interventions and promoted the demand for scholarly editions.It has also led to a critical understanding of the early editions and to an idea of what a complete printed edition would amount to.

Table 1b :
Later Rounds of Editing Wittgenstein's Nachlass 1989 Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung.Tractatus logico-philosophicus -Kritische Edition, ed.Brian McGuinness and Joachim Schulte, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp (TLP 1989) The tables present only books/CD-ROM in their first edition.Editions based on lecture notes are not presented.For a comprehensive bibliography, see Pichler et al. (2011; 249-286). Note: Rhees had witnessed its development from the first version, written in 1936, through Wittgenstein's last efforts to finish it.Anscombe, with Wittgenstein's consent, had committed herself to translating the PI by the turn of 1949-50.Wittgenstein discussed questions about editing with both Anscombe and Rhees, thus the literary executors were in no doubt that the latest version of the PI was to be the first posthumous publication.They quickly found a distinguished publisher: Blackwell.Yet, the company director was unsuccessful in gaining permission for a reprint of the Tractatus alongside the PI, which was what Wittgenstein envisaged when he considered publishing his book with Cambridge University Press in 1944.Although Routledge and Kegan Paul had given Cambridge University Press such permission, Blackwell was not offered a similar agreement.Accordingly, PI had to appear without the Tractatus.The contract for publishing the PI (PI 1953) was signed in November 1951.Using Wittgenstein's original typescript, Anscombe and Rhees prepared the printer's copy of the German text by the end of 1951.Anscombe's translation of what is known today as Part I ( § §1-693) may have been finished by that time as well.
). 10. Letter from Anscombe to vonWright, 15 April 1991, kept at National Library of  Finland (NLF), COLL.714.11-12.11.Letter from Rhees to vonWright, 10 August 1972, keptat the von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Helsinki (WWA).Rhees pointed out that "the question of how Teil I and Teil II belong together, is a question of their internal relations." 12The critical-genetic edition of the Philosophical Investigations (PU 2001) informs in detail about the origins of both Part I and Part II.It replaces Part II with the last existing pre-version of it (MS144).In the German reading edition that is based on the critical-genetic edition (PU 2003), Part II no longer appears.In the revised English translation (PI 2009), Rhees and Anscombe's Part II is still included, but under the heading "Philosophy of Psychology -A fragment [previously known as " 'Part II']".
). 26.Letter from von Wright to Anscombe, 6 June 1954, NLF, COLL.714.11-12.176 Philosophical Investigations exchange about the book that was published in Wittgenstein's youth stands in striking contrast to the practical problems of editing the RFM that are addressed in the same letters.Also worth noting is that von Wright and Anscombe's mutual interest in the Tractatus was refreshed at a time when the book was enjoying a general rediscovery.Besides Anscombe's own introduction, von Wright's colleague Erik Stenius wrote another introduction, and a little later Max Black's companion appeared. 27In addition, Brian McGuinness and David Pears prepared a new translation of the Tractatus that was to be highly regarded by Anscombe: I have often tried to translate the Tractatus, and my attempts have always fallen dead to the ground.I now understand why.In some way, I was influenced by the English.It never occurred to me to aim at putting something different from Ogden if possible.Now you have done a wonderful thing: you have broken the spell.Your draft provides a basis, or a big piece of counter-ballast, if you see what I mean, which will make it possible to produce a really excellent translation. 28 . Letter from Anscombe to McGuinness, without date (presumably 1959), McGuinness' private archives.29.Letter from von Wright to 35.Letter from von Wright toAnscombe, 2 February 1963, NLF, COLL:714.11-12.It was used once by Bertrand Russell in connection with renewing Wittgenstein's research grant.Wittgenstein eventually left it with G. E. Moore (hence its name), and Moore turned it over to Rhees in 1951.This typescript forms the basis of Philosophische Bemerkungen(PB 1964, first  English publication 1975).In his edition, Rhees followed Wittgenstein's changes in the sequence of the remarks and divided the text into sections and numbered the paragraphs.He also added a preface that Wittgenstein had written in November 1930 (in MS109).Between Wittgenstein's preface and text, Rhees included his own analytical table of contents, and he added appendices from Wittgenstein's later typescripts (TS214a, 215a, 215b, probably from 1933).Thus, a unified product was shaped from a number of disparate sources.While preparing the PB for publication, Rhees increasingly recognised that an understanding of Wittgenstein's writings from this period must take into account Wittgenstein's relation to the Vienna Circle.PB contains remarks from the ledgers (Bände I-IV) written during Wittgenstein's first year after his return to Cambridge in 1929, and it was that same year, during Christmas break, that he had met Moritz Schlick and Friedrich Waismann for discussions in Vienna.Moreover, while Rhees was working on his edition, Brian McGuinness discovered notes from those Vienna discussions in Waismann's Nachlass in Oxford (McGuiness' edition appeared as Wittgenstein und der Wiener Kreis, WWA 1967).Rhees and McGuinness then began an intense round of correspondence that led not only to synergy and a mutually reinforcing interest in discovering the Wittgenstein of the early 1930s but also to including notes from Waismann's Nachlass as an appendix to PB.
Erbacher  189began what he henceforth called "Nachlass-Research".52Assisted by Heikki Nyman and André Maury, this work resulted in von Wright's article The Origin and Composition of the Philosophical Investigations.53Moreover,vonWright and his assistants produced a kind of critical edition of the PI which is sometimes called the Helsinki Edition.Von Wright himself referred to this as the Nyman/von Wright-Edition, thus acknowledging his assistant's contribution.The Helsinki Edition, which amounts to a dozen volumes, presents (i) an early version of PI (