Jean van Heijenoort's conception of modern logic, in historical perspective (Q1942093)

The article under review contains the editor's introduction to the man\-u\-script ``Historical development of modern logic'', written, but never released, by \textit{Jean van Heijenoort}. It was first published posthumously by the same editor in [Mod.\ Log.~2, No.~3, 242--255 (1992; Zbl 0758.03004)] and was now included to a special, commemorative issue of the journal \textit{Logica Universalis} [ibid.~6, No. 3--4, 327--337 (2012; Zbl 1268.03006)]; see [\textit{I. H. Anellis}, ibid. 6, No. 3--4, 249--267 (2012; Zbl 1268.03002)] for details about the entire special issue. Although [\textit{J. van Heijenoort}, From Frege to Gödel. A source book in mathematical logic, 1879--1931. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP (1967; Zbl 0183.00601); reprint (2002; Zbl 1001.03005)] is widely considered a milestone achievement, it was not long until certain deficiencies were pointed out in the historical picture van Heijenoort was painting here and elsewhere (for which see his [Selected Essays. Napoli: Bibliopolis (1985)]), including the reprinted manuscript in question. The primary goal of the editor's introduction is to assess these critical concerns and to reevaluate in their light van Heijenoort's scholarship in general and how it affects the manuscript in particular -- the biggest bone of contention being van Heijenoort's apparent neglect of the ``Boolean tradition''. The introduction can be subdivided as follows: (i) ``From Frege to Gödel'' (pp.~301--307); (ii) Wiener (pp.~307--310); (iii) Herbrand (pp. 310--312); (iv) the manuscript (pp.~312--316), followed by a bibliography (pp.~316--326). In a nutshell, the author's conclusion is that van Heijenoort cannot be exculpated from Moore's charge of an ``[im]balanced representation of the history of mathematical logic'' due to giving too much weight to ``Russell's interpretation of the history'' (pp.~305, 306 resp.). Like so many introductions, its length is more than double that of the original piece. Reviewer's remarks: I found the introduction well-written and a very valuable resource since it compiles and puts into perspective all, or so it seems, relevant primary and secondary sources. While the professional historian will probably not make exciting new findings, I'd warmly recommend the introduction to anyone else who sets out to read the manuscript. Besides some minor typos, I noticed two claims I consider incorrect. First, regarding the history of recursive function theory, the author writes, (i) ``[t]he new theorems of Löwenheim-Skolem [\dots] Tarski [\dots] and of Gödel concerning completeness, gave recursive function theory its start''; and (ii) it ``was initiated by Hilbert.'' There are, \textit{ad} (i), no relevant connections between model-theoretic theorems of the Löwenheim-Skolem-Tarski type and the early history of recursive function theory, nor did, \textit{ad} (ii), Hilbert initiate it. While Hilbert's finitism was undeniably a major influence later on, if we want to pinpoint a single fountainhead, then this would be \textit{Thoralf Skolem}'s essay [``Begründung der elementaren Arithmetik durch die re\-kur\-rie\-ren\-de Denkweise ohne Anwendung scheinbarer Veränderlicher mit unendlichem Ausdehnungsbereich'', Skrifter, Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Os\-lo (= Viden\-skaps\-sels\-kapet i Kristiania), Matematisk-Naturvidenskapelig Klas\-se 6, No.~1, 1--38 (1923); reprinted in: Selected works in logic. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 153--188 (1970; Zbl 0228.02001)]. Second, the author wonders (p.~313, Note 25) -- and he is not the only one to do so (see, e.g., [\textit{E. Köhler}, Gödel and the Vienna Circle. in: Kurt Gödel. Wahrheit und Beweisbarkeit. Band 1: Dokumente und historische Analysen. Wien: öbv \& hpt. 83--108 (2002; Zbl 1014.01009)]) -- whether Wittgenstein's \textit{Tractatus} somehow anticipated Gödel's incompleteness results. For all we know, however, it was the other way round, namely, that Gödel's results pulled the rug from under the early Wittgenstein's feet (see, e.g., [\textit{R. Carnap}, Logische Syntax der Sprache. Wien: J.~Springer (1934; JFM 60.0019.02), pp.~46, 139, 188, and especially \S\,73, pp.~208\,ff.]).