n to the examiners. The university did not require y of either 1897 or 1898 appears to survive. The preserved 1898 appears to be a mix of ed typescript conjoined with pages in Moore's hand; and pages not in Moore's hand. A ant pages of 1897. temporary notion of propositional content: ..., Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. T 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 4 C. Preti / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. xxx (2008) xxx–xxx SHPS 670 No. of Pages 10, Model 5G 27 March 2008 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESSU N C O R R E C explain that, in this statement, 'ideas' must not be understood to mean mere 'states of my mind'. The ideas, he says, on the relation of which to reality truth depends, are' mere ideas, signs of an existence other than ourselves: and this aspect of them must not be confused with either their existence in my mind or with their particular character as so existent, which may be called their content'. (Moore, 1898, Ch. II) Pages three, four, and five of Chapter II are missing, and the next preserved page is numbered '6'. Some of this page turns up in the published NJ at the bottom of page 177, and through 178. There is a half-page fragment inserted in the manuscript after page 6 with 18 lines of text crossed through, which turns up in NJ at page 189. 1898 takes up again at page 25, some of which turns up at 190–191 of NJ. So there is textual evidence to show that the arguments in NJ formed part of this chapter of the dissertation. A letter21 to Moore from his friend Theodore Llewellyn-Davies, in addition, seems to confirm the content of the missing pages: My dear GE I have not read all your dissertation, but read and reread t