Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-lqqdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-03T06:24:14.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements on Women in the History of Philosophy

E. E. Constance Jones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2025

Gary Ostertag
Gary Ostertag
Affiliation:
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and The Graduate Center, CUNY

Summary

E. E. Constance Jones (1848–1922) published widely in philosophical logic and in ethics and moral psychology and was an active member of the British philosophical community from 1890 until her death. Her contributions to philosophical logic were wide-ranging and sophisticated, anticipating celebrated insights of later twentiethcentury philosophy of language and logic. In ethics, her writings on hedonism and practical reason, though influenced by her mentor, Henry Sidgwick, were innovative and merit further examination.
Get access

Keywords

sense and referenceFrege’s Puzzledualism of practical reasonHenry Sidgwickinformative identity

Information

Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements on Women in the History of Philosophy
Online ISBN: 9781009411110
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 30 September 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

The Academic Family Tree. 2005–2024. The Philosophy Tree: An Academic Genealogy of Philosophy. https://academictree.org/philosophy/.Google Scholar
Anonymous. (1921–22). In Memoriam: Miss E. E. Constance Jones. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 22, 224–5.Google Scholar
Bader, Ralf. (2015). Kantian Axiology and the Dualism of Practical Reason. In Hirose, I. and Olson, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–202. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199959303.013.0011.Google Scholar
Beiser, Frederick C. (2013). Late German Idealism: Trendelenburg and Lotze. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682959.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boole, George. (1998). The Mathematical Analysis of Logic, ed. Slater, John. Oxford: Blackwell. Originally published 1848.Google Scholar
Bosanquet, Bernard. (1888). Logic, or the Morphology of Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bosanquet, Bernard. (1915). The Analysis of Categorical Propositions. Mind 23(89), 102–3.Google Scholar
Bradley, F. H. (1883/1922). The Principles of Logic. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. (1912). Review of the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1910–1911. Mind 21, 260–87.Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. (1930). Five Types of Ethical Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Caplan, Ben. (2022a). E. E. Constance Jones on Existence in Fiction and Imagination. Studia Semiotyczne (Semiotic Studies) 36(1), 175–91. http://doi.org/10.26333/sts.xxxvi1.11.Google Scholar
Caplan, Ben. (2022b). E. E. Constance Jones on Unique Existence. Asian Journal of Philosophy 1(20), 1–24. http://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-022-00022-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, Ben. (2023). E. E. Constance Jones on Existence in a Region of Supposition. Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 11(7), 1–26.10.15173/jhap.v11i7.5485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, Sophia M. and Janssen-Lauret, Frederique. (2022). Lost Voices: Women in Philosophy 1870–1970. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 30(2), 199–210. http://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2021.1984201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, Sophia M. and Janssen-Lauret, Frederique. (2023). “Bad Philosophy” and “Derivative Philosophy”: Labels that Keep Women out of the Canon. Metaphilosophy, 54(2–3), 238–53. http://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Roger. (2015). The Cosmos of Duty: Henry Sidgwick’s Methods of Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716358.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. (2005). Truth and Predication. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674030220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, Michael. (1973). Frege: Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Elkind, Landon and Klein, Alexander Mugar (eds.) 2024. Bertrand Russell, Feminism, and Women Philosophers in his Circle. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-031-33026-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Gareth. (1982). The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. (1967). Begriffsschrift, a Formula Language, Modeled upon that of Arithmetic, for Pure Thought, trans. Stefan Bauer-Mengelberg. In van Heijenoort, Jean (ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 5–82.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. (1976). Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel, ed. Gabriel, Gottfried, Hermes, Hans, and Kaulbach, Friedrich. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.10.28937/978-3-7873-2549-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. (1980). Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, ed. Gabriel, Gottfried, Hermes, Hans, Kambartel, Friedrich, Kaulbach, Friedrich, and Thiel, Christian, with McGuiness, Brian, trans. Hans Kaal. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Translation of Frege (1976).Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. (1997). On Sinn and Bedeutung, trans. Max Black. In Beaney, Michael (ed.), The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 150–71. Translation of Frege (1892).Google Scholar
Grattan-Guinness, Ivor. (1977). Dear Russell, Dear Jourdain: A Commentary on Russell’s Logic, Based on His Correspondence with Philip B. Jourdain. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Karen. (2022). On E. E. Constance Jones’s Account of Categorical Propositions and Her Defense of Frege. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 101(4), 863–75. http://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2022.2063352.Google Scholar
Green, T. H. (1883). Prolegomena to Ethics, ed. Bradley, A. C.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hayward, F. H. (1901a). The True Significance of Sidgwick’s “Ethics.” International Journal of Ethics 11(2), 175–87.10.1086/intejethi.11.2.2375974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, F. H. (1901b). Mr. Hayward’s Evaluation of Professor Sidgwick’s Ethics: A Reply. International Journal of Ethics 11(3), 360–5.10.1086/intejethi.11.3.2376298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heis, Jeremy. (2013). Frege, Lotze, and Boole. In Reck, Erich H. (ed.), The Historical Turn in Analytical Philosophy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 133–8. https://doi.10.1007/978-1-137-30487-2_6.Google Scholar
Hurka, Thomas. (2003). Moore in the Middle. Ethics 113(3), 599–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, Terence. (1992). Eminent Victorians and Greek Ethics: Sidgwick, Green, and Aristotle. In Schultz (1992a), pp. 279–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen-Lauret, Frederique. (2024). Grandmothers and Founding Mothers of Analytic Philosophy: Constance Jones, Bertrand Russell, and Susan Stebbing on Complete and Incomplete Symbols. In Elkind and Klein (2024), pp. 207–39. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33026-1_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jevons, W. S. (1888). Elementary Lessons in Logic. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. E. (1892). The Logical Calculus. I. General Principles. Mind 1(1), 3–30.10.1093/mind/1.1.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance (1890). Elements of Logic as a Science of Propositions. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1892). An Introduction to General Logic. London: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1893). On the Nature of Logical Judgment. Mind 2(8), 441–56.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1894). Rational Hedonism. International Journal of Ethics 5(1), 79–97.10.1086/205297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1894–95). The Rationality of Hedonism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 3(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1901). The True Significance of Sidgwick’s “Ethics.” International Journal of Ethics 11(3), 354–60.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1905/1912). A Primer of Logic. New York: E.P. Dutton.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1906). Mr. Moore on Hedonism. International Journal of Ethics 16(4), 429–464.10.1086/intejethi.16.4.2375996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1909). A Primer of Ethics. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1910). Mr. Russell’s Objections to Frege’s Analysis of Propositions. Mind 19(75), 379–86.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1910–11). A New Law of Thought. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 11, 166–86.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1911a). A New “Law of Thought” and Its Implications. Mind 20, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1911b). A New Law of Thought and Its Logical Bearings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1911c). A New “Law of Thought” and Its Logical Implications. Proceedings of the IV International Congress of Philosophy 3, 440–3.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1913). Analysis of Categorical Propositions. Mind 22(88), 526–31.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1915a). Analysis of Categorical Propositions. Mind 24(93), 60–4.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1915b). Correspondence on Mr. Russell’s Suggestion. Cambridge Review February 17, 1915, 201–2.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1917–18). Practical Dualism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 18, 317–28.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1920). Sidgwick, Henry. In Hastings, James (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Volume 11. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 505–6.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance. (1922). As I Remember: An Autobiographical Ramble. London: A. & C. Black.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance, Bosanquet, Bernard, and Schiller, F. C. S. (1914–15). Symposium: The Import of Propositions. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 15, 353–427.10.1093/aristotelian/15.1.353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E. Constance and Johnson, W. E. (1893). The Import of Categorical Propositions. Mind 2(6), 219–23.Google Scholar
Jones, Richard. (2024). Langstone Court. www.langstone-court.org.uk/index.html.Google Scholar
Jourdain, Philip E. B. (1911–12). The Development of the Theories of Mathematical Logic and the Principles of Mathematics. The Quarterly Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 43, 219–314. Reprinted in Frege (1980), pp. 179–207. Page references are to the reprint.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Neville. (1906). Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic, Fourth Ed. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1989). Philosophical Essays, ed. and trans. Ariew, Roger and Garber, Daniel. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Levine, James and Linsky, Bernard, eds. (Manuscript). Bertrand Russell and His Students 1910–1916: Lecture Notes, Correspondence, and Materials.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. (1983). Philosophical Papers, Volume I. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195032047.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotze, Hermann. (1874). System der Philosophie I: Drei Bücher der Logik. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Lotze, Hermann. (1888). Logic, in Three Books: Volume One, trans. Bernard Bosanquet. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Partial translation of Lotze (1874).Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. S. (1923). The Late Constance Jones, Miss E. E., Litt, D. International Journal of Ethics 33(2), 228.Google Scholar
Makin, Gideon. (2000). The Metaphysicians of Meaning: Russell and Frege on Sense and Denotation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDowell, John. (1977). On the Sense and Reference of a Proper Name. Mind 86, 159–85.Google Scholar
Monk, Ray. (1996). Bertrand Russell: The Spirit of Solitude, 1872–1921. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1899). The Nature of Judgment. Mind 8(30), 176–93.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Eileen. (2003). Women Philosophers and the History of Philosophy. Australasian Journal of French Studies 40(2), 257–74.Google Scholar
Ostertag, Gary. (2020). Emily Elizabeth Constance Jones. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emily-elizabeth-constance-jones/.Google Scholar
Ostertag, Gary. (2023). E. E. Constance Jones on Identity and Predication. In Peijnenburg, Jeanne and Verhaegh, Sander (eds.), Women in the History of Analytic Philosophy. Cham: Springer, pp. 49–66. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08593-2_3.Google Scholar
Ostertag, Gary and Favia, Amanda. (2021). E. E. Constance Jones on the Dualism of Practical Reason. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 29(2), 327–42. https://doi.10.1080/09608788.2020.1749828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peijnenburg, Jeanne and Schaar, Maria van der. (2025). E. E. Constance Jones and the Law of Significant Assertion. In Moland, Lydia and Stone, Alison Laura (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of American and British Women Philosophers in the Nineteenth Century pp. 313–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197558898.001.0001.Google Scholar
Perkins, Ray. (2011). Incomplete Symbols in Principia Mathematica and Russell’s “Definite Proof.” Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies 31, 29–44.10.1353/rss.2011.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigden, Charles. (2021). Russell’s Moral Philosophy. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/russell-moral/.Google Scholar
Pitt, Jack. (1981–82). Russell and the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club. Russell 1(2), 103–18.10.15173/russell.v1i2.1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preti, Consuelo. (2008). On the Origins of the Contemporary Notion of Propositional Content: Psychologism in the Nineteenth Century and G. E. Moore’s Early Theory of Judgment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39(2), 176–85. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. (1973). Meaning and Reference. Journal of Philosophy 70(19), 699–711.10.2307/2025079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. (1903). The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. (1905). On Denoting. Mind 14(56), 479–93.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. (1910–11). Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 11, 108–28; page references are to the reprint in Russell 1992.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. (1915a). Can England and Germany Be Reconciled after the War? Cambridge Review February 10, 1915, 185–6.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. (1915b). Mr. Russell’s Reply to His Critics. Cambridge Review February 24, 1915, 218–9.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. (1918). Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. (1919). Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. (1992). The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 6: Logical and Philosophical Papers: 1909–13, ed. Slater, John G.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R. M. (1979). Russell (Arguments of the Philosophers). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Schaar, Maria van der. (2013) G.F. Stout and the Psychological Origins of Analytic Philosophy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137315403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneewind, Jerome B. (1977). Sidgwick’s Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, Bart. (1992a). Essays on Henry Sidgwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139172363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Bart. (1992b). Introduction: Henry Sidgwick Today. In Schultz (1992a), pp. 1–61.10.1017/CBO9781139172363.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Bart. (2004). Henry Sidgwick, Eye of the Universe: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senechal, Marjorie. (2012). I Died for Beauty: Dorothy Wrinch and the Cultures of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199732593.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, Henry. (1981). The Methods of Ethics, 7th ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. (2005). Naming and Asserting. In Szabó, Zoltán (ed.), Semantics vs. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 356–82. http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251520.003.0010.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. (2006). What Is History For? Reply to Critics of The Dawn of Analysis. Philosophical Studies 129, 645–65. https://doi.10.1007/s11098-006-0016-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbing, L. Susan. (1914). Pragmatism and French Voluntarism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stout, G. F. (1922). The Late Miss E. E. Constance Jones. Mind (N.S.) 31, 383–4.Google Scholar
Waithe, Mary Ellen and Cicero, Samantha. (1995). Emily Elizabeth Constance Jones. In Waithe, Mary Ellen (ed.), A History of Women Philosophers, Volume 4. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 25–49. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1114-0_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Alfred North and Russell, Bertrand. (1910). Principia Mathematica, Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiener, Norbert. (1953). Ex-Prodigy: My Childhood and Youth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wiggins, David. (1993). Putnam’s Doctrine of Natural Kind Words and Frege’s Doctrine of Sense, Reference, and Extension: Can They Cohere? In Moore, Adrian William (ed.), Meaning and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 192–207.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1961). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuiness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Woolf, Virginia. (1989). A Room of One’s Own. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this Element is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

E. E. Constance Jones
  • Gary Ostertag, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and The Graduate Center, CUNY
  • Online ISBN: 9781009411110
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

E. E. Constance Jones
  • Gary Ostertag, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and The Graduate Center, CUNY
  • Online ISBN: 9781009411110
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

E. E. Constance Jones
  • Gary Ostertag, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and The Graduate Center, CUNY
  • Online ISBN: 9781009411110
Available formats
×