{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19768/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19768","id":"gutenberg_19768","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19768","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Literary ethics","Plagiarism"],"text":"Produced by Curtis Weyant, Diane Monico, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby Case Western Reserve University Preservation Department\nDigital Library.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPROFESSOR ROYCE'S LIBEL.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA\n\nPUBLIC APPEAL FOR REDRESS\n\nTO THE\n\nCORPORATION AND OVERSEERS\n\nOF\n\nHARVARD UNIVERSITY.\n\nBY\n\nFRANCIS ELLINGWOOD ABBOT, PH.D.\n\nCAMBRIDGE, MASS.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBOSTON, MASS.\n\nGEO. H. ELLIS, 141 FRANKLIN STREET, 1891.\n\n\n\n\nPUBLIC APPEAL.\n\n\nTO THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS AND BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF HARVARD\nUNIVERSITY:\n\n_Gentlemen_,--Believing it to be a necessary part of good citizenship\nto defend one's reputation against unjustifiable attacks, and\nbelieving you to have been unwarrantably, but not remotely, implicated\nin an unjustifiable attack upon my own reputation by Assistant\nProfessor Josiah Royce, since his attack is made publicly, explicitly,\nand emphatically on the authority of his \"professional\" position as\none of your agents and appointees, I respectfully apply to you for\nredress of the wrong, leaving it wholly to your own wisdom and sense\nof justice to decide what form such redress should take. If Dr. Royce\nhad not, by clear and undeniable implication, appealed to your high\nsanction to sustain him in his attack,--if he had not undeniably\nsought to create a widespread but false public impression that, in\nmaking this attack, he spoke, and had a right to speak, with all the\nprestige and authority of Harvard University itself,--I should not\nhave deemed it either necessary or becoming to appeal to you in\nself-defence, or, indeed, to take any public notice whatever of an\nattack otherwise unworthy of it. But under the circumstances I am\nconfident that you will at once recognize the inevitableness and\nunquestionable propriety of my appeal from the employee to the\nemployer, from the agent to the principal; and it would be\ndisrespectful to you to doubt for a moment that, disapproving of an\nattack made impliedly and yet unwarrantably in your name, you will\nexpress your disapprobation in some just and appropriate manner. My\naction in thus laying the matter publicly before you can inflict no\npossible injury upon our honored and revered Alma Mater: injury to\nher is not even conceivable, except on the wildly improbable\nsupposition of your being indifferent to a scandalous abuse of his\nposition by one of your assistant professors, who, with no imaginable\nmotive other than mere professional jealousy or rivalry of authorship,\nhas gone to the unheard-of length of \"professionally warning the\npublic\" against a peaceable and inoffensive private scholar, whose\npublished arguments he has twice tried, but twice signally failed, to\nmeet in an intellectual way. If the public at large should have reason\nto believe that conduct so scandalous as this in a Harvard professor\nwill not be condemned by you, as incompatible with the dignity and the\ndecencies of his office and with the rights of private citizens in\ngeneral, Harvard University would indeed suffer, and ought to suffer;\nbut it is wholly within your power to prevent the growth of so\ninjurious a belief. I beg leave, therefore, to submit to you the\nfollowing statement, and to solicit for it the patient and impartial\nconsideration which the gravity of the case requires.\n\n\nI.\n\nThe first number of a new quarterly periodical, the \"International\nJournal of Ethics,\" published at Philadelphia in October, 1890,\ncontained an ostensible review by Dr. Royce of my last book, \"The Way\nout of Agnosticism.\" I advisedly use the word \"ostensible,\" because\nthe main purport and intention of the article were not at all to\ncriticise a philosophy, but to sully the reputation of the\nphilosopher, deprive him of public confidence, ridicule and\nmisrepresent his labors, hold him up by name to public obloquy and\ncontempt, destroy or lessen the circulation of his books, and, in\ngeneral, to blacken and break down his literary reputation by any and\nevery means, even to the extent of aspersing his personal reputation,\nalthough there had never been the slightest personal collision. Its\nbitter and invidious spirit was not in the least disguised by a few\nexaggerated compliments adroitly inserted here and there: these\nmerely furnish the foil needed to give greater potency and efficiency\nto the personal insinuations, and, like Mark Antony's compliments to\nCaesar's assassins, subserved quite too many politic purposes to be\naccepted as sincere. Only a native of Boeotia could be imposed upon by\nthem, when the actual character of the book in question was carefully\nmisrepresented, and when the self-evident trend, tenor, and aim of the\nostensible review were to excite public prejudice against the author\non grounds wholly irrespective of the truth or untruth of his\nexpressed opinions.\n\nOf course, the very largest liberty must be and should be conceded to\nlegitimate criticism. From this, as is well known, I never shrank in\nthe least; on the contrary, I court it, and desire nothing better for\nmy books, provided only that the criticism be pertinent, intelligent,\nand fair. But misrepresentation for the purpose of detraction is not\ncriticism at all; and (notwithstanding numerous quotations perverted\nby unfair and misleading glosses, including two misquotations quite\ntoo useful to be accidental) this ostensible review is, from beginning\nto end, nothing but misrepresentation for the purpose of detraction.\nPassing over numerous minor instances, permit me to invite your\nattention to three gross instances of such misrepresentation.\n\n\nII.\n\nThe book under review had taken the utmost pains (pages 16-39,\nespecially page 39) to distinguish \"realism\" from \"idealism,\" and to\nargue for the former in opposition to the latter, on the ground of the\nabsolute incompatibility of the latter with the scientific method of\ninvestigation. It had taken the utmost pains to make the contrast\nbroad and deep, and to point out its far-reaching consequences by\nexplicitly opposing (1) scientific realism to philosophical idealism\nin general, and in particular (2) constructive realism to constructive\nidealism, (3) critical realism to critical idealism, (4) ethical\nrealism to ethical idealism, and (5) religious realism to religious\nidealism. Any fair or honorable critic would recognize this contrast\nand opposition between realism and idealism as the very foundation of\nthe work he was criticising, and would at least state it candidly, as\nthe foundation of his own favorable or unfavorable comments. How did\nDr. Royce treat it? He not only absolutely ignored it, not only said\nnothing whatever about it, but actually took pains to put the reader\non a false scent at the start, by assuring him (without the least\ndiscussion of this all-important point) that my philosophical\nconclusions are \"essentially idealistic\"!\n\nSo gross a misrepresentation as this might be charitably attributed to\ncritical incapacity of some sort, if it did not so very conveniently\npave the way for the second gross misrepresentation which was to\nfollow: namely, that the theory actually propounded in my book had\nbeen, in fact, \"_appropriated\" and \"borrowed\" from an idealist_! The\nimmense utility of misrepresenting my system at the start as\n\"essentially idealistic\" lay in the fact that, by adopting this\nstratagem, Dr. Royce could escape altogether the formidable necessity\nof _first arguing the main question of idealism versus realism_.\nSecretly conscious of his own inability to handle that question, to\nrefute my \"Soliloquy of the Self-Consistent Idealist,\" or to overthrow\nmy demonstration that consistent idealism leads logically to hopeless\nabsurdity at last, Dr. Royce found it infinitely easier to deceive his\nuninformed readers by a bold assertion that I myself am an idealist at\nbottom. This assertion, swallowed without suspicion of its absolute\nuntruth, would render it plausible and quite credible to assert, next,\nthat I had actually \"appropriated\" my philosophy from a greater\nidealist than myself.\n\nFor the only substantial criticism of the book made by Dr. Royce is\nthat I \"borrowed\" my whole theory of universals from\nHegel--\"unconsciously,\" he has the caution to say; but that\nqualification does not in the least mitigate the mischievous intention\nand effect of his accusation as a glaring falsification of fact and\nartful misdescription of my work. It would be inopportune and\ndiscourteous to weary you with philosophical discussions. I exposed\nthe amazing absurdity of Dr. Royce's accusation of plagiarism in the\nreply to his article which, as appears below, Dr. Royce himself\nanxiously suppressed, and which I should now submit to you, if he had\nnot at last taken fright and served upon me a legal protest against\nits circulation. But, to any well-educated man, such an accusation as\nthis refutes itself. It would be just as reasonable, just as\nplausible, to accuse Darwin of having borrowed his theory of natural\nselection from Agassiz, or Daniel Webster of having borrowed his\ntheory of the inseparable Union from John C. Calhoun, or ex-President\nCleveland of having borrowed his message on tariff reform from the\nHome Market Club, as to accuse me of having borrowed my theory of\nuniversals from Hegel. Hegel's theory of universals is divided from\nmine by the whole vast chasm between realism and idealism. The two\ntheories contradict each other absolutely, uncompromisingly,\nirreconcilably: Hegel's is a theory of \"absolute idealism\" or \"pure\nthought\" (_reines Denken_), that is, of _thought absolutely\nindependent of experience_, while mine is a theory of \"scientific\nrealism,\" that is, of _thought absolutely dependent upon experience._\nIt is quite immaterial here which theory is the true one; the only\npoint involved at present is that the two theories flatly contradict\neach other, and that it is self-evidently impossible that either\n_could_ be \"borrowed,\" consciously or unconsciously, from the other.\nIf Dr. Royce had ever done any hard thinking on the theory of\nuniversals, or if he had the slightest comprehension of the problems\nit involves, he would never have been so rash as to charge me with\n\"borrowing\" my theory from Hegel, and thus to commit himself\nirrevocably to a defence of the absurd; but eagerness to accuse\nanother has betrayed him into a position whence it is impossible for\nhim to escape with honor. Solely by misdescribing my philosophy as\n\"essentially idealistic\" when it openly and constantly and\nemphatically avows itself to be essentially realistic, could Dr. Royce\ngive the faintest color of plausibility to his monstrous and\nsupremely ridiculous accusation of plagiarism; solely by presuming\nupon the public ignorance both of Hegel and of my own work could he\ndare to publish such an accusation to the world. These gross\nmisrepresentations, however, he did not hesitate to make, since they\nwere necessary in order to pave the way to a third and still grosser\nmisrepresentation on which he apparently had set his heart: namely,\nthat, after borrowing the whole substance of my philosophy from Hegel,\nI have been guilty of making \"vast and extravagant pretensions\" as to\nmy own \"novelty,\" \"originality,\" and \"profundity,\" not only with\nregard to my published books, but also with regard to my \"still\nunpublished system of philosophy.\" His words are these:--\n\n\"Of novelty, good or bad, the book contains, indeed, despite its vast\npretensions, hardly a sign.\"\n\n\"It is due also to the extravagant pretensions which he frequently\nmakes of late as to the originality and profundity of his still\nunpublished system of philosophy, to give the reader some hint of what\nso far appears to be the nature of our author's contributions to\nphilosophical reflection.\"\n\nPrecisely what have been these alleged \"pretensions\"? Dr. Royce cites\nonly three instances.\n\nI. He first garbles a sentence in the prefatory Note to \"The Way out\nof Agnosticism,\" by quoting only one phrase from it. The sentence in\nfull is this: \"By a wholly new line of reasoning, drawn exclusively\nfrom those sources [science and philosophy], this book aims to show\nthat, in order to refute agnosticism and establish enlightened theism,\nnothing is now necessary but to philosophize that very scientific\nmethod which agnosticism barbarously misunderstands and misuses.\"\nThere is no \"pretension\" whatever in these words, except that the\ngeneral \"line of reasoning\" set forth in the book is, _as a whole_,\ndifferent from that of other books. If not, why publish it? Or,\nwithout the same cause, why publish any book? I see no reason to\nrecall or to modify this perfectly true statement; Dr. Royce, at\nleast, has shown none. The \"novelty\" of the book lies in its very\nattempt to evolve philosophy as a whole out of the scientific method\nitself, as \"observation, hypothesis, and experimental verification,\"\nby developing the theory of universals which is implicit in that\npurely experiential method; and Dr. Royce does not even try to prove\nthat Hegel, or anybody else, has ever made just such an attempt as\nthat. Unless there can be shown somewhere a _parallel attempt_, the\nstatement is as undeniably true as it is certainly unpretentious.\n\nII. Next, Dr. Royce extracts these sentences from the body of the book\n(I supply in brackets words which he omitted): \"The first great task\nof philosophy is to lay deep and solid foundations for the expansion\n[and ideal perfection] of human knowledge in a bold, new, and true\ntheory of universals. For so-called modern philosophy rests\ncomplacently in a theory of universals which is thoroughly mediaeval or\nantiquated.\" What personal pretension, even of the mildest sort, can\nbe conceived to lurk in these innocent words? I did not say that I\nhave succeeded in performing that \"task\"; I repeat now what I have\noften said and what I meant then; namely, that modern science has\nunawares performed it already, that I have faithfully tried to\nformulate and further apply what science has done, and that I\nrespectfully submit the result (so far as already published), not to\nsuch critics as Dr. Royce, but to able, learned, and magnanimous\nstudents of philosophy everywhere.\n\nIII. Lastly, though employing quotation marks so as to evade a charge\nof formal misquotation, he perverts and effectually misquotes a\nsentence of the book in a way which makes it appear exactly what it is\nnot,--\"pretentious.\" I had said at the end of my own book (page 75):\n\"_Its aim has been to show_ the way out of agnosticism into the\nsunlight of the predestined philosophy of science.\" This expression is\nperfectly in harmony with the prefatory Note, which says that \"_this\nbook aims to show_ that, in order to refute agnosticism and establish\nenlightened theism, nothing is now necessary but to philosophize that\nvery scientific method which agnosticism barbarously misunderstands\nand misuses,\" and which immediately adds: \"_Of the success of the\nperhaps unwise attempt to show this in so small a compass, the\neducated public must be the judge._\" Most certainly, there is no\n\"pretension\" in this modest and carefully guarded avowal of the simple\naim of my book. But Dr. Royce twists this modest avowal into a\nbarefaced boast, and injuriously misquotes me to his own readers thus:\n\"At the conclusion of the book, we learn that _we have been shown_\n'the way out of agnosticism into the sunlight of the predestined\nphilosophy of science.'\" Gentlemen, I request you to compare\nthoughtfully the expressions which I have here italicized, and then\ndecide for yourselves whether this injurious misquotation is purely\naccidental, or, in view of Dr. Royce's purpose of proving me guilty of\n\"vast pretensions,\" quite too useful to be purely accidental.\n\nIV. But Dr. Royce does not content himself with quoting or misquoting\nwhat I have published, for the self-evident reason that what I have\npublished is not sufficiently \"pretentious\" for his purpose.\nDisinterested anxiety for the public welfare, and tender sorrow over\nthe \"harm to careful inquiry\" which my book is doing by \"getting\ninfluence over immature or imperfectly trained minds,\" constrain him\nto accuse me of \"frequently making of late extravagant pretensions as\nto the originality and profundity\" of my \"still unpublished system of\nphilosophy.\"\n\nPrecisely what have been these \"extravagant pretensions\"? Simply\nthese:--\n\nIn the preface to \"Scientific Theism,\" I said of that book: \"It is a\nmere _resume_ of a small portion of a comprehensive philosophical\nsystem, so far as I have been able to work it out under most\ndistracting, discouraging, and unpropitious circumstances of many\nyears; and for this reason I must beg some indulgence for the\nunavoidable incompleteness of my work.\"\n\nEnumerating some reasons why I hesitated to begin the series of papers\nafterwards published as \"The Way out of Agnosticism,\" I said, in the\nfirst of these papers: \"First and foremost, perhaps, is the fact that,\nalthough the ground-plan of this theory is already thoroughly matured,\nthe literary execution of it is as yet scarcely even begun, and from\nwant of opportunity may never be completed; and it seems almost absurd\nto present the abridgment of a work which does not yet exist to be\nabridged.\"\n\nFinally, in an address printed in the \"Unitarian Review\" for December,\n1889, I said: \"Without advancing any personal claim whatever, permit\nme to take advantage of your indulgent kindness, and to make here the\nfirst public confession of certain painfully matured results of thirty\nyears' thinking, which, in the momentous and arduous enterprise of\ndeveloping a scientific theology out of the scientific method itself,\nappear to be principles of cosmical import.... Perhaps I can make them\nintelligible, as a contribution to that 'Unitary Science' which the\ngreat Agassiz foresaw and foretold.\" In a postscript to this address I\nadded: \"For fuller support of the position taken above, I am\nconstrained to refer ... to a large treatise, now in process of\npreparation, which aims to rethink philosophy as a whole in the light\nof modern science and under the form of a natural development of the\nscientific method itself.\"\n\nWhat remotest allusion to my own \"originality\" is contained in these\npassages, or what remotest allusion to my own \"profundity\"? What\n\"pretension\" of any sort is here made, whether \"extravagant\" or\nmoderate? Yet this is the only actual evidence, _and the whole of it_,\non which Dr. Royce dares to accuse me of \"frequently making of late\nextravagant pretensions as to the originality and profundity of my\nstill unpublished system of philosophy\"! The pure absurdity of such an\naccusation reveals itself in the very statement of it. Dr. Royce is\nreferring here, be it understood, not to my published books, but to my\n\"unpublished system of philosophy.\" _How does he know anything about\nit?_ I certainly have never shown him my unpublished manuscript, and\nbeyond those published allusions to it he possesses absolutely no\nmeans whatever of knowing anything about its contents. Nothing,\nsurely, except full and exact knowledge, derived from careful and\npatient personal examination of that manuscript, could possibly be a\nground of just judgment of its character. How, then, in absolute\nignorance of its character and contents, could any fair man hazard any\npublic verdict upon it? Yet Dr. Royce not only accuses me of making\n\"pretensions\" about it which I never made, but dares to characterize\nthem as \"extravagant,\" when, _for all he knows_, they might (if made)\nfall far short of the truth. Whether in this case the evidence\nsupports the accusation, and whether the conscience which permits the\nmaking of such an accusation on such evidence is itself such a\nconscience as you expect to find in your appointees,--these,\ngentlemen, are questions for you yourselves to decide.\n\n\nIII.\n\nThese three connected and logically affiliated _misstatements of\nfact_--namely, (1) that my philosophy is \"essentially idealistic,\" (2)\nthat it has been \"appropriated\" and \"unconsciously borrowed\" from the\nidealist Hegel, and (3) that I have frequently made \"extravagant\npretensions as to the originality and profundity\" of this merely\n\"borrowed\" and \"appropriated\" philosophy--constitute in their totality\na regular system of gross and studied misrepresentation, as methodical\nand coherent as it is unscrupulous. It is not \"fair criticism\"; it is\nnot \"criticism\" at all; and I do not hesitate to characterize it\ndeliberately as a disgrace both to Harvard University and to American\nscholarship.\n\nYet, gross and studied and systematic as this misrepresentation is, I\nshould have passed it over in silence, precisely as I did pass over a\nsimilar attack by Dr. Royce on my earlier book in \"Science\" for April\n9, 1886, were it not that, perhaps emboldened by former impunity, he\nnow makes his misrepresentations culminate in the perpetration of a\nliterary outrage, to which, I am persuaded, no parallel can be found\nin the history of polite literature. It is clear that forbearance must\nhave somewhere its limit. The commands of self-respect and of civic\nconscience, the duty which every citizen owes to his fellow-citizens\nnot to permit the fundamental rights of all to be unlimitedly violated\nin his own person, must at last set a bound to forbearance itself, and\ncompel to self-defence. These are the reasons which, after patient\nexhaustion of every milder means of redress, have moved me to this\npublic appeal.\n\nDr. Royce's misstatements of fact, so elaborately fashioned and so\ningeniously mortised together, were merely his foundation for a\ndeliberate and formal \"professional warning to the liberal-minded\npublic\" against my alleged \"philosophical pretensions.\" The device of\nattributing to me extravagant but groundless \"pretensions\" to\n\"originality\" and \"profundity\"--since he is unable to cite a single\npassage in which I ever used such expressions of myself--was probably\nsuggested to him by the \"Press Notices of 'Scientific Theism,'\"\nprinted as a publishers' advertisement of my former book at the end of\nthe book which lay before him. These \"Press Notices,\" as usual,\ncontain numerous extracts from eulogistic reviews, in which, curiously\nenough, these very words, \"original\" and \"profound,\" or their\nequivalents, occur with sufficient frequency to explain Dr. Royce's\ncholeric unhappiness. For instance, Dr. James Freeman Clarke wrote in\nthe \"Unitarian Review\": \"If every position taken by Dr. Abbot cannot\nbe maintained, his book remains an original contribution to philosophy\nof a high order and of great value\"; M. Renouvier, in \"La Critique\nPhilosophique,\" classed the book among \"de remarquables efforts de\nconstruction metaphysique et morale dus a des penseurs independants et\nprofonds\"; and M. Carrau, in explaining why he added to his critical\nhistory of \"Religious Philosophy in England\" a chapter of twenty pages\non my own system, actually introduced both of the words which, when\nthus applied, jar so painfully on Dr. Royce's nerves: \"La pensee de M.\nAbbot m'a paru assez profonde et assez originale pour meriter d'etre\nreproduite litteralement.\" (La Philosophie Religieuse en Angleterre.\nPar Ludovic Carrau, Directeur des Conferences de philosophie a la\nFaculte des lettres de Paris. Paris, 1888.) These extracts, be it\nremembered, were all printed at the end of the book which Dr. Royce\nwas reviewing. Now he had an undoubted right to think and to say that\nsuch encomiums as these on my work were silly, extravagant,\npreposterous, and totally undeserved; but _to take them out of the\nmouth of others and put them into mine was wilful and deliberate\ncalumny_. Systematic and calumnious misrepresentation is the sole\nfoundation of the \"professional warning\" in which Dr. Royce's\nostensible review culminates, and which is too extraordinary not to be\nquoted here in full:--\n\n\"And so, finally, after this somewhat detailed study of Dr. Abbot's\nlittle book, I feel constrained to repeat my judgment as above.\nResults in philosophy are one thing; a careful way of thinking is\nanother. Babes and sucklings often get very magnificent results. It is\nnot the office of philosophy to outdo the babes and sucklings at their\nown business of receiving revelations. It is the office of philosophy\nto undertake a serious scrutiny of the presuppositions of human\nbelief. Hence the importance of the careful way of thinking in\nphilosophy. But Dr. Abbot's way is not careful, is not novel, and,\nwhen thus set forth to the people as new and bold and American, it is\nlikely to do precisely as much harm to careful inquiry as it gets\ninfluence over immature or imperfectly trained minds. I venture,\ntherefore, to speak plainly, by way of a professional warning to the\nliberal-minded public concerning Dr. Abbot's philosophical\npretensions. And my warning takes the form of saying that, if people\nare to think in this confused way, unconsciously borrowing from a\ngreat speculator like Hegel, and then depriving the borrowed\nconception of the peculiar subtlety of statement that made it useful\nin its place,--and if we readers are for our part to accept such\nscholasticism as is found in Dr. Abbot's concluding sections as at all\nresembling philosophy,--then it were far better for the world that no\nreflective thinking whatever should be done. If we can't improve on\nwhat God has already put into the mouth of the babes and sucklings,\nlet us at all events make some other use of our wisdom and prudence\nthan in setting forth the American theory of what has been in large\npart hidden from us.\"\n\nGentlemen, I deny sweepingly the whole groundwork of cunning and\namazing misrepresentation on which this unparalleled tirade is\nfounded.\n\nI. I deny that my philosophy is \"essentially idealistic,\" or that any\n\"careful\" or conscientious scholar could possibly affirm it to be\nsuch.\n\nII. I deny that I \"borrowed\" my realistic theory of universals from\nthe idealist, Hegel, whether consciously or unconsciously. The charge\nis unspeakably silly. Realism and idealism contradict each other more\nabsolutely than protectionism and free-trade.\n\nIII. I deny that I ever made the \"philosophical pretensions\" which Dr.\nRoyce calumniously imputes to me. But, if I had made pretensions as\nhigh as the Himalayas, I deny his authority to post me publicly--to\nact as policeman in the republic of letters and to collar me on that\naccount. A college professor who thus mistakes his academic gown for\nthe policeman's uniform, and dares to use his private walking-stick\nfor the policeman's bludgeon, is likely to find himself suddenly\nprostrated by a return blow, arrested for assault and battery, and\nunceremoniously hustled off into a cell, by the officer whose function\nhe has injudiciously aped without waiting for the tiresome but quite\nindispensable little preliminary of first securing a regular\ncommission.\n\nIV. Most of all, I deny Dr. Royce's self-assumed right to club every\nphilosopher whose reasoning he can neither refute nor understand. I\ndeny, in general, that any Harvard professor has the right to\nfulminate a \"professional warning\" _against anybody_; and, in\nparticular, that you, gentlemen, ever voted or intended to invest Dr.\nRoyce with that right. He himself now publicly puts forth a worse than\n\"extravagant pretension\" when he arrogates to himself this right of\nliterary outrage. He was not appointed professor by you for any such\nunseemly purpose. To arrogate to himself a senseless \"professional\"\nsuperiority over all non-\"professional\" authors, to the insufferable\nextent of publicly posting and placarding them for a mere difference\nof opinion, is, from a moral point of view, scandalously to abuse his\nacademical position, to compromise the dignity of Harvard University,\nto draw down universal contempt upon the \"profession\" which he\nprostitutes to the uses of mere professional jealousy or literary\nrivalry, and to degrade the honorable office of professor in the eyes\nof all who understand that a weak argument is not strengthened, and a\nfalse accusation is not justified, by throwing \"professional warnings\"\nas a make-weight into the scales of reason. I affirm emphatically that\nno professor has a moral right to treat anybody with this undisguised\n\"insolence of office,\" or to use any weapon but reason in order to put\ndown what he conceives to be errors in philosophy. In the present\ncase, I deny that Dr. Royce has any better or stronger claim than\nmyself to speak \"professionally\" on philosophical questions. The very\nbook against which he presumes to warn the public \"professionally\" is\nfounded upon lectures which I myself \"professionally\" delivered, not\nonly from Dr. Royce's own desk and to Dr. Royce's own college class,\nbut as a substitute for Dr. Royce himself, at the request and by the\nappointment of his own superiors, the Corporation and Overseers of his\nown University; and the singular impropriety (to use no stronger word)\nof his \"professional warning\" will be apparent to every one in the\nlight of that fact.\n\n\nIV.\n\nSo far I have treated Dr. Royce's attack solely from the literary and\nethical points of view. The legal point of view must now be\nconsidered.\n\nPlagiarism, conscious or unconscious, is a very grave and serious\ncharge to bring against an author, and one which may entail upon him,\nnot only great damage to his literary reputation, but also social\ndisgrace and pecuniary loss. If proved, or even if widely believed\nwithout proof, it cannot but ruin his literary career and destroy the\nmarketable value of his books; and it matters little, so far as these\npractical results are concerned, whether the plagiarism attributed to\nhim is conscious or unconscious. In an able editorial article on \"Law\nand Theft,\" published in the New York \"Nation\" of Feb. 12, 1891, it is\nforcibly said: \"Authors or writers who do this [borrowing other men's\nideas] a good deal, undoubtedly incur discredit by it with their\nfellows and the general public. It greatly damages a writer's fame to\nbe rightfully accused of want of originality, or of imitation, or of\ngetting materials at second hand. But no one has ever proposed to\npunish or restrain this sort of misappropriation by law. No one has\never contended for the infliction on the purloiners of other men's\nideas of any penalty but ridicule or disgrace.\" Whoever _wrongfully_\naccuses an author of plagiarism, then, holds him up _undeservedly_ to\n\"discredit, ridicule, or disgrace,\" and \"slanders his title\" to the\nproduct of his own brain. This is contrary to the law. Yet this is\nprecisely what Dr. Royce has done in accusing me _falsely_, and as a\n_\"certain\" matter of fact_, of borrowing my theory of universals from\nHegel. His accusation is made with as many sneers and as much insult\nas could well be compressed into the space:--\n\n\"Dr. Abbot is hopelessly unhistorical in his consciousness. His\n'American theory of universals' is so far from being either his own or\na product of America that in this book he continually has to use, in\nexpounding it, one of the most characteristic and familiar of Hegel's\ntechnical terms, namely, 'concrete,' in that sense in which it is\napplied to the objective and universal 'genus.' Dr. Abbot's\nappropriation of Hegel's peculiar terminology comes ill indeed from\none who talks,\" _etc._ \"This I say not to defend Hegel, for whose\nelaborate theory of universals I hold in no wise a brief, but simply\nin the cause of literary property-rights. When we plough with another\nman's heifer, however unconscious we are of our appropriation, however\nsincerely we seem to remember that we alone raised her from her\nearliest calfhood, it is yet in vain, after all, that we put our brand\non her, or call her 'American.'... Now Hegel's whole theory may be\nfalse; but what is certain is that Dr. Abbot, who has all his life\nbeen working in an atmosphere where Hegelian ideas were more or less\ninfectious, has derived his whole theory of universals, so far as he\nhas yet revealed it with any coherency, from Hegelian sources, and\neven now cannot suggest any better terminology than Hegel's for an\nimportant portion of the doctrine. Yet in the volume before us we find\nall this pretentious speech of an 'American' theory, and discover our\nauthor wholly unaware that he is sinning against the most obvious\ndemands of literary property-rights.\"\n\nPassing over the self-evident point that whoever is \"_unaware_ that he\nis sinning\" cannot be \"sinning\" at all, since \"sinning\" consists in\n_being aware_ of the wrong we do,--and, consequently, that Dr. Royce\ncomes here as near as he dares to a direct insinuation that my\nplagiarism is conscious, and not \"unconscious,\"--let me call your\nattention to the more important point, that Dr. Royce affirms my\nconscious or unconscious theft from Hegel as a matter of _\"certain\"\nfact_, not merely as a matter of _probable inference_. Yet the only\nevidence he has to offer in support of this \"certainty\" is (1) that I\nuse the word \"concrete\" in the same sense as Hegel, and (2) that I\nhave worked all my life in a Hegelian \"atmosphere.\" These two points\ncover all the grounds of his accusation. Permit me very briefly to\nexamine them.\n\n(1) The word \"concrete\" is not in the least a technical term\ncopyrighted by Hegel, nor is it his trademark. It is one of the\ncommonest of words, and free to all. But what sort of a reasoner is he\nwho infers the identity of two whole complex theories from their\ncoincidence in the use of only a single word? Even this poor and\nsolitary little premise slips out of Dr. Royce's clutch, for Hegel's\nuse of the word is _contradictory to mine_! Hegel has to put upon the\nword \"concrete\" a very unusual, strained, and artificial sense, in\norder to cover up the weakest point of his idealistic system. He\nexplains it, however, frankly, clearly, and unambiguously: \"The\nConcept or Notion (_Begriff_) may be always called 'abstract,' if the\nterm 'concrete' must be limited to the mere concrete of sensation and\nimmediate perception; the Notion as such cannot be grasped by the\nhands, and, when we deal with it, eyes and ears are out of the\nquestion. Yet, as was said before, the Notion is the only true\nconcrete.\" (_Encyklopaedie, Werke_, VI. 316.) Again: \"Just as little is\nthe sensuous-concrete of Intuition a rational-concrete of the Idea.\"\n(_Ibid., Werke_, VI. 404.) A score of similar passages can easily be\ncited. That is to say, Hegel avowedly excludes from his _idealistic_\ntheory of universals the \"concrete\" of sensation, perception,\nintuition, or _real experience_, and admits into it only the\n\"concrete\" of _pure or non-empirical thought_; while I avowedly\nexclude from my _realistic_ theory of universals the \"concrete\" of\n_pure thought_, and admit into it only the \"concrete\" of _real\nexperience_. Hegel's \"concrete\" cannot be seen, heard, or touched;\nwhile to me nothing which cannot be seen, heard, or touched is\n\"concrete\" at all. A mere common school education is quite sufficient\nfor comprehension of the contradictoriness of these two uses of the\nword. Yet, in order to found a malicious charge of plagiarism, Dr.\nRoyce has the hardihood to assure the uninformed general public that\nHegel and I use the word \"concrete\" in one and the same sense!\n\n(2) The assertion that I have lived all my life in a Hegelian\n\"atmosphere\" I can only meet with a short, sharp, and indignant\ndenial. I know of no such \"atmosphere\" in all America; if it anywhere\nexists, I certainly never lived, moved, or worked in it. The statement\nis a gratuitous, impertinent, and _totally false allegation of fact_,\nwholly outside of my book and its contents, and is used in this\nconnection solely to feather an arrow shot at my reputation; it is a\npure invention, a manufactured assertion which is absolutely without\nfoundation, and, when thus artfully thrown out with apparent\nartlessness (_ars celare artem_) as itself foundation for a false and\nmalicious charge of plagiarism, it becomes fabrication of evidence for\nthe purpose of defamation. The less said about such an offence as\nthat, the better for Dr. Royce, and I spare him the comment it\ndeserves.\n\nNow, while it might be \"fair criticism\" _to infer_ my plagiarism from\nHegel, if there were only some reasonable or even merely plausible\nevidence to support the inference (which I have just proved not to be\nthe case), it is incontestable that _to affirm_ this plagiarism, as a\n\"certain\" matter of fact, without any reasonable evidence at all, is\nnot that \"fair criticism\" which the law justly allows, but, on the\ncontrary, a totally unjustifiable libel. In accusing me personally of\nplagiarism on no reasonable grounds whatever, as I have just\nunanswerably proved him to have done, and in making the \"certainty\" of\nthe plagiarism depend upon an allegation of fact wholly independent of\nthe book which he professed to be criticising (namely, the false\nallegation that I have worked all my life in a Hegelian \"atmosphere\"),\nDr. Royce has beyond all controversy transgressed the legally defined\nlimits of \"fair criticism,\" and become a libeller.\n\nBut this is by no means all. If the bat-like accusation of an\n\"unconscious\", yet \"sinning\" (or sinful) plagiarism hovers ambiguously\nbetween attacking my literary reputation and attacking my moral\ncharacter, there is no such ambiguity hanging about the accusation of\n\"extravagant pretensions as to the originality and profundity of my\nstill unpublished system of philosophy.\" A decent modesty, a\nself-respectful reserve, a manly humility in presence of the\nunattainable ideal of either moral or intellectual perfection, a\nspeechless reverence in the presence of either infinite goodness or\ninfinite truth,--these are virtues which belong to the very warp and\nwoof of all noble, elevated, and justly estimable character; and\nwherever their absence is conspicuously shown, there is just ground\nfor moral condemnation and the contempt of mankind. Dr. Royce has not\nscrupled to accuse me of making, not only \"pretensions,\" but even\n\"extravagant pretensions,\" which are absolutely incompatible with the\npossession of these beautiful and essential virtues, and thereby to\nhold me up to universal contempt and derision. He has done this, by\nthe very terms of his accusation, absolutely and confessedly _without\ncause_; for the system of philosophy which is \"unpublished\" to others\nis no less \"unpublished\" to him, and an accusation thus made\nconfessedly without any knowledge of its truth is, on the very face\nof it, an accusation which is as malicious as it is groundless. To\nmake such a self-proved and self-condemned accusation as this is, I\nsubmit, to be guilty of libel with no ordinary degree of culpability.\n\nBut the libel of which I have greatest cause to complain is not\nconfined to exceptional or isolated expressions. These might\ncharitably be explained as mere momentary ebullitions of pettishness\nor spleen, and pardonable as merely faults of temper in a criticism\nwhich was in the main conscientious and fair. But the libel of which I\ncomplain most of all is one that constitutes the entire ground and\nframework of the article _as a whole_. Every part of it is\nmethodically spun and interwoven with every other part, in such a way\nas to make it one seamless tissue of libel from beginning to end. This\nI say in full consciousness of the interspersed occasional\ncompliments, since these have only the effect of disguising the\nlibellous intent of the whole from a simple-minded or careless reader,\nand since they subserve the purpose of furnishing to the writer a\nplausible and ready-made defence of his libel against a foreseen\nprotest. Compliments to eke out a libel are merely insults in\nmasquerade. The libellous plan of the article as a whole is shown in\nthe _regular system_ of gross and studied misrepresentation, of\nlogically connected and nicely dovetailed misstatements of facts,\nwhich I exposed at the outset. Every intelligent reader of my two\nbooks is perfectly aware that they are both devoted to an exposition\nof the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between philosophical\nidealism and scientific realism, and to a defence of the latter\nagainst the former, as the only possible method by which a spiritual\ntheism can be intellectually, and therefore successfully, defended in\nthis age of science. Only one who has read and digested the two books\ncan fully appreciate the enormity and the unscrupulousness of the\ninitial misrepresentation, slipped in, as it were, quite casually, and\nwithout any argument, in the apparently incidental and\nmatter-of-course statement that my \"conclusion\" is \"essentially\nidealistic.\" It is _not_ \"idealistic\" at all, but as radically\nrealistic as the premises themselves; and no professor of philosophy\ncould ever have called it \"idealistic\" by a mere slip of the tongue or\npen. The intelligent origin of this misrepresentation is clearly\nenough suggested in the use to which it is at once put: namely, to\nrender plausible the otherwise ridiculous charge that my theory of\nuniversals was \"borrowed\" from an idealist. Next, the same origin is\nmore than suggested by the use to which these two misrepresentations\ntogether are put: namely, to show that any claim of \"novelty\" for a\nmerely \"borrowed\" philosophy is a \"vast\" and \"extravagant pretension.\"\nLastly, the same origin is inductively and conclusively proved, when\nthese three inter-linked misrepresentations, as a whole, are made the\ngeneral foundation for a brutal \"professional warning\" to the public\nat large against my \"philosophical pretensions\" in general. Not one of\nthese fundamental positions of Dr. Royce's article is a fact,--least\nof all, an \"admitted fact\"; on the contrary, each of them is\nenergetically and indignantly denied. But the libel of which I\ncomplain above all is the _regular system_ of gross and studied\nmisrepresentation by which the most essential facts are first\nmisstated and falsified, and then used to the injury of my literary\nand personal reputation.\n\nIt may, I trust, be permitted to me here to show clearly what the law\nis, as applicable to the case in hand, by a few pertinent citations.\n\n\"The critic must confine himself to criticism, and not make it the\nveil for personal censure, nor allow himself to run into reckless and\nunfair attacks, merely from the love of exercising his power of\ndenunciation. Criticism and comment on well-known and admitted facts\nare very different things from the assertion of unsubstantiated facts.\nA fair and _bona fide_ comment on a matter of public interest is an\nexcuse of what would otherwise be a defamatory publication. The\nstatement of this rule assumes the matters of fact commented on to be\nsomehow ascertained. It does not mean that a man may invent facts, and\ncomment on the facts so invented in what would be a fair and _bona\nfide_ manner, on the supposition that the facts were true. If the\nfacts as a comment upon which the publication is sought to be excused\ndo not exist, the foundation fails.... The distinction cannot be too\nclearly borne in mind between comment or criticism and allegations of\nfact.... To state matters which are libellous is not comment or\ncriticism.\" (_Newell on Defamation, Slander, and Libel_, p. 568.)\nApplying this to the case in hand: the \"admitted facts\" are these: (1)\nmy philosophy is realistic from beginning to end; (2) I have not\nworked all my life, nor any part of my life, in a Hegelian\n\"atmosphere\"; (3) I did not borrow my theory of universals from Hegel;\n(4) I have made no vast or extravagant pretensions whatever as to my\nown philosophy. But Dr. Royce invents and states the exact opposite of\nall these facts, and then bases on these purely invented facts most\nundeserved \"personal censure\" and most \"reckless and unfair attacks.\"\nTherefore, his article is a libel in its whole groundwork and\nessential spirit.\n\n\"If a person, under pretence of criticising a literary work, defames\nthe private character of the author, and, instead of writing in the\nspirit and for the purpose of fair and candid discussion, travels into\ncollateral matter, and introduces facts not stated in the work,\naccompanied with injurious comment upon them, such person is a\nlibeller, and liable to an action.\" (_Broom's Legal Maxims_, p. 320.)\nApplying this to the case in hand: Dr. Royce \"defames\" my \"private\ncharacter,\" when he accuses me of \"frequently\" indulging in\n\"extravagant pretensions\"; he \"travels into collateral matter,\" when\nhe alludes at all to my unpublished manuscript; he \"introduces facts\nnot stated in the work, accompanied with injurious comment upon them,\"\nwhen he alludes to this unpublished manuscript for the sole purpose of\nsaying (untruthfully) that I \"frequently make, of late, extravagant\npretensions as to its originality and profundity,\" and again when he\nsays that I have worked all my life in a Hegelian \"atmosphere,\" for\nthe sole purpose of founding upon this false statement a false charge\nof plagiarism.\n\nIn the \"Griffith Gaunt\" case, Judge Clerke said in his charge to the\njury: \"The interests of literature and science require that the\nproductions of authors shall be subject to fair criticism,--that even\nsome animadversion may be permitted, unless it appears that the\ncritic, under the pretext of reviewing his book, takes an opportunity\nof attacking the character of the author, and of holding him up as an\nobject of ridicule, hatred, or contempt. In other words, the critic\nmay say what he pleases of the literary merits or demerits of the\npublished production of an author; but, with respect to his personal\nrights relating to his reputation, the critic has no more privilege\nthan any other person not assuming the business of criticism.\"\n(_Abbott's Practice Reports_, New Series, VI. 18.) Applying this to\nthe case in hand: Dr. Royce, \"under the pretext of reviewing\" my\n\"book, takes an opportunity of attacking the author, and of holding\nhim up as an object of ridicule and contempt,\" if ridicule and\ncontempt are the deservedly universal punishment of the plagiarist and\nthe braggart. To so unprecedented a length has he carried this attack,\nas deliberately and formally, in the name of his \"profession,\" and\ntherefore, by necessary implication, in the name of Harvard University\nitself, to \"warn the liberal-minded public\" against me, _precisely as\none warns the general public against an impostor soliciting alms under\nfalse pretences_! This is a flagrant violation of my \"personal rights\nrelating to my reputation\"; and, therefore, according to the above\njudicial ruling of an American court, Dr. Royce is guilty of wanton\nand unprovoked libel against one who never injured him in the\nslightest degree.\n\nIn the case of Strauss _versus_ Francis, Chief Justice Cockburn said:\n\"The question is as to the article as a whole.... The verdict must be\nupon the article as a whole, and whether, as a whole, it is to be\ndeemed malicious and libellous.\" (_Foster and Finlason's Reports_, IV.\n1107.) Applying this to the case in hand: Dr. Royce's ostensible\nreview presents its darkest, most odious, and most libellous aspect to\nhim who most thoroughly, penetratingly, and comprehensively studies\nout the inner structure of its argument _as a whole_, and who most\nintelligently compares it with the book which it falsely professes to\ncriticise fairly. Allow me to quote here a passage from page 39 of\n\"the Way out of Agnosticism\" in order simply to show you how\nuncompromisingly this passage, which sums up the entire results of the\nfirst half of the book and luminously forecasts the entire conclusion\nof the whole, plants my system on the side of Realism:--\n\n\"The scientific, modern, or American theory of universals, which\nresults necessarily from analysis of the scientific method, is\nScientific Realism, as opposed to Philosophical Idealism; and it\ndetermines the subdivision of scientific philosophy into its three\ngreat departments, the theories of Being, of Knowing, and of Doing.\nThe scientific theory of Being results from analysis of the\nGenus-in-itself, and constitutes ontology or Constructive Realism, as\nopposed to all forms of Constructive Idealism. The scientific theory\nof Knowledge results from analysis of the Concept, and constitutes\npsychology or Critical Realism, as opposed to all forms of\ntranscendental or Critical Idealism. The scientific theory of Conduct\nresults from analysis of the Word, and constitutes anthroponomy\n(including ethics, politics, and art in its widest sense), sociology,\nor Ethical Realism, as opposed to all forms of Ethical Idealism. The\nscientific theory of the universe, as the absolute union of Being,\nKnowing, and Doing in the One and All, results from comprehension of\nthese three theories in complete organic unity, and constitutes\norganic philosophy, scientific theology, or Religious Realism, as\nopposed to all forms of Religious Idealism.\"\n\nI submit this long extract to you, gentlemen, not to bore you with\nmetaphysical speculations, but simply to enable you, as educated men\nwho understand the meaning of plain and straightforward English on any\nsubject, to follow the twistings and turnings of an extraordinarily\nsinuous and disingenuous intellect, and intelligently to decide a\nquestion which needs here to be settled clearly in your own minds:\ncould any competent professor of philosophy, undertaking to give, as a\nfair critic, a truthful account to the public of the contents of my\nbook, read that passage, and then, omitting all reference to the\ncontrast there and everywhere made between realism and idealism,\nhonestly tell that public, without any further information at all on\nthe subject, that the \"conclusion\" of my philosophy is \"essentially\nidealistic\"?\n\nYet that is the conscienceless misrepresentation with which Dr. Royce\nprepares the way for all that is to follow, deceives the reader at the\nvery outset, predisposes him to believe the preposterous charge that I\n\"appropriated\" my main theory from the great idealist Hegel, arouses\nhis indignation or mirth, as the case may be, at my alleged strutting\nabout in borrowed plumes, and so leads him at last to applaud the\nrighteous castigation of the \"professional warning,\" by which the\npeacock-feathers are made to fly in all directions and I myself am\nscourged back among my brother-jackdaws, the impostors, charlatans,\nand quacks of myriad kinds. This is the purport and the spirit of Dr.\nRoyce's ostensible review, \"_as a whole_.\" Is it the \"fair criticism\"\nwhich the law allows? Or is it the \"libel\" which the law condemns? Is\nit the fair and critical judgment which your silence shall sanction,\nas Harvard's official verdict on my work? Or is it the libellous and\nvulgar abuse which your speech shall rebuke, as shaming Harvard more\nthan me by bringing the ethics and manners of the literary Bedouin\ninto the professor's chair?\n\n\nV.\n\nBut, gentlemen, the gravest aspect of Dr. Royce's ostensible review\nremains still to be considered. Is libel--vulgar, violent, and brutal\nlibel--the means by which Harvard University, represented by one of\nher professors of philosophy who openly claims to address the general\npublic in the name of his office and of her, proposes to realize the\nlofty ideal of her President, and make herself the \"philosophical\npioneer\" for each new generation in the pursuit of truth? Is this the\nwelcome which she accords to serious, dignified, and not unscholarly\nworks, giving the results, however partially and imperfectly wrought\nout, of patient and independent reflection for more than thirty years\non the highest problems of human life and thought? Is this the best\nsympathy and encouragement she has to offer to her own sons when they\ntake up in earnest the task of helping her to realize her own ideal?\nIs this the attitude in which she confronts the great questions of the\nage, and the spirit which she aims to foster in her young men? I do\nnot believe it; but you alone, gentlemen, can give the authoritative\nanswer to such queries.\n\nWhen civil service reformers plead the urgent necessity of political\nreform, they are irrelevantly charged by the adherents of the spoils\nsystem with being \"hypocrites and pharisees.\" Precisely so, when I\nplead the urgent necessity of philosophical reform, I am irrelevantly\ncharged by Dr. Royce, in effect, with being a false pretender, a\nplagiarist, and an impostor. The charge is just as true in one case as\nin the other. But, be the charge true or untrue, the attention of keen\nand candid minds is not to be diverted by this perfectly transparent\ndevice from the main point of reform.\n\nWhat is this needed philosophical reform?\n\nBriefly, _to substitute the scientific method for the idealistic\nmethod in philosophy_, as the only possible means, in this critical\nand sceptical age, of making ethics and religion so reasonable as to\ncommand the continued allegiance of reasonable minds. Unphilosophized\nscience conceives the universe as nothing but a Machine-World; and in\nthis conception there is no room for any Ethical Ideal. Unscientific\nphilosophy conceives the universe as nothing but a Thought-World; and\nin this conception there is no room for any Mechanical Real. On the\npossibility of developing a scientific philosophy out of the\nscientific method itself must depend at last the only possibility, for\nreasonable men, of believing equally in the real principles of\nmechanical science and in the ideal principles of ethical science.\nTo-day the greatest obstacle to such a reasonable belief is the\n\"philosophical idealism\" which directly contradicts it; and the\ngreatest reform needed in modern thought, above all in the theory of\nethics, is the substitution of the scientific method for the\nidealistic method in philosophy itself.\n\nThe cause of philosophical reform, indeed, cannot be long delayed by\nany Philistinism in those who, by their professional position, ought\nto be its most ardent friends. The method of science is destined to\nrevolutionize philosophy--to modernize it by founding it anew upon a\nthoroughly realistic and scientific theory of universals. The net\nresult of all the physical sciences thus far, the one fixed result to\nwhich all their other results steadily point with increasingly evident\nconvergence, is that _the already known constitution of the real\nuniverse is that of the Machine_. This universal fixed result, and not\nmere individual self-consciousness, is the necessary and only\nbeginning-point of a constructive philosophy of Nature; for, where the\nspecial sciences end, there universal philosophy must begin. It is the\ntask of philosophy to-day to show that the unquestionably mechanical\nconstitution of the universe, instead of being the ultimate boundary\nof scientific investigation, is merely the starting-point in a new\nseries of investigations, no less scientific than those of physical\nscience, but far more profound; and to show that the mechanical\nconstitution itself, when deeply studied and comprehended, necessarily\ninvolves the organic and the personal constitutions. In this way, and\nI believe in no other way, can it be proved to the satisfaction of the\nmodern intelligence that the Mechanical Real itself, at bottom,\nincludes the Ethical Ideal--that the Moral Law, the Divine Ideal\nitself, is the innermost Fact of Nature. I have made, and make now,\nnot the slightest personal \"pretension\"; but, finding in all my\nreading no outline of any such argument as this, and believing it to\nbe fruitful of the very noblest results, I have done my best to point\nout its possibilities to other earnest searchers after truth. Not\nuntil this new field has been faithfully examined and explored and\nproved to be sterile, shall I cease to recommend it to the attention\nof all who would fain _see reason_ to believe that the Ethical Ideal\nis no Unreality, but rather the innermost Reality of the real universe\nitself. I speak only to those who have souls to hear and to respond;\nlet the rest listen to Dr. Royce, and be dupes of his \"professional\nwarning.\" But the cause of philosophical reform will not be stayed by\nhim or by them: the world's heart is hungry for higher truth than\nidealism can discover, and will be grateful in the end to any\nphilosophy which shall show what mighty moral conviction, what\nunspeakable spiritual invigoration, must needs grow out of\ncomprehension of the despised Real.\n\nThese thoughts are not remote abstractions, up in the air, out of\nreach, of no practical value or application; they touch the very life\nand soul of Harvard University. For want of such thoughts, many of the\nbrightest and most intellectual of her students, graduates from the\nphilosophical courses, go out year after year disbelieving totally in\nthe possibility of arriving at any fundamental \"truth\" whatever, even\nin ethics. Several years ago, the then President of the Harvard\n\"Philosophical Club\" said in my hearing that he \"saw no ground of\nmoral obligation anywhere in the universe\"; and this declaration was\napparently assented to by every one of the fifteen or twenty members\npresent. This very last summer, a recent graduate told me that he left\ncollege bewildered, depressed, and \"disheartened,\" because he saw\nnowhere any ground of rational \"conviction\" about anything; and that\nit was \"just the same with all the other fellows\"--that is, all his\ncompanions in the study of philosophy. It is time, high time, that\nthis state of things should be searchingly investigated in the\ninterest of Harvard University itself, the facts determined, their\ncauses ascertained. While such a state of things prevails, Harvard\nconspicuously fails to be a \"philosophical pioneer\" except in a\ndistinctly retrograde direction--conspicuously fails to discharge the\nhighest service which she owes to the world: namely, to send out her\nyoung graduates well armed beforehand for the battle of life with\nclear, strong, and lofty _moral convictions_. Whatever other causes\nmay exist for the failure, one cause at least is certain--the\nself-proved and amazing inability of one of her professors of\nphilosophy to give an honest or intelligent reception to a thoughtful,\nclosely reasoned, and earnest plea for philosophical reform in this\nvery direction, or to criticise it with anything better than\nirrelevant and unparliamentary personalities, studied and systematic\nmisrepresentation both of the plea and of the pleader, and a\ndemoralizing example of libel, so bitter and so extreme as to furnish\nabundant ground for prosecution.\n\n\nVI.\n\nHere, gentlemen, you may very properly inquire: \"Why do you not, then,\nprosecute Dr. Royce in the courts, instead of bringing the case before\nus?\"\n\nBriefly, because I have not yet exhausted those milder means of\nobtaining redress which it befits a peaceable and non-litigious\ncitizen to employ before resorting to legal measures. You would have\nhad just cause to complain of me, if I had precipitately prosecuted\none of your professors for a \"professional\" attack without giving you\npreviously an opportunity to discipline him in your own way, and in\ndignified recognition of your own ultimate responsibility. A\nprosecution may not, I trust will not, prove necessary; for I have\nneither malice nor vindictiveness to gratify, but only a resolute\npurpose to defend my reputation effectually against a malicious libel,\nand not to permit the libeller to set up a plausible claim that, by\nsilence and passive submission, I \"tacitly confess the justice of an\nofficial condemnation by Harvard University of my 'philosophical\npretensions.'\" Except for that one phrase, \"professional warning,\" in\nDr. Royce's attack, this appeal would never have been written, or the\nleast notice taken of his intrinsically puerile \"criticisms.\" When Mr.\nHerbert Spencer, whom I have more than once publicly criticised, can\nyet magnanimously write to me of this very book, \"I do not see any\nprobability that it will change my beliefs, yet I rejoice that the\nsubject should be so well discussed,\"--and Mr. William Ewart\nGladstone, \"I am very conscious of the force with which you handle the\nsubject,\"--and ex-President Noah Porter, \"I thank you very sincerely\nfor sending me a copy of your last book; I had already read it nearly\ntwice, and found much in it very admirable and timely,\"--I could very\nwell afford to pass over Dr. Royce's ineffectual \"criticisms\" with\nindifference. But when he insinuates to the uninformed public that\nthese same \"criticisms\" have the weighty sanction of Harvard\nUniversity, it is quite another matter. That calls upon me to defend\nmyself against so atrocious a calumny.\n\nBut even self-defence has its proprieties, and to these I scrupulously\nsubmit. The first step was to send a reply to the periodical which\npublished the attack. This was sent. At first, Dr. Royce effusively\nagreed to its publication, and wrote a rejoinder to be published\nsimultaneously with it. Later, in alarm, he procured its rejection,\nand, through legal counsel, served a formal notice upon me not to\npublish or to circulate it at all. The second step was to demand from\nDr. Royce a specific retraction and apology; this he contemptuously\nrefused. The third step was to appeal from the recalcitrant employee\nto the responsible employer, and to lay the case respectfully before\nthe supreme representatives of Harvard University itself. This I now\ndo, and it is entirely unnecessary to look any farther. But, in order\nto lay the case before you fully, it is incumbent upon me to state the\ndetails of these proceedings with some minuteness, and I now proceed\nto unfold the extraordinary tale.\n\n\nVII.\n\nDr. Royce wound up his ostensible review with these words of bravado\nand of challenge: \"_We must show no mercy,--as we ask none._\" This\nfierce flourish of trumpets I understood to be, at least, a fearless\npublic pledge of a fair hearing in the \"Journal of Ethics\" of which he\nwas one of the editors. Moreover, I conceived that a magazine\nexpressly devoted to ethics would be ashamed not to practise the\nethics which it preached--ashamed not to grant to the accused a\nfreedom scrupulously made equal to that which it had already granted\nto the accuser. Lastly, I was averse to litigation, and desired to use\nno coarser weapon, even against a calumniator and libeller, than the\nsharp edge of reason itself.\n\nAccordingly, I sought redress in the first instance from the\n\"International Journal of Ethics.\" On January 21, I mailed to Mr. S.\nBurns Weston, the office editor, an article in reply to Dr. Royce's\nostensible review, together with a letter in which I wrote: \"I do not\nat all complain of your publishing Dr. Royce's original article,\nalthough it was a most malicious and slanderous one, and undertook\n(not to put too fine a point upon it) to post me publicly as a quack.\nIf you do not deny my indefeasible right to be heard in self-defence\nin the same columns, I shall feel that I have no cause whatever to\nregard you or your committee as a party to the outrage, and shall\nentertain no feelings towards you or towards them other than such as\nare perfectly friendly. Let even slander and malice be heard, if truth\nshall be as free to reply.\" Pressing engagements had prevented me from\nwriting the article in season for the January number of the \"Journal\nof Ethics,\" but it was in ample season for the April number.\n\nI sent it at last because I had full confidence in the soundness of\nwhat Thomas Jefferson said so well: \"Truth and reason can maintain\nthemselves without the aid of coercion, if left free to defend\nthemselves. But then they must defend themselves. Eternal lies and\nsophisms on one side, and silence on the other, are too unequal.\"\n\nThe \"International Journal of Ethics\" is under the control of an\n\"editorial committee\" of eight, Dr. Felix Adler at the head and Dr.\nRoyce at the end; the other six members live in Europe and have no\nshare in the home management. Mr. Weston is not a member of the\ncommittee, has little editorial authority, and, in case of\ndisagreement between the two American members, would, as he himself\nexpressly and frankly informed me in answer to a direct question, obey\nimplicitly the directions of Dr. Adler. To Dr. Adler, therefore,\nbelongs the general and ultimate editorial responsibility, whether\nlegal or moral, since, according to Mr. Western's just quoted\ndeclaration, Dr. Adler alone has actual power either to procure or to\nprevent publication; while to Dr. Royce is assigned merely the special\ndepartment of \"theoretical ethics.\" Hence Dr. Adler and Dr. Royce were\njointly responsible for the original libel, the latter for writing it,\nthe former for publishing it; but Dr. Adler alone was editorially\nresponsible for publishing or refusing to publish my reply to it. It\nwas to Dr. Adler alone, as responsible editor-in-chief of the \"Journal\nof Ethics,\" that I looked for publication of my defence, as the best\npossible reparation for the wrong done in publishing the libellous\nattack; and I looked to him with confidence for this partial and\ninadequate reparation, believing that, as head of the \"ethical culture\nmovement,\" he would be anxious to conduct the \"Journal of Ethics\" in\naccordance with the highest principles of justice, honor, and fair\nplay.\n\nTo my astonishment and indignation, however, my manuscript, instead of\nbeing considered and finally passed upon by Dr. Adler, was forwarded\nby him or by his direction to Dr. Royce! The latter, getting wind of\nit, had \"insisted\" that it belonged to his department of \"theoretical\nethics,\" and \"claimed the right\" to _edit it with a rejoinder in the\nsame issue_. Nothing could be conceived more unfair or more absurd. A\nlibel had been published by Dr. Adler, and Dr. Adler sent the defence\nagainst this libel to be edited by the libeller himself! Protest was\nin vain. Dr Adler denied his own moral responsibility, washed his\nhands of the whole affair, and even refused to enlighten himself as to\nhis own duty (notwithstanding my urgent request that he should do so)\nby taking counsel of some wise and able lawyer of his own\nacquaintance. Instead of doing this, he affected to consider my\nself-defence against a libel as merely a reply to an ordinary\n\"book-criticism,\" made a few inquiries as to the \"usual practice of\njournals\" with reference to book-criticisms alone, turned my article\nover to Dr. Royce as one on \"theoretical ethics,\" and permitted him to\nattach to it a rejoinder which reiterated the original libel with\nadditions and improvements, but in which he took pains to say of my\nreply: \"I may add that even now it does not occur to me to feel\npersonally wounded, nor yet uneasy at Dr. Abbot's present warmth.\"\nThese words have a peculiar interest with reference to his later legal\nnotice against all publication or circulation of this very reply: his\nassumed or genuine pachydermatousness soon gave way to fearful\napprehension of its effect upon the public mind.\n\nIn no sense whatever was my reply an article on \"theoretical ethics.\"\nTo what part of the \"theory of ethics\" belongs Dr. Royce's false\npersonal accusation of \"extravagant pretensions\"? To what part of the\n\"theory of ethics\" belongs Dr. Royce's false personal accusation of\n\"sinning against the most obvious demands of literary\nproperty-rights\"? To what part of the \"theory of ethics\" belongs Dr.\nRoyce's \"professional warning\" against pretensions which were never\nmade? His false accusations and their false grounds were the main\ntheme of my article, and they had nothing to do with \"theoretical\nethics,\" Dr Adler and Dr. Royce to the contrary notwithstanding. Dr.\nRoyce had no shadow of right to set up so preposterous a claim, and\nDr. Adler had no shadow of right to yield to it, as he weakly did,\nthereby violating his own undeniable obligation, as editor-in-chief,\nto do his utmost to repair the wrong which he himself had done in\npublishing a libel. My article was avowedly nothing but a defence\nagainst this libel, and, as such, was necessarily addressed to the\nresponsible editor of the \"Journal of Ethics,\" not to the sub-editor\nof one of its special departments--most assuredly not to the libeller\nhimself. The only fair and just course was to publish this defence\nalone by itself, precisely as the libel had been published alone by\nitself, and afterwards to allow Dr. Royce to follow it, if he pleased,\nwith a rejoinder in the succeeding number. I made not the slightest\nobjection to one rejoinder or a dozen rejoinders from him, provided\nthe responsible editor held the balance true, accorded as fair a\nhearing to the accused as he had accorded to the accuser, and granted\nto each in turn an opportunity to plead his cause without interruption\nby the other. I asked no more than what Dr. Royce had already\nreceived--an opportunity to enjoy the undivided and undistracted\nattention of the audience for a limited time. He had had the ear of\nthe public for six months. Could I not have it for three?\n\nBut I regret to say that considerations of equal justice seemed to\nhave no weight whatever with Dr. Adler. Dr. Royce, despite his public\npledge, was \"asking for mercy,\" after all, and got from Dr. Adler all\nhe asked for; I asked Dr. Adler for equity alone, and could not get\neven that. The sole concession made was that I might follow Dr.\nRoyce's rejoinder with a second reply in the same number, thus closing\nthe case with a last word for the defence.\n\nTo this last proposal, in order not to refuse a meagre measure of\njustice, I consented under protest. But the proof-sheets of Dr.\nRoyce's rejoinder, to which I was to reply, did not reach me till\nMarch 18, and were accompanied with a notice from the \"Journal of\nEthics\" that my reply must be mailed \"within ten hours after receiving\nRoyce's proof.\" This notice I answered as follows:--\n\n\"The proof of Royce's rejoinder, with your notes of the 16th and 17th,\narrived this morning at 9 A.M. As I have had to be at my teaching till\n3 P.M., it was obviously impossible to mail a reply by 7 P.M. Hence I\ntelegraphed to you at once: '_I protest against the gross injustice of\npostponing my article, or of publishing this new attack without the\nlast word you promised me. It is impossible to write this now_ [_i. e._,\nwithin the ten hours stipulated]. _If you have any love of justice,\npublish my article now, and postpone the rejoinders to next issue._'\nNothing stands in the way of this, the only fair course, except\nRoyce's insistence on his right to deprive me of the equality of\ntreatment which I supposed he himself guaranteed in his--'as we ask\nnone.' To hold back my reply to his libel for three months longer,\nmerely because he is afraid to let it go forth without an attempt to\nbreak its force in the same number, would be disgracefully unjust in\nhim and in the 'Journal.' His rejoinder is simply a fresh libel; there\nis nothing in it to which I cannot easily and effectually reply. But\nwhat _right_ is there in refusing to me the opportunity of answering\none libel at a time? Or in compelling me to be silent nine months\n[from October to July], in order to save him from being silent three\nmonths [from April to July]? It will be a bitter comment on the\nsincerity of the 'ethical culture movement' to make so unethical a\njudgment in so grave a case as this.\"\n\nBut the April number of the \"Journal of Ethics,\" nevertheless, was\npublished without my article. The latter was all in type, and the\nproof-sheets had been corrected; nothing prevented its publication in\nApril except (1) Dr. Royce's insistence that my reply to his first\nlibel should _not be published at all without his second libel_, and\n(2) Dr. Adler's weak submission to this unjust and pusillanimous\ndemand of his associate.\n\nThe whole matter was thus most inequitably postponed to the July\nnumber, primarily at Dr. Royce's instigation. But I now found that I\nwas to be refused the freedom necessary to self-defence against the\nsecond libel--the same freedom already yielded in replying to the\nfirst. Now to answer a libel effectively requires the freedom, not of\nthe parliament, but of the courts. A mere literary discussion admits\nof parliamentary freedom alone, and properly excludes all reflections\nupon personal character. But Dr. Royce had most unparliamentarily\nturned his ostensible review into a libel, and, contrary to all canons\nof literary discussion, had indulged himself in reflections upon my\npersonal character as malicious as they were false. Now the only\npossible disproof of a libel is the proof that it _is_ a libel,--that\nit is either untruthful, or malicious, or both; and, since a libel is\nboth a civil injury and a criminal offence, the proof of its libellous\ncharacter cannot be established without reflecting upon the personal\ncharacter of the libeller. Hence Dr. Royce himself, by writing a\nlibel, had self-evidently raised the question of his own personal\ncharacter, and bound himself beforehand, by his own act, to submit\nwith what grace he could to the necessary consequences of that act;\nand to seek to shield himself from these consequences, which he should\nhave foreseen clearly and nerved himself to bear bravely, was only to\nincur the ridicule invited by a timorous man who first strikes\nanother and then runs away. Dr. Adler, moreover, as the responsible\neditor of the \"Journal of Ethics,\" had laid himself, by publishing Dr.\nRoyce's libel, under the clear moral obligation of according to the\naccused the same freedom of the courts which he had already accorded\nto the accuser; and to seek to escape this moral obligation was to\nincur the censure invited by any one who assumes the editorial\nfunction without properly informing himself of the duties which it\nimposes with reference to third parties. Both the one and the other\nhad estopped themselves from denying to the accused in self-defence\nthe same freedom of the courts which they had granted to themselves as\naccusers in attack.\n\nNotwithstanding these plain facts, Dr. Royce and Dr. Adler united in\ndenying to me the necessary freedom of self-defence against the attack\nwhich they had united in making.\n\nAt first, Dr. Royce undertook to dictate to me beforehand the nature\nof my reply to his rejoinder, and sought to restrict it to the\nparliamentary freedom of a purely literary discussion. Ignoring the\nfact that he had himself rendered a purely literary discussion\nimpossible by his own reflections upon personal character, he\nendeavored now to restrict my defence to a purely literary discussion\nof what, with amusing deficiency in the sense of humor, he considered\nto be his \"criticisms\"; whereas these pointless and ignorant\ncriticisms had no importance whatever except as leading up to his\n\"professional warning.\" The only object of a reply to his rejoinder\nwas to expose its true character as a second libel, and thereby make\nplain to the dullest mind the outrage of his \"professional warning.\"\nEvidently fearing this, and being anxious to prevent the exposure, he\nsent to me through Mr. Weston, who called upon me for the purpose on\nApril 15, the following unspeakable document, apparently without a\nsuspicion that it pricked the bubble of his previous iridescent pledge\nto \"ask no mercy\":--\n\n\n     MEMORANDUM OF APR. 13, 1891.\n\n     1. Dr. Abbot's article must be in Mr. Weston's hands in MS.\n     by June 1, for issue in the July No., if possible.\n\n     2. This article must not exceed, in actual number of words,\n     Prof. Royce's last rejoinder.\n\n     3. Prof. Royce is not to reply to the above article of Dr.\n     Abbot before or simultaneously with its publication in the\n     \"Journal of Ethics\"; and the controversy is thus to be\n     closed in the \"Journal\" by Dr. Abbot.\n\n     4. Dr. Abbot's article is to be strictly a rejoinder, is not\n     to raise essentially new issues, is not to assault any\n     further his opponent's personal character, is to be\n     parliamentary in form, and free from personally abusive\n     language. Otherwise it is perfectly free as to plainness of\n     speech.\n\n     5. Prof. Royce is to see this article at once, and before it\n     goes to the printer.\n\n     6. Should Prof. Royce, after seeing the paper, object to the\n     article as \"_not in conformity with the conditions of No. 4_\n     (_above_),\" then, but only then, the article is to be\n     submitted, before publication, to the judgment of some\n     impartial friend or friends of both the disputants, such\n     friend or friends to be chosen as promptly as possible, and\n     by agreement, and to arbitrate the question, \"_Whether Dr.\n     Abbot's final rejoinder is in conformity with the conditions\n     of this present memorandum?_\" The arbitrator or arbitrators\n     may be any person or persons agreable [_sic_] to the wishes\n     of both the disputants, as determined in case the mentioned\n     objection of Prof. Royce should be made, but not otherwise.\n\n     7. Should Prof. Royce _not_ object to the article, or should\n     he not formally object _on the grounds mentioned_, then the\n     article of Dr. Abbot is to close the controversy in the\n     \"Journal of Ethics.\"\n\n     8. Should Dr. Abbot _not_ accept the conditions of the\n     present memorandum, he is at liberty to withdraw his paper,\n     or else to let both the papers now in type appear as they\n     are, at his pleasure.\n\n     [Signed]      J. R.\n\nIt is difficult to conceive the state of mind in which so\nextraordinary a document as this could have originated. My answer to\nDr. Royce's officious interference was a short and dry rejection _in\ntoto_. Dr. Royce was not the responsible editor of the \"Journal of\nEthics,\" and had no power to dictate any conditions of publication\nwhatever. That a libeller should actually presume to dictate to the\nlibelled the terms of his defence, to demand that this defence should\nbe submitted to himself in advance of publication for approval or\ndisapproval, and, in case of disapproval, to invoke a board of\nreferees for the sole purpose of enforcing his own arbitrary and\npreposterous \"conditions,\"--this was too exquisitely absurd. But there\nwas method in the madness. The central aim of the \"Memorandum\" is\nclear on its face: namely, _to refuse the forensic freedom necessary\nto self-defence against a libel, and to concede only the parliamentary\nfreedom proper to a purely literary discussion_. Since, however, the\nonly object of my writing at all was to expose his rejoinder as a\nsecond libel, and since the central aim of the \"Memorandum\" was to\ndefeat this very object, nothing could be plainer than this: that Dr.\nRoyce, having been guilty of two unprovoked and malicious libels, now\nsought to prevent the exposure of his guilt by suppressing the\nnecessary freedom of self-defence. For, I repeat, the only possible\ndefence against a libel is to prove that it _is_ a libel, and this\ncannot be done without reflecting upon the \"personal character\" of the\nlibeller. It was no fault of mine that he had himself rendered a\n\"parliamentary\" discussion impossible; it was no fault of mine that he\nhad made his own \"personal character\" the real point at issue; it was\nno fault of mine that he now betrayed his secret alarm, uttered a cry\nfor \"mercy,\" and convicted himself out of his own mouth, in his\nextraordinary and indescribable \"Memorandum.\" That \"Memorandum\" tells\nthe whole story.\n\nOn the failure of Dr. Royce's very injudicious attempt at dictation,\nDr. Adler found himself compelled to assume the editorial power and\nresponsibility, which he ought to have assumed and exercised in the\nfirst instance by refusing publication to Dr. Royce's original libel.\nBut, yielding to Dr. Royce's influence, he took the same position, and\nstill tried to shield the libeller from the just and lawful\nconsequences of his libel. No principle is more firmly established in\nthe public conscience, as interpreted by the common law, than that the\nfact of an attack by A involves the right of self-defence by B.\nWhoever, therefore, has permitted an attack which he might have\nprevented is bound to permit the self-defence, also; and Dr. Adler,\nhaving granted to Dr. Royce the freedom of libelling me, was bound to\ngrant to me the equal freedom of defending myself against the libel.\nBut this equal freedom Dr. Adler denied. After some fruitless\ncorrespondence, I wrote to him on May 4 as follows: \"I require the\nfreedom, not of 'parliament,' but of the courts--freedom to present my\n'facts,' and no less to draw my 'inferences'--freedom to array my\nevidence, and no less to make my pleading. By publishing his new\nlibel, you estop yourself from denying me this freedom. If you do deny\nit, I withdraw altogether and seek justice and redress elsewhere. I\nask only what is self-evidently fair: (1) equal space with Dr. Royce,\n(2) equal freedom with Dr. Royce, (3) no further rejoinders by Dr.\nRoyce, and (4) no editorial mention of the matter at all from the\n'Journal' itself.\" To this letter Dr. Adler merely telegraphed his\nfinal reply on May 6 in these brief terms: \"Regret your insistence on\nfreedom of courts--parliamentary freedom open to you.\" This ended the\nmatter, so far as the \"Journal of Ethics\" was concerned, in Dr.\nAdler's explicit denial of a full and fair hearing in its columns to a\nparty calumniated and libelled by one of his own contributors and a\nmember of his own \"editorial committee.\"\n\nNegotiations, it is true, for the publication of my reply in the July\nnumber were a little later re-opened by Dr. Adler, on receiving advice\nfrom a legal friend of his own that to publish it would be his wisest\ncourse; but he himself broke them off on a trivial pretext, after\nreceiving contrary advice from Dr. Royce's counsel, together with a\ncopy of the legal protest sent to me personally. Thus Dr. Royce\nhimself, recalling his original consent, procured the final rejection\nby the \"Journal of Ethics\" of my reply to his own attack. On June 19,\nI was notified that the July number had been made up without it.\n\nBut already, on June 9, I had received from Mr. J. B. Warner, acting\nas Dr. Royce's counsel, this formal protest against any other use\nwhatever of my reply: \"On Dr. Royce's behalf, I must warn you that he\nprotests against the publication or any circulation of it, in its\npresent shape, and must point out to you that it may, if circulated,\nentail a serious legal responsibility.\" To this strangely impolitic\nand utterly futile attempt to intimidate me in the defence of my own\nreputation, I chose to offer not the slightest resistance. The protest\nonly facilitated that defence. How could a libeller more conspicuously\nput himself in the wrong, or more effectually ruin his own evil cause\nin all eyes, than by _trying to gag the man he had injured_? First, to\nprevent publication in the \"Journal of Ethics\" of the very reply he\nhad publicly and defiantly challenged, and then to suppress all\ncirculation of a few privately printed copies of it by means of legal\nthreats: if Dr. Royce could afford to commit such blunders, why should\nI shield him from himself? \"Whom the gods destroy, they first make\nmad.\"\n\nBefore proceeding to any more energetic measures, however, in order to\nvindicate my reputation, I was anxious to offer to Dr. Royce an\nopportunity of doing me justice in a manner which should be consistent\nwith full vindication, yet should involve the least possible publicity\nand the least possible mortification to himself. Accordingly, on June\n20, I wrote to Mr. Warner thus: \"I beg leave to enclose a Card, which,\nif returned to me within a week from to-day, unchanged, dated, and\nsigned by Dr. Royce, and if actually published in the October number\nof the 'Journal,' will render unnecessary further measures of\nself-vindication as now contemplated. I send this because you assured\nme that Dr. Royce disclaims all malice in the publication of the\noriginal article I complain of, and because I am willing to test the\nsincerity of his disclaimer before resorting to other measures for my\nself-protection. I expect you, who came to me in the character of a\npacificator, and who expressed a creditable desire, in which I fully\njoin, for the settlement of this trouble in some way which shall\noccasion no scandal to Harvard College, to exert your utmost\ninfluence with Dr. Royce to persuade him to perform this act of\nmanifest justice to me. A frank retraction and apology, when unjust\ncharges have been made as now, is not dishonorable and ought not to be\nhumiliating; and I shall consider Dr. Royce's action in this matter as\nshowing the sincerity or insincerity of his disclaimer of all malice\nin his original article.\" The enclosed paper above mentioned was\nthis:--\n\n\n     A CARD.\n\n     CAMBRIDGE, June --, 1891.\n\n     I. I admit that I have no knowledge whatever of any\n     \"extravagant pretensions\" made by Dr. Abbot \"as to the\n     originality and profundity of his still unpublished system\n     of philosophy.\"\n\n     II. I admit that Dr. Abbot did not, consciously or\n     unconsciously, \"borrow his theory of universals from Hegel,\"\n     or \"sin against the most obvious demands of literary\n     property-rights.\"\n\n     III. I unconditionally retract my \"professional warning to\n     the liberal-minded public against Dr. Abbot's philosophical\n     pretensions,\" acknowledge that it was groundless and\n     unjustifiable, and apologize to Dr. Abbot for having\n     published it in the \"International Journal of Ethics.\"\n\n     IV. I authorize the publication of this retraction and\n     apology in the next number of the \"International Journal of\n     Ethics\" without note or comment.\n\nIn his answer of June 24, Mr. Warner informed me that Dr. Royce had\ngone to Denver, and wrote: \"As for the Card which you propose, I will\nleave Dr. Royce to make his own answer after he has seen it. I will\nsay, however, for my own part, that, while he has always been ready to\ndisclaim any desire to injure you personally, I think that his\nopinions concerning your philosophical system and its origin are\nunchanged, and he is not likely to retract them. I must say, too, that\nyou have put your Card in a form in which you could not have expected\nDr. Royce to sign it, and I do not regard it as any step, on your\npart, toward a pacific settlement, nor think your demand a reasonable\none to make of a self-respecting man.\"\n\nThe next day, June 25, I wrote to Mr. Warner: \"I ought distinctly to\ndeny that my rejected article is 'a libellous paper.' Its statements\nare true; its motive is not malice, but a self-evident purpose to\ndefend myself against Dr. Royce's libel; and, even if it should be\nconcluded to come under any legal definition of 'libel,' I maintain\nthat it is self-evidently a 'justifiable libel.' If I pay any heed to\nyour notice, it is merely because your notice strengthens my\ncase.--You do not mention when Dr. Royce will return from Denver; but,\nbecause my purpose in enclosing to you that Card is in good faith a\npacific one, I will wait a reasonable time for his return beyond the\ndate I mentioned. You will not judge the character of that Card\naccurately, and you cannot give sound or salutary advice to your\nclient, if you ignore the libellous character of his original article.\nI do not see how 'a self-respecting man' could ever have written such\na paper; but, if he did it inadvertently and not maliciously, he would\ncertainly do one of two things: (1) either submit courageously,\nunflinchingly, and without legal protest, to the reply it challenged\nand evoked, or (2) manfully retract charges demonstrated, as these\nhave been, to be false. Have you really a different idea of\n'self-respect'? Certainly not, for you are an honorable gentleman. Be\nthis as it may, I warn you not to persist in considering that Card as\nother than a pacific step on my part, if you desire to counsel your\nclient to his own good, or to prove yourself a real friend to Harvard\nCollege. I say this in good faith.\"\n\nTo this, on July 2, Mr. Warner replied: \"Dr. Royce has returned, and I\nhave submitted to him the Card which you have prepared. As I\nanticipated, Dr. Royce says that he cannot sign it, nor can I advise\nhim to do so. It goes far beyond any disavowal of malice or personal\nhostility, and it amounts to a retraction of the opinions which he\nactually holds about your philosophical system, and that retraction\nyou surely cannot expect him to make. Dr. Royce has again expressed to\nme his regret that the form of his article should have wounded you,\nand he is entirely ready to disavow any intention of wounding you.\"\n\nOn July 11, I wrote in answer: \"Most certainly I do not expect, or\nwish, that Dr. Royce should disavow any philosophical 'opinions' he\nmay hold. What I complain of is a _misstatement of fact_, demonstrated\nto be such, which I believe to have had its origin in a spirit of\nmalicious detraction, and to be now persevered in from no other cause.\nIn my reply to his article, which he himself challenged and then\npusillanimously suppressed, he has had abundant means of information.\nIf he now refuses to correct a misstatement which grossly injures me,\nafter he has been informed of the truth, the refusal admits of but one\ninterpretation, and throws a satirical light on the merely private\n'regret' he professes. Inasmuch, however, as you have objected (quite\nunnecessarily, as I think) to the 'form' of the Card I sent you, and\ninasmuch as I intend to leave no room for doubt as to Dr. Royce's real\nanimus in this affair, I propose now that he send me such a retraction\nand apology as you yourself shall deem adequate, fitting, and due. In\nyour letter of June 9, you admitted that Dr. Royce had 'transgressed\nthe limits of courteous discussion' and that you 'do not defend in all\nrespects the tone of the review.' It is plain enough that you, Dr.\nRoyce's own counsel, perceive at least something improper, something\nthat ought to be retracted and apologized for. You are, then, I\nsubmit, bound to do what you can to right the wrong, which is not at\nall done by Dr. Royce's profuse, _but private_, disclaimers. He\nprofesses to bear no malice. Very well, then: let him make reparation\nfor the wrong he has committed. He owes it to himself, if he considers\nhimself a gentleman, certainly to his position in Harvard College, to\nsend me some paper, specifying what he himself regrets in his own\narticle, with authority to publish this paper in the 'Journal of\nEthics.' The Card I sent sufficiently indicates what I think is due to\nme; if Dr. Royce, in other language, covers the same ground, it will\nbe accepted as satisfactory. That is the very least that a gentleman\nwould do under the circumstances. You cannot object to this proposal\non account of its 'form'; if either you or he objects to it at all,\nit must be on account of its substance. Certainly you cannot affect to\nconsider it as other than 'pacific.' I shall await your answer to it\nas to the only 'pacific step on my part' which remains possible to\nme.\"\n\nIn reply to this letter, on July 24, Mr. Warner wrote: \"I forwarded\nyour letter of July 11 to Dr. Royce, and he has written a reply to me\nwhich I think it best to enclose as he wrote it.\" In this enclosed\nletter, dated July 14, Dr. Royce first re-affirmed, in substance, the\ntruth of his false and ridiculous accusation of plagiarism from Hegel,\nand then wrote as follows: \"Now as to my feeling concerning what was\nregrettable in my article. I repeat once more--regrettable, in my\neyes, was the manner of the article in so far as it actually gave\nunnecessary pain to Dr. Abbot. And I regard any pain as unnecessary\nthat may have been due, _not_ to my objectively justified opinion of\nDr. Abbot's work (an opinion which I cannot alter in the least), but\nto any severity of expression that may not have been absolutely\nneedful to give form to this opinion itself. Dr. Abbot's reply has\nshown him to be not merely alive to the strong difference of opinion\nthat separates us, but personally offended by an attack that was\nintended to be indeed severe, but directed wholly to matters of\nprofessional, but not of personal concern. This attitude of Dr.\nAbbot's I regret, and, in so far as I am to blame for it, I am willing\nto express my regret publicly.\"\n\nThis letter of Dr. Royce is, in effect, a deliberate and unqualified\nre-affirmation of every fact as alleged, and every inference as drawn,\nin his original libel--a deliberate and contemptuous re-affirmation of\nthe whole system of elaborate misrepresentation which constitutes it\none tissue of libel from beginning to end. Nothing whatever in the\nsubstance of his article is retracted or regretted; nothing is\n\"regrettable\" even in its form, except vaguely, hypothetically, and\nconditionally; the only thing Dr. Royce \"regrets,\" as a fact, is that\nhis \"objectively justified\" and \"intentionally severe attack\" should\nhave given needless \"personal offence\" and \"unnecessary pain\" to its\nobject! This deliberate and contemptuous refusal to recall, to modify,\nor to apologize for any of the false accusations he has made against\nme is, I submit, demonstration of the malice which originally prompted\nthem, and now moves him to maintain them; nothing further is needed to\nmake their malicious character perfectly plain, and to prove the\ninsincerity of his disclaimers of malice. But Dr. Royce seriously\nmistakes the nature of the effect produced by his \"attack,\" when he\naffects to consider it as the quite needless excitation of excessive\nsensitiveness. If a gentleman in a crowd discovers his nearest\nneighbor engaged in filching his pocket-book, and at once hands the\nculprit over to the police, it would hardly be graphic to describe his\nframe of mind as needless \"personal offence\" or \"unnecessary pain\";\nand the expressions are no more graphic as to my own frame of mind,\nwhen I discover Dr. Royce endeavoring to filch from me my reputation\nin the name of Harvard University. It is not always safe to reckon on\nthe absence, in parties confessedly \"attacked,\" of all capacity for\n_moral indignation_, or all capacity for moral self-defence.\n\nIn reply to Mr. Warner, August 4, I wrote as follows: \"Permit me\nfurther to say, with regard to Dr. Royce's letter, that I can only\ninterpret it as a distinct refusal to retract his accusation that I\nhave made 'extravagant pretensions as to the originality and\nprofundity of my still unpublished system of philosophy'--a distinct\nrefusal to retract his accusation that I have 'borrowed my theory of\nuniversals from Hegel'--a distinct refusal to retract his\n'professional warning' based upon these accusations. These were the\nchief points of my Card, and I note the refusal implied by Dr. Royce's\nevasive letter. But I decline to accept his plea of\n'conscientiousness' in maintaining the accusation as to Hegel. I might\nas well plead 'conscientiousness' in maintaining an accusation that\nDr. Royce assassinated Abraham Lincoln, in face of the evidence that\nJohn Wilkes Booth was the assassin.\"\n\nHere the correspondence closed. My apology for inflicting it upon you,\ngentlemen, must be the necessity of showing to you that, as I was\nplainly bound to do, I first exhausted every means of private redress\nbefore laying the matter before you publicly. Not till I had failed to\nobtain a fair hearing in the same periodical which published Dr.\nRoyce's libel, and not till I had failed to obtain from Dr. Royce\nhimself a retraction of this libel, did I find myself reduced to the\nalternatives of either acquiescing in your own unwarrantably\ninsinuated condemnation, or else of clearing my assailed reputation\nthrough direct and open appeal to you. I am no lover of strife, and\nleast of all do I now seek revenge. I seek only such a vindication of\nmy good name from unmerited calumny as you, in your own good judgment\nand in your own chosen way, are now, I most respectfully submit, bound\nin justice to give.\n\n\nVIII.\n\nTo you, therefore, gentlemen of the Corporation and Board of Overseers\nof Harvard University, I make with all due deference this public\nappeal for redress of a wrong done to me by one of your appointees--a\nwrong done, not in his private capacity as an individual (for which,\nof course, you would not be justly held responsible), but publicly and\nexplicitly and emphatically in the name of his \"profession,\" that is,\nof his position as a professor in Harvard College. This position is an\nofficial one, due to your appointment; and his scandalous abuse of it\nrenders him amenable to discipline by you to whom he owes it.\nTherefore, I now formally appeal to you for redress of these specific\nwrongs, committed by Assistant Professor Josiah Royce in flagrant\nviolation of my rights as a citizen and as a man:--\n\nI. He has published against me, in the \"International Journal of\nEthics,\" a libel which is as wanton and unprovoked as it is malicious\nand false, and for which no motive is even conceivable except mere\nprofessional jealousy or rivalry in authorship.\n\nII. He has sought to give credibility and respectability to this false\nand libellous publication by invoking the authority, not of reason or\ntruth, but of his mere \"professional\" position as professor in Harvard\nUniversity, thereby artfully suggesting and insinuating to the\nuninformed public that Harvard University sustains him in his attack;\nwhereas, in conferring upon me the degree of doctor of philosophy and\nin committing to me formerly the conduct of an advanced course of\nphilosophical instruction, Harvard University has given emphatic\ntestimony to the contrary.\n\nIII. Repudiating his bold promise to \"ask no mercy,\" he has sought,\nwith incredible cowardice and meanness, to deprive me of all\nopportunity of being heard in self-defence, _first_, by excluding from\nthe \"International Journal of Ethics\" my perfectly reasonable reply to\nwhat he himself confesses to have been an \"intentionally severe\nattack,\" and, _secondly_, by threatening me through his counsel with\nlegal prosecution, if I publish it anywhere else or circulate it at\nall.\n\nIV. Lastly, when, after all this, in order to spare him the\nmortification and disgrace of a public exposure, and in order to\nprevent Harvard University from incurring any possible discredit on\naccount of his personal misconduct, I proposed to him a pacific\nsettlement of the whole affair through a simple retraction of his\ncalumnious accusations, and that, too, in words of his own choosing,\nhe made no answer but a stubborn and contumelious re-affirmation of\nthe original libel.\n\nI submit that these acts of wrong constitute conduct unbecoming a\ngentleman, a man of honor, or a professor in Harvard University, and\njustly entitle me to redress at your hands. This appeal has not been\nmade hastily or without a patient and long-protracted effort to secure\njustice in other ways. Dr. Royce has succeeded hitherto, during many\nmonths, in defeating that effort; but now the appeal lies to those\nwhom he cannot control, and now he must abide your judgment. Asking\nneither less nor more than justice, and believing that you will\nrecognize justice as Harvard's highest law,\n\nI have the honor to remain, gentlemen, in devoted loyalty to our Alma\nMater,\n\nYour obedient servant,\n\nFRANCIS E. ABBOT.\n\nCAMBRIDGE, Oct. 1, 1891.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:\n\nOn page 5, in the word Boeotia, the oe ligature has been expanded to\nthe two characters, oe. The sentence begins: Only a native of\nBoeotia could be imposed upon by them, when the actual character....","title":"Professor Royce's Libel: A Public Appeal for Redress to the Corporation and Overseers of Harvard University","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":16402}