PROFESSOR ROYCE'S LIBEL. 

 * * * * *

A

PUBLIC APPEAL FOR REDRESS

TO THE

CORPORATION AND OVERSEERS

OF

HARVARD UNIVERSITY. 

BY

FRANCIS ELLINGWOOD ABBOT, PH. D. 

CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 

 * * * * *

BOSTON, MASS. 

GEO. H. ELLIS, 141 FRANKLIN STREET, 1891. 

PUBLIC APPEAL. 

TO THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS AND BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF HARVARDUNIVERSITY:

_Gentlemen_, --Believing it to be a necessary part of good citizenshipto defend one's reputation against unjustifiable attacks, andbelieving you to have been unwarrantably, but not remotely, implicatedin an unjustifiable attack upon my own reputation by AssistantProfessor Josiah Royce, since his attack is made publicly, explicitly, and emphatically on the authority of his "professional" position asone of your agents and appointees, I respectfully apply to you forredress of the wrong, leaving it wholly to your own wisdom and senseof justice to decide what form such redress should take. If Dr. Roycehad not, by clear and undeniable implication, appealed to your highsanction to sustain him in his attack, --if he had not undeniablysought to create a widespread but false public impression that, inmaking this attack, he spoke, and had a right to speak, with all theprestige and authority of Harvard University itself, --I should nothave deemed it either necessary or becoming to appeal to you inself-defence, or, indeed, to take any public notice whatever of anattack otherwise unworthy of it. But under the circumstances I amconfident that you will at once recognize the inevitableness andunquestionable propriety of my appeal from the employee to theemployer, from the agent to the principal; and it would bedisrespectful to you to doubt for a moment that, disapproving of anattack made impliedly and yet unwarrantably in your name, you willexpress your disapprobation in some just and appropriate manner. Myaction in thus laying the matter publicly before you can inflict nopossible injury upon our honored and revered Alma Mater: injury toher is not even conceivable, except on the wildly improbablesupposition of your being indifferent to a scandalous abuse of hisposition by one of your assistant professors, who, with no imaginablemotive other than mere professional jealousy or rivalry of authorship, has gone to the unheard-of length of "professionally warning thepublic" against a peaceable and inoffensive private scholar, whosepublished arguments he has twice tried, but twice signally failed, tomeet in an intellectual way. If the public at large should have reasonto believe that conduct so scandalous as this in a Harvard professorwill not be condemned by you, as incompatible with the dignity and thedecencies of his office and with the rights of private citizens ingeneral, Harvard University would indeed suffer, and ought to suffer;but it is wholly within your power to prevent the growth of soinjurious a belief. I beg leave, therefore, to submit to you thefollowing statement, and to solicit for it the patient and impartialconsideration which the gravity of the case requires. 

I. 

The first number of a new quarterly periodical, the "InternationalJournal of Ethics, " published at Philadelphia in October, 1890, contained an ostensible review by Dr. Royce of my last book, "The Wayout of Agnosticism. " I advisedly use the word "ostensible, " becausethe main purport and intention of the article were not at all tocriticise a philosophy, but to sully the reputation of thephilosopher, deprive him of public confidence, ridicule andmisrepresent his labors, hold him up by name to public obloquy andcontempt, destroy or lessen the circulation of his books, and, ingeneral, to blacken and break down his literary reputation by any andevery means, even to the extent of aspersing his personal reputation, although there had never been the slightest personal collision. Itsbitter and invidious spirit was not in the least disguised by a fewexaggerated compliments adroitly inserted here and there: thesemerely furnish the foil needed to give greater potency and efficiencyto the personal insinuations, and, like Mark Antony's compliments toCæsar's assassins, subserved quite too many politic purposes to beaccepted as sincere. Only a native of Boeotia could be imposed upon bythem, when the actual character of the book in question was carefullymisrepresented, and when the self-evident trend, tenor, and aim of theostensible review were to excite public prejudice against the authoron grounds wholly irrespective of the truth or untruth of hisexpressed opinions. 

Of course, the very largest liberty must be and should be conceded tolegitimate criticism. From this, as is well known, I never shrank inthe least; on the contrary, I court it, and desire nothing better formy books, provided only that the criticism be pertinent, intelligent, and fair. But misrepresentation for the purpose of detraction is notcriticism at all; and (notwithstanding numerous quotations pervertedby unfair and misleading glosses, including two misquotations quitetoo useful to be accidental) this ostensible review is, from beginningto end, nothing but misrepresentation for the purpose of detraction. Passing over numerous minor instances, permit me to invite yourattention to three gross instances of such misrepresentation. 

II. 

The book under review had taken the utmost pains (pages 16-39, especially page 39) to distinguish "realism" from "idealism, " and toargue for the former in opposition to the latter, on the ground of theabsolute incompatibility of the latter with the scientific method ofinvestigation. It had taken the utmost pains to make the contrastbroad and deep, and to point out its far-reaching consequences byexplicitly opposing (1) scientific realism to philosophical idealismin general, and in particular (2) constructive realism to constructiveidealism, (3) critical realism to critical idealism, (4) ethicalrealism to ethical idealism, and (5) religious realism to religiousidealism. Any fair or honorable critic would recognize this contrastand opposition between realism and idealism as the very foundation ofthe work he was criticising, and would at least state it candidly, asthe foundation of his own favorable or unfavorable comments. How didDr. Royce treat it? He not only absolutely ignored it, not only saidnothing whatever about it, but actually took pains to put the readeron a false scent at the start, by assuring him (without the leastdiscussion of this all-important point) that my philosophicalconclusions are "essentially idealistic"!

So gross a misrepresentation as this might be charitably attributed tocritical incapacity of some sort, if it did not so very convenientlypave the way for the second gross misrepresentation which was tofollow: namely, that the theory actually propounded in my book hadbeen, in fact, "_appropriated" and "borrowed" from an idealist_! Theimmense utility of misrepresenting my system at the start as"essentially idealistic" lay in the fact that, by adopting thisstratagem, Dr. Royce could escape altogether the formidable necessityof _first arguing the main question of idealism versus realism_. Secretly conscious of his own inability to handle that question, torefute my "Soliloquy of the Self-Consistent Idealist, " or to overthrowmy demonstration that consistent idealism leads logically to hopelessabsurdity at last, Dr. Royce found it infinitely easier to deceive hisuninformed readers by a bold assertion that I myself am an idealist atbottom. This assertion, swallowed without suspicion of its absoluteuntruth, would render it plausible and quite credible to assert, next, that I had actually "appropriated" my philosophy from a greateridealist than myself. 

For the only substantial criticism of the book made by Dr. Royce isthat I "borrowed" my whole theory of universals fromHegel--"unconsciously, " he has the caution to say; but thatqualification does not in the least mitigate the mischievous intentionand effect of his accusation as a glaring falsification of fact andartful misdescription of my work. It would be inopportune anddiscourteous to weary you with philosophical discussions. I exposedthe amazing absurdity of Dr. Royce's accusation of plagiarism in thereply to his article which, as appears below, Dr. Royce himselfanxiously suppressed, and which I should now submit to you, if he hadnot at last taken fright and served upon me a legal protest againstits circulation. But, to any well-educated man, such an accusation asthis refutes itself. It would be just as reasonable, just asplausible, to accuse Darwin of having borrowed his theory of naturalselection from Agassiz, or Daniel Webster of having borrowed histheory of the inseparable Union from John C. Calhoun, or ex-PresidentCleveland of having borrowed his message on tariff reform from theHome Market Club, as to accuse me of having borrowed my theory ofuniversals from Hegel. Hegel's theory of universals is divided frommine by the whole vast chasm between realism and idealism. The twotheories contradict each other absolutely, uncompromisingly, irreconcilably: Hegel's is a theory of "absolute idealism" or "purethought" (_reines Denken_), that is, of _thought absolutelyindependent of experience_, while mine is a theory of "scientificrealism, " that is, of _thought absolutely dependent upon experience. _It is quite immaterial here which theory is the true one; the onlypoint involved at present is that the two theories flatly contradicteach other, and that it is self-evidently impossible that either_could_ be "borrowed, " consciously or unconsciously, from the other. If Dr. Royce had ever done any hard thinking on the theory ofuniversals, or if he had the slightest comprehension of the problemsit involves, he would never have been so rash as to charge me with"borrowing" my theory from Hegel, and thus to commit himselfirrevocably to a defence of the absurd; but eagerness to accuseanother has betrayed him into a position whence it is impossible forhim to escape with honor. Solely by misdescribing my philosophy as"essentially idealistic" when it openly and constantly andemphatically avows itself to be essentially realistic, could Dr. Roycegive the faintest color of plausibility to his monstrous andsupremely ridiculous accusation of plagiarism; solely by presumingupon the public ignorance both of Hegel and of my own work could hedare to publish such an accusation to the world. These grossmisrepresentations, however, he did not hesitate to make, since theywere necessary in order to pave the way to a third and still grossermisrepresentation on which he apparently had set his heart: namely, that, after borrowing the whole substance of my philosophy from Hegel, I have been guilty of making "vast and extravagant pretensions" as tomy own "novelty, " "originality, " and "profundity, " not only withregard to my published books, but also with regard to my "stillunpublished system of philosophy. " His words are these:--

"Of novelty, good or bad, the book contains, indeed, despite its vastpretensions, hardly a sign. "

"It is due also to the extravagant pretensions which he frequentlymakes of late as to the originality and profundity of his stillunpublished system of philosophy, to give the reader some hint of whatso far appears to be the nature of our author's contributions tophilosophical reflection. "

Precisely what have been these alleged "pretensions"? Dr. Royce citesonly three instances. 

I. He first garbles a sentence in the prefatory Note to "The Way outof Agnosticism, " by quoting only one phrase from it. The sentence infull is this: "By a wholly new line of reasoning, drawn exclusivelyfrom those sources [science and philosophy], this book aims to showthat, in order to refute agnosticism and establish enlightened theism, nothing is now necessary but to philosophize that very scientificmethod which agnosticism barbarously misunderstands and misuses. "There is no "pretension" whatever in these words, except that thegeneral "line of reasoning" set forth in the book is, _as a whole_, different from that of other books. If not, why publish it? Or, without the same cause, why publish any book? I see no reason torecall or to modify this perfectly true statement; Dr. Royce, atleast, has shown none. The "novelty" of the book lies in its veryattempt to evolve philosophy as a whole out of the scientific methoditself, as "observation, hypothesis, and experimental verification, "by developing the theory of universals which is implicit in thatpurely experiential method; and Dr. Royce does not even try to provethat Hegel, or anybody else, has ever made just such an attempt asthat. Unless there can be shown somewhere a _parallel attempt_, thestatement is as undeniably true as it is certainly unpretentious. 

II. Next, Dr. Royce extracts these sentences from the body of the book(I supply in brackets words which he omitted): "The first great taskof philosophy is to lay deep and solid foundations for the expansion[and ideal perfection] of human knowledge in a bold, new, and truetheory of universals. For so-called modern philosophy restscomplacently in a theory of universals which is thoroughly mediæval orantiquated. " What personal pretension, even of the mildest sort, canbe conceived to lurk in these innocent words? I did not say that Ihave succeeded in performing that "task"; I repeat now what I haveoften said and what I meant then; namely, that modern science hasunawares performed it already, that I have faithfully tried toformulate and further apply what science has done, and that Irespectfully submit the result (so far as already published), not tosuch critics as Dr. Royce, but to able, learned, and magnanimousstudents of philosophy everywhere. 

III. Lastly, though employing quotation marks so as to evade a chargeof formal misquotation, he perverts and effectually misquotes asentence of the book in a way which makes it appear exactly what it isnot, --"pretentious. " I had said at the end of my own book (page 75):"_Its aim has been to show_ the way out of agnosticism into thesunlight of the predestined philosophy of science. " This expression isperfectly in harmony with the prefatory Note, which says that "_thisbook aims to show_ that, in order to refute agnosticism and establishenlightened theism, nothing is now necessary but to philosophize thatvery scientific method which agnosticism barbarously misunderstandsand misuses, " and which immediately adds: "_Of the success of theperhaps unwise attempt to show this in so small a compass, theeducated public must be the judge. _" Most certainly, there is no"pretension" in this modest and carefully guarded avowal of the simpleaim of my book. But Dr. Royce twists this modest avowal into abarefaced boast, and injuriously misquotes me to his own readers thus:"At the conclusion of the book, we learn that _we have been shown_'the way out of agnosticism into the sunlight of the predestinedphilosophy of science. '" Gentlemen, I request you to comparethoughtfully the expressions which I have here italicized, and thendecide for yourselves whether this injurious misquotation is purelyaccidental, or, in view of Dr. Royce's purpose of proving me guilty of"vast pretensions, " quite too useful to be purely accidental. 

IV. But Dr. Royce does not content himself with quoting or misquotingwhat I have published, for the self-evident reason that what I havepublished is not sufficiently "pretentious" for his purpose. Disinterested anxiety for the public welfare, and tender sorrow overthe "harm to careful inquiry" which my book is doing by "gettinginfluence over immature or imperfectly trained minds, " constrain himto accuse me of "frequently making of late extravagant pretensions asto the originality and profundity" of my "still unpublished system ofphilosophy. "

Precisely what have been these "extravagant pretensions"? Simplythese:--

In the preface to "Scientific Theism, " I said of that book: "It is amere _résumé_ of a small portion of a comprehensive philosophicalsystem, so far as I have been able to work it out under mostdistracting, discouraging, and unpropitious circumstances of manyyears; and for this reason I must beg some indulgence for theunavoidable incompleteness of my work. "

Enumerating some reasons why I hesitated to begin the series of papersafterwards published as "The Way out of Agnosticism, " I said, in thefirst of these papers: "First and foremost, perhaps, is the fact that, although the ground-plan of this theory is already thoroughly matured, the literary execution of it is as yet scarcely even begun, and fromwant of opportunity may never be completed; and it seems almost absurdto present the abridgment of a work which does not yet exist to beabridged. "

Finally, in an address printed in the "Unitarian Review" for December, 1889, I said: "Without advancing any personal claim whatever, permitme to take advantage of your indulgent kindness, and to make here thefirst public confession of certain painfully matured results of thirtyyears' thinking, which, in the momentous and arduous enterprise ofdeveloping a scientific theology out of the scientific method itself, appear to be principles of cosmical import. . . . Perhaps I can make themintelligible, as a contribution to that 'Unitary Science' which thegreat Agassiz foresaw and foretold. " In a postscript to this address Iadded: "For fuller support of the position taken above, I amconstrained to refer . . . To a large treatise, now in process ofpreparation, which aims to rethink philosophy as a whole in the lightof modern science and under the form of a natural development of thescientific method itself. "

What remotest allusion to my own "originality" is contained in thesepassages, or what remotest allusion to my own "profundity"? What"pretension" of any sort is here made, whether "extravagant" ormoderate? Yet this is the only actual evidence, _and the whole of it_, on which Dr. Royce dares to accuse me of "frequently making of lateextravagant pretensions as to the originality and profundity of mystill unpublished system of philosophy"! The pure absurdity of such anaccusation reveals itself in the very statement of it. Dr. Royce isreferring here, be it understood, not to my published books, but to my"unpublished system of philosophy. " _How does he know anything aboutit?_ I certainly have never shown him my unpublished manuscript, andbeyond those published allusions to it he possesses absolutely nomeans whatever of knowing anything about its contents. Nothing, surely, except full and exact knowledge, derived from careful andpatient personal examination of that manuscript, could possibly be aground of just judgment of its character. How, then, in absoluteignorance of its character and contents, could any fair man hazard anypublic verdict upon it? Yet Dr. Royce not only accuses me of making"pretensions" about it which I never made, but dares to characterizethem as "extravagant, " when, _for all he knows_, they might (if made)fall far short of the truth. Whether in this case the evidencesupports the accusation, and whether the conscience which permits themaking of such an accusation on such evidence is itself such aconscience as you expect to find in your appointees, --these, gentlemen, are questions for you yourselves to decide. 

III. 

These three connected and logically affiliated _misstatements offact_--namely, (1) that my philosophy is "essentially idealistic, " (2)that it has been "appropriated" and "unconsciously borrowed" from theidealist Hegel, and (3) that I have frequently made "extravagantpretensions as to the originality and profundity" of this merely"borrowed" and "appropriated" philosophy--constitute in their totalitya regular system of gross and studied misrepresentation, as methodicaland coherent as it is unscrupulous. It is not "fair criticism"; it isnot "criticism" at all; and I do not hesitate to characterize itdeliberately as a disgrace both to Harvard University and to Americanscholarship. 

Yet, gross and studied and systematic as this misrepresentation is, Ishould have passed it over in silence, precisely as I did pass over asimilar attack by Dr. Royce on my earlier book in "Science" for April9, 1886, were it not that, perhaps emboldened by former impunity, henow makes his misrepresentations culminate in the perpetration of aliterary outrage, to which, I am persuaded, no parallel can be foundin the history of polite literature. It is clear that forbearance musthave somewhere its limit. The commands of self-respect and of civicconscience, the duty which every citizen owes to his fellow-citizensnot to permit the fundamental rights of all to be unlimitedly violatedin his own person, must at last set a bound to forbearance itself, andcompel to self-defence. These are the reasons which, after patientexhaustion of every milder means of redress, have moved me to thispublic appeal. 

Dr. Royce's misstatements of fact, so elaborately fashioned and soingeniously mortised together, were merely his foundation for adeliberate and formal "professional warning to the liberal-mindedpublic" against my alleged "philosophical pretensions. " The device ofattributing to me extravagant but groundless "pretensions" to"originality" and "profundity"--since he is unable to cite a singlepassage in which I ever used such expressions of myself--was probablysuggested to him by the "Press Notices of 'Scientific Theism, '"printed as a publishers' advertisement of my former book at the end ofthe book which lay before him. These "Press Notices, " as usual, contain numerous extracts from eulogistic reviews, in which, curiouslyenough, these very words, "original" and "profound, " or theirequivalents, occur with sufficient frequency to explain Dr. Royce'scholeric unhappiness. For instance, Dr. James Freeman Clarke wrote inthe "Unitarian Review": "If every position taken by Dr. Abbot cannotbe maintained, his book remains an original contribution to philosophyof a high order and of great value"; M. Renouvier, in "La CritiquePhilosophique, " classed the book among "de remarquables efforts deconstruction métaphysique et morale dus à des penseurs indépendants etprofonds"; and M. Carrau, in explaining why he added to his criticalhistory of "Religious Philosophy in England" a chapter of twenty pageson my own system, actually introduced both of the words which, whenthus applied, jar so painfully on Dr. Royce's nerves: "La pensée de M. Abbot m'a paru assez profonde et assez originale pour mériter d'êtrereproduite littéralement. " (La Philosophie Religieuse en Angleterre. Par Ludovic Carrau, Directeur des Conférences de philosophie à laFaculté des lettres de Paris. Paris, 1888. ) These extracts, be itremembered, were all printed at the end of the book which Dr. Roycewas reviewing. Now he had an undoubted right to think and to say thatsuch encomiums as these on my work were silly, extravagant, preposterous, and totally undeserved; but _to take them out of themouth of others and put them into mine was wilful and deliberatecalumny_. Systematic and calumnious misrepresentation is the solefoundation of the "professional warning" in which Dr. Royce'sostensible review culminates, and which is too extraordinary not to bequoted here in full:--

"And so, finally, after this somewhat detailed study of Dr. Abbot'slittle book, I feel constrained to repeat my judgment as above. Results in philosophy are one thing; a careful way of thinking isanother. Babes and sucklings often get very magnificent results. It isnot the office of philosophy to outdo the babes and sucklings at theirown business of receiving revelations. It is the office of philosophyto undertake a serious scrutiny of the presuppositions of humanbelief. Hence the importance of the careful way of thinking inphilosophy. But Dr. Abbot's way is not careful, is not novel, and, when thus set forth to the people as new and bold and American, it islikely to do precisely as much harm to careful inquiry as it getsinfluence over immature or imperfectly trained minds. I venture, therefore, to speak plainly, by way of a professional warning to theliberal-minded public concerning Dr. Abbot's philosophicalpretensions. And my warning takes the form of saying that, if peopleare to think in this confused way, unconsciously borrowing from agreat speculator like Hegel, and then depriving the borrowedconception of the peculiar subtlety of statement that made it usefulin its place, --and if we readers are for our part to accept suchscholasticism as is found in Dr. Abbot's concluding sections as at allresembling philosophy, --then it were far better for the world that noreflective thinking whatever should be done. If we can't improve onwhat God has already put into the mouth of the babes and sucklings, let us at all events make some other use of our wisdom and prudencethan in setting forth the American theory of what has been in largepart hidden from us. "

Gentlemen, I deny sweepingly the whole groundwork of cunning andamazing misrepresentation on which this unparalleled tirade isfounded. 

I. I deny that my philosophy is "essentially idealistic, " or that any"careful" or conscientious scholar could possibly affirm it to besuch. 

II. I deny that I "borrowed" my realistic theory of universals fromthe idealist, Hegel, whether consciously or unconsciously. The chargeis unspeakably silly. Realism and idealism contradict each other moreabsolutely than protectionism and free-trade. 

III. I deny that I ever made the "philosophical pretensions" which Dr. Royce calumniously imputes to me. But, if I had made pretensions ashigh as the Himalayas, I deny his authority to post me publicly--toact as policeman in the republic of letters and to collar me on thataccount. A college professor who thus mistakes his academic gown forthe policeman's uniform, and dares to use his private walking-stickfor the policeman's bludgeon, is likely to find himself suddenlyprostrated by a return blow, arrested for assault and battery, andunceremoniously hustled off into a cell, by the officer whose functionhe has injudiciously aped without waiting for the tiresome but quiteindispensable little preliminary of first securing a regularcommission. 

IV. Most of all, I deny Dr. Royce's self-assumed right to club everyphilosopher whose reasoning he can neither refute nor understand. Ideny, in general, that any Harvard professor has the right tofulminate a "professional warning" _against anybody_; and, inparticular, that you, gentlemen, ever voted or intended to invest Dr. Royce with that right. He himself now publicly puts forth a worse than"extravagant pretension" when he arrogates to himself this right ofliterary outrage. He was not appointed professor by you for any suchunseemly purpose. To arrogate to himself a senseless "professional"superiority over all non-"professional" authors, to the insufferableextent of publicly posting and placarding them for a mere differenceof opinion, is, from a moral point of view, scandalously to abuse hisacademical position, to compromise the dignity of Harvard University, to draw down universal contempt upon the "profession" which heprostitutes to the uses of mere professional jealousy or literaryrivalry, and to degrade the honorable office of professor in the eyesof all who understand that a weak argument is not strengthened, and afalse accusation is not justified, by throwing "professional warnings"as a make-weight into the scales of reason. I affirm emphatically thatno professor has a moral right to treat anybody with this undisguised"insolence of office, " or to use any weapon but reason in order to putdown what he conceives to be errors in philosophy. In the presentcase, I deny that Dr. Royce has any better or stronger claim thanmyself to speak "professionally" on philosophical questions. The verybook against which he presumes to warn the public "professionally" isfounded upon lectures which I myself "professionally" delivered, notonly from Dr. Royce's own desk and to Dr. Royce's own college class, but as a substitute for Dr. Royce himself, at the request and by theappointment of his own superiors, the Corporation and Overseers of hisown University; and the singular impropriety (to use no stronger word)of his "professional warning" will be apparent to every one in thelight of that fact. 

IV. 

So far I have treated Dr. Royce's attack solely from the literary andethical points of view. The legal point of view must now beconsidered. 

Plagiarism, conscious or unconscious, is a very grave and seriouscharge to bring against an author, and one which may entail upon him, not only great damage to his literary reputation, but also socialdisgrace and pecuniary loss. If proved, or even if widely believedwithout proof, it cannot but ruin his literary career and destroy themarketable value of his books; and it matters little, so far as thesepractical results are concerned, whether the plagiarism attributed tohim is conscious or unconscious. In an able editorial article on "Lawand Theft, " published in the New York "Nation" of Feb. 12, 1891, it isforcibly said: "Authors or writers who do this [borrowing other men'sideas] a good deal, undoubtedly incur discredit by it with theirfellows and the general public. It greatly damages a writer's fame tobe rightfully accused of want of originality, or of imitation, or ofgetting materials at second hand. But no one has ever proposed topunish or restrain this sort of misappropriation by law. No one hasever contended for the infliction on the purloiners of other men'sideas of any penalty but ridicule or disgrace. " Whoever _wrongfully_accuses an author of plagiarism, then, holds him up _undeservedly_ to"discredit, ridicule, or disgrace, " and "slanders his title" to theproduct of his own brain. This is contrary to the law. Yet this isprecisely what Dr. Royce has done in accusing me _falsely_, and as a_"certain" matter of fact_, of borrowing my theory of universals fromHegel. His accusation is made with as many sneers and as much insultas could well be compressed into the space:--

"Dr. Abbot is hopelessly unhistorical in his consciousness. His'American theory of universals' is so far from being either his own ora product of America that in this book he continually has to use, inexpounding it, one of the most characteristic and familiar of Hegel'stechnical terms, namely, 'concrete, ' in that sense in which it isapplied to the objective and universal 'genus. ' Dr. Abbot'sappropriation of Hegel's peculiar terminology comes ill indeed fromone who talks, " _etc. _ "This I say not to defend Hegel, for whoseelaborate theory of universals I hold in no wise a brief, but simplyin the cause of literary property-rights. When we plough with anotherman's heifer, however unconscious we are of our appropriation, howeversincerely we seem to remember that we alone raised her from herearliest calfhood, it is yet in vain, after all, that we put our brandon her, or call her 'American. '. . . Now Hegel's whole theory may befalse; but what is certain is that Dr. Abbot, who has all his lifebeen working in an atmosphere where Hegelian ideas were more or lessinfectious, has derived his whole theory of universals, so far as hehas yet revealed it with any coherency, from Hegelian sources, andeven now cannot suggest any better terminology than Hegel's for animportant portion of the doctrine. Yet in the volume before us we findall this pretentious speech of an 'American' theory, and discover ourauthor wholly unaware that he is sinning against the most obviousdemands of literary property-rights. "

Passing over the self-evident point that whoever is "_unaware_ that heis sinning" cannot be "sinning" at all, since "sinning" consists in_being aware_ of the wrong we do, --and, consequently, that Dr. Roycecomes here as near as he dares to a direct insinuation that myplagiarism is conscious, and not "unconscious, "--let me call yourattention to the more important point, that Dr. Royce affirms myconscious or unconscious theft from Hegel as a matter of _"certain"fact_, not merely as a matter of _probable inference_. Yet the onlyevidence he has to offer in support of this "certainty" is (1) that Iuse the word "concrete" in the same sense as Hegel, and (2) that Ihave worked all my life in a Hegelian "atmosphere. " These two pointscover all the grounds of his accusation. Permit me very briefly toexamine them. 

(1) The word "concrete" is not in the least a technical termcopyrighted by Hegel, nor is it his trademark. It is one of thecommonest of words, and free to all. But what sort of a reasoner is hewho infers the identity of two whole complex theories from theircoincidence in the use of only a single word? Even this poor andsolitary little premise slips out of Dr. Royce's clutch, for Hegel'suse of the word is _contradictory to mine_! Hegel has to put upon theword "concrete" a very unusual, strained, and artificial sense, inorder to cover up the weakest point of his idealistic system. Heexplains it, however, frankly, clearly, and unambiguously: "TheConcept or Notion (_Begriff_) may be always called 'abstract, ' if theterm 'concrete' must be limited to the mere concrete of sensation andimmediate perception; the Notion as such cannot be grasped by thehands, and, when we deal with it, eyes and ears are out of thequestion. Yet, as was said before, the Notion is the only trueconcrete. " (_Encyklopädie, Werke_, VI. 316. ) Again: "Just as little isthe sensuous-concrete of Intuition a rational-concrete of the Idea. "(_Ibid. , Werke_, VI. 404. ) A score of similar passages can easily becited. That is to say, Hegel avowedly excludes from his _idealistic_theory of universals the "concrete" of sensation, perception, intuition, or _real experience_, and admits into it only the"concrete" of _pure or non-empirical thought_; while I avowedlyexclude from my _realistic_ theory of universals the "concrete" of_pure thought_, and admit into it only the "concrete" of _realexperience_. Hegel's "concrete" cannot be seen, heard, or touched;while to me nothing which cannot be seen, heard, or touched is"concrete" at all. A mere common school education is quite sufficientfor comprehension of the contradictoriness of these two uses of theword. Yet, in order to found a malicious charge of plagiarism, Dr. Royce has the hardihood to assure the uninformed general public thatHegel and I use the word "concrete" in one and the same sense!

(2) The assertion that I have lived all my life in a Hegelian"atmosphere" I can only meet with a short, sharp, and indignantdenial. I know of no such "atmosphere" in all America; if it anywhereexists, I certainly never lived, moved, or worked in it. The statementis a gratuitous, impertinent, and _totally false allegation of fact_, wholly outside of my book and its contents, and is used in thisconnection solely to feather an arrow shot at my reputation; it is apure invention, a manufactured assertion which is absolutely withoutfoundation, and, when thus artfully thrown out with apparentartlessness (_ars celare artem_) as itself foundation for a false andmalicious charge of plagiarism, it becomes fabrication of evidence forthe purpose of defamation. The less said about such an offence asthat, the better for Dr. Royce, and I spare him the comment itdeserves. 

Now, while it might be "fair criticism" _to infer_ my plagiarism fromHegel, if there were only some reasonable or even merely plausibleevidence to support the inference (which I have just proved not to bethe case), it is incontestable that _to affirm_ this plagiarism, as a"certain" matter of fact, without any reasonable evidence at all, isnot that "fair criticism" which the law justly allows, but, on thecontrary, a totally unjustifiable libel. In accusing me personally ofplagiarism on no reasonable grounds whatever, as I have justunanswerably proved him to have done, and in making the "certainty" ofthe plagiarism depend upon an allegation of fact wholly independent ofthe book which he professed to be criticising (namely, the falseallegation that I have worked all my life in a Hegelian "atmosphere"), Dr. Royce has beyond all controversy transgressed the legally definedlimits of "fair criticism, " and become a libeller. 

But this is by no means all. If the bat-like accusation of an"unconscious", yet "sinning" (or sinful) plagiarism hovers ambiguouslybetween attacking my literary reputation and attacking my moralcharacter, there is no such ambiguity hanging about the accusation of"extravagant pretensions as to the originality and profundity of mystill unpublished system of philosophy. " A decent modesty, aself-respectful reserve, a manly humility in presence of theunattainable ideal of either moral or intellectual perfection, aspeechless reverence in the presence of either infinite goodness orinfinite truth, --these are virtues which belong to the very warp andwoof of all noble, elevated, and justly estimable character; andwherever their absence is conspicuously shown, there is just groundfor moral condemnation and the contempt of mankind. Dr. Royce has notscrupled to accuse me of making, not only "pretensions, " but even"extravagant pretensions, " which are absolutely incompatible with thepossession of these beautiful and essential virtues, and thereby tohold me up to universal contempt and derision. He has done this, bythe very terms of his accusation, absolutely and confessedly _withoutcause_; for the system of philosophy which is "unpublished" to othersis no less "unpublished" to him, and an accusation thus madeconfessedly without any knowledge of its truth is, on the very faceof it, an accusation which is as malicious as it is groundless. Tomake such a self-proved and self-condemned accusation as this is, Isubmit, to be guilty of libel with no ordinary degree of culpability. 

But the libel of which I have greatest cause to complain is notconfined to exceptional or isolated expressions. These mightcharitably be explained as mere momentary ebullitions of pettishnessor spleen, and pardonable as merely faults of temper in a criticismwhich was in the main conscientious and fair. But the libel of which Icomplain most of all is one that constitutes the entire ground andframework of the article _as a whole_. Every part of it ismethodically spun and interwoven with every other part, in such a wayas to make it one seamless tissue of libel from beginning to end. ThisI say in full consciousness of the interspersed occasionalcompliments, since these have only the effect of disguising thelibellous intent of the whole from a simple-minded or careless reader, and since they subserve the purpose of furnishing to the writer aplausible and ready-made defence of his libel against a foreseenprotest. Compliments to eke out a libel are merely insults inmasquerade. The libellous plan of the article as a whole is shown inthe _regular system_ of gross and studied misrepresentation, oflogically connected and nicely dovetailed misstatements of facts, which I exposed at the outset. Every intelligent reader of my twobooks is perfectly aware that they are both devoted to an expositionof the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between philosophicalidealism and scientific realism, and to a defence of the latteragainst the former, as the only possible method by which a spiritualtheism can be intellectually, and therefore successfully, defended inthis age of science. Only one who has read and digested the two bookscan fully appreciate the enormity and the unscrupulousness of theinitial misrepresentation, slipped in, as it were, quite casually, andwithout any argument, in the apparently incidental andmatter-of-course statement that my "conclusion" is "essentiallyidealistic. " It is _not_ "idealistic" at all, but as radicallyrealistic as the premises themselves; and no professor of philosophycould ever have called it "idealistic" by a mere slip of the tongue orpen. The intelligent origin of this misrepresentation is clearlyenough suggested in the use to which it is at once put: namely, torender plausible the otherwise ridiculous charge that my theory ofuniversals was "borrowed" from an idealist. Next, the same origin ismore than suggested by the use to which these two misrepresentationstogether are put: namely, to show that any claim of "novelty" for amerely "borrowed" philosophy is a "vast" and "extravagant pretension. "Lastly, the same origin is inductively and conclusively proved, whenthese three inter-linked misrepresentations, as a whole, are made thegeneral foundation for a brutal "professional warning" to the publicat large against my "philosophical pretensions" in general. Not one ofthese fundamental positions of Dr. Royce's article is a fact, --leastof all, an "admitted fact"; on the contrary, each of them isenergetically and indignantly denied. But the libel of which Icomplain above all is the _regular system_ of gross and studiedmisrepresentation by which the most essential facts are firstmisstated and falsified, and then used to the injury of my literaryand personal reputation. 

It may, I trust, be permitted to me here to show clearly what the lawis, as applicable to the case in hand, by a few pertinent citations. 

"The critic must confine himself to criticism, and not make it theveil for personal censure, nor allow himself to run into reckless andunfair attacks, merely from the love of exercising his power ofdenunciation. Criticism and comment on well-known and admitted factsare very different things from the assertion of unsubstantiated facts. A fair and _bona fide_ comment on a matter of public interest is anexcuse of what would otherwise be a defamatory publication. Thestatement of this rule assumes the matters of fact commented on to besomehow ascertained. It does not mean that a man may invent facts, andcomment on the facts so invented in what would be a fair and _bonafide_ manner, on the supposition that the facts were true. If thefacts as a comment upon which the publication is sought to be excuseddo not exist, the foundation fails. . . . The distinction cannot be tooclearly borne in mind between comment or criticism and allegations offact. . . . To state matters which are libellous is not comment orcriticism. " (_Newell on Defamation, Slander, and Libel_, p. 568. )Applying this to the case in hand: the "admitted facts" are these: (1)my philosophy is realistic from beginning to end; (2) I have notworked all my life, nor any part of my life, in a Hegelian"atmosphere"; (3) I did not borrow my theory of universals from Hegel;(4) I have made no vast or extravagant pretensions whatever as to myown philosophy. But Dr. Royce invents and states the exact opposite ofall these facts, and then bases on these purely invented facts mostundeserved "personal censure" and most "reckless and unfair attacks. "Therefore, his article is a libel in its whole groundwork andessential spirit. 

"If a person, under pretence of criticising a literary work, defamesthe private character of the author, and, instead of writing in thespirit and for the purpose of fair and candid discussion, travels intocollateral matter, and introduces facts not stated in the work, accompanied with injurious comment upon them, such person is alibeller, and liable to an action. " (_Broom's Legal Maxims_, p. 320. )Applying this to the case in hand: Dr. Royce "defames" my "privatecharacter, " when he accuses me of "frequently" indulging in"extravagant pretensions"; he "travels into collateral matter, " whenhe alludes at all to my unpublished manuscript; he "introduces factsnot stated in the work, accompanied with injurious comment upon them, "when he alludes to this unpublished manuscript for the sole purpose ofsaying (untruthfully) that I "frequently make, of late, extravagantpretensions as to its originality and profundity, " and again when hesays that I have worked all my life in a Hegelian "atmosphere, " forthe sole purpose of founding upon this false statement a false chargeof plagiarism. 

In the "Griffith Gaunt" case, Judge Clerke said in his charge to thejury: "The interests of literature and science require that theproductions of authors shall be subject to fair criticism, --that evensome animadversion may be permitted, unless it appears that thecritic, under the pretext of reviewing his book, takes an opportunityof attacking the character of the author, and of holding him up as anobject of ridicule, hatred, or contempt. In other words, the criticmay say what he pleases of the literary merits or demerits of thepublished production of an author; but, with respect to his personalrights relating to his reputation, the critic has no more privilegethan any other person not assuming the business of criticism. "(_Abbott's Practice Reports_, New Series, VI. 18. ) Applying this tothe case in hand: Dr. Royce, "under the pretext of reviewing" my"book, takes an opportunity of attacking the author, and of holdinghim up as an object of ridicule and contempt, " if ridicule andcontempt are the deservedly universal punishment of the plagiarist andthe braggart. To so unprecedented a length has he carried this attack, as deliberately and formally, in the name of his "profession, " andtherefore, by necessary implication, in the name of Harvard Universityitself, to "warn the liberal-minded public" against me, _precisely asone warns the general public against an impostor soliciting alms underfalse pretences_! This is a flagrant violation of my "personal rightsrelating to my reputation"; and, therefore, according to the abovejudicial ruling of an American court, Dr. Royce is guilty of wantonand unprovoked libel against one who never injured him in theslightest degree. 

In the case of Strauss _versus_ Francis, Chief Justice Cockburn said:"The question is as to the article as a whole. . . . The verdict must beupon the article as a whole, and whether, as a whole, it is to bedeemed malicious and libellous. " (_Foster and Finlason's Reports_, IV. 1107. ) Applying this to the case in hand: Dr. Royce's ostensiblereview presents its darkest, most odious, and most libellous aspect tohim who most thoroughly, penetratingly, and comprehensively studiesout the inner structure of its argument _as a whole_, and who mostintelligently compares it with the book which it falsely professes tocriticise fairly. Allow me to quote here a passage from page 39 of"the Way out of Agnosticism" in order simply to show you howuncompromisingly this passage, which sums up the entire results of thefirst half of the book and luminously forecasts the entire conclusionof the whole, plants my system on the side of Realism:--

"The scientific, modern, or American theory of universals, whichresults necessarily from analysis of the scientific method, isScientific Realism, as opposed to Philosophical Idealism; and itdetermines the subdivision of scientific philosophy into its threegreat departments, the theories of Being, of Knowing, and of Doing. The scientific theory of Being results from analysis of theGenus-in-itself, and constitutes ontology or Constructive Realism, asopposed to all forms of Constructive Idealism. The scientific theoryof Knowledge results from analysis of the Concept, and constitutespsychology or Critical Realism, as opposed to all forms oftranscendental or Critical Idealism. The scientific theory of Conductresults from analysis of the Word, and constitutes anthroponomy(including ethics, politics, and art in its widest sense), sociology, or Ethical Realism, as opposed to all forms of Ethical Idealism. Thescientific theory of the universe, as the absolute union of Being, Knowing, and Doing in the One and All, results from comprehension ofthese three theories in complete organic unity, and constitutesorganic philosophy, scientific theology, or Religious Realism, asopposed to all forms of Religious Idealism. "

I submit this long extract to you, gentlemen, not to bore you withmetaphysical speculations, but simply to enable you, as educated menwho understand the meaning of plain and straightforward English on anysubject, to follow the twistings and turnings of an extraordinarilysinuous and disingenuous intellect, and intelligently to decide aquestion which needs here to be settled clearly in your own minds:could any competent professor of philosophy, undertaking to give, as afair critic, a truthful account to the public of the contents of mybook, read that passage, and then, omitting all reference to thecontrast there and everywhere made between realism and idealism, honestly tell that public, without any further information at all onthe subject, that the "conclusion" of my philosophy is "essentiallyidealistic"?

Yet that is the conscienceless misrepresentation with which Dr. Royceprepares the way for all that is to follow, deceives the reader at thevery outset, predisposes him to believe the preposterous charge that I"appropriated" my main theory from the great idealist Hegel, arouseshis indignation or mirth, as the case may be, at my alleged struttingabout in borrowed plumes, and so leads him at last to applaud therighteous castigation of the "professional warning, " by which thepeacock-feathers are made to fly in all directions and I myself amscourged back among my brother-jackdaws, the impostors, charlatans, and quacks of myriad kinds. This is the purport and the spirit of Dr. Royce's ostensible review, "_as a whole_. " Is it the "fair criticism"which the law allows? Or is it the "libel" which the law condemns? Isit the fair and critical judgment which your silence shall sanction, as Harvard's official verdict on my work? Or is it the libellous andvulgar abuse which your speech shall rebuke, as shaming Harvard morethan me by bringing the ethics and manners of the literary Bedouininto the professor's chair?

V. 

But, gentlemen, the gravest aspect of Dr. Royce's ostensible reviewremains still to be considered. Is libel--vulgar, violent, and brutallibel--the means by which Harvard University, represented by one ofher professors of philosophy who openly claims to address the generalpublic in the name of his office and of her, proposes to realize thelofty ideal of her President, and make herself the "philosophicalpioneer" for each new generation in the pursuit of truth? Is this thewelcome which she accords to serious, dignified, and not unscholarlyworks, giving the results, however partially and imperfectly wroughtout, of patient and independent reflection for more than thirty yearson the highest problems of human life and thought? Is this the bestsympathy and encouragement she has to offer to her own sons when theytake up in earnest the task of helping her to realize her own ideal?Is this the attitude in which she confronts the great questions of theage, and the spirit which she aims to foster in her young men? I donot believe it; but you alone, gentlemen, can give the authoritativeanswer to such queries. 

When civil service reformers plead the urgent necessity of politicalreform, they are irrelevantly charged by the adherents of the spoilssystem with being "hypocrites and pharisees. " Precisely so, when Iplead the urgent necessity of philosophical reform, I am irrelevantlycharged by Dr. Royce, in effect, with being a false pretender, aplagiarist, and an impostor. The charge is just as true in one case asin the other. But, be the charge true or untrue, the attention of keenand candid minds is not to be diverted by this perfectly transparentdevice from the main point of reform. 

What is this needed philosophical reform?

Briefly, _to substitute the scientific method for the idealisticmethod in philosophy_, as the only possible means, in this criticaland sceptical age, of making ethics and religion so reasonable as tocommand the continued allegiance of reasonable minds. Unphilosophizedscience conceives the universe as nothing but a Machine-World; and inthis conception there is no room for any Ethical Ideal. Unscientificphilosophy conceives the universe as nothing but a Thought-World; andin this conception there is no room for any Mechanical Real. On thepossibility of developing a scientific philosophy out of thescientific method itself must depend at last the only possibility, forreasonable men, of believing equally in the real principles ofmechanical science and in the ideal principles of ethical science. To-day the greatest obstacle to such a reasonable belief is the"philosophical idealism" which directly contradicts it; and thegreatest reform needed in modern thought, above all in the theory ofethics, is the substitution of the scientific method for theidealistic method in philosophy itself. 

The cause of philosophical reform, indeed, cannot be long delayed byany Philistinism in those who, by their professional position, oughtto be its most ardent friends. The method of science is destined torevolutionize philosophy--to modernize it by founding it anew upon athoroughly realistic and scientific theory of universals. The netresult of all the physical sciences thus far, the one fixed result towhich all their other results steadily point with increasingly evidentconvergence, is that _the already known constitution of the realuniverse is that of the Machine_. This universal fixed result, and notmere individual self-consciousness, is the necessary and onlybeginning-point of a constructive philosophy of Nature; for, where thespecial sciences end, there universal philosophy must begin. It is thetask of philosophy to-day to show that the unquestionably mechanicalconstitution of the universe, instead of being the ultimate boundaryof scientific investigation, is merely the starting-point in a newseries of investigations, no less scientific than those of physicalscience, but far more profound; and to show that the mechanicalconstitution itself, when deeply studied and comprehended, necessarilyinvolves the organic and the personal constitutions. In this way, andI believe in no other way, can it be proved to the satisfaction of themodern intelligence that the Mechanical Real itself, at bottom, includes the Ethical Ideal--that the Moral Law, the Divine Idealitself, is the innermost Fact of Nature. I have made, and make now, not the slightest personal "pretension"; but, finding in all myreading no outline of any such argument as this, and believing it tobe fruitful of the very noblest results, I have done my best to pointout its possibilities to other earnest searchers after truth. Notuntil this new field has been faithfully examined and explored andproved to be sterile, shall I cease to recommend it to the attentionof all who would fain _see reason_ to believe that the Ethical Idealis no Unreality, but rather the innermost Reality of the real universeitself. I speak only to those who have souls to hear and to respond;let the rest listen to Dr. Royce, and be dupes of his "professionalwarning. " But the cause of philosophical reform will not be stayed byhim or by them: the world's heart is hungry for higher truth thanidealism can discover, and will be grateful in the end to anyphilosophy which shall show what mighty moral conviction, whatunspeakable spiritual invigoration, must needs grow out ofcomprehension of the despised Real. 

These thoughts are not remote abstractions, up in the air, out ofreach, of no practical value or application; they touch the very lifeand soul of Harvard University. For want of such thoughts, many of thebrightest and most intellectual of her students, graduates from thephilosophical courses, go out year after year disbelieving totally inthe possibility of arriving at any fundamental "truth" whatever, evenin ethics. Several years ago, the then President of the Harvard"Philosophical Club" said in my hearing that he "saw no ground ofmoral obligation anywhere in the universe"; and this declaration wasapparently assented to by every one of the fifteen or twenty memberspresent. This very last summer, a recent graduate told me that he leftcollege bewildered, depressed, and "disheartened, " because he sawnowhere any ground of rational "conviction" about anything; and thatit was "just the same with all the other fellows"--that is, all hiscompanions in the study of philosophy. It is time, high time, thatthis state of things should be searchingly investigated in theinterest of Harvard University itself, the facts determined, theircauses ascertained. While such a state of things prevails, Harvardconspicuously fails to be a "philosophical pioneer" except in adistinctly retrograde direction--conspicuously fails to discharge thehighest service which she owes to the world: namely, to send out heryoung graduates well armed beforehand for the battle of life withclear, strong, and lofty _moral convictions_. Whatever other causesmay exist for the failure, one cause at least is certain--theself-proved and amazing inability of one of her professors ofphilosophy to give an honest or intelligent reception to a thoughtful, closely reasoned, and earnest plea for philosophical reform in thisvery direction, or to criticise it with anything better thanirrelevant and unparliamentary personalities, studied and systematicmisrepresentation both of the plea and of the pleader, and ademoralizing example of libel, so bitter and so extreme as to furnishabundant ground for prosecution. 

VI. 

Here, gentlemen, you may very properly inquire: "Why do you not, then, prosecute Dr. Royce in the courts, instead of bringing the case beforeus?"

Briefly, because I have not yet exhausted those milder means ofobtaining redress which it befits a peaceable and non-litigiouscitizen to employ before resorting to legal measures. You would havehad just cause to complain of me, if I had precipitately prosecutedone of your professors for a "professional" attack without giving youpreviously an opportunity to discipline him in your own way, and indignified recognition of your own ultimate responsibility. Aprosecution may not, I trust will not, prove necessary; for I haveneither malice nor vindictiveness to gratify, but only a resolutepurpose to defend my reputation effectually against a malicious libel, and not to permit the libeller to set up a plausible claim that, bysilence and passive submission, I "tacitly confess the justice of anofficial condemnation by Harvard University of my 'philosophicalpretensions. '" Except for that one phrase, "professional warning, " inDr. Royce's attack, this appeal would never have been written, or theleast notice taken of his intrinsically puerile "criticisms. " When Mr. Herbert Spencer, whom I have more than once publicly criticised, canyet magnanimously write to me of this very book, "I do not see anyprobability that it will change my beliefs, yet I rejoice that thesubject should be so well discussed, "--and Mr. William EwartGladstone, "I am very conscious of the force with which you handle thesubject, "--and ex-President Noah Porter, "I thank you very sincerelyfor sending me a copy of your last book; I had already read it nearlytwice, and found much in it very admirable and timely, "--I could verywell afford to pass over Dr. Royce's ineffectual "criticisms" withindifference. But when he insinuates to the uninformed public thatthese same "criticisms" have the weighty sanction of HarvardUniversity, it is quite another matter. That calls upon me to defendmyself against so atrocious a calumny. 

But even self-defence has its proprieties, and to these I scrupulouslysubmit. The first step was to send a reply to the periodical whichpublished the attack. This was sent. At first, Dr. Royce effusivelyagreed to its publication, and wrote a rejoinder to be publishedsimultaneously with it. Later, in alarm, he procured its rejection, and, through legal counsel, served a formal notice upon me not topublish or to circulate it at all. The second step was to demand fromDr. Royce a specific retraction and apology; this he contemptuouslyrefused. The third step was to appeal from the recalcitrant employeeto the responsible employer, and to lay the case respectfully beforethe supreme representatives of Harvard University itself. This I nowdo, and it is entirely unnecessary to look any farther. But, in orderto lay the case before you fully, it is incumbent upon me to state thedetails of these proceedings with some minuteness, and I now proceedto unfold the extraordinary tale. 

VII. 

Dr. Royce wound up his ostensible review with these words of bravadoand of challenge: "_We must show no mercy, --as we ask none. _" Thisfierce flourish of trumpets I understood to be, at least, a fearlesspublic pledge of a fair hearing in the "Journal of Ethics" of which hewas one of the editors. Moreover, I conceived that a magazineexpressly devoted to ethics would be ashamed not to practise theethics which it preached--ashamed not to grant to the accused afreedom scrupulously made equal to that which it had already grantedto the accuser. Lastly, I was averse to litigation, and desired to useno coarser weapon, even against a calumniator and libeller, than thesharp edge of reason itself. 

Accordingly, I sought redress in the first instance from the"International Journal of Ethics. " On January 21, I mailed to Mr. S. Burns Weston, the office editor, an article in reply to Dr. Royce'sostensible review, together with a letter in which I wrote: "I do notat all complain of your publishing Dr. Royce's original article, although it was a most malicious and slanderous one, and undertook(not to put too fine a point upon it) to post me publicly as a quack. If you do not deny my indefeasible right to be heard in self-defencein the same columns, I shall feel that I have no cause whatever toregard you or your committee as a party to the outrage, and shallentertain no feelings towards you or towards them other than such asare perfectly friendly. Let even slander and malice be heard, if truthshall be as free to reply. " Pressing engagements had prevented me fromwriting the article in season for the January number of the "Journalof Ethics, " but it was in ample season for the April number. 

I sent it at last because I had full confidence in the soundness ofwhat Thomas Jefferson said so well: "Truth and reason can maintainthemselves without the aid of coercion, if left free to defendthemselves. But then they must defend themselves. Eternal lies andsophisms on one side, and silence on the other, are too unequal. "

The "International Journal of Ethics" is under the control of an"editorial committee" of eight, Dr. Felix Adler at the head and Dr. Royce at the end; the other six members live in Europe and have noshare in the home management. Mr. Weston is not a member of thecommittee, has little editorial authority, and, in case ofdisagreement between the two American members, would, as he himselfexpressly and frankly informed me in answer to a direct question, obeyimplicitly the directions of Dr. Adler. To Dr. Adler, therefore, belongs the general and ultimate editorial responsibility, whetherlegal or moral, since, according to Mr. Western's just quoteddeclaration, Dr. Adler alone has actual power either to procure or toprevent publication; while to Dr. Royce is assigned merely the specialdepartment of "theoretical ethics. " Hence Dr. Adler and Dr. Royce werejointly responsible for the original libel, the latter for writing it, the former for publishing it; but Dr. Adler alone was editoriallyresponsible for publishing or refusing to publish my reply to it. Itwas to Dr. Adler alone, as responsible editor-in-chief of the "Journalof Ethics, " that I looked for publication of my defence, as the bestpossible reparation for the wrong done in publishing the libellousattack; and I looked to him with confidence for this partial andinadequate reparation, believing that, as head of the "ethical culturemovement, " he would be anxious to conduct the "Journal of Ethics" inaccordance with the highest principles of justice, honor, and fairplay. 

To my astonishment and indignation, however, my manuscript, instead ofbeing considered and finally passed upon by Dr. Adler, was forwardedby him or by his direction to Dr. Royce! The latter, getting wind ofit, had "insisted" that it belonged to his department of "theoreticalethics, " and "claimed the right" to _edit it with a rejoinder in thesame issue_. Nothing could be conceived more unfair or more absurd. Alibel had been published by Dr. Adler, and Dr. Adler sent the defenceagainst this libel to be edited by the libeller himself! Protest wasin vain. Dr Adler denied his own moral responsibility, washed hishands of the whole affair, and even refused to enlighten himself as tohis own duty (notwithstanding my urgent request that he should do so)by taking counsel of some wise and able lawyer of his ownacquaintance. Instead of doing this, he affected to consider myself-defence against a libel as merely a reply to an ordinary"book-criticism, " made a few inquiries as to the "usual practice ofjournals" with reference to book-criticisms alone, turned my articleover to Dr. Royce as one on "theoretical ethics, " and permitted him toattach to it a rejoinder which reiterated the original libel withadditions and improvements, but in which he took pains to say of myreply: "I may add that even now it does not occur to me to feelpersonally wounded, nor yet uneasy at Dr. Abbot's present warmth. "These words have a peculiar interest with reference to his later legalnotice against all publication or circulation of this very reply: hisassumed or genuine pachydermatousness soon gave way to fearfulapprehension of its effect upon the public mind. 

In no sense whatever was my reply an article on "theoretical ethics. "To what part of the "theory of ethics" belongs Dr. Royce's falsepersonal accusation of "extravagant pretensions"? To what part of the"theory of ethics" belongs Dr. Royce's false personal accusation of"sinning against the most obvious demands of literaryproperty-rights"? To what part of the "theory of ethics" belongs Dr. Royce's "professional warning" against pretensions which were nevermade? His false accusations and their false grounds were the maintheme of my article, and they had nothing to do with "theoreticalethics, " Dr Adler and Dr. Royce to the contrary notwithstanding. Dr. Royce had no shadow of right to set up so preposterous a claim, andDr. Adler had no shadow of right to yield to it, as he weakly did, thereby violating his own undeniable obligation, as editor-in-chief, to do his utmost to repair the wrong which he himself had done inpublishing a libel. My article was avowedly nothing but a defenceagainst this libel, and, as such, was necessarily addressed to theresponsible editor of the "Journal of Ethics, " not to the sub-editorof one of its special departments--most assuredly not to the libellerhimself. The only fair and just course was to publish this defencealone by itself, precisely as the libel had been published alone byitself, and afterwards to allow Dr. Royce to follow it, if he pleased, with a rejoinder in the succeeding number. I made not the slightestobjection to one rejoinder or a dozen rejoinders from him, providedthe responsible editor held the balance true, accorded as fair ahearing to the accused as he had accorded to the accuser, and grantedto each in turn an opportunity to plead his cause without interruptionby the other. I asked no more than what Dr. Royce had alreadyreceived--an opportunity to enjoy the undivided and undistractedattention of the audience for a limited time. He had had the ear ofthe public for six months. Could I not have it for three?

But I regret to say that considerations of equal justice seemed tohave no weight whatever with Dr. Adler. Dr. Royce, despite his publicpledge, was "asking for mercy, " after all, and got from Dr. Adler allhe asked for; I asked Dr. Adler for equity alone, and could not geteven that. The sole concession made was that I might follow Dr. Royce's rejoinder with a second reply in the same number, thus closingthe case with a last word for the defence. 

To this last proposal, in order not to refuse a meagre measure ofjustice, I consented under protest. But the proof-sheets of Dr. Royce's rejoinder, to which I was to reply, did not reach me tillMarch 18, and were accompanied with a notice from the "Journal ofEthics" that my reply must be mailed "within ten hours after receivingRoyce's proof. " This notice I answered as follows:--

"The proof of Royce's rejoinder, with your notes of the 16th and 17th, arrived this morning at 9 A. M. As I have had to be at my teaching till3 P. M. , it was obviously impossible to mail a reply by 7 P. M. Hence Itelegraphed to you at once: '_I protest against the gross injustice ofpostponing my article, or of publishing this new attack without thelast word you promised me. It is impossible to write this now_ [_i. E. _, within the ten hours stipulated]. _If you have any love of justice, publish my article now, and postpone the rejoinders to next issue. _'Nothing stands in the way of this, the only fair course, exceptRoyce's insistence on his right to deprive me of the equality oftreatment which I supposed he himself guaranteed in his--'as we asknone. ' To hold back my reply to his libel for three months longer, merely because he is afraid to let it go forth without an attempt tobreak its force in the same number, would be disgracefully unjust inhim and in the 'Journal. ' His rejoinder is simply a fresh libel; thereis nothing in it to which I cannot easily and effectually reply. Butwhat _right_ is there in refusing to me the opportunity of answeringone libel at a time? Or in compelling me to be silent nine months[from October to July], in order to save him from being silent threemonths [from April to July]? It will be a bitter comment on thesincerity of the 'ethical culture movement' to make so unethical ajudgment in so grave a case as this. "

But the April number of the "Journal of Ethics, " nevertheless, waspublished without my article. The latter was all in type, and theproof-sheets had been corrected; nothing prevented its publication inApril except (1) Dr. Royce's insistence that my reply to his firstlibel should _not be published at all without his second libel_, and(2) Dr. Adler's weak submission to this unjust and pusillanimousdemand of his associate. 

The whole matter was thus most inequitably postponed to the Julynumber, primarily at Dr. Royce's instigation. But I now found that Iwas to be refused the freedom necessary to self-defence against thesecond libel--the same freedom already yielded in replying to thefirst. Now to answer a libel effectively requires the freedom, not ofthe parliament, but of the courts. A mere literary discussion admitsof parliamentary freedom alone, and properly excludes all reflectionsupon personal character. But Dr. Royce had most unparliamentarilyturned his ostensible review into a libel, and, contrary to all canonsof literary discussion, had indulged himself in reflections upon mypersonal character as malicious as they were false. Now the onlypossible disproof of a libel is the proof that it _is_ a libel, --thatit is either untruthful, or malicious, or both; and, since a libel isboth a civil injury and a criminal offence, the proof of its libellouscharacter cannot be established without reflecting upon the personalcharacter of the libeller. Hence Dr. Royce himself, by writing alibel, had self-evidently raised the question of his own personalcharacter, and bound himself beforehand, by his own act, to submitwith what grace he could to the necessary consequences of that act;and to seek to shield himself from these consequences, which he shouldhave foreseen clearly and nerved himself to bear bravely, was only toincur the ridicule invited by a timorous man who first strikesanother and then runs away. Dr. Adler, moreover, as the responsibleeditor of the "Journal of Ethics, " had laid himself, by publishing Dr. Royce's libel, under the clear moral obligation of according to theaccused the same freedom of the courts which he had already accordedto the accuser; and to seek to escape this moral obligation was toincur the censure invited by any one who assumes the editorialfunction without properly informing himself of the duties which itimposes with reference to third parties. Both the one and the otherhad estopped themselves from denying to the accused in self-defencethe same freedom of the courts which they had granted to themselves asaccusers in attack. 

Notwithstanding these plain facts, Dr. Royce and Dr. Adler united indenying to me the necessary freedom of self-defence against the attackwhich they had united in making. 

At first, Dr. Royce undertook to dictate to me beforehand the natureof my reply to his rejoinder, and sought to restrict it to theparliamentary freedom of a purely literary discussion. Ignoring thefact that he had himself rendered a purely literary discussionimpossible by his own reflections upon personal character, heendeavored now to restrict my defence to a purely literary discussionof what, with amusing deficiency in the sense of humor, he consideredto be his "criticisms"; whereas these pointless and ignorantcriticisms had no importance whatever except as leading up to his"professional warning. " The only object of a reply to his rejoinderwas to expose its true character as a second libel, and thereby makeplain to the dullest mind the outrage of his "professional warning. "Evidently fearing this, and being anxious to prevent the exposure, hesent to me through Mr. Weston, who called upon me for the purpose onApril 15, the following unspeakable document, apparently without asuspicion that it pricked the bubble of his previous iridescent pledgeto "ask no mercy":--

 MEMORANDUM OF APR. 13, 1891. 

 1. Dr. Abbot's article must be in Mr. Weston's hands in MS. By June 1, for issue in the July No. , if possible. 

 2. This article must not exceed, in actual number of words, Prof. Royce's last rejoinder. 

 3. Prof. Royce is not to reply to the above article of Dr. Abbot before or simultaneously with its publication in the "Journal of Ethics"; and the controversy is thus to be closed in the "Journal" by Dr. Abbot. 

 4. Dr. Abbot's article is to be strictly a rejoinder, is not to raise essentially new issues, is not to assault any further his opponent's personal character, is to be parliamentary in form, and free from personally abusive language. Otherwise it is perfectly free as to plainness of speech. 

 5. Prof. Royce is to see this article at once, and before it goes to the printer. 

 6. Should Prof. Royce, after seeing the paper, object to the article as "_not in conformity with the conditions of No. 4_ (_above_), " then, but only then, the article is to be submitted, before publication, to the judgment of some impartial friend or friends of both the disputants, such friend or friends to be chosen as promptly as possible, and by agreement, and to arbitrate the question, "_Whether Dr. Abbot's final rejoinder is in conformity with the conditions of this present memorandum?_" The arbitrator or arbitrators may be any person or persons agreable [_sic_] to the wishes of both the disputants, as determined in case the mentioned objection of Prof. Royce should be made, but not otherwise. 

 7. Should Prof. Royce _not_ object to the article, or should he not formally object _on the grounds mentioned_, then the article of Dr. Abbot is to close the controversy in the "Journal of Ethics. "

 8. Should Dr. Abbot _not_ accept the conditions of the present memorandum, he is at liberty to withdraw his paper, or else to let both the papers now in type appear as they are, at his pleasure. 

 [Signed] J. R. 

It is difficult to conceive the state of mind in which soextraordinary a document as this could have originated. My answer toDr. Royce's officious interference was a short and dry rejection _intoto_. Dr. Royce was not the responsible editor of the "Journal ofEthics, " and had no power to dictate any conditions of publicationwhatever. That a libeller should actually presume to dictate to thelibelled the terms of his defence, to demand that this defence shouldbe submitted to himself in advance of publication for approval ordisapproval, and, in case of disapproval, to invoke a board ofreferees for the sole purpose of enforcing his own arbitrary andpreposterous "conditions, "--this was too exquisitely absurd. But therewas method in the madness. The central aim of the "Memorandum" isclear on its face: namely, _to refuse the forensic freedom necessaryto self-defence against a libel, and to concede only the parliamentaryfreedom proper to a purely literary discussion_. Since, however, theonly object of my writing at all was to expose his rejoinder as asecond libel, and since the central aim of the "Memorandum" was todefeat this very object, nothing could be plainer than this: that Dr. Royce, having been guilty of two unprovoked and malicious libels, nowsought to prevent the exposure of his guilt by suppressing thenecessary freedom of self-defence. For, I repeat, the only possibledefence against a libel is to prove that it _is_ a libel, and thiscannot be done without reflecting upon the "personal character" of thelibeller. It was no fault of mine that he had himself rendered a"parliamentary" discussion impossible; it was no fault of mine that hehad made his own "personal character" the real point at issue; it wasno fault of mine that he now betrayed his secret alarm, uttered a cryfor "mercy, " and convicted himself out of his own mouth, in hisextraordinary and indescribable "Memorandum. " That "Memorandum" tellsthe whole story. 

On the failure of Dr. Royce's very injudicious attempt at dictation, Dr. Adler found himself compelled to assume the editorial power andresponsibility, which he ought to have assumed and exercised in thefirst instance by refusing publication to Dr. Royce's original libel. But, yielding to Dr. Royce's influence, he took the same position, andstill tried to shield the libeller from the just and lawfulconsequences of his libel. No principle is more firmly established inthe public conscience, as interpreted by the common law, than that thefact of an attack by A involves the right of self-defence by B. Whoever, therefore, has permitted an attack which he might haveprevented is bound to permit the self-defence, also; and Dr. Adler, having granted to Dr. Royce the freedom of libelling me, was bound togrant to me the equal freedom of defending myself against the libel. But this equal freedom Dr. Adler denied. After some fruitlesscorrespondence, I wrote to him on May 4 as follows: "I require thefreedom, not of 'parliament, ' but of the courts--freedom to present my'facts, ' and no less to draw my 'inferences'--freedom to array myevidence, and no less to make my pleading. By publishing his newlibel, you estop yourself from denying me this freedom. If you do denyit, I withdraw altogether and seek justice and redress elsewhere. Iask only what is self-evidently fair: (1) equal space with Dr. Royce, (2) equal freedom with Dr. Royce, (3) no further rejoinders by Dr. Royce, and (4) no editorial mention of the matter at all from the'Journal' itself. " To this letter Dr. Adler merely telegraphed hisfinal reply on May 6 in these brief terms: "Regret your insistence onfreedom of courts--parliamentary freedom open to you. " This ended thematter, so far as the "Journal of Ethics" was concerned, in Dr. Adler's explicit denial of a full and fair hearing in its columns to aparty calumniated and libelled by one of his own contributors and amember of his own "editorial committee. "

Negotiations, it is true, for the publication of my reply in the Julynumber were a little later re-opened by Dr. Adler, on receiving advicefrom a legal friend of his own that to publish it would be his wisestcourse; but he himself broke them off on a trivial pretext, afterreceiving contrary advice from Dr. Royce's counsel, together with acopy of the legal protest sent to me personally. Thus Dr. Roycehimself, recalling his original consent, procured the final rejectionby the "Journal of Ethics" of my reply to his own attack. On June 19, I was notified that the July number had been made up without it. 

But already, on June 9, I had received from Mr. J. B. Warner, actingas Dr. Royce's counsel, this formal protest against any other usewhatever of my reply: "On Dr. Royce's behalf, I must warn you that heprotests against the publication or any circulation of it, in itspresent shape, and must point out to you that it may, if circulated, entail a serious legal responsibility. " To this strangely impoliticand utterly futile attempt to intimidate me in the defence of my ownreputation, I chose to offer not the slightest resistance. The protestonly facilitated that defence. How could a libeller more conspicuouslyput himself in the wrong, or more effectually ruin his own evil causein all eyes, than by _trying to gag the man he had injured_? First, toprevent publication in the "Journal of Ethics" of the very reply hehad publicly and defiantly challenged, and then to suppress allcirculation of a few privately printed copies of it by means of legalthreats: if Dr. Royce could afford to commit such blunders, why shouldI shield him from himself? "Whom the gods destroy, they first makemad. "

Before proceeding to any more energetic measures, however, in order tovindicate my reputation, I was anxious to offer to Dr. Royce anopportunity of doing me justice in a manner which should be consistentwith full vindication, yet should involve the least possible publicityand the least possible mortification to himself. Accordingly, on June20, I wrote to Mr. Warner thus: "I beg leave to enclose a Card, which, if returned to me within a week from to-day, unchanged, dated, andsigned by Dr. Royce, and if actually published in the October numberof the 'Journal, ' will render unnecessary further measures ofself-vindication as now contemplated. I send this because you assuredme that Dr. Royce disclaims all malice in the publication of theoriginal article I complain of, and because I am willing to test thesincerity of his disclaimer before resorting to other measures for myself-protection. I expect you, who came to me in the character of apacificator, and who expressed a creditable desire, in which I fullyjoin, for the settlement of this trouble in some way which shalloccasion no scandal to Harvard College, to exert your utmostinfluence with Dr. Royce to persuade him to perform this act ofmanifest justice to me. A frank retraction and apology, when unjustcharges have been made as now, is not dishonorable and ought not to behumiliating; and I shall consider Dr. Royce's action in this matter asshowing the sincerity or insincerity of his disclaimer of all malicein his original article. " The enclosed paper above mentioned wasthis:--

 A CARD. 

 CAMBRIDGE, June --, 1891. 

 I. I admit that I have no knowledge whatever of any "extravagant pretensions" made by Dr. Abbot "as to the originality and profundity of his still unpublished system of philosophy. "

 II. I admit that Dr. Abbot did not, consciously or unconsciously, "borrow his theory of universals from Hegel, " or "sin against the most obvious demands of literary property-rights. "

 III. I unconditionally retract my "professional warning to the liberal-minded public against Dr. Abbot's philosophical pretensions, " acknowledge that it was groundless and unjustifiable, and apologize to Dr. Abbot for having published it in the "International Journal of Ethics. "

 IV. I authorize the publication of this retraction and apology in the next number of the "International Journal of Ethics" without note or comment. 

In his answer of June 24, Mr. Warner informed me that Dr. Royce hadgone to Denver, and wrote: "As for the Card which you propose, I willleave Dr. Royce to make his own answer after he has seen it. I willsay, however, for my own part, that, while he has always been ready todisclaim any desire to injure you personally, I think that hisopinions concerning your philosophical system and its origin areunchanged, and he is not likely to retract them. I must say, too, thatyou have put your Card in a form in which you could not have expectedDr. Royce to sign it, and I do not regard it as any step, on yourpart, toward a pacific settlement, nor think your demand a reasonableone to make of a self-respecting man. "

The next day, June 25, I wrote to Mr. Warner: "I ought distinctly todeny that my rejected article is 'a libellous paper. ' Its statementsare true; its motive is not malice, but a self-evident purpose todefend myself against Dr. Royce's libel; and, even if it should beconcluded to come under any legal definition of 'libel, ' I maintainthat it is self-evidently a 'justifiable libel. ' If I pay any heed toyour notice, it is merely because your notice strengthens mycase. --You do not mention when Dr. Royce will return from Denver; but, because my purpose in enclosing to you that Card is in good faith apacific one, I will wait a reasonable time for his return beyond thedate I mentioned. You will not judge the character of that Cardaccurately, and you cannot give sound or salutary advice to yourclient, if you ignore the libellous character of his original article. I do not see how 'a self-respecting man' could ever have written sucha paper; but, if he did it inadvertently and not maliciously, he wouldcertainly do one of two things: (1) either submit courageously, unflinchingly, and without legal protest, to the reply it challengedand evoked, or (2) manfully retract charges demonstrated, as thesehave been, to be false. Have you really a different idea of'self-respect'? Certainly not, for you are an honorable gentleman. Bethis as it may, I warn you not to persist in considering that Card asother than a pacific step on my part, if you desire to counsel yourclient to his own good, or to prove yourself a real friend to HarvardCollege. I say this in good faith. "

To this, on July 2, Mr. Warner replied: "Dr. Royce has returned, and Ihave submitted to him the Card which you have prepared. As Ianticipated, Dr. Royce says that he cannot sign it, nor can I advisehim to do so. It goes far beyond any disavowal of malice or personalhostility, and it amounts to a retraction of the opinions which heactually holds about your philosophical system, and that retractionyou surely cannot expect him to make. Dr. Royce has again expressed tome his regret that the form of his article should have wounded you, and he is entirely ready to disavow any intention of wounding you. "

On July 11, I wrote in answer: "Most certainly I do not expect, orwish, that Dr. Royce should disavow any philosophical 'opinions' hemay hold. What I complain of is a _misstatement of fact_, demonstratedto be such, which I believe to have had its origin in a spirit ofmalicious detraction, and to be now persevered in from no other cause. In my reply to his article, which he himself challenged and thenpusillanimously suppressed, he has had abundant means of information. If he now refuses to correct a misstatement which grossly injures me, after he has been informed of the truth, the refusal admits of but oneinterpretation, and throws a satirical light on the merely private'regret' he professes. Inasmuch, however, as you have objected (quiteunnecessarily, as I think) to the 'form' of the Card I sent you, andinasmuch as I intend to leave no room for doubt as to Dr. Royce's realanimus in this affair, I propose now that he send me such a retractionand apology as you yourself shall deem adequate, fitting, and due. Inyour letter of June 9, you admitted that Dr. Royce had 'transgressedthe limits of courteous discussion' and that you 'do not defend in allrespects the tone of the review. ' It is plain enough that you, Dr. Royce's own counsel, perceive at least something improper, somethingthat ought to be retracted and apologized for. You are, then, Isubmit, bound to do what you can to right the wrong, which is not atall done by Dr. Royce's profuse, _but private_, disclaimers. Heprofesses to bear no malice. Very well, then: let him make reparationfor the wrong he has committed. He owes it to himself, if he considershimself a gentleman, certainly to his position in Harvard College, tosend me some paper, specifying what he himself regrets in his ownarticle, with authority to publish this paper in the 'Journal ofEthics. ' The Card I sent sufficiently indicates what I think is due tome; if Dr. Royce, in other language, covers the same ground, it willbe accepted as satisfactory. That is the very least that a gentlemanwould do under the circumstances. You cannot object to this proposalon account of its 'form'; if either you or he objects to it at all, it must be on account of its substance. Certainly you cannot affect toconsider it as other than 'pacific. ' I shall await your answer to itas to the only 'pacific step on my part' which remains possible tome. "

In reply to this letter, on July 24, Mr. Warner wrote: "I forwardedyour letter of July 11 to Dr. Royce, and he has written a reply to mewhich I think it best to enclose as he wrote it. " In this enclosedletter, dated July 14, Dr. Royce first re-affirmed, in substance, thetruth of his false and ridiculous accusation of plagiarism from Hegel, and then wrote as follows: "Now as to my feeling concerning what wasregrettable in my article. I repeat once more--regrettable, in myeyes, was the manner of the article in so far as it actually gaveunnecessary pain to Dr. Abbot. And I regard any pain as unnecessarythat may have been due, _not_ to my objectively justified opinion ofDr. Abbot's work (an opinion which I cannot alter in the least), butto any severity of expression that may not have been absolutelyneedful to give form to this opinion itself. Dr. Abbot's reply hasshown him to be not merely alive to the strong difference of opinionthat separates us, but personally offended by an attack that wasintended to be indeed severe, but directed wholly to matters ofprofessional, but not of personal concern. This attitude of Dr. Abbot's I regret, and, in so far as I am to blame for it, I am willingto express my regret publicly. "

This letter of Dr. Royce is, in effect, a deliberate and unqualifiedre-affirmation of every fact as alleged, and every inference as drawn, in his original libel--a deliberate and contemptuous re-affirmation ofthe whole system of elaborate misrepresentation which constitutes itone tissue of libel from beginning to end. Nothing whatever in thesubstance of his article is retracted or regretted; nothing is"regrettable" even in its form, except vaguely, hypothetically, andconditionally; the only thing Dr. Royce "regrets, " as a fact, is thathis "objectively justified" and "intentionally severe attack" shouldhave given needless "personal offence" and "unnecessary pain" to itsobject! This deliberate and contemptuous refusal to recall, to modify, or to apologize for any of the false accusations he has made againstme is, I submit, demonstration of the malice which originally promptedthem, and now moves him to maintain them; nothing further is needed tomake their malicious character perfectly plain, and to prove theinsincerity of his disclaimers of malice. But Dr. Royce seriouslymistakes the nature of the effect produced by his "attack, " when heaffects to consider it as the quite needless excitation of excessivesensitiveness. If a gentleman in a crowd discovers his nearestneighbor engaged in filching his pocket-book, and at once hands theculprit over to the police, it would hardly be graphic to describe hisframe of mind as needless "personal offence" or "unnecessary pain";and the expressions are no more graphic as to my own frame of mind, when I discover Dr. Royce endeavoring to filch from me my reputationin the name of Harvard University. It is not always safe to reckon onthe absence, in parties confessedly "attacked, " of all capacity for_moral indignation_, or all capacity for moral self-defence. 

In reply to Mr. Warner, August 4, I wrote as follows: "Permit mefurther to say, with regard to Dr. Royce's letter, that I can onlyinterpret it as a distinct refusal to retract his accusation that Ihave made 'extravagant pretensions as to the originality andprofundity of my still unpublished system of philosophy'--a distinctrefusal to retract his accusation that I have 'borrowed my theory ofuniversals from Hegel'--a distinct refusal to retract his'professional warning' based upon these accusations. These were thechief points of my Card, and I note the refusal implied by Dr. Royce'sevasive letter. But I decline to accept his plea of'conscientiousness' in maintaining the accusation as to Hegel. I mightas well plead 'conscientiousness' in maintaining an accusation thatDr. Royce assassinated Abraham Lincoln, in face of the evidence thatJohn Wilkes Booth was the assassin. "

Here the correspondence closed. My apology for inflicting it upon you, gentlemen, must be the necessity of showing to you that, as I wasplainly bound to do, I first exhausted every means of private redressbefore laying the matter before you publicly. Not till I had failed toobtain a fair hearing in the same periodical which published Dr. Royce's libel, and not till I had failed to obtain from Dr. Roycehimself a retraction of this libel, did I find myself reduced to thealternatives of either acquiescing in your own unwarrantablyinsinuated condemnation, or else of clearing my assailed reputationthrough direct and open appeal to you. I am no lover of strife, andleast of all do I now seek revenge. I seek only such a vindication ofmy good name from unmerited calumny as you, in your own good judgmentand in your own chosen way, are now, I most respectfully submit, boundin justice to give. 

VIII. 

To you, therefore, gentlemen of the Corporation and Board of Overseersof Harvard University, I make with all due deference this publicappeal for redress of a wrong done to me by one of your appointees--awrong done, not in his private capacity as an individual (for which, of course, you would not be justly held responsible), but publicly andexplicitly and emphatically in the name of his "profession, " that is, of his position as a professor in Harvard College. This position is anofficial one, due to your appointment; and his scandalous abuse of itrenders him amenable to discipline by you to whom he owes it. Therefore, I now formally appeal to you for redress of these specificwrongs, committed by Assistant Professor Josiah Royce in flagrantviolation of my rights as a citizen and as a man:--

I. He has published against me, in the "International Journal ofEthics, " a libel which is as wanton and unprovoked as it is maliciousand false, and for which no motive is even conceivable except mereprofessional jealousy or rivalry in authorship. 

II. He has sought to give credibility and respectability to this falseand libellous publication by invoking the authority, not of reason ortruth, but of his mere "professional" position as professor in HarvardUniversity, thereby artfully suggesting and insinuating to theuninformed public that Harvard University sustains him in his attack;whereas, in conferring upon me the degree of doctor of philosophy andin committing to me formerly the conduct of an advanced course ofphilosophical instruction, Harvard University has given emphatictestimony to the contrary. 

III. Repudiating his bold promise to "ask no mercy, " he has sought, with incredible cowardice and meanness, to deprive me of allopportunity of being heard in self-defence, _first_, by excluding fromthe "International Journal of Ethics" my perfectly reasonable reply towhat he himself confesses to have been an "intentionally severeattack, " and, _secondly_, by threatening me through his counsel withlegal prosecution, if I publish it anywhere else or circulate it atall. 

IV. Lastly, when, after all this, in order to spare him themortification and disgrace of a public exposure, and in order toprevent Harvard University from incurring any possible discredit onaccount of his personal misconduct, I proposed to him a pacificsettlement of the whole affair through a simple retraction of hiscalumnious accusations, and that, too, in words of his own choosing, he made no answer but a stubborn and contumelious re-affirmation ofthe original libel. 

I submit that these acts of wrong constitute conduct unbecoming agentleman, a man of honor, or a professor in Harvard University, andjustly entitle me to redress at your hands. This appeal has not beenmade hastily or without a patient and long-protracted effort to securejustice in other ways. Dr. Royce has succeeded hitherto, during manymonths, in defeating that effort; but now the appeal lies to thosewhom he cannot control, and now he must abide your judgment. Askingneither less nor more than justice, and believing that you willrecognize justice as Harvard's highest law, I have the honor to remain, gentlemen, in devoted loyalty to our AlmaMater, Your obedient servant, FRANCIS E. ABBOT. 

CAMBRIDGE, Oct. 1, 1891. 

 * * * * *

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:

On page 5, in the word Boeotia, the oe ligature has been expanded tothe two characters, oe. The sentence begins: Only a native ofBoeotia could be imposed upon by them, when the actual character. . . .