initial commit of ebook 19768HEADmain

1 files changed, 2097 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/19768.txt b/19768.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..17afa67
--- /dev/null
+++ b/19768.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2097 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Public Appeal for Redress to the
+Corporation and Overseers of Harvard University, by Francis Ellingwood Abbot
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: A Public Appeal for Redress to the Corporation and Overseers of Harvard University
+       Professor Royce's Libel
+
+Author: Francis Ellingwood Abbot
+
+Release Date: November 12, 2006 [EBook #19768]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A PUBLIC APPEAL FOR REDRESS ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Curtis Weyant, Diane Monico, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by Case Western Reserve University Preservation Department
+Digital Library.)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+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 HARVARD
+UNIVERSITY:
+
+_Gentlemen_,--Believing it to be a necessary part of good citizenship
+to defend one's reputation against unjustifiable attacks, and
+believing you to have been unwarrantably, but not remotely, implicated
+in an unjustifiable attack upon my own reputation by Assistant
+Professor Josiah Royce, since his attack is made publicly, explicitly,
+and emphatically on the authority of his "professional" position as
+one of your agents and appointees, I respectfully apply to you for
+redress of the wrong, leaving it wholly to your own wisdom and sense
+of justice to decide what form such redress should take. If Dr. Royce
+had not, by clear and undeniable implication, appealed to your high
+sanction to sustain him in his attack,--if he had not undeniably
+sought to create a widespread but false public impression that, in
+making this attack, he spoke, and had a right to speak, with all the
+prestige and authority of Harvard University itself,--I should not
+have deemed it either necessary or becoming to appeal to you in
+self-defence, or, indeed, to take any public notice whatever of an
+attack otherwise unworthy of it. But under the circumstances I am
+confident that you will at once recognize the inevitableness and
+unquestionable propriety of my appeal from the employee to the
+employer, from the agent to the principal; and it would be
+disrespectful to you to doubt for a moment that, disapproving of an
+attack made impliedly and yet unwarrantably in your name, you will
+express your disapprobation in some just and appropriate manner. My
+action in thus laying the matter publicly before you can inflict no
+possible injury upon our honored and revered Alma Mater: injury to
+her is not even conceivable, except on the wildly improbable
+supposition of your being indifferent to a scandalous abuse of his
+position by one of your assistant professors, who, with no imaginable
+motive other than mere professional jealousy or rivalry of authorship,
+has gone to the unheard-of length of "professionally warning the
+public" against a peaceable and inoffensive private scholar, whose
+published arguments he has twice tried, but twice signally failed, to
+meet in an intellectual way. If the public at large should have reason
+to believe that conduct so scandalous as this in a Harvard professor
+will not be condemned by you, as incompatible with the dignity and the
+decencies of his office and with the rights of private citizens in
+general, Harvard University would indeed suffer, and ought to suffer;
+but it is wholly within your power to prevent the growth of so
+injurious a belief. I beg leave, therefore, to submit to you the
+following statement, and to solicit for it the patient and impartial
+consideration which the gravity of the case requires.
+
+
+I.
+
+The first number of a new quarterly periodical, the "International
+Journal of Ethics," published at Philadelphia in October, 1890,
+contained an ostensible review by Dr. Royce of my last book, "The Way
+out of Agnosticism." I advisedly use the word "ostensible," because
+the main purport and intention of the article were not at all to
+criticise a philosophy, but to sully the reputation of the
+philosopher, deprive him of public confidence, ridicule and
+misrepresent his labors, hold him up by name to public obloquy and
+contempt, destroy or lessen the circulation of his books, and, in
+general, to blacken and break down his literary reputation by any and
+every means, even to the extent of aspersing his personal reputation,
+although there had never been the slightest personal collision. Its
+bitter and invidious spirit was not in the least disguised by a few
+exaggerated compliments adroitly inserted here and there: these
+merely furnish the foil needed to give greater potency and efficiency
+to the personal insinuations, and, like Mark Antony's compliments to
+Caesar's assassins, subserved quite too many politic purposes to be
+accepted as sincere. Only a native of Boeotia could be imposed upon by
+them, when the actual character of the book in question was carefully
+misrepresented, and when the self-evident trend, tenor, and aim of the
+ostensible review were to excite public prejudice against the author
+on grounds wholly irrespective of the truth or untruth of his
+expressed opinions.
+
+Of course, the very largest liberty must be and should be conceded to
+legitimate criticism. From this, as is well known, I never shrank in
+the least; on the contrary, I court it, and desire nothing better for
+my books, provided only that the criticism be pertinent, intelligent,
+and fair. But misrepresentation for the purpose of detraction is not
+criticism at all; and (notwithstanding numerous quotations perverted
+by unfair and misleading glosses, including two misquotations quite
+too useful to be accidental) this ostensible review is, from beginning
+to end, nothing but misrepresentation for the purpose of detraction.
+Passing over numerous minor instances, permit me to invite your
+attention 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 to
+argue for the former in opposition to the latter, on the ground of the
+absolute incompatibility of the latter with the scientific method of
+investigation. It had taken the utmost pains to make the contrast
+broad and deep, and to point out its far-reaching consequences by
+explicitly opposing (1) scientific realism to philosophical idealism
+in general, and in particular (2) constructive realism to constructive
+idealism, (3) critical realism to critical idealism, (4) ethical
+realism to ethical idealism, and (5) religious realism to religious
+idealism. Any fair or honorable critic would recognize this contrast
+and opposition between realism and idealism as the very foundation of
+the work he was criticising, and would at least state it candidly, as
+the foundation of his own favorable or unfavorable comments. How did
+Dr. Royce treat it? He not only absolutely ignored it, not only said
+nothing whatever about it, but actually took pains to put the reader
+on a false scent at the start, by assuring him (without the least
+discussion of this all-important point) that my philosophical
+conclusions are "essentially idealistic"!
+
+So gross a misrepresentation as this might be charitably attributed to
+critical incapacity of some sort, if it did not so very conveniently
+pave the way for the second gross misrepresentation which was to
+follow: namely, that the theory actually propounded in my book had
+been, in fact, "_appropriated" and "borrowed" from an idealist_! The
+immense utility of misrepresenting my system at the start as
+"essentially idealistic" lay in the fact that, by adopting this
+stratagem, Dr. Royce could escape altogether the formidable necessity
+of _first arguing the main question of idealism versus realism_.
+Secretly conscious of his own inability to handle that question, to
+refute my "Soliloquy of the Self-Consistent Idealist," or to overthrow
+my demonstration that consistent idealism leads logically to hopeless
+absurdity at last, Dr. Royce found it infinitely easier to deceive his
+uninformed readers by a bold assertion that I myself am an idealist at
+bottom. This assertion, swallowed without suspicion of its absolute
+untruth, would render it plausible and quite credible to assert, next,
+that I had actually "appropriated" my philosophy from a greater
+idealist than myself.
+
+For the only substantial criticism of the book made by Dr. Royce is
+that I "borrowed" my whole theory of universals from
+Hegel--"unconsciously," he has the caution to say; but that
+qualification does not in the least mitigate the mischievous intention
+and effect of his accusation as a glaring falsification of fact and
+artful misdescription of my work. It would be inopportune and
+discourteous to weary you with philosophical discussions. I exposed
+the amazing absurdity of Dr. Royce's accusation of plagiarism in the
+reply to his article which, as appears below, Dr. Royce himself
+anxiously suppressed, and which I should now submit to you, if he had
+not at last taken fright and served upon me a legal protest against
+its circulation. But, to any well-educated man, such an accusation as
+this refutes itself. It would be just as reasonable, just as
+plausible, to accuse Darwin of having borrowed his theory of natural
+selection from Agassiz, or Daniel Webster of having borrowed his
+theory of the inseparable Union from John C. Calhoun, or ex-President
+Cleveland of having borrowed his message on tariff reform from the
+Home Market Club, as to accuse me of having borrowed my theory of
+universals from Hegel. Hegel's theory of universals is divided from
+mine by the whole vast chasm between realism and idealism. The two
+theories contradict each other absolutely, uncompromisingly,
+irreconcilably: Hegel's is a theory of "absolute idealism" or "pure
+thought" (_reines Denken_), that is, of _thought absolutely
+independent of experience_, while mine is a theory of "scientific
+realism," that is, of _thought absolutely dependent upon experience._
+It is quite immaterial here which theory is the true one; the only
+point involved at present is that the two theories flatly contradict
+each 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 of
+universals, or if he had the slightest comprehension of the problems
+it involves, he would never have been so rash as to charge me with
+"borrowing" my theory from Hegel, and thus to commit himself
+irrevocably to a defence of the absurd; but eagerness to accuse
+another has betrayed him into a position whence it is impossible for
+him to escape with honor. Solely by misdescribing my philosophy as
+"essentially idealistic" when it openly and constantly and
+emphatically avows itself to be essentially realistic, could Dr. Royce
+give the faintest color of plausibility to his monstrous and
+supremely ridiculous accusation of plagiarism; solely by presuming
+upon the public ignorance both of Hegel and of my own work could he
+dare to publish such an accusation to the world. These gross
+misrepresentations, however, he did not hesitate to make, since they
+were necessary in order to pave the way to a third and still grosser
+misrepresentation 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 to
+my own "novelty," "originality," and "profundity," not only with
+regard to my published books, but also with regard to my "still
+unpublished system of philosophy." His words are these:--
+
+"Of novelty, good or bad, the book contains, indeed, despite its vast
+pretensions, hardly a sign."
+
+"It is due also to the extravagant pretensions which he frequently
+makes of late as to the originality and profundity of his still
+unpublished system of philosophy, to give the reader some hint of what
+so far appears to be the nature of our author's contributions to
+philosophical reflection."
+
+Precisely what have been these alleged "pretensions"? Dr. Royce cites
+only three instances.
+
+I. He first garbles a sentence in the prefatory Note to "The Way out
+of Agnosticism," by quoting only one phrase from it. The sentence in
+full is this: "By a wholly new line of reasoning, drawn exclusively
+from those sources [science and philosophy], this book aims to show
+that, in order to refute agnosticism and establish enlightened theism,
+nothing is now necessary but to philosophize that very scientific
+method which agnosticism barbarously misunderstands and misuses."
+There is no "pretension" whatever in these words, except that the
+general "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 to
+recall or to modify this perfectly true statement; Dr. Royce, at
+least, has shown none. The "novelty" of the book lies in its very
+attempt to evolve philosophy as a whole out of the scientific method
+itself, as "observation, hypothesis, and experimental verification,"
+by developing the theory of universals which is implicit in that
+purely experiential method; and Dr. Royce does not even try to prove
+that Hegel, or anybody else, has ever made just such an attempt as
+that. Unless there can be shown somewhere a _parallel attempt_, the
+statement 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 task
+of philosophy is to lay deep and solid foundations for the expansion
+[and ideal perfection] of human knowledge in a bold, new, and true
+theory of universals. For so-called modern philosophy rests
+complacently in a theory of universals which is thoroughly mediaeval or
+antiquated." What personal pretension, even of the mildest sort, can
+be conceived to lurk in these innocent words? I did not say that I
+have succeeded in performing that "task"; I repeat now what I have
+often said and what I meant then; namely, that modern science has
+unawares performed it already, that I have faithfully tried to
+formulate and further apply what science has done, and that I
+respectfully submit the result (so far as already published), not to
+such critics as Dr. Royce, but to able, learned, and magnanimous
+students of philosophy everywhere.
+
+III. Lastly, though employing quotation marks so as to evade a charge
+of formal misquotation, he perverts and effectually misquotes a
+sentence of the book in a way which makes it appear exactly what it is
+not,--"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 the
+sunlight of the predestined philosophy of science." This expression is
+perfectly in harmony with the prefatory Note, which says that "_this
+book aims to show_ that, in order to refute agnosticism and establish
+enlightened theism, nothing is now necessary but to philosophize that
+very scientific method which agnosticism barbarously misunderstands
+and misuses," and which immediately adds: "_Of the success of the
+perhaps unwise attempt to show this in so small a compass, the
+educated public must be the judge._" Most certainly, there is no
+"pretension" in this modest and carefully guarded avowal of the simple
+aim of my book. But Dr. Royce twists this modest avowal into a
+barefaced 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 predestined
+philosophy of science.'" Gentlemen, I request you to compare
+thoughtfully the expressions which I have here italicized, and then
+decide for yourselves whether this injurious misquotation is purely
+accidental, 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 misquoting
+what I have published, for the self-evident reason that what I have
+published is not sufficiently "pretentious" for his purpose.
+Disinterested anxiety for the public welfare, and tender sorrow over
+the "harm to careful inquiry" which my book is doing by "getting
+influence over immature or imperfectly trained minds," constrain him
+to accuse me of "frequently making of late extravagant pretensions as
+to the originality and profundity" of my "still unpublished system of
+philosophy."
+
+Precisely what have been these "extravagant pretensions"? Simply
+these:--
+
+In the preface to "Scientific Theism," I said of that book: "It is a
+mere _resume_ of a small portion of a comprehensive philosophical
+system, so far as I have been able to work it out under most
+distracting, discouraging, and unpropitious circumstances of many
+years; and for this reason I must beg some indulgence for the
+unavoidable incompleteness of my work."
+
+Enumerating some reasons why I hesitated to begin the series of papers
+afterwards published as "The Way out of Agnosticism," I said, in the
+first 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 from
+want of opportunity may never be completed; and it seems almost absurd
+to present the abridgment of a work which does not yet exist to be
+abridged."
+
+Finally, in an address printed in the "Unitarian Review" for December,
+1889, I said: "Without advancing any personal claim whatever, permit
+me to take advantage of your indulgent kindness, and to make here the
+first public confession of certain painfully matured results of thirty
+years' thinking, which, in the momentous and arduous enterprise of
+developing a scientific theology out of the scientific method itself,
+appear to be principles of cosmical import.... Perhaps I can make them
+intelligible, as a contribution to that 'Unitary Science' which the
+great Agassiz foresaw and foretold." In a postscript to this address I
+added: "For fuller support of the position taken above, I am
+constrained to refer ... to a large treatise, now in process of
+preparation, which aims to rethink philosophy as a whole in the light
+of modern science and under the form of a natural development of the
+scientific method itself."
+
+What remotest allusion to my own "originality" is contained in these
+passages, or what remotest allusion to my own "profundity"? What
+"pretension" of any sort is here made, whether "extravagant" or
+moderate? Yet this is the only actual evidence, _and the whole of it_,
+on which Dr. Royce dares to accuse me of "frequently making of late
+extravagant pretensions as to the originality and profundity of my
+still unpublished system of philosophy"! The pure absurdity of such an
+accusation reveals itself in the very statement of it. Dr. Royce is
+referring here, be it understood, not to my published books, but to my
+"unpublished system of philosophy." _How does he know anything about
+it?_ I certainly have never shown him my unpublished manuscript, and
+beyond those published allusions to it he possesses absolutely no
+means whatever of knowing anything about its contents. Nothing,
+surely, except full and exact knowledge, derived from careful and
+patient personal examination of that manuscript, could possibly be a
+ground of just judgment of its character. How, then, in absolute
+ignorance of its character and contents, could any fair man hazard any
+public verdict upon it? Yet Dr. Royce not only accuses me of making
+"pretensions" about it which I never made, but dares to characterize
+them as "extravagant," when, _for all he knows_, they might (if made)
+fall far short of the truth. Whether in this case the evidence
+supports the accusation, and whether the conscience which permits the
+making of such an accusation on such evidence is itself such a
+conscience 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 of
+fact_--namely, (1) that my philosophy is "essentially idealistic," (2)
+that it has been "appropriated" and "unconsciously borrowed" from the
+idealist Hegel, and (3) that I have frequently made "extravagant
+pretensions as to the originality and profundity" of this merely
+"borrowed" and "appropriated" philosophy--constitute in their totality
+a regular system of gross and studied misrepresentation, as methodical
+and coherent as it is unscrupulous. It is not "fair criticism"; it is
+not "criticism" at all; and I do not hesitate to characterize it
+deliberately as a disgrace both to Harvard University and to American
+scholarship.
+
+Yet, gross and studied and systematic as this misrepresentation is, I
+should have passed it over in silence, precisely as I did pass over a
+similar attack by Dr. Royce on my earlier book in "Science" for April
+9, 1886, were it not that, perhaps emboldened by former impunity, he
+now makes his misrepresentations culminate in the perpetration of a
+literary outrage, to which, I am persuaded, no parallel can be found
+in the history of polite literature. It is clear that forbearance must
+have somewhere its limit. The commands of self-respect and of civic
+conscience, the duty which every citizen owes to his fellow-citizens
+not to permit the fundamental rights of all to be unlimitedly violated
+in his own person, must at last set a bound to forbearance itself, and
+compel to self-defence. These are the reasons which, after patient
+exhaustion of every milder means of redress, have moved me to this
+public appeal.
+
+Dr. Royce's misstatements of fact, so elaborately fashioned and so
+ingeniously mortised together, were merely his foundation for a
+deliberate and formal "professional warning to the liberal-minded
+public" against my alleged "philosophical pretensions." The device of
+attributing to me extravagant but groundless "pretensions" to
+"originality" and "profundity"--since he is unable to cite a single
+passage in which I ever used such expressions of myself--was probably
+suggested to him by the "Press Notices of 'Scientific Theism,'"
+printed as a publishers' advertisement of my former book at the end of
+the book which lay before him. These "Press Notices," as usual,
+contain numerous extracts from eulogistic reviews, in which, curiously
+enough, these very words, "original" and "profound," or their
+equivalents, occur with sufficient frequency to explain Dr. Royce's
+choleric unhappiness. For instance, Dr. James Freeman Clarke wrote in
+the "Unitarian Review": "If every position taken by Dr. Abbot cannot
+be maintained, his book remains an original contribution to philosophy
+of a high order and of great value"; M. Renouvier, in "La Critique
+Philosophique," classed the book among "de remarquables efforts de
+construction metaphysique et morale dus a des penseurs independants et
+profonds"; and M. Carrau, in explaining why he added to his critical
+history of "Religious Philosophy in England" a chapter of twenty pages
+on my own system, actually introduced both of the words which, when
+thus applied, jar so painfully on Dr. Royce's nerves: "La pensee de M.
+Abbot m'a paru assez profonde et assez originale pour meriter d'etre
+reproduite litteralement." (La Philosophie Religieuse en Angleterre.
+Par Ludovic Carrau, Directeur des Conferences de philosophie a la
+Faculte des lettres de Paris. Paris, 1888.) These extracts, be it
+remembered, were all printed at the end of the book which Dr. Royce
+was reviewing. Now he had an undoubted right to think and to say that
+such encomiums as these on my work were silly, extravagant,
+preposterous, and totally undeserved; but _to take them out of the
+mouth of others and put them into mine was wilful and deliberate
+calumny_. Systematic and calumnious misrepresentation is the sole
+foundation of the "professional warning" in which Dr. Royce's
+ostensible review culminates, and which is too extraordinary not to be
+quoted here in full:--
+
+"And so, finally, after this somewhat detailed study of Dr. Abbot's
+little book, I feel constrained to repeat my judgment as above.
+Results in philosophy are one thing; a careful way of thinking is
+another. Babes and sucklings often get very magnificent results. It is
+not the office of philosophy to outdo the babes and sucklings at their
+own business of receiving revelations. It is the office of philosophy
+to undertake a serious scrutiny of the presuppositions of human
+belief. Hence the importance of the careful way of thinking in
+philosophy. 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 is
+likely to do precisely as much harm to careful inquiry as it gets
+influence over immature or imperfectly trained minds. I venture,
+therefore, to speak plainly, by way of a professional warning to the
+liberal-minded public concerning Dr. Abbot's philosophical
+pretensions. And my warning takes the form of saying that, if people
+are to think in this confused way, unconsciously borrowing from a
+great speculator like Hegel, and then depriving the borrowed
+conception of the peculiar subtlety of statement that made it useful
+in its place,--and if we readers are for our part to accept such
+scholasticism as is found in Dr. Abbot's concluding sections as at all
+resembling philosophy,--then it were far better for the world that no
+reflective thinking whatever should be done. If we can't improve on
+what 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 prudence
+than in setting forth the American theory of what has been in large
+part hidden from us."
+
+Gentlemen, I deny sweepingly the whole groundwork of cunning and
+amazing misrepresentation on which this unparalleled tirade is
+founded.
+
+I. I deny that my philosophy is "essentially idealistic," or that any
+"careful" or conscientious scholar could possibly affirm it to be
+such.
+
+II. I deny that I "borrowed" my realistic theory of universals from
+the idealist, Hegel, whether consciously or unconsciously. The charge
+is unspeakably silly. Realism and idealism contradict each other more
+absolutely 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 as
+high as the Himalayas, I deny his authority to post me publicly--to
+act as policeman in the republic of letters and to collar me on that
+account. A college professor who thus mistakes his academic gown for
+the policeman's uniform, and dares to use his private walking-stick
+for the policeman's bludgeon, is likely to find himself suddenly
+prostrated by a return blow, arrested for assault and battery, and
+unceremoniously hustled off into a cell, by the officer whose function
+he has injudiciously aped without waiting for the tiresome but quite
+indispensable little preliminary of first securing a regular
+commission.
+
+IV. Most of all, I deny Dr. Royce's self-assumed right to club every
+philosopher whose reasoning he can neither refute nor understand. I
+deny, in general, that any Harvard professor has the right to
+fulminate a "professional warning" _against anybody_; and, in
+particular, 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 of
+literary outrage. He was not appointed professor by you for any such
+unseemly purpose. To arrogate to himself a senseless "professional"
+superiority over all non-"professional" authors, to the insufferable
+extent of publicly posting and placarding them for a mere difference
+of opinion, is, from a moral point of view, scandalously to abuse his
+academical position, to compromise the dignity of Harvard University,
+to draw down universal contempt upon the "profession" which he
+prostitutes to the uses of mere professional jealousy or literary
+rivalry, and to degrade the honorable office of professor in the eyes
+of all who understand that a weak argument is not strengthened, and a
+false accusation is not justified, by throwing "professional warnings"
+as a make-weight into the scales of reason. I affirm emphatically that
+no professor has a moral right to treat anybody with this undisguised
+"insolence of office," or to use any weapon but reason in order to put
+down what he conceives to be errors in philosophy. In the present
+case, I deny that Dr. Royce has any better or stronger claim than
+myself to speak "professionally" on philosophical questions. The very
+book against which he presumes to warn the public "professionally" is
+founded upon lectures which I myself "professionally" delivered, not
+only 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 the
+appointment of his own superiors, the Corporation and Overseers of his
+own University; and the singular impropriety (to use no stronger word)
+of his "professional warning" will be apparent to every one in the
+light of that fact.
+
+
+IV.
+
+So far I have treated Dr. Royce's attack solely from the literary and
+ethical points of view. The legal point of view must now be
+considered.
+
+Plagiarism, conscious or unconscious, is a very grave and serious
+charge to bring against an author, and one which may entail upon him,
+not only great damage to his literary reputation, but also social
+disgrace and pecuniary loss. If proved, or even if widely believed
+without proof, it cannot but ruin his literary career and destroy the
+marketable value of his books; and it matters little, so far as these
+practical results are concerned, whether the plagiarism attributed to
+him is conscious or unconscious. In an able editorial article on "Law
+and Theft," published in the New York "Nation" of Feb. 12, 1891, it is
+forcibly said: "Authors or writers who do this [borrowing other men's
+ideas] a good deal, undoubtedly incur discredit by it with their
+fellows and the general public. It greatly damages a writer's fame to
+be rightfully accused of want of originality, or of imitation, or of
+getting materials at second hand. But no one has ever proposed to
+punish or restrain this sort of misappropriation by law. No one has
+ever contended for the infliction on the purloiners of other men's
+ideas 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 the
+product of his own brain. This is contrary to the law. Yet this is
+precisely what Dr. Royce has done in accusing me _falsely_, and as a
+_"certain" matter of fact_, of borrowing my theory of universals from
+Hegel. His accusation is made with as many sneers and as much insult
+as 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 or
+a product of America that in this book he continually has to use, in
+expounding it, one of the most characteristic and familiar of Hegel's
+technical terms, namely, 'concrete,' in that sense in which it is
+applied to the objective and universal 'genus.' Dr. Abbot's
+appropriation of Hegel's peculiar terminology comes ill indeed from
+one who talks," _etc._ "This I say not to defend Hegel, for whose
+elaborate theory of universals I hold in no wise a brief, but simply
+in the cause of literary property-rights. When we plough with another
+man's heifer, however unconscious we are of our appropriation, however
+sincerely we seem to remember that we alone raised her from her
+earliest calfhood, it is yet in vain, after all, that we put our brand
+on her, or call her 'American.'... Now Hegel's whole theory may be
+false; but what is certain is that Dr. Abbot, who has all his life
+been working in an atmosphere where Hegelian ideas were more or less
+infectious, has derived his whole theory of universals, so far as he
+has yet revealed it with any coherency, from Hegelian sources, and
+even now cannot suggest any better terminology than Hegel's for an
+important portion of the doctrine. Yet in the volume before us we find
+all this pretentious speech of an 'American' theory, and discover our
+author wholly unaware that he is sinning against the most obvious
+demands of literary property-rights."
+
+Passing over the self-evident point that whoever is "_unaware_ that he
+is sinning" cannot be "sinning" at all, since "sinning" consists in
+_being aware_ of the wrong we do,--and, consequently, that Dr. Royce
+comes here as near as he dares to a direct insinuation that my
+plagiarism is conscious, and not "unconscious,"--let me call your
+attention to the more important point, that Dr. Royce affirms my
+conscious or unconscious theft from Hegel as a matter of _"certain"
+fact_, not merely as a matter of _probable inference_. Yet the only
+evidence he has to offer in support of this "certainty" is (1) that I
+use the word "concrete" in the same sense as Hegel, and (2) that I
+have worked all my life in a Hegelian "atmosphere." These two points
+cover all the grounds of his accusation. Permit me very briefly to
+examine them.
+
+(1) The word "concrete" is not in the least a technical term
+copyrighted by Hegel, nor is it his trademark. It is one of the
+commonest of words, and free to all. But what sort of a reasoner is he
+who infers the identity of two whole complex theories from their
+coincidence in the use of only a single word? Even this poor and
+solitary little premise slips out of Dr. Royce's clutch, for Hegel's
+use of the word is _contradictory to mine_! Hegel has to put upon the
+word "concrete" a very unusual, strained, and artificial sense, in
+order to cover up the weakest point of his idealistic system. He
+explains it, however, frankly, clearly, and unambiguously: "The
+Concept or Notion (_Begriff_) may be always called 'abstract,' if the
+term 'concrete' must be limited to the mere concrete of sensation and
+immediate perception; the Notion as such cannot be grasped by the
+hands, and, when we deal with it, eyes and ears are out of the
+question. Yet, as was said before, the Notion is the only true
+concrete." (_Encyklopaedie, Werke_, VI. 316.) Again: "Just as little is
+the sensuous-concrete of Intuition a rational-concrete of the Idea."
+(_Ibid., Werke_, VI. 404.) A score of similar passages can easily be
+cited. 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 avowedly
+exclude from my _realistic_ theory of universals the "concrete" of
+_pure thought_, and admit into it only the "concrete" of _real
+experience_. 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 sufficient
+for comprehension of the contradictoriness of these two uses of the
+word. Yet, in order to found a malicious charge of plagiarism, Dr.
+Royce has the hardihood to assure the uninformed general public that
+Hegel 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 indignant
+denial. I know of no such "atmosphere" in all America; if it anywhere
+exists, I certainly never lived, moved, or worked in it. The statement
+is a gratuitous, impertinent, and _totally false allegation of fact_,
+wholly outside of my book and its contents, and is used in this
+connection solely to feather an arrow shot at my reputation; it is a
+pure invention, a manufactured assertion which is absolutely without
+foundation, and, when thus artfully thrown out with apparent
+artlessness (_ars celare artem_) as itself foundation for a false and
+malicious charge of plagiarism, it becomes fabrication of evidence for
+the purpose of defamation. The less said about such an offence as
+that, the better for Dr. Royce, and I spare him the comment it
+deserves.
+
+Now, while it might be "fair criticism" _to infer_ my plagiarism from
+Hegel, if there were only some reasonable or even merely plausible
+evidence to support the inference (which I have just proved not to be
+the case), it is incontestable that _to affirm_ this plagiarism, as a
+"certain" matter of fact, without any reasonable evidence at all, is
+not that "fair criticism" which the law justly allows, but, on the
+contrary, a totally unjustifiable libel. In accusing me personally of
+plagiarism on no reasonable grounds whatever, as I have just
+unanswerably proved him to have done, and in making the "certainty" of
+the plagiarism depend upon an allegation of fact wholly independent of
+the book which he professed to be criticising (namely, the false
+allegation that I have worked all my life in a Hegelian "atmosphere"),
+Dr. Royce has beyond all controversy transgressed the legally defined
+limits 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 ambiguously
+between attacking my literary reputation and attacking my moral
+character, there is no such ambiguity hanging about the accusation of
+"extravagant pretensions as to the originality and profundity of my
+still unpublished system of philosophy." A decent modesty, a
+self-respectful reserve, a manly humility in presence of the
+unattainable ideal of either moral or intellectual perfection, a
+speechless reverence in the presence of either infinite goodness or
+infinite truth,--these are virtues which belong to the very warp and
+woof of all noble, elevated, and justly estimable character; and
+wherever their absence is conspicuously shown, there is just ground
+for moral condemnation and the contempt of mankind. Dr. Royce has not
+scrupled to accuse me of making, not only "pretensions," but even
+"extravagant pretensions," which are absolutely incompatible with the
+possession of these beautiful and essential virtues, and thereby to
+hold me up to universal contempt and derision. He has done this, by
+the very terms of his accusation, absolutely and confessedly _without
+cause_; for the system of philosophy which is "unpublished" to others
+is no less "unpublished" to him, and an accusation thus made
+confessedly without any knowledge of its truth is, on the very face
+of it, an accusation which is as malicious as it is groundless. To
+make such a self-proved and self-condemned accusation as this is, I
+submit, to be guilty of libel with no ordinary degree of culpability.
+
+But the libel of which I have greatest cause to complain is not
+confined to exceptional or isolated expressions. These might
+charitably be explained as mere momentary ebullitions of pettishness
+or spleen, and pardonable as merely faults of temper in a criticism
+which was in the main conscientious and fair. But the libel of which I
+complain most of all is one that constitutes the entire ground and
+framework of the article _as a whole_. Every part of it is
+methodically spun and interwoven with every other part, in such a way
+as to make it one seamless tissue of libel from beginning to end. This
+I say in full consciousness of the interspersed occasional
+compliments, since these have only the effect of disguising the
+libellous intent of the whole from a simple-minded or careless reader,
+and since they subserve the purpose of furnishing to the writer a
+plausible and ready-made defence of his libel against a foreseen
+protest. Compliments to eke out a libel are merely insults in
+masquerade. The libellous plan of the article as a whole is shown in
+the _regular system_ of gross and studied misrepresentation, of
+logically connected and nicely dovetailed misstatements of facts,
+which I exposed at the outset. Every intelligent reader of my two
+books is perfectly aware that they are both devoted to an exposition
+of the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between philosophical
+idealism and scientific realism, and to a defence of the latter
+against the former, as the only possible method by which a spiritual
+theism can be intellectually, and therefore successfully, defended in
+this age of science. Only one who has read and digested the two books
+can fully appreciate the enormity and the unscrupulousness of the
+initial misrepresentation, slipped in, as it were, quite casually, and
+without any argument, in the apparently incidental and
+matter-of-course statement that my "conclusion" is "essentially
+idealistic." It is _not_ "idealistic" at all, but as radically
+realistic as the premises themselves; and no professor of philosophy
+could ever have called it "idealistic" by a mere slip of the tongue or
+pen. The intelligent origin of this misrepresentation is clearly
+enough suggested in the use to which it is at once put: namely, to
+render plausible the otherwise ridiculous charge that my theory of
+universals was "borrowed" from an idealist. Next, the same origin is
+more than suggested by the use to which these two misrepresentations
+together are put: namely, to show that any claim of "novelty" for a
+merely "borrowed" philosophy is a "vast" and "extravagant pretension."
+Lastly, the same origin is inductively and conclusively proved, when
+these three inter-linked misrepresentations, as a whole, are made the
+general foundation for a brutal "professional warning" to the public
+at large against my "philosophical pretensions" in general. Not one of
+these fundamental positions of Dr. Royce's article is a fact,--least
+of all, an "admitted fact"; on the contrary, each of them is
+energetically and indignantly denied. But the libel of which I
+complain above all is the _regular system_ of gross and studied
+misrepresentation by which the most essential facts are first
+misstated and falsified, and then used to the injury of my literary
+and personal reputation.
+
+It may, I trust, be permitted to me here to show clearly what the law
+is, as applicable to the case in hand, by a few pertinent citations.
+
+"The critic must confine himself to criticism, and not make it the
+veil for personal censure, nor allow himself to run into reckless and
+unfair attacks, merely from the love of exercising his power of
+denunciation. Criticism and comment on well-known and admitted facts
+are very different things from the assertion of unsubstantiated facts.
+A fair and _bona fide_ comment on a matter of public interest is an
+excuse of what would otherwise be a defamatory publication. The
+statement of this rule assumes the matters of fact commented on to be
+somehow ascertained. It does not mean that a man may invent facts, and
+comment on the facts so invented in what would be a fair and _bona
+fide_ manner, on the supposition that the facts were true. If the
+facts as a comment upon which the publication is sought to be excused
+do not exist, the foundation fails.... The distinction cannot be too
+clearly borne in mind between comment or criticism and allegations of
+fact.... To state matters which are libellous is not comment or
+criticism." (_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 not
+worked 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 my
+own philosophy. But Dr. Royce invents and states the exact opposite of
+all these facts, and then bases on these purely invented facts most
+undeserved "personal censure" and most "reckless and unfair attacks."
+Therefore, his article is a libel in its whole groundwork and
+essential spirit.
+
+"If a person, under pretence of criticising a literary work, defames
+the private character of the author, and, instead of writing in the
+spirit and for the purpose of fair and candid discussion, travels into
+collateral matter, and introduces facts not stated in the work,
+accompanied with injurious comment upon them, such person is a
+libeller, and liable to an action." (_Broom's Legal Maxims_, p. 320.)
+Applying this to the case in hand: Dr. Royce "defames" my "private
+character," when he accuses me of "frequently" indulging in
+"extravagant pretensions"; he "travels into collateral matter," when
+he alludes at all to my unpublished manuscript; he "introduces facts
+not stated in the work, accompanied with injurious comment upon them,"
+when he alludes to this unpublished manuscript for the sole purpose of
+saying (untruthfully) that I "frequently make, of late, extravagant
+pretensions as to its originality and profundity," and again when he
+says that I have worked all my life in a Hegelian "atmosphere," for
+the sole purpose of founding upon this false statement a false charge
+of plagiarism.
+
+In the "Griffith Gaunt" case, Judge Clerke said in his charge to the
+jury: "The interests of literature and science require that the
+productions of authors shall be subject to fair criticism,--that even
+some animadversion may be permitted, unless it appears that the
+critic, under the pretext of reviewing his book, takes an opportunity
+of attacking the character of the author, and of holding him up as an
+object of ridicule, hatred, or contempt. In other words, the critic
+may say what he pleases of the literary merits or demerits of the
+published production of an author; but, with respect to his personal
+rights relating to his reputation, the critic has no more privilege
+than any other person not assuming the business of criticism."
+(_Abbott's Practice Reports_, New Series, VI. 18.) Applying this to
+the case in hand: Dr. Royce, "under the pretext of reviewing" my
+"book, takes an opportunity of attacking the author, and of holding
+him up as an object of ridicule and contempt," if ridicule and
+contempt are the deservedly universal punishment of the plagiarist and
+the braggart. To so unprecedented a length has he carried this attack,
+as deliberately and formally, in the name of his "profession," and
+therefore, by necessary implication, in the name of Harvard University
+itself, to "warn the liberal-minded public" against me, _precisely as
+one warns the general public against an impostor soliciting alms under
+false pretences_! This is a flagrant violation of my "personal rights
+relating to my reputation"; and, therefore, according to the above
+judicial ruling of an American court, Dr. Royce is guilty of wanton
+and unprovoked libel against one who never injured him in the
+slightest 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 be
+upon the article as a whole, and whether, as a whole, it is to be
+deemed malicious and libellous." (_Foster and Finlason's Reports_, IV.
+1107.) Applying this to the case in hand: Dr. Royce's ostensible
+review presents its darkest, most odious, and most libellous aspect to
+him who most thoroughly, penetratingly, and comprehensively studies
+out the inner structure of its argument _as a whole_, and who most
+intelligently compares it with the book which it falsely professes to
+criticise fairly. Allow me to quote here a passage from page 39 of
+"the Way out of Agnosticism" in order simply to show you how
+uncompromisingly this passage, which sums up the entire results of the
+first half of the book and luminously forecasts the entire conclusion
+of the whole, plants my system on the side of Realism:--
+
+"The scientific, modern, or American theory of universals, which
+results necessarily from analysis of the scientific method, is
+Scientific Realism, as opposed to Philosophical Idealism; and it
+determines the subdivision of scientific philosophy into its three
+great departments, the theories of Being, of Knowing, and of Doing.
+The scientific theory of Being results from analysis of the
+Genus-in-itself, and constitutes ontology or Constructive Realism, as
+opposed to all forms of Constructive Idealism. The scientific theory
+of Knowledge results from analysis of the Concept, and constitutes
+psychology or Critical Realism, as opposed to all forms of
+transcendental or Critical Idealism. The scientific theory of Conduct
+results 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. The
+scientific theory of the universe, as the absolute union of Being,
+Knowing, and Doing in the One and All, results from comprehension of
+these three theories in complete organic unity, and constitutes
+organic philosophy, scientific theology, or Religious Realism, as
+opposed to all forms of Religious Idealism."
+
+I submit this long extract to you, gentlemen, not to bore you with
+metaphysical speculations, but simply to enable you, as educated men
+who understand the meaning of plain and straightforward English on any
+subject, to follow the twistings and turnings of an extraordinarily
+sinuous and disingenuous intellect, and intelligently to decide a
+question which needs here to be settled clearly in your own minds:
+could any competent professor of philosophy, undertaking to give, as a
+fair critic, a truthful account to the public of the contents of my
+book, read that passage, and then, omitting all reference to the
+contrast there and everywhere made between realism and idealism,
+honestly tell that public, without any further information at all on
+the subject, that the "conclusion" of my philosophy is "essentially
+idealistic"?
+
+Yet that is the conscienceless misrepresentation with which Dr. Royce
+prepares the way for all that is to follow, deceives the reader at the
+very outset, predisposes him to believe the preposterous charge that I
+"appropriated" my main theory from the great idealist Hegel, arouses
+his indignation or mirth, as the case may be, at my alleged strutting
+about in borrowed plumes, and so leads him at last to applaud the
+righteous castigation of the "professional warning," by which the
+peacock-feathers are made to fly in all directions and I myself am
+scourged 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? Is
+it the fair and critical judgment which your silence shall sanction,
+as Harvard's official verdict on my work? Or is it the libellous and
+vulgar abuse which your speech shall rebuke, as shaming Harvard more
+than me by bringing the ethics and manners of the literary Bedouin
+into the professor's chair?
+
+
+V.
+
+But, gentlemen, the gravest aspect of Dr. Royce's ostensible review
+remains still to be considered. Is libel--vulgar, violent, and brutal
+libel--the means by which Harvard University, represented by one of
+her professors of philosophy who openly claims to address the general
+public in the name of his office and of her, proposes to realize the
+lofty ideal of her President, and make herself the "philosophical
+pioneer" for each new generation in the pursuit of truth? Is this the
+welcome which she accords to serious, dignified, and not unscholarly
+works, giving the results, however partially and imperfectly wrought
+out, of patient and independent reflection for more than thirty years
+on the highest problems of human life and thought? Is this the best
+sympathy and encouragement she has to offer to her own sons when they
+take 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 the
+age, and the spirit which she aims to foster in her young men? I do
+not believe it; but you alone, gentlemen, can give the authoritative
+answer to such queries.
+
+When civil service reformers plead the urgent necessity of political
+reform, they are irrelevantly charged by the adherents of the spoils
+system with being "hypocrites and pharisees." Precisely so, when I
+plead the urgent necessity of philosophical reform, I am irrelevantly
+charged by Dr. Royce, in effect, with being a false pretender, a
+plagiarist, and an impostor. The charge is just as true in one case as
+in the other. But, be the charge true or untrue, the attention of keen
+and candid minds is not to be diverted by this perfectly transparent
+device from the main point of reform.
+
+What is this needed philosophical reform?
+
+Briefly, _to substitute the scientific method for the idealistic
+method in philosophy_, as the only possible means, in this critical
+and sceptical age, of making ethics and religion so reasonable as to
+command the continued allegiance of reasonable minds. Unphilosophized
+science conceives the universe as nothing but a Machine-World; and in
+this conception there is no room for any Ethical Ideal. Unscientific
+philosophy conceives the universe as nothing but a Thought-World; and
+in this conception there is no room for any Mechanical Real. On the
+possibility of developing a scientific philosophy out of the
+scientific method itself must depend at last the only possibility, for
+reasonable men, of believing equally in the real principles of
+mechanical 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 the
+greatest reform needed in modern thought, above all in the theory of
+ethics, is the substitution of the scientific method for the
+idealistic method in philosophy itself.
+
+The cause of philosophical reform, indeed, cannot be long delayed by
+any Philistinism in those who, by their professional position, ought
+to be its most ardent friends. The method of science is destined to
+revolutionize philosophy--to modernize it by founding it anew upon a
+thoroughly realistic and scientific theory of universals. The net
+result of all the physical sciences thus far, the one fixed result to
+which all their other results steadily point with increasingly evident
+convergence, is that _the already known constitution of the real
+universe is that of the Machine_. This universal fixed result, and not
+mere individual self-consciousness, is the necessary and only
+beginning-point of a constructive philosophy of Nature; for, where the
+special sciences end, there universal philosophy must begin. It is the
+task of philosophy to-day to show that the unquestionably mechanical
+constitution of the universe, instead of being the ultimate boundary
+of scientific investigation, is merely the starting-point in a new
+series of investigations, no less scientific than those of physical
+science, but far more profound; and to show that the mechanical
+constitution itself, when deeply studied and comprehended, necessarily
+involves the organic and the personal constitutions. In this way, and
+I believe in no other way, can it be proved to the satisfaction of the
+modern intelligence that the Mechanical Real itself, at bottom,
+includes the Ethical Ideal--that the Moral Law, the Divine Ideal
+itself, is the innermost Fact of Nature. I have made, and make now,
+not the slightest personal "pretension"; but, finding in all my
+reading no outline of any such argument as this, and believing it to
+be fruitful of the very noblest results, I have done my best to point
+out its possibilities to other earnest searchers after truth. Not
+until this new field has been faithfully examined and explored and
+proved to be sterile, shall I cease to recommend it to the attention
+of all who would fain _see reason_ to believe that the Ethical Ideal
+is no Unreality, but rather the innermost Reality of the real universe
+itself. 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 "professional
+warning." But the cause of philosophical reform will not be stayed by
+him or by them: the world's heart is hungry for higher truth than
+idealism can discover, and will be grateful in the end to any
+philosophy which shall show what mighty moral conviction, what
+unspeakable spiritual invigoration, must needs grow out of
+comprehension of the despised Real.
+
+These thoughts are not remote abstractions, up in the air, out of
+reach, of no practical value or application; they touch the very life
+and soul of Harvard University. For want of such thoughts, many of the
+brightest and most intellectual of her students, graduates from the
+philosophical courses, go out year after year disbelieving totally in
+the possibility of arriving at any fundamental "truth" whatever, even
+in ethics. Several years ago, the then President of the Harvard
+"Philosophical Club" said in my hearing that he "saw no ground of
+moral obligation anywhere in the universe"; and this declaration was
+apparently assented to by every one of the fifteen or twenty members
+present. This very last summer, a recent graduate told me that he left
+college bewildered, depressed, and "disheartened," because he saw
+nowhere any ground of rational "conviction" about anything; and that
+it was "just the same with all the other fellows"--that is, all his
+companions in the study of philosophy. It is time, high time, that
+this state of things should be searchingly investigated in the
+interest of Harvard University itself, the facts determined, their
+causes ascertained. While such a state of things prevails, Harvard
+conspicuously fails to be a "philosophical pioneer" except in a
+distinctly retrograde direction--conspicuously fails to discharge the
+highest service which she owes to the world: namely, to send out her
+young graduates well armed beforehand for the battle of life with
+clear, strong, and lofty _moral convictions_. Whatever other causes
+may exist for the failure, one cause at least is certain--the
+self-proved and amazing inability of one of her professors of
+philosophy to give an honest or intelligent reception to a thoughtful,
+closely reasoned, and earnest plea for philosophical reform in this
+very direction, or to criticise it with anything better than
+irrelevant and unparliamentary personalities, studied and systematic
+misrepresentation both of the plea and of the pleader, and a
+demoralizing example of libel, so bitter and so extreme as to furnish
+abundant 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 before
+us?"
+
+Briefly, because I have not yet exhausted those milder means of
+obtaining redress which it befits a peaceable and non-litigious
+citizen to employ before resorting to legal measures. You would have
+had just cause to complain of me, if I had precipitately prosecuted
+one of your professors for a "professional" attack without giving you
+previously an opportunity to discipline him in your own way, and in
+dignified recognition of your own ultimate responsibility. A
+prosecution may not, I trust will not, prove necessary; for I have
+neither malice nor vindictiveness to gratify, but only a resolute
+purpose to defend my reputation effectually against a malicious libel,
+and not to permit the libeller to set up a plausible claim that, by
+silence and passive submission, I "tacitly confess the justice of an
+official condemnation by Harvard University of my 'philosophical
+pretensions.'" Except for that one phrase, "professional warning," in
+Dr. Royce's attack, this appeal would never have been written, or the
+least notice taken of his intrinsically puerile "criticisms." When Mr.
+Herbert Spencer, whom I have more than once publicly criticised, can
+yet magnanimously write to me of this very book, "I do not see any
+probability that it will change my beliefs, yet I rejoice that the
+subject should be so well discussed,"--and Mr. William Ewart
+Gladstone, "I am very conscious of the force with which you handle the
+subject,"--and ex-President Noah Porter, "I thank you very sincerely
+for sending me a copy of your last book; I had already read it nearly
+twice, and found much in it very admirable and timely,"--I could very
+well afford to pass over Dr. Royce's ineffectual "criticisms" with
+indifference. But when he insinuates to the uninformed public that
+these same "criticisms" have the weighty sanction of Harvard
+University, it is quite another matter. That calls upon me to defend
+myself against so atrocious a calumny.
+
+But even self-defence has its proprieties, and to these I scrupulously
+submit. The first step was to send a reply to the periodical which
+published the attack. This was sent. At first, Dr. Royce effusively
+agreed to its publication, and wrote a rejoinder to be published
+simultaneously with it. Later, in alarm, he procured its rejection,
+and, through legal counsel, served a formal notice upon me not to
+publish or to circulate it at all. The second step was to demand from
+Dr. Royce a specific retraction and apology; this he contemptuously
+refused. The third step was to appeal from the recalcitrant employee
+to the responsible employer, and to lay the case respectfully before
+the supreme representatives of Harvard University itself. This I now
+do, and it is entirely unnecessary to look any farther. But, in order
+to lay the case before you fully, it is incumbent upon me to state the
+details of these proceedings with some minuteness, and I now proceed
+to unfold the extraordinary tale.
+
+
+VII.
+
+Dr. Royce wound up his ostensible review with these words of bravado
+and of challenge: "_We must show no mercy,--as we ask none._" This
+fierce flourish of trumpets I understood to be, at least, a fearless
+public pledge of a fair hearing in the "Journal of Ethics" of which he
+was one of the editors. Moreover, I conceived that a magazine
+expressly devoted to ethics would be ashamed not to practise the
+ethics which it preached--ashamed not to grant to the accused a
+freedom scrupulously made equal to that which it had already granted
+to the accuser. Lastly, I was averse to litigation, and desired to use
+no coarser weapon, even against a calumniator and libeller, than the
+sharp 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's
+ostensible review, together with a letter in which I wrote: "I do not
+at 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-defence
+in the same columns, I shall feel that I have no cause whatever to
+regard you or your committee as a party to the outrage, and shall
+entertain no feelings towards you or towards them other than such as
+are perfectly friendly. Let even slander and malice be heard, if truth
+shall be as free to reply." Pressing engagements had prevented me from
+writing the article in season for the January number of the "Journal
+of Ethics," but it was in ample season for the April number.
+
+I sent it at last because I had full confidence in the soundness of
+what Thomas Jefferson said so well: "Truth and reason can maintain
+themselves without the aid of coercion, if left free to defend
+themselves. But then they must defend themselves. Eternal lies and
+sophisms 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 no
+share in the home management. Mr. Weston is not a member of the
+committee, has little editorial authority, and, in case of
+disagreement between the two American members, would, as he himself
+expressly and frankly informed me in answer to a direct question, obey
+implicitly the directions of Dr. Adler. To Dr. Adler, therefore,
+belongs the general and ultimate editorial responsibility, whether
+legal or moral, since, according to Mr. Western's just quoted
+declaration, Dr. Adler alone has actual power either to procure or to
+prevent publication; while to Dr. Royce is assigned merely the special
+department of "theoretical ethics." Hence Dr. Adler and Dr. Royce were
+jointly responsible for the original libel, the latter for writing it,
+the former for publishing it; but Dr. Adler alone was editorially
+responsible for publishing or refusing to publish my reply to it. It
+was to Dr. Adler alone, as responsible editor-in-chief of the "Journal
+of Ethics," that I looked for publication of my defence, as the best
+possible reparation for the wrong done in publishing the libellous
+attack; and I looked to him with confidence for this partial and
+inadequate reparation, believing that, as head of the "ethical culture
+movement," he would be anxious to conduct the "Journal of Ethics" in
+accordance with the highest principles of justice, honor, and fair
+play.
+
+To my astonishment and indignation, however, my manuscript, instead of
+being considered and finally passed upon by Dr. Adler, was forwarded
+by him or by his direction to Dr. Royce! The latter, getting wind of
+it, had "insisted" that it belonged to his department of "theoretical
+ethics," and "claimed the right" to _edit it with a rejoinder in the
+same issue_. Nothing could be conceived more unfair or more absurd. A
+libel had been published by Dr. Adler, and Dr. Adler sent the defence
+against this libel to be edited by the libeller himself! Protest was
+in vain. Dr Adler denied his own moral responsibility, washed his
+hands of the whole affair, and even refused to enlighten himself as to
+his own duty (notwithstanding my urgent request that he should do so)
+by taking counsel of some wise and able lawyer of his own
+acquaintance. Instead of doing this, he affected to consider my
+self-defence against a libel as merely a reply to an ordinary
+"book-criticism," made a few inquiries as to the "usual practice of
+journals" with reference to book-criticisms alone, turned my article
+over to Dr. Royce as one on "theoretical ethics," and permitted him to
+attach to it a rejoinder which reiterated the original libel with
+additions and improvements, but in which he took pains to say of my
+reply: "I may add that even now it does not occur to me to feel
+personally wounded, nor yet uneasy at Dr. Abbot's present warmth."
+These words have a peculiar interest with reference to his later legal
+notice against all publication or circulation of this very reply: his
+assumed or genuine pachydermatousness soon gave way to fearful
+apprehension 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 false
+personal 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 literary
+property-rights"? To what part of the "theory of ethics" belongs Dr.
+Royce's "professional warning" against pretensions which were never
+made? His false accusations and their false grounds were the main
+theme of my article, and they had nothing to do with "theoretical
+ethics," Dr Adler and Dr. Royce to the contrary notwithstanding. Dr.
+Royce had no shadow of right to set up so preposterous a claim, and
+Dr. 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 in
+publishing a libel. My article was avowedly nothing but a defence
+against this libel, and, as such, was necessarily addressed to the
+responsible editor of the "Journal of Ethics," not to the sub-editor
+of one of its special departments--most assuredly not to the libeller
+himself. The only fair and just course was to publish this defence
+alone by itself, precisely as the libel had been published alone by
+itself, and afterwards to allow Dr. Royce to follow it, if he pleased,
+with a rejoinder in the succeeding number. I made not the slightest
+objection to one rejoinder or a dozen rejoinders from him, provided
+the responsible editor held the balance true, accorded as fair a
+hearing to the accused as he had accorded to the accuser, and granted
+to each in turn an opportunity to plead his cause without interruption
+by the other. I asked no more than what Dr. Royce had already
+received--an opportunity to enjoy the undivided and undistracted
+attention of the audience for a limited time. He had had the ear of
+the public for six months. Could I not have it for three?
+
+But I regret to say that considerations of equal justice seemed to
+have no weight whatever with Dr. Adler. Dr. Royce, despite his public
+pledge, was "asking for mercy," after all, and got from Dr. Adler all
+he asked for; I asked Dr. Adler for equity alone, and could not get
+even that. The sole concession made was that I might follow Dr.
+Royce's rejoinder with a second reply in the same number, thus closing
+the case with a last word for the defence.
+
+To this last proposal, in order not to refuse a meagre measure of
+justice, I consented under protest. But the proof-sheets of Dr.
+Royce's rejoinder, to which I was to reply, did not reach me till
+March 18, and were accompanied with a notice from the "Journal of
+Ethics" that my reply must be mailed "within ten hours after receiving
+Royce'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 till
+3 P.M., it was obviously impossible to mail a reply by 7 P.M. Hence I
+telegraphed to you at once: '_I protest against the gross injustice of
+postponing my article, or of publishing this new attack without the
+last 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, except
+Royce's insistence on his right to deprive me of the equality of
+treatment which I supposed he himself guaranteed in his--'as we ask
+none.' 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 to
+break its force in the same number, would be disgracefully unjust in
+him and in the 'Journal.' His rejoinder is simply a fresh libel; there
+is nothing in it to which I cannot easily and effectually reply. But
+what _right_ is there in refusing to me the opportunity of answering
+one 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 three
+months [from April to July]? It will be a bitter comment on the
+sincerity of the 'ethical culture movement' to make so unethical a
+judgment in so grave a case as this."
+
+But the April number of the "Journal of Ethics," nevertheless, was
+published without my article. The latter was all in type, and the
+proof-sheets had been corrected; nothing prevented its publication in
+April except (1) Dr. Royce's insistence that my reply to his first
+libel should _not be published at all without his second libel_, and
+(2) Dr. Adler's weak submission to this unjust and pusillanimous
+demand of his associate.
+
+The whole matter was thus most inequitably postponed to the July
+number, primarily at Dr. Royce's instigation. But I now found that I
+was to be refused the freedom necessary to self-defence against the
+second libel--the same freedom already yielded in replying to the
+first. Now to answer a libel effectively requires the freedom, not of
+the parliament, but of the courts. A mere literary discussion admits
+of parliamentary freedom alone, and properly excludes all reflections
+upon personal character. But Dr. Royce had most unparliamentarily
+turned his ostensible review into a libel, and, contrary to all canons
+of literary discussion, had indulged himself in reflections upon my
+personal character as malicious as they were false. Now the only
+possible disproof of a libel is the proof that it _is_ a libel,--that
+it is either untruthful, or malicious, or both; and, since a libel is
+both a civil injury and a criminal offence, the proof of its libellous
+character cannot be established without reflecting upon the personal
+character of the libeller. Hence Dr. Royce himself, by writing a
+libel, had self-evidently raised the question of his own personal
+character, and bound himself beforehand, by his own act, to submit
+with what grace he could to the necessary consequences of that act;
+and to seek to shield himself from these consequences, which he should
+have foreseen clearly and nerved himself to bear bravely, was only to
+incur the ridicule invited by a timorous man who first strikes
+another and then runs away. Dr. Adler, moreover, as the responsible
+editor of the "Journal of Ethics," had laid himself, by publishing Dr.
+Royce's libel, under the clear moral obligation of according to the
+accused the same freedom of the courts which he had already accorded
+to the accuser; and to seek to escape this moral obligation was to
+incur the censure invited by any one who assumes the editorial
+function without properly informing himself of the duties which it
+imposes with reference to third parties. Both the one and the other
+had estopped themselves from denying to the accused in self-defence
+the same freedom of the courts which they had granted to themselves as
+accusers in attack.
+
+Notwithstanding these plain facts, Dr. Royce and Dr. Adler united in
+denying to me the necessary freedom of self-defence against the attack
+which they had united in making.
+
+At first, Dr. Royce undertook to dictate to me beforehand the nature
+of my reply to his rejoinder, and sought to restrict it to the
+parliamentary freedom of a purely literary discussion. Ignoring the
+fact that he had himself rendered a purely literary discussion
+impossible by his own reflections upon personal character, he
+endeavored now to restrict my defence to a purely literary discussion
+of what, with amusing deficiency in the sense of humor, he considered
+to be his "criticisms"; whereas these pointless and ignorant
+criticisms had no importance whatever except as leading up to his
+"professional warning." The only object of a reply to his rejoinder
+was to expose its true character as a second libel, and thereby make
+plain to the dullest mind the outrage of his "professional warning."
+Evidently fearing this, and being anxious to prevent the exposure, he
+sent to me through Mr. Weston, who called upon me for the purpose on
+April 15, the following unspeakable document, apparently without a
+suspicion that it pricked the bubble of his previous iridescent pledge
+to "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 so
+extraordinary a document as this could have originated. My answer to
+Dr. Royce's officious interference was a short and dry rejection _in
+toto_. Dr. Royce was not the responsible editor of the "Journal of
+Ethics," and had no power to dictate any conditions of publication
+whatever. That a libeller should actually presume to dictate to the
+libelled the terms of his defence, to demand that this defence should
+be submitted to himself in advance of publication for approval or
+disapproval, and, in case of disapproval, to invoke a board of
+referees for the sole purpose of enforcing his own arbitrary and
+preposterous "conditions,"--this was too exquisitely absurd. But there
+was method in the madness. The central aim of the "Memorandum" is
+clear on its face: namely, _to refuse the forensic freedom necessary
+to self-defence against a libel, and to concede only the parliamentary
+freedom proper to a purely literary discussion_. Since, however, the
+only object of my writing at all was to expose his rejoinder as a
+second libel, and since the central aim of the "Memorandum" was to
+defeat this very object, nothing could be plainer than this: that Dr.
+Royce, having been guilty of two unprovoked and malicious libels, now
+sought to prevent the exposure of his guilt by suppressing the
+necessary freedom of self-defence. For, I repeat, the only possible
+defence against a libel is to prove that it _is_ a libel, and this
+cannot be done without reflecting upon the "personal character" of the
+libeller. It was no fault of mine that he had himself rendered a
+"parliamentary" discussion impossible; it was no fault of mine that he
+had made his own "personal character" the real point at issue; it was
+no fault of mine that he now betrayed his secret alarm, uttered a cry
+for "mercy," and convicted himself out of his own mouth, in his
+extraordinary and indescribable "Memorandum." That "Memorandum" tells
+the whole story.
+
+On the failure of Dr. Royce's very injudicious attempt at dictation,
+Dr. Adler found himself compelled to assume the editorial power and
+responsibility, which he ought to have assumed and exercised in the
+first instance by refusing publication to Dr. Royce's original libel.
+But, yielding to Dr. Royce's influence, he took the same position, and
+still tried to shield the libeller from the just and lawful
+consequences of his libel. No principle is more firmly established in
+the public conscience, as interpreted by the common law, than that the
+fact of an attack by A involves the right of self-defence by B.
+Whoever, therefore, has permitted an attack which he might have
+prevented is bound to permit the self-defence, also; and Dr. Adler,
+having granted to Dr. Royce the freedom of libelling me, was bound to
+grant to me the equal freedom of defending myself against the libel.
+But this equal freedom Dr. Adler denied. After some fruitless
+correspondence, I wrote to him on May 4 as follows: "I require the
+freedom, not of 'parliament,' but of the courts--freedom to present my
+'facts,' and no less to draw my 'inferences'--freedom to array my
+evidence, and no less to make my pleading. By publishing his new
+libel, you estop yourself from denying me this freedom. If you do deny
+it, I withdraw altogether and seek justice and redress elsewhere. I
+ask 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 his
+final reply on May 6 in these brief terms: "Regret your insistence on
+freedom of courts--parliamentary freedom open to you." This ended the
+matter, 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 a
+party calumniated and libelled by one of his own contributors and a
+member of his own "editorial committee."
+
+Negotiations, it is true, for the publication of my reply in the July
+number were a little later re-opened by Dr. Adler, on receiving advice
+from a legal friend of his own that to publish it would be his wisest
+course; but he himself broke them off on a trivial pretext, after
+receiving contrary advice from Dr. Royce's counsel, together with a
+copy of the legal protest sent to me personally. Thus Dr. Royce
+himself, recalling his original consent, procured the final rejection
+by 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, acting
+as Dr. Royce's counsel, this formal protest against any other use
+whatever of my reply: "On Dr. Royce's behalf, I must warn you that he
+protests against the publication or any circulation of it, in its
+present shape, and must point out to you that it may, if circulated,
+entail a serious legal responsibility." To this strangely impolitic
+and utterly futile attempt to intimidate me in the defence of my own
+reputation, I chose to offer not the slightest resistance. The protest
+only facilitated that defence. How could a libeller more conspicuously
+put himself in the wrong, or more effectually ruin his own evil cause
+in all eyes, than by _trying to gag the man he had injured_? First, to
+prevent publication in the "Journal of Ethics" of the very reply he
+had publicly and defiantly challenged, and then to suppress all
+circulation of a few privately printed copies of it by means of legal
+threats: if Dr. Royce could afford to commit such blunders, why should
+I shield him from himself? "Whom the gods destroy, they first make
+mad."
+
+Before proceeding to any more energetic measures, however, in order to
+vindicate my reputation, I was anxious to offer to Dr. Royce an
+opportunity of doing me justice in a manner which should be consistent
+with full vindication, yet should involve the least possible publicity
+and the least possible mortification to himself. Accordingly, on June
+20, 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, and
+signed by Dr. Royce, and if actually published in the October number
+of the 'Journal,' will render unnecessary further measures of
+self-vindication as now contemplated. I send this because you assured
+me that Dr. Royce disclaims all malice in the publication of the
+original article I complain of, and because I am willing to test the
+sincerity of his disclaimer before resorting to other measures for my
+self-protection. I expect you, who came to me in the character of a
+pacificator, and who expressed a creditable desire, in which I fully
+join, for the settlement of this trouble in some way which shall
+occasion no scandal to Harvard College, to exert your utmost
+influence with Dr. Royce to persuade him to perform this act of
+manifest justice to me. A frank retraction and apology, when unjust
+charges have been made as now, is not dishonorable and ought not to be
+humiliating; and I shall consider Dr. Royce's action in this matter as
+showing the sincerity or insincerity of his disclaimer of all malice
+in his original article." The enclosed paper above mentioned was
+this:--
+
+
+     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 had
+gone to Denver, and wrote: "As for the Card which you propose, I will
+leave Dr. Royce to make his own answer after he has seen it. I will
+say, however, for my own part, that, while he has always been ready to
+disclaim any desire to injure you personally, I think that his
+opinions concerning your philosophical system and its origin are
+unchanged, and he is not likely to retract them. I must say, too, that
+you have put your Card in a form in which you could not have expected
+Dr. Royce to sign it, and I do not regard it as any step, on your
+part, toward a pacific settlement, nor think your demand a reasonable
+one to make of a self-respecting man."
+
+The next day, June 25, I wrote to Mr. Warner: "I ought distinctly to
+deny that my rejected article is 'a libellous paper.' Its statements
+are true; its motive is not malice, but a self-evident purpose to
+defend myself against Dr. Royce's libel; and, even if it should be
+concluded to come under any legal definition of 'libel,' I maintain
+that it is self-evidently a 'justifiable libel.' If I pay any heed to
+your notice, it is merely because your notice strengthens my
+case.--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 a
+pacific one, I will wait a reasonable time for his return beyond the
+date I mentioned. You will not judge the character of that Card
+accurately, and you cannot give sound or salutary advice to your
+client, if you ignore the libellous character of his original article.
+I do not see how 'a self-respecting man' could ever have written such
+a paper; but, if he did it inadvertently and not maliciously, he would
+certainly do one of two things: (1) either submit courageously,
+unflinchingly, and without legal protest, to the reply it challenged
+and evoked, or (2) manfully retract charges demonstrated, as these
+have been, to be false. Have you really a different idea of
+'self-respect'? Certainly not, for you are an honorable gentleman. Be
+this as it may, I warn you not to persist in considering that Card as
+other than a pacific step on my part, if you desire to counsel your
+client to his own good, or to prove yourself a real friend to Harvard
+College. I say this in good faith."
+
+To this, on July 2, Mr. Warner replied: "Dr. Royce has returned, and I
+have submitted to him the Card which you have prepared. As I
+anticipated, Dr. Royce says that he cannot sign it, nor can I advise
+him to do so. It goes far beyond any disavowal of malice or personal
+hostility, and it amounts to a retraction of the opinions which he
+actually holds about your philosophical system, and that retraction
+you surely cannot expect him to make. Dr. Royce has again expressed to
+me 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, or
+wish, that Dr. Royce should disavow any philosophical 'opinions' he
+may hold. What I complain of is a _misstatement of fact_, demonstrated
+to be such, which I believe to have had its origin in a spirit of
+malicious detraction, and to be now persevered in from no other cause.
+In my reply to his article, which he himself challenged and then
+pusillanimously 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 one
+interpretation, and throws a satirical light on the merely private
+'regret' he professes. Inasmuch, however, as you have objected (quite
+unnecessarily, as I think) to the 'form' of the Card I sent you, and
+inasmuch as I intend to leave no room for doubt as to Dr. Royce's real
+animus in this affair, I propose now that he send me such a retraction
+and apology as you yourself shall deem adequate, fitting, and due. In
+your letter of June 9, you admitted that Dr. Royce had 'transgressed
+the limits of courteous discussion' and that you 'do not defend in all
+respects the tone of the review.' It is plain enough that you, Dr.
+Royce's own counsel, perceive at least something improper, something
+that ought to be retracted and apologized for. You are, then, I
+submit, bound to do what you can to right the wrong, which is not at
+all done by Dr. Royce's profuse, _but private_, disclaimers. He
+professes to bear no malice. Very well, then: let him make reparation
+for the wrong he has committed. He owes it to himself, if he considers
+himself a gentleman, certainly to his position in Harvard College, to
+send me some paper, specifying what he himself regrets in his own
+article, with authority to publish this paper in the 'Journal of
+Ethics.' The Card I sent sufficiently indicates what I think is due to
+me; if Dr. Royce, in other language, covers the same ground, it will
+be accepted as satisfactory. That is the very least that a gentleman
+would do under the circumstances. You cannot object to this proposal
+on 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 to
+consider it as other than 'pacific.' I shall await your answer to it
+as to the only 'pacific step on my part' which remains possible to
+me."
+
+In reply to this letter, on July 24, Mr. Warner wrote: "I forwarded
+your letter of July 11 to Dr. Royce, and he has written a reply to me
+which I think it best to enclose as he wrote it." In this enclosed
+letter, dated July 14, Dr. Royce first re-affirmed, in substance, the
+truth of his false and ridiculous accusation of plagiarism from Hegel,
+and then wrote as follows: "Now as to my feeling concerning what was
+regrettable in my article. I repeat once more--regrettable, in my
+eyes, was the manner of the article in so far as it actually gave
+unnecessary pain to Dr. Abbot. And I regard any pain as unnecessary
+that may have been due, _not_ to my objectively justified opinion of
+Dr. Abbot's work (an opinion which I cannot alter in the least), but
+to any severity of expression that may not have been absolutely
+needful to give form to this opinion itself. Dr. Abbot's reply has
+shown him to be not merely alive to the strong difference of opinion
+that separates us, but personally offended by an attack that was
+intended to be indeed severe, but directed wholly to matters of
+professional, 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 willing
+to express my regret publicly."
+
+This letter of Dr. Royce is, in effect, a deliberate and unqualified
+re-affirmation of every fact as alleged, and every inference as drawn,
+in his original libel--a deliberate and contemptuous re-affirmation of
+the whole system of elaborate misrepresentation which constitutes it
+one tissue of libel from beginning to end. Nothing whatever in the
+substance of his article is retracted or regretted; nothing is
+"regrettable" even in its form, except vaguely, hypothetically, and
+conditionally; the only thing Dr. Royce "regrets," as a fact, is that
+his "objectively justified" and "intentionally severe attack" should
+have given needless "personal offence" and "unnecessary pain" to its
+object! This deliberate and contemptuous refusal to recall, to modify,
+or to apologize for any of the false accusations he has made against
+me is, I submit, demonstration of the malice which originally prompted
+them, and now moves him to maintain them; nothing further is needed to
+make their malicious character perfectly plain, and to prove the
+insincerity of his disclaimers of malice. But Dr. Royce seriously
+mistakes the nature of the effect produced by his "attack," when he
+affects to consider it as the quite needless excitation of excessive
+sensitiveness. If a gentleman in a crowd discovers his nearest
+neighbor engaged in filching his pocket-book, and at once hands the
+culprit over to the police, it would hardly be graphic to describe his
+frame 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 reputation
+in the name of Harvard University. It is not always safe to reckon on
+the 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 me
+further to say, with regard to Dr. Royce's letter, that I can only
+interpret it as a distinct refusal to retract his accusation that I
+have made 'extravagant pretensions as to the originality and
+profundity of my still unpublished system of philosophy'--a distinct
+refusal to retract his accusation that I have 'borrowed my theory of
+universals from Hegel'--a distinct refusal to retract his
+'professional warning' based upon these accusations. These were the
+chief points of my Card, and I note the refusal implied by Dr. Royce's
+evasive letter. But I decline to accept his plea of
+'conscientiousness' in maintaining the accusation as to Hegel. I might
+as well plead 'conscientiousness' in maintaining an accusation that
+Dr. Royce assassinated Abraham Lincoln, in face of the evidence that
+John 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 was
+plainly bound to do, I first exhausted every means of private redress
+before laying the matter before you publicly. Not till I had failed to
+obtain a fair hearing in the same periodical which published Dr.
+Royce's libel, and not till I had failed to obtain from Dr. Royce
+himself a retraction of this libel, did I find myself reduced to the
+alternatives of either acquiescing in your own unwarrantably
+insinuated condemnation, or else of clearing my assailed reputation
+through direct and open appeal to you. I am no lover of strife, and
+least of all do I now seek revenge. I seek only such a vindication of
+my good name from unmerited calumny as you, in your own good judgment
+and in your own chosen way, are now, I most respectfully submit, bound
+in justice to give.
+
+
+VIII.
+
+To you, therefore, gentlemen of the Corporation and Board of Overseers
+of Harvard University, I make with all due deference this public
+appeal for redress of a wrong done to me by one of your appointees--a
+wrong done, not in his private capacity as an individual (for which,
+of course, you would not be justly held responsible), but publicly and
+explicitly and emphatically in the name of his "profession," that is,
+of his position as a professor in Harvard College. This position is an
+official one, due to your appointment; and his scandalous abuse of it
+renders him amenable to discipline by you to whom he owes it.
+Therefore, I now formally appeal to you for redress of these specific
+wrongs, committed by Assistant Professor Josiah Royce in flagrant
+violation of my rights as a citizen and as a man:--
+
+I. He has published against me, in the "International Journal of
+Ethics," a libel which is as wanton and unprovoked as it is malicious
+and false, and for which no motive is even conceivable except mere
+professional jealousy or rivalry in authorship.
+
+II. He has sought to give credibility and respectability to this false
+and libellous publication by invoking the authority, not of reason or
+truth, but of his mere "professional" position as professor in Harvard
+University, thereby artfully suggesting and insinuating to the
+uninformed public that Harvard University sustains him in his attack;
+whereas, in conferring upon me the degree of doctor of philosophy and
+in committing to me formerly the conduct of an advanced course of
+philosophical instruction, Harvard University has given emphatic
+testimony to the contrary.
+
+III. Repudiating his bold promise to "ask no mercy," he has sought,
+with incredible cowardice and meanness, to deprive me of all
+opportunity of being heard in self-defence, _first_, by excluding from
+the "International Journal of Ethics" my perfectly reasonable reply to
+what he himself confesses to have been an "intentionally severe
+attack," and, _secondly_, by threatening me through his counsel with
+legal prosecution, if I publish it anywhere else or circulate it at
+all.
+
+IV. Lastly, when, after all this, in order to spare him the
+mortification and disgrace of a public exposure, and in order to
+prevent Harvard University from incurring any possible discredit on
+account of his personal misconduct, I proposed to him a pacific
+settlement of the whole affair through a simple retraction of his
+calumnious accusations, and that, too, in words of his own choosing,
+he made no answer but a stubborn and contumelious re-affirmation of
+the original libel.
+
+I submit that these acts of wrong constitute conduct unbecoming a
+gentleman, a man of honor, or a professor in Harvard University, and
+justly entitle me to redress at your hands. This appeal has not been
+made hastily or without a patient and long-protracted effort to secure
+justice in other ways. Dr. Royce has succeeded hitherto, during many
+months, in defeating that effort; but now the appeal lies to those
+whom he cannot control, and now he must abide your judgment. Asking
+neither less nor more than justice, and believing that you will
+recognize justice as Harvard's highest law,
+
+I have the honor to remain, gentlemen, in devoted loyalty to our Alma
+Mater,
+
+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 to
+the two characters, oe. The sentence begins: Only a native of
+Boeotia could be imposed upon by them, when the actual character....
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Public Appeal for Redress to the
+Corporation and Overseers of Harvard University, by Francis Ellingwood Abbot
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A PUBLIC APPEAL FOR REDRESS ***
+
+***** This file should be named 19768.txt or 19768.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/1/9/7/6/19768/
+
+Produced by Curtis Weyant, Diane Monico, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This
+file was produced from images generously made available
+by Case Western Reserve University Preservation Department
+Digital Library.)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.