diff options
Diffstat (limited to '19768.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 19768.txt | 2097 |
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. |