APPENDIX D
REPLY TO A REVIEW IN THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE[1]
To the Editor of the Tribune: I am of course much
gratified at finding in your issue of February 13 so full and
careful a notice of the philosophical views presented in my
recent volume. The reviewer shows great candour,
sufficient learning, and an unusual hospitality to new ideas in
serious regions. I am indeed glad to have any work of
mine the object of a criticism marked by so many qualities
of the true and enlightening judge. But the one duty of
a reviewer that precedes all others is to apprehend his
author correctly; and as, with the best intentions, your
contributor has somehow managed to misapprehend me in
several essential matters, I must beg enough space in your
columns to put myself right.
I
THE SYSTEM INDEED PLURALISM, BUT NOT CHAOTIC INDIVIDUALISM
First of all, though I cannot imagine why, the reviewer sets out with the statement, to me simply astounding so far as it concerns myself, that “both Dr. Royce and Dr. Howison are monists and idealists.” (The italics are mine.) I should have supposed that if any one thing blazed out more than another in my book, it would be the
- ↑ Reprinted, with omissions and immaterial changes, from the Daily Tribune, March 5, 1902.
