The Controversy of Philosophers.

The dispute between Dr. F. E. Abbot of Cambridge and Professor Royce in regard to the criticism of Dr. Abbot's book, "A Way Out of Agnoticism" by Professor Royce has attracted such general attention that the affair cannot now be considered as concerning philosophical circles alone.

In the "International Journal of Ethics" Professor Royce as one of the editors reviewed the "Way Out of Agnosticism" in an article of 17 pages, which eventually moved Dr. Abbot to appeal to the President and Fellows of the University on the general ground that they are responsible for the actions of their professors.

Since Dr. Abbot's reply to Professor Royce's critique in the June number of the Journal of Ethics the literature on the controversy has grown rapidly. In the July number of the periodical a reply by Professor Royce to Dr. Abbot appeared, and in the same number a retort by Dr. Abbot, which was to have been the final word in the matter was to have appeared as well, but did not owing to a misunderstanding between the Editors and Dr. Abbot in regard to the character in which this last retort should be framed. Dr. Abbot then made his appeal to the President and Fellows.

It now appears that a letter was written by Professor Royce threatening legal proceedings in case Dr. Abbot's retort should be printed as a pamphlet and offering as an editor of the "International Journal of Ethics" a publication of the article provided personalities should be avoided.

The last correspondence upon the subject are letters from Mr. Pierce and Professor James which have appeared in the "Nation." Mr. Pierce defends Dr. Abbot and Professor James' letter is an answer to Professor Pierce.

Aside from the personal character which the dispute has unfortunately taken the controversy is interesting as indicative of the keen philisophical spirit prevalent in America. Philosophers as such are apt to be thought of as existing in a state of unprejudiced calm and guided by a reason which hardly would admit of enthusiasm. The following spirited paragraph in Professor Royce's critique, which is said to have been the principal cause of the controversy, suggests, however, that philosophers may become very much interested:

"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 mouths 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."

What will be the outcome of the matter it is difficult to predict though doubtless all such discussion is in the eventual interests of truth.