WHAT PRAGMATISM IS 579 



called upon to so narrow and restrict our investigation. It is well 

 known that every writer of marked individuality or originality acquires 

 a style peculiarly his own and easily recognizable. Their writings 

 come to have a certain hall-mark, so to speak, which there is no mis- 

 taking. It is further true that a writer, especially along philosophical 

 or theological lines, either forms a school or system of his own, which 

 he is likely to do if he is a genius, or else joins or connects himself 

 with one of the already existing schools. In either case he becomes 

 identified with certain doctrines. He presents those aspects of the 

 truth, as he has conceived it to be, which have most strongly appealed 

 to him and which he considers of supreme importance. Upon these 

 he will dwell and lay special emphasis, reiterating them, presenting 

 them from different points of view, until his readers grow to expect his 

 utterances to be along those chosen lines and in his own individual 

 way. In this way schools and systems are founded and followers and 

 adherents gained. Such a writer is entitled in all fairness to have 

 whatever he writes taken and judged in connection with his other 

 utterance along similar lines; otherwise, in order to avoid misunder- 

 standings, he would be forced to continually repeat himself, which 

 would be intolerable. 



Professor James has written much along both psychological and 

 philosophical lines, and the particular doctrines which he holds are 

 well known. His style has long been noted for its lucidity and has 

 become both the marvel and despair of other writers. Hitherto be 

 seems to have experienced no difficulty in making himself understood. 

 Is it conceivable, then, that, all at once, when he began expounding 

 the principle of pragmatism, he should have lapsed or fallen into 

 vague and obscure expressions? In all candor, I ask you to turn 

 back to the quoted passages, and taking them just as they are, torn 

 from their contexts and settings, apply to them any or all of the rules 

 and tests that I have mentioned, and then ask yourself whether or not 

 you have any difficulty in grasping their meaning. If not, why have 

 the critics found it so hard to understand them ? 



And yet, the most diverse and contradictory constructions have been 

 placed thereon as well as upon his " Pragmatism," which entire book 

 is devoted to elucidating what the principle is and wherein it may be 

 applied. In fact, to such an extent has this prevailed that he felt 

 impelled to write " a final brief reply " to his critics, which he en- 

 titled " The Pragmatist Account of Truth and Its Misunderstanders " 

 and published in The Philosophical Review for January, 1908. It 

 should further be borne in mind that the critics also had access to 

 all of his other writings and were presumably familiar with them. 

 Again I ask the pertinent question, how such a condition of affairs 

 could exist? Making all due allowances for the imperfections and 



