Stuk 20 see 104/14 - Printed letter from Wilfrid Ward to the editor of the Spectator

Refers to the letter to the Spectator of 15 September from 'M' [see 104/14], denying the accuracy of a claim in an article on Henry Sidgwick that appeared in 8 September, and suggests that the statements of the writer of the article and that of 'M.' both 'are true in one sense and false in another'. Claims that Sidgwick's genius was critical rather than constructive, and that his best sayings were amendments on the sayings of others. States also that he did not inspire, 'because his teaching was predominantly not the inculcation of any system - not even of utilitarian ethics - but the correction, limitation, co-ordination, or criticism of what had been more or less loosely said by others.' Adds that he did inspire many of those with whom he discussed the problems of philosophy, and especially on the philosophy of religious belief. Concludes that Sidgwick was inspiring as a philosopher, but as the exponent of a system he was not in the least inspiring. States, however, that 'the ethos exhibited in his own methods of inquiry and criticism, one it became fully apparent, was most inspiring.'