political parties. An impressive teacher sets the mark of his
personality and of his preferences upon those who come under his
influence. They are not at an age to be very critical, and, indeed,
they have not as yet the requisite learning to enable them to be
critical. They keep the trend which has been given them early in life,
and, when they become teachers, they pass on the type of thought with
which they have been inoculated, and the circle widens. "Schools" may
arise, of course, in a different way. An epoch-making book may sweep
men off of their feet and make of them passionate adherents. But he
who has watched the development of the American universities during the
last twenty-five years must be impressed with the enormous influence
which certain teachers have had in giving a direction to the
philosophic thought of those who have come in contact with them. We
expect the pupils of a given master to have a given shade of opinion,
and very often we are not disappointed in our guess.

It is entirely natural that this should be so. Those who betake
themselves to the study of philosophy are men like other men. They
have the same feelings, and the bending of the twig has the same
significance in their case that it has in that of others. It is no
small compliment to a teacher that he can thus spread his influence,
and leave his proxies even when he passes away.

But, when we strive to "put off humanity" and to look at the whole
matter under the cold light of reason, we may well ask ourselves,
whether he who unconsciously accepts his philosophy, in whole or in
part, because it has been the philosophy of his teacher, is not doing
what is done by those persons whose politics and whose religion take
their color from such accidental circumstances as birth in a given
class or family traditions?

I am far from saying that it is, in general, a bad thing for the world
that men should be influenced in this way by one another. I say only
that, when we look at the facts of the case, we must admit that even
our teachers of philosophy do not always become representatives of the
peculiar type of thought for which they stand, merely through a
deliberate choice from the wealth of material which the history of
speculative thought lays before them. They are influenced by others to
take what they do take, and the traces of this influence are apt to
remain with them through life. He who wishes to be entirely impartial
must b