Thanks for these great comments. Wisdom is, I think, a specially interesting case (though you know more about this than me).

In the piece I conceded that there is widespread talk of ‘analysis’ of various kinds certainly as early as the 1930s (with the founding of Analysis in 1933 being a significant event), but also tried to keep apart Russell’s ‘logico-analytical method’ from ‘Moorean analysis’. I think much of the time there is a quite deep difference of approach between Russell and Moore; very broadly, I think Russell is often more willing to do ambitious constructive philosophy, while Moore hews closer to ‘common sense’.

It seems to me plausible (though I’m not sure) that Wisdom was one of the figures trying, at this period, to mediate between these different approaches and solidify just what a philosophy whose method was analysis might look like (another being Susan Stebbing). If it hadn’t been for Covid-19 I would have gone to a library to look up the 1931 book to see in what context he speaks of ‘analytic philosophers’ there—but looking now at Passmore’s A Hundred Years of Philosophy I see discussion of a Wisdom paper called ‘Is Analysis a Useful Method in Philosophy?’ (1931) in which Wisdom carefully distinguishes between types of analysis. I also get the sense from what I know of Wisdom that his association with Wittgenstein may have played an important role in his own arguably more syncretic conception of analysis, and in helping to connect various previously disparate strands by carrying some of these ideas over to Oxford from Cambridge. But as I say, you are better informed on all this than me!

In any case, thanks again. Would be great to explore Wisdom further.