I don’t think I shall try a copy on my tame bishop because, although I am
very fond of him, intellect is not his strong point.
the autobiography of bertrand russell 392I am going to write to Dorothy and make your suggestion.
Yours a?ectionately
Russell
From Gertrude Beasly
8 Woburn Place, W.C.1
Gresham Hotel, London
June 21. 1925
Dear Mr Russell
Shortly after you left in March I found a publisher for my book, a semi-
private company in Paris. Several weeks ago a few of the proofs reached me.
Yesterday morning I found myself before the Magistrate at Bow Street after a
night in prison.
In the afternoon of June 19 an o?cer from Scotland Yard called to see me
bringing with him a bundle of the proofs of my book which he described
as ‘grossly obscene’. He said I would have to appear before the Magistrate on
the charge of sending improper matter through the post. He examined my
passport and found it had not been registered. I was arrested and escorted
to Bow Street to register my passport, and detained over night. The Alien
O?cer brought a charge of failure to register my passport to which I pleaded
guilty before the Magistrate and o?ered explanation of my negligence. The
Scotland Yard agent brought a charge of sending obscene literature by post
and asked the Magistrate to punish (I believe he said) and make arrangement
for my deportation. The punishment, I believe, refers to a heavy ?ne or
imprisonment.
I am on bail, 10 pounds, and the case is to be tried on Saturday June 27 at
about 11 o’clock, I shall ?nd out de?nitely tomorrow as to the hour.
Mr Ewer thinks he can ?nd an attorney to take my case. I shall go to the
American Consul tomorrow and talk with others here who know me. Shall
probably see Dr Ellis tomorrow.
If you can o?er any advice I shall be glad.
Sincerely yours
Gertrude Beasly
Miss Beasly was a schoolteacher from Texas, who wrote an autobiography. It was truthful, which
is illegal.
To Max Newman, the distinguished mathematician
24th April 1928
Dear Newman
Many thanks for sending me the o?-print of your article about me in Mind.
I read it with great interest and some dismay. You make it entirely obvious
second marriage 393that my statements to the e?ect that nothing is known about the physical
world except its structure are either false or trivial, and I am somewhat
ashamed at not having noticed the point for myself.
It is of course obvious, as you point out, that the only e?ective assertion
about the physical world involved in saying that it is susceptible to such and
such a structure is an assertion about its cardinal number. (This by the way is
not quite so trivial an assertion as it would seem to be, if, as is not improb-
able, the cardinal number involved is ?nite. This, however, is not a point upon
which I wish to lay stress.) It was quite clear to me, as I read your article, that
I had not really intended to say what in fact I did say, that nothing is known
about the physical world except its structure. I had always assumed spacio-
temporal continuity with the world of percepts, that is to say, I had assumed
that there might be co-punctuality between percepts and non-percepts, and
even that one could pass by a ?nite number of steps from one event to
another compresent with it, from one end of the universe to the other. And
co-punctuality I regarded as a relation which might exist among percepts and
is itself perceptible.
I have not yet had time to think out how far the admission of
co-punctuality alone in addition to structure would protect me from your
criticisms, nor yet how far it would weaken the plausibility of my meta-
physic. What I did realise was that spacio-temporal continuity of percepts and
non-percepts was so axiomatic in my thought that I failed to notice that my
statements appeared to deny it.
I am at the moment much too busy to give the matter proper thought, but
I should be grateful if you could ?nd time to let me know whether you have
any ideas on the matter which are not merely negative, since it does not
appear from your article what your own position is. I gathered in talking
with you that you favoured phenomenalism, but I do not quite know how
de?nitely you do so.
Yours sincerely
Bertrand Russell
To Harold Laski
12th May 1928
My dear Laski
I am afraid it is quite impossible for me to speak to the Socratic Society this
term, much as I should like to do so. But the fact is I am too busy to have any
ideas worth having, like Mrs Eddy who told a friend of mine that she was too
busy to become the second incarnation.
I am not at all surprised that Bentham suggests companionate marriage;
in fact one could almost have inferred it. I discovered accidentally from an old
envelope used as a bookmark that at the moment of my birth my father was
the autobiography of bertrand russell 394reading Bentham’s Table of the Springs of Action. Evidently this caused me to be
Benthamitically ‘conditioned’, as he has always seemed to me a most sensible
fellow. But as a schoolmaster, I am gradually being driven to more radical
proposals, such as those of Plato. If there were an international government
I should seriously be in favour of the root and branch abolition of the family,
but as things are, I am afraid it would make people more patriotic.
Yours ever
Bertrand Russell
To Mr Gardner Jackson
28th May 1929
Dear Mr Jackson
I am sorry I shall not be in America at the time of your meeting on August
23rd, the more so as I shall be there not so very long after that. I think you are
quite right to do everything possible to keep alive the memory of Sacco and
Vanzetti. It must, I think, be clear to any unprejudiced person that there was
not such evidence against them as to warrant a conviction, and I have no
doubt in my own mind that they were wholly innocent. I am forced to
conclude that they were condemned on account of their political opinions
and that men who ought to have known better allowed themselves to express
misleading views as to the evidence because they held that men with such
opinions have no right to live. A view of this sort is one which is very
dangerous, since it transfers from the theological to the political sphere a
form of persecution which it was thought that civilised countries had out-
grown. One is not so surprised at occurrences of this sort in Hungary or
Lithuania, but in America they must be matters of grave concern to all who
care for freedom of opinion.
Yours sincerely
Bertrand Russell
P.S. I hope that out of the above you can make a message for the meeting;
if you do not think it suitable, please let me know, and I will concoct another.
From and to Mr C. L. Aiken
8, Plympton St.
Cambridge, Mass.
March 2, 1930
My Dear Mr Russell
I am preparing a free-lance article on the subject of parasitic nuisances
who bedevil authors: autograph and photograph hunters, those thoughtless
myriads who expect free criticism, poems, speeches, lectures, jobs, and who
in general impose on the literary professional. (I suppose you will place me
second marriage 395in the same category, but hope you can feel that the end justi?es the means
in this case.)
Would you be so good as to send me an account of your grievances, the
length and nature of which of course I leave to you?
Very truly yours
Clarice Lorenz Aiken
19th March 1930
Dear Mr Aiken
In common with other authors, I su?er a good deal from persons who
think that an author ought to do their work for them. Apart from autograph
hunters, I get large numbers of letters from persons who wish me to copy out
for them the appropriate entry in Who’s Who, or ask me my opinion on points
which I have fully discussed in print.
I get many letters from Hindus, beseeching me to adopt some form of
mysticism, from young Americans, asking me where I think the line should
be drawn in petting, and from Poles, urging me to admit that while all other
nationalism may be bad that of Poland is wholly noble.
I get letters from engineers who cannot understand Einstein, and from
parsons who think that I cannot understand Genesis, from husbands whose
wives have deserted them – not (they say) that that would matter, but the
wives have taken the furniture with them, and what in these circumstances
should an enlightened male do?
I get letters from Jews to say that Solomon was not a polygamist, and
from Catholics to say that Torquemada was not a persecutor. I get letters
(concerning whose genuineness I am suspicious) trying to get me to advo-
cate abortion, and I get letters from young mothers asking my opinion of
bottle-feeding.
I am sorry to say that most of the subjects dealt with by my correspondents
have escaped my memory at the moment, but the few that I have mentioned
may serve as a sample.
Yours very truly
Bertrand Russell
To Miss Brooks
5
5th May 1930
Dear Miss Brooks
I am not sure whether you are right in saying that the problem of America
is greater than that of China. It is likely that America will be more important
during the next century or two, but after that it may well be the turn of China.
I think America is very worrying. There is something incredibly wrong with
human relations in your country. We have a number of American children at
the autobiography of bertrand russell 396our school, and I am amazed at their mothers’ instinctive incompetence. The
fount of a?ection seems to have dried up. I suppose all Western civilisation is
going to go the same way, and I expect all our Western races to die out, with
the possible exception of the Spaniards and Portuguese. Alternatively the State
may take to breeding the necessary citizens and educating them as Janissaries
without family ties. Read John B. Watson on mothers. I used to think him
mad; now I only think him American; that is to say, the mothers that he has
known have been American mothers. The result of this physical aloofness is
that the child grows up ?lled with hatred against the world and anxious to
distinguish himself as a criminal, like Leopold and Loeb.
Yours sincerely
Bertrand Russell
Here is part of the preface I wrote:
In view of the aggression of Western nations, the Chinese who were in
many respects more civilised than ourselves and at a higher ethical level, were
faced with the necessity of developing a policy with more military e?cacy
than could be derived from the Confucian teaching. Social life in Old China
was based upon the family. Sun Yat Sen justly perceived that if China was to
resist successfully the onslaughts of military nations, it would be necessary to
substitute the state for the family; and patriotism for ?lial piety – in a word,
the Chinese had to choose whether they would die as saints or live as sinners.
Under Christian in?uence they chose the latter alternative.
Assuming the nationalist (Chiang Kai Shek) government to be successful,
the outcome must be to add another and very important member to the
ruthless militaristic governments which compete in everything except the
destruction of civilisation on which task alone they are prepared to cooperate.
All the intellect, all the heroism, all the martyrdoms, and agonising disil-
lusionments of Chinese history since 1911, will have led up only to this: to
create a new force for evil and a new obstacle to the peace of the world. The
history of Japan should have taught the West caution. But Western civilisation
with all its intelligence is as blind in its operation as an avalanche, and must
take its course to what dire conclusion, I dare not guess.
In her book This is Your Inheritance: A History of the Chemung County,
N.Y. Branch of the Brooks Family (p. 167, published by Century House, Watkins
Glen, New York, U.S.A., 1963) she wrote: ‘Bertrand Russell’s preface (omitting the laudatory
remarks about the author) sums up what happened during our lifetime in China . . . This preface
was taken down by me in the parlor of the May?ower hotel in Akron, Ohio on the morning of
Dec. 1st, 1931 as Mr Russell paced the ?oor smoking his pipe. Then he signed it and we went to
the railroad station; he to go to another lecturing appointment and I to return to Oberlin.’
second marriage 397To H. G. Wells
24th May ’28
My dear H.G.
Thank you very much for sending me your book on The Open Conspiracy.
I have read it with the most complete sympathy, and I do not know of
anything with which I agree more entirely. I enjoyed immensely your fable
about Provinder Island. I am, I think, somewhat less optimistic than you are,
probably owing to the fact that I was in opposition to the mass of mankind
during the war, and thus acquired the habit of feeling helpless.
You speak for example, of getting men of science to join the Open Con-
spiracy, but I should think there is hardly a single one who would do so, with
the exception of Einstein – a not unimportant exception I admit. The rest
in this country would desire knighthoods, in France to become membres de
l’institut, and so on. Even among younger men, I believe your support would
be very meagre. Julian Huxley would not be willing to give up his ?irtations
with the episcopate; Haldane would not forego the pleasure to be derived
from the next war.
I was interested to read what you say about schools and education gener-
ally, and that you advocate ‘a certain sectarianism of domestic and social
life in the interests of its children’ and ‘grouping of its families and the
establishment of its own schools’. It was the feeling of this necessity which
led us to found Beacon Hill School, and I am every day more convinced that
people who have the sort of ideas that we have ought not to expose their
children to obscurantist in?uence, more especially during their early years
when these in?uences can operate upon what will be their unconscious in
adult life.
This brings me to a matter which I approach with some hesitation, but
which I had decided to write to you about before I read your book. This
school is costing me about ￡2000 a year, that is to say very nearly the whole
of my income. I do not think that this is due to any incompetence in man-
agement; in fact all experimental schools that I have ever heard of have been
expensive propositions. My income is precarious since it depends upon the
tastes of American readers who are notoriously ?ckle, and I am therefore very
uncertain as to whether I shall be able to keep the school going. In order to be
able to do so I should need donations amounting to about ￡1000 a year.
I have been wondering whether you would be willing to help in any way
towards the obtaining of this sum, either directly or by writing an appeal
which might in?uence progressive Americans. I should be very grateful if
you would let me know whether you would consider anything of the sort.
You will see of course that an appeal written by Dora and me is less e?ective
than one from an impartial pen, especially if that pen were yours.
I believe profoundly in the importance of what we are doing here. If I were
the autobiography of bertrand russell 398to put into one single phrase our educational objects, I should say that we aim
at training initiative without diminishing its strength. I have long held that
stupidity is very largely the result of fear leading to mental inhibitions, and
the experience that we are having with our children con?rms me in this view.
Their interest in science is at once passionate and intelligent, and their desire
to understand the world in which they live exceeds enormously that of
children brought up with the usual taboos upon curiosity. What we are
doing is of course only an experiment on a small scale, but I con?dently
expect its results to be very important indeed. You will realise that hardly any
other educational reformers lay much stress upon intelligence. A. S. Neill, for
example, who is in many ways an admirable man, allows such complete
liberty that his children fail to get the necessary training and are always going
to the cinema, when they might otherwise be interested in things of more
value. Absence of opportunity for exciting pleasures at this place is, I think,
an important factor in the development of the children’s intellectual interests.
I note what you say in your book on the subject of amusements, and I agree
with it very strongly.
I hope that if you are back in England you will pay a visit to this school and
see what we are doing.
Yours very sincerely
Bertrand Russell
From and to A. S. Neill, the progressive schoolmaster
Summerhill,
Lyme Regis, Dorset
23.3.26
Dear Mr Russell
I marvel that two men, working from di?erent angles, should arrive at
essentially the same conclusions. Your book and mine are complementary.
It may be that the only di?erence between us comes from our respective
complexes. I observe that you say little or nothing about handwork in educa-
tion. My hobby has always been handwork, and where your child asks you
about stars my pupils ask me about steels and screw threads. Possibly also
I attach more importance to emotion in education than you do.
I read your book with great interest and with very little disagreement. Your
method of overcoming your boy’s fear of the sea I disagreed with heartily! An
introverted boy might react with the thought: ‘Daddy wants to drown me.’
My complex again . . . arising from my dealing with neurotics mostly.
I have no ?rst-hand knowledge of early childhood, for I am so far unmar-
ried, but your advices about early childhood seem to me to be excellent. Your
attitude to sex instruction and masturbation is splendid and you put it in a
way that will not shock and o?end. (I have not that art!)
second marriage 399I do not share your enthusiasm for Montessori. I cannot agree with a
system set up by a strong churchwoman with a strict moral aim. Her orderli-
ness to me is a counterblast against original sin. Besides I see no virtue in
orderliness at all. My workshop is always in a mess but my handwork isn’t.
My pupils have no interest in orderliness until they come to puberty or
thereabouts. You may ?nd that at the age of ?ve your children will have no
use for Montessori apparatus. Why not use the apparatus to make a train with?
I argued this out with Madame Macaroni, Montessori’s chief lieutenant a few
years ago. Is it not our awful attitude to learning that warps our outlook?
After all a train is a reality, while an inset frame is purely arti?cial. I never use
arti?cial apparatus. My apparatus in the school is books, tools, test tubes,
compasses. Montessori wants to direct a child. I don’t.
By the way, to go back to the sea fear, I have two boys who never enter the
water. My nephew age nine (the watch-breaker of the book) and an intro-
verted boy of eleven who is full of fears. I have advised the other children to
make no mention of the sea, never to sneer at the two, never to try and
persuade them to bathe. If they do not come to bathing from their own inner
Drang . . . well, it does not much matter. One of my best friends, old Dauvit in
my native village, is 89 and he never had a bath in his life.
You will be interested to know Homer Lane’s theory about timetable suck-
ing. He used to advocate giving a child the breast whenever it demanded it.
He held that in sucking there are two components . . . pleasure and nutrition.
The timetable child accumulates both components, and when the sucking
begins the pleasure component goes away with a rush and is satis?ed in a sort
of orgasm. But the nutrition element is unsatis?ed, and he held that many
cases of mal-nutrition were due to this factor, that the child stopped sucking
before the nutrition urge was satis?ed.
To me the most interesting thing about your book is that it is scholarly
(nasty word) in the sense that it is written by a man who knows history
and science. I am ignorant of both and I think that my own conclusions
come partly from a blind intuition. I say again that it is marvellous that we
should reach very much the same philosophy of education. It is the only
possible philosophy today, but we cannot hope to do much in the
attack against schools from Eton to the ???. Our only hope is the individual
parent.
My chief di?culty is the parent, for my pupils are products of ignorant and
savage parents. I have much fear that one or two of them, shocked by my
book, may withdraw their children. That would be tragedy.
Well, thank you ever so much for the book. It is the only book on educa-
tion that I have read that does not make me swear. All the others are morals
disguised as education.
One warning however . . . there is always the chance that your son may
the autobiography of bertrand russell 400want to join the Primrose League one day! One in ten million chance, but we
must face the fact that human nature has not yet ?tted into any cause and
e?ect scheme; and never will ?t in.
If you ever motor to your Cornwall home do stop and see us here.
Yours very truly
A. S. Neill
Summerhill School
Leiston, Su?olk
18.12.30
Dear Russell
Have you any political in?uence? The Labour Ministry are refusing to let
me employ a Frenchman to teach French. The chap I want is with me now,
has been analysed and is a tiptop man to deal with my bunch of problem kids.
Other schools have natives to teach their languages . . . and I naturally ask
why the hell a damned department should dictate to me about my edu-
cational ways. I have given the dept a full account of the man and why he is
necessary to me and the fools reply: ‘But the Dept is not satis?ed that a British
subject could not be trained in the special methods of teaching in operation
in your school.’
Have you any political bigbug friend who would or could get behind the
bloody idiots who control our departments? I am wild as hell.
Cheerio, help me if you can. I know George Lansbury but hesitate to
approach him as he will have enough to do in his own dept.
Yours
A. S. Neill
20th Dec. 30
Dear Neill
What you tell me is quite outrageous. I have written to Charles Trevelyan
and Miss Bond?eld, and I enclose copies of my letters to them.
I wonder whether you make the mistake of mentioning psycho-analysis in
your application. You know, of course, from Homer Lane’s case that police-
men regard psycho-analysis as merely a cloak for crime. The only ground to
put before the department is that Frenchmen are apt to know French better
than Englishmen do. The more the department enquires into your methods,
the more it will wish to hamper you. Nobody is allowed to do any good in
this country except by means of trickery and deceit.
Yours ever
Bertrand Russell
second marriage 401To Charles Trevelyan
20th Dec. 30
Dear Trevelyan
A. S. Neill, of Summerhill School, Leiston, Su?olk, who is, as you probably
know, very distinguished in the educational world, having developed from a
conventional school dominie into one of the most original and successful
innovators of our time, writes to me to say that the Ministry of Labour is refus-
ing to allow him to continue to employ Frenchmen to teach French. He has at
present a French master whose services he wishes to retain, but the Ministry
of Labour has o?cially informed him that Englishmen speak French just as
well as Frenchmen do, and that his present master is not to be allowed to stay.
I think you will agree with me that this sort of thing is intolerable. I know
that many of the most important questions in education do not come under
your department but are decided by policemen whose judgment is taken
on the question whether a foreigner is needed in an educational post. If
the principles upon which the Alien Act is administered had been applied in
Italy in the 15th century, the Western world would never have acquired a
knowledge of Greek and the Renaissance could not have taken place.
Although the matter is outside your department, I cannot doubt that the
slightest word from you would cause the Ministry of Labour to alter its
decision. A. S. Neill is a man of international reputation, and I hate the
thought of what he may do to hold up British Bumbledom to ridicule
throughout the civilised world. If you could do anything to set the matter
right, you will greatly relieve my anxiety on this score.
Yours very sincerely
Bertrand Russell
P.S. I have also written to Miss Bond?eld on this matter.
From and to A. S. Neill
Summerhill School
Leiston, Su?olk
22.12.30
Dear Russell
Good man! That’s the stu? to give the troops. Whatever the result accept
my thanks. I didn’t mention psychoanalysis to them. I applied on the usual
form and they wrote asking me what precise steps I had taken ‘to ?nd a
teacher of French who was British or an alien already resident in this country’.
