the proceedings, and, especially, the warm friendliness that I felt in theaudience as well as in the actors, I still, and always shall, treasure. At the time Iwas so deeply moved that I felt I could not utter a word, much less ?nd wordsthat might express my feeling of gratitude and of what the occasion meant tome. But, mercifully, words came. I do not think that I can say again so freshlyor with such entire, unconsidered sincerity what I felt then, so I give myspeech itself, taking it from the recording:‘Friends,‘This is an occasion that I hardly know how to ?nd words for. I am moretouched than I can say, and more deeply than I can ever hope to express. Ihave to give my very warmest possible thanks to those who have worked toproduce this occasion: to the performers, whose exquisite music, exquisitelyperformed, was so full of delight; to those who worked in less conspicuousways, like my friend Mr Schoenman; and to all those who have given me gifts– gifts which are valuable in themselves, and also as expressions of anundying hope for this dangerous world.‘I have a very simple creed: that life and joy and beauty are better thandusty death, and I think when we listen to such music as we heard today wemust all of us feel that the capacity to produce such music, and the capacity tohear such music, is a thing worth preserving and should not be thrown awayin foolish squabbles. You may say it’s a simple creed, but I think everythingimportant is very simple indeed. I’ve found that creed su?cient, and I shouldthink that a great many of you would also ?nd it su?cient, or else you wouldhardly be here.‘But now I just want to say how it’s di?cult, when one has embarked upontrafalgar square 595a course which invites a greater or less degree of persecution and obloquyand abuse, to ?nd instead that one is welcomed as I have been today. It makesone feel rather humble, and I feel I must try to live up to the feelings that haveproduced this occasion. I hope I shall; and I thank you from the bottom of myheart.’The last formal celebration of my birthday took place the following weekwhen Fenner Brockway most kindly invited me to a luncheon in my honourat the House of Commons. I was somewhat nervous of this as it seemedunlikely to me that any Members of either House would turn up to do mehonour. My tension mounted as we waited in an anteroom to be led to theHarcourt Room where the banquet was to take place and, again, stood at thedoor rather wistfully watching the Members fortify themselves with pre-prandial drinks. But, when the party began, it was pleasant and friendly, and Ithought it generous of many of those present to be there. I had not for sometime been pulling my punches in regard to the activities of politicians, nor, Ifear, did I on this occasion, seeing a chance and, indeed, an obligation, tospeak to them direct.When all this pleasant fuss to do with my becoming a nonagenarian hadpassed, we retired to Wales, returning to London only for a few days in Julyfor the purpose of talking with U Thant about international nuclear anddisarmament policies. This was the ?rst time that I had met him and I wasgreatly impressed not only by his energy and clear grasp of a?airs, but by hisbalanced objectivity and thoughtfulness and his delightful good humour. Atthis time, too, I paid my ?rst visit to Woburn Abbey. I found the grandeurs ofthe house very pleasing and the lovely serenity of the Park, with its great treessheltering Father David’s deer and its wide quiet stretches of green turf, verycalming.The last months of that year were taken up with the Cuban crisis and thenwith the Sino-Indian Border dispute. Early in December, Penguin acceptedmy o?er to write my account of these two happenings which I did in January.It was published by Penguin and Allen & Unwin in April under the titleUnarmed Victory. I have told in it all there is to tell of any interest about mythought and action at that time, and I do not propose to repeat it all here.Perhaps I should add, however, that I regret nothing that I did at that time inrelation to these two crises. My point of view upon them, in spite of furtherstudy, remains the same. I will give my critics only this olive branch: I amsorry that I did not couch my telegram of October 23rd to President Kennedymore gently. Its directness made it unlikely to cut much ice, I agree. But I hadas little hope then as I should have in similar circumstances now of wise andquick withdrawal on the part of the ?? Government.I had become so tried by the folly of some of the leading members ofthe Committee of 100 during the events of September and by the growingthe autobiography of bertrand russell 596dissipation of the Committee’s policies that, early in January, I resigned fromthe Main Committee in London. I did not wish, however, to go into thesereasons in my public resignation. I based it upon the equally valid and con-clusive reason that my increasing absences in Wales prevented me from par-ticipating usefully in the work of the Main Committee. I still have greatsympathy with the early aims and actions of the Committee, and I shouldsupport any recrudescence of them if they seemed to me to stand any chanceof success. Mass civil disobedience still seems to me one of the most e?ectiveways of attacking present international policies which remain as bad as theywere then, if not worse.The British Government, meanwhile, had its own plans for what to do inthe event of nuclear war. What these plans were we learned, in part, from anorganisation which called itself ‘Spies for Peace’. This organisation had suc-ceeded in ascertaining the secret plans of Authority to be put into force onthe outbreak of war. Britain was to be divided into a number of regions, eachwith its own government, each with autocratic power, each composed of apre-arranged corps of o?cials who were to live in supposed safety in under-ground ‘Regional Seats of Government’ and decide (so far as the enemyallowed) what was to become of the rest of us, and, in particular, what was tobe done about fall-out if and while we remained alive. It was feared thatpossibly the prospect of such measures might not please the populace, andmust therefore be kept secret. ‘Spies for Peace’ had discovered some of thedocuments involved, and were anxious to publish them. They had no funds,and appealed to me. I gave them ￡50 with my blessing. As soon as possiblethe documents were published, and copies were distributed among theAldermaston marchers.Unfortunately (as I felt) the leaders of ??? were shocked that secretmethods should be employed by paci?sts. They did what they could toimpede the spread of knowledge which the ‘Spies’ had sought to secure. Afresh batch of documents which they had secured was taken to the editor of aleading paci?st journal under the impression that he would publicise theirinformation. But he, horri?ed by the disclosures and the retribution theirpublication would undoubtedly call down, sent the documents to the motherof one of the ‘Spies’ and she, fearing a police raid, burnt them. So died ourhope of learning Government plans for governmental salvation and the suc-cour of such members of the public as might be allowed to live. This bitterblow to the clari?cation of our position and to a great impetus to work forpeace was dealt by well-meaning and not unknowledgeable paci?sts.trafalgar square 597LETTERSTo and from Ernest JonesPlas Penrhyn2 February, 1957Dear Dr JonesI enclose a copy of a letter from an eminent Anglican divine. It seems to mea document worthy to go into your case-book. I should be very grateful ifyou felt inclined to send me any comments on it.Yours sincerelyRussellThe following is the letter I sent to Dr Jones (without the Bishop’s address or signature):From the Bishop of RochesterPersonalBishopscourtRochesterJan: 29. 1957Dear Lord RussellIt has been laid upon my conscience to write to you, after your article inthe Sunday Times on the ‘Great Mystery’ of survival after death; seeing that youat 84 stand yourself upon that threshold.Your contemporaries, like myself, acclaim you the greatest brain of ourgeneration. And many must believe, with me, that if only your moral staturehad matched your intellectual power and other singular endowments, youcould have saved us from a second World War. Instead, in your book onCompanionate Marriage, Marriage and Morals (1929), the cloven hoof of thelecher cannot be disguised; and it is lechery that has been your Achilles heel,blinding your great mind from discerning that in?nitely greater Mind behindall phenomena, such as has formed your enthralling study. Only the purein heart can see God; and four wives, with three divorces, must be an awfuland bitter humiliation, showing the man himself, entrusted with such amagni?cent brain.Moreover, I cannot but believe that you must at times be haunted by theremembrances of the murder, suicide, and untold misery, between the wars,caused by the experiments of young people with Companionate Marriage, ofwhich you were the Apostle, with all the immense authority of your fame. Iam an old man myself of 72, but with no outstanding gifts or learning; andyet I would, in humble sincerity, make my own, to you, what that Dr M. J.Routh, who died in his hundredth year as President of Magdalen, Oxford,(1854), wrote to a Quaker acquaintance in the condemned cell:the autobiography of bertrand russell 598‘Sir, this comes from one who, like yourself, has not long to live, being inhis ninetieth year. He has had more opportunity than most for distinctlyknowing that the scriptures of the New Testament were written by the Apos-tles of the Saviour of mankind. In these Scriptures it is expressly said that theblood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin, and that if we confess our sins,God, being merciful and just, will forgive us our sins on our repentance.Think, say, and do everything in your power to save your soul, before you gointo another life.’You may know that the great Bishop Joseph Butler of Durham, your peer asregards intellect, died with this verse from I John, I. 7, in his ears, andwhispering: ‘Oh! but this is comfortable.’I pray God that you will recognise that, for some reason, I have been ?lledwith a deep concern for you.Yours sincerelyChristopher Ro?enThe Plat, ElstedNr. Midhurst, Sx.Feb. 4, 1957Dear RussellI am a little surprised that you should ?nd the Anglican’s letter at all odd. Ishould have thought you received many such, and indeed I even wonder howmany masses are already being said for your soul.The interest of such letters is of course the calm identi?cation of wicked-ness with sexual activity. Freud used to think that the main function ofreligion was to check man’s innate aggressivity (the obvious source of allwickedness), but it is curious how often religious teachers bring it back againto sexuality. That makes one think there must be some deep connectionbetween the two, and we believe nowadays that much aggressivity, possiblyall, can ultimately be traced to the innumerable forms of sexual frustration. Itremains noteworthy, however, that you, our leading apostle of true morality(love, charity, tolerance, etc.) should be cast into perdition for not acceptingthe Catholic view of marriage.If you want a psycho-analytic comment on the letter there is a clue in theomnipotence he attributes to you (ability to stop wars, etc.). That can onlypoint to a gigantic father ?gure (an earthly God), whose only sin, muchresented by the son, was his sleeping with the mother. It is curious that suchpeople are never shocked at God’s adulterous behaviour with the VirginMary. It needs a lot of puri?cation.yours sincerelyErnest Jonestrafalgar square 599Plas Penrhyn14 March, 1957Dear JonesThank you for your very pleasant letter of February 4. Ever since I got it, Ihave been luxuriating in the pleasure of seeing myself as a formidable father-?gure inspiring terror in the Anglican hierarchy. What surprised me aboutthe letter I sent you was that I had imagined eminent Anglican Divines to beusually fairly civilised people. I get hundreds of letters very similar to the oneI sent you, but they are generally from people with very little education. Icannot make up my mind whether the writer of the letter is gnawed withremorse for the sins he has committed or ?lled with regret for those that hehas not committed.Yours sincerelyRussellFrom and to Lord Russell of LiverpoolOld Warren FarmWimbledon CommonS.W.1913/2[1959]Dear Lord RussellI am forwarding the enclosed as Monsieur Edmond Paris, and he is notalone, has got us mixed up. The ?rst paragraph of his letter refers to you. Theothers are for me and I shall be replying to them. Would you please return theletter when you have read it.Ys. trulyRussell of LiverpoolPlas Penrhyn18 February, 1959Dear Lord RussellThank you for your letter and for the enclosure which I return herewith. Ihave been wondering whether there is any means of preventing the confu-sion between you and me, and I half-thought that we might write a jointletter to The Times in the following terms: Sir, To prevent the continuation ofconfusions which frequently occur, we beg to state that neither of us is theother. Do you think this would be a good plan?Yours sincerelyRussellthe autobiography of bertrand russell 600Old Warren FarmWimbledon CommonS.W.1920/2[1959]Dear Lord RussellMany thanks for your letter of the 18th.I am not sure whether you are in earnest or joking about a joint letter toThe Times but, in either event, I think it is a good idea. Even were it note?ective it would provide a little light amusement, and if you would care towrite such a letter I would gladly add my signature below yours.Incidentally, à propos this subject, you will ?nd pages 61/2 of a book of myreminiscences to be published on March 19 by Cassell & Co. under the title ofThat Reminds Me of some interest. They contain details of two occasions onwhich I was mistaken for an Earl Russell. Your elder brother in India in 1927and yourself in 1954.Page 60 will also interest you.Yours sincerelyRussell of LiverpoolPlas Penrhyn23 February 1959Dear Lord Russell of LiverpoolThank you for your letter of February 20. I was both serious and joking inmy suggestion of a joint letter. I enclose a draft which I have signed, but I amentirely willing to alter the wording if you think it too frivolous. I think,however, that the present wording is more likely to secure attention than amore solemn statement.Yours sincerelyRussellPlas Penrhyn23 February, 1959To the Editor of The TimesSirIn order to discourage confusions which have been constantly occurring,we beg herewith to state that neither of us is the other.Yours etc.Russell of Liverpool(Lord Russell of Liverpool)Russell(Bertrand, Earl Russell)trafalgar square 601Old Warren FarmWimbledon CommonS.W.1925/2/59Dear Lord RussellI have forwarded our letter to The Times but I have asked them, of course, toput your name before mine.I like the wording immensely.Russell of LiverpoolTo and from A. J. AyerPlas Penhryn19 January, 1957Dear AyerI have just ?nished reading your Problem of Knowledge. I have read the bookwith a great deal of pleasure and I agree with most of it. I like your way ofdissecting problems; for example, what you say on such subjects as tele-vision and precognition seems to me to combine logic and sound sense injust proportion. The only point upon which I seriously disagree with you isas to perception. My view on this subject, although to scienti?c people itseems a mere collection of truisms, is rejected as a wild paradox by philo-sophers of all schools. You need not, therefore, be in any degree disquietedby not having my support. I will, however, make one point: on page 126you say that from the fact that the perceived qualities of physical objects arecausally dependent upon the state of the percipient, it does not follow thatthe object does not really have them. This, of course, is true. What doesfollow is that there is no reason to think that it has them. From the factthat when I wear blue spectacles, things look blue, it does not follow thatthey are not blue, but it does follow that I have no reason to suppose theyare blue.As I ?nd that philosophers, as opposed to men of science, unanimouslymisunderstand my theory of perception, I am enclosing a note on the subjectwith no special reference to your book.Yours very sincerelyRussellNew CollegeOxford26 May 1961Dear RussellI have just heard from Routledge that you have withdrawn permission foryour preface to be included in the new translation of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus.the autobiography of bertrand russell 602The reason why I come in to this is that I am editor of the series in which thebook is to appear.I assume that you are taking this step because of the di?culties which arebeing raised by Ogden’s brother. I do not know what Ogden has told you; butI do hope that I can persuade you to reconsider your decision. The mostimportant fact, as I see it, is that this new translation will supersede the old, sothat if your preface is not included in it, it will practically cease to be available.I think this would be a great pity, as quite apart from the light it throws onWittgenstein, it is a very interesting piece of work in itself.The authors of the new translation, Messrs Pears and McGuinness, tellme that if there [are] any conditions which you now wish to make beforeallowing them to use your preface, they will do their very best to meet them.I am very sorry to hear that you have been ill and hope that you are nowrecovered.Yours sincerelyFreddie AyerPears and McGuinness say that they have made every e?ort to satisfy Ogdenbut have found him quite intractable.Plas Penrhyn27 May, 1961Dear AyerThank you for your letter of May 26. I have never succeeded in understand-ing the points at issue between Ogden’s brother and your party. I have noobjection in principle to the reprinting of my introduction to the Tractatus. Iwas in?uenced by the fact that Wittgenstein and all his followers hated myintroduction and that Wittgenstein only consented to its inclusion becausethe publishers made it a condition of their publishing the Tractatus. I did notknow, until I received your letter this morning, that there was anyone whothought that my introduction had any value. Since you think that it has, I amquite willing again to grant permission for its republication. Would youkindly communicate the substance of this letter to Routledge.Yours sincerelyRussellNew CollegeOxford31 May 1961Dear RussellThank you very much for allowing us to reprint your Introduction to theTractatus. Wittgenstein always complained at being misrepresented by anybodytrafalgar square 603who wrote about him, and his followers simply echo what he said. But I amsure that your Introduction is an important addition to the work and the newtranslators entirely share my view. They were indeed very upset whenthey thought they were not going to be allowed to reprint it. With regardto Ogden’s brother I am in the same position as yourself: I still do notunderstand what the substance of his grievance is.Yours sincerelyFreddie AyerFrom and to Rudolf CarnapDepartment of PhilosophyUniversity of CaliforniaMay 12, 1962Dear Lord RussellThroughout my life I have followed with the greatest interest not onlyyour philosophical work but also, especially during the last years, your polit-ical activities, and I admire your courage and your intensity of energy anddevotion. Now, on the occasion of your ninetieth birthday, I wish to sendyou a message of best wishes and of deep gratitude for all I owe to you. Yourbooks had indeed a stronger in?uence on my philosophical thinking thanthose of any other philosopher. I say more about this in my intellectualautobiography (in a forthcoming Schilpp-volume on my philosophy), andespecially also about the inspiring e?ect on me of your appeal for a newmethod in philosophy, on the last pages of your book Our knowledge of theexternal world.I am in complete agreement with the aims for which you are ?ghting atpresent: serious negotiations instead of the cold war, no bomb-testing, nofallout shelters. But, not having your wonderful power of words, I limitmyself to participation in public appeals and petitions initiated by others andto some private letters to President Kennedy on these matters. Even suchletters are di?cult for me. By nature I am inclined to turn away from theinsane quarrels of parties and governments, and pursue my thinking in apurely theoretical ?eld. But at present, when the survival of civilisation is atstake, I realise that it is necessary at least to take a stand. I also admired yourforceful and convincing argumentation in the debate with Edward Tellerwhich I saw on television. I ?nd it depressing to see a prominent scientist (incontrast to politicians from whom one has come to expect nothing better)strengthening the prejudices of the listeners.I am going to be 71 on the same day you are having your birthday. Mayyou have many more active years ahead, in good health, and with the satisfac-tion of seeing a more rational world order coming into being, to whosedevelopment you have contributed so much. I am going to retire in a fewthe autobiography of bertrand russell 604weeks from teaching and to devote myself to the further development of mytheory of inductive probability, on which I have begun to publish in 1950and which has occupied me ever since.With deep a?ection and gratitude,YoursRudolf CarnapPlas Penrhyn21st June 1962Dear Professor CarnapI am immensely grateful to you for your kind letter. It pleased megreatly. I had not realised that your birthday and mine fall on the same day.I am sorry not to have sent you my own good wishes, which are sincerelyfelt.I believe that your e?orts to bring clarity and precision to philosophy willhave an everlasting e?ect on the thinking of men, and I am very happy to seethat you will continue your work after your retirement. Nothing would bemore ?tting than that you should successfully realise your theory of inductiveprobability. I entirely understand your di?dence with respect to letters topublic o?cials. It is di?cult to employ a language which speaks of intenseand sincere fears for our world to public men who receive our words with