ated in the passage you quote from No. 123. As a result I must express to younot only my entire agreement with your sentiments (which are those ofevery civilised man) but also with your argument. It seems to me clear on hisown evidence that Sir E. Grey must bear a large share of the catastrophe,whether he acted as he did consciously or stupidly. He steadily refused togive Germany any assurance of neutrality on any conditions, until he pro-duced a belief that he meant England to ?ght, and Germany thereupon ran‘amok’. But the evidence shows that she was willing to bid high for ourneutrality.First (No. 85) she promised the integrity of France proper and of Belgium(tho leaving her neutrality contingent). When Grey said that wasn’t enough(No. 101) and demanded a pledge about Belgian neutrality (No. 114), theGerman Secretary of State explained, stupidly but apparently honestly, whatthe di?culty was (No. 122), and said he must consult the Chancellor andKaiser. This the papers have represented as a refusal to give the pledge,whereas it is obvious that Lichnowsky’s conversation with Grey (No. 123)next day was the answer. And I don’t see how anything more could have beenconceded. Belgian neutrality and the integrity of France and her colonies,with a hint of acceptance of any conditions Grey would impose if only hewould state them. Of course, that would have reduced the war with France toa farce, and meant presumably that France would not be (seriously) attackedat all, but only contained. One gets the impression throughout that Germanyreally wanted to ?ght Russia and had to take on France because of the systemof alliances. Also that Russia had been goading Austria into desperation, (No.118 s.f.), was willing to ?ght, (109, 139), was lying, or suspected of lying byGermany (112, 121, 139 p. 72 top of 144). It is sickening to think that thisdeluge of blood has been let loose all in order that the tyranny of the Tsarshall be extended over all the world. As regards the question of Grey’s goodthe first war 253faith, have you noted that the abstract of the despatches gives no hint of theimportant contents of No. 123? That was presumably the reason why none ofthe papers at ?rst noticed it. As for the Nation Editor’s reply to you, he simplydistorts the time order. Lichnowsky’s o?er to respect Belgian neutrality cameafter Grey’s inquiry and answered it. Grey’s answers seem mere ‘fencing’, andif he had really wanted to be neutral he would surely have said to L’s. o?ers‘are these ?rm pledges?’. But he did not respond at all.However it is no use crying over spilt milk, and not much to consider asyet how European civilisation can be saved; I fear this horror will go onlong enough to ruin it completely. But I suspect that not much will be left ofthe potentates, statesmen and diplomats who have brought about thiscatastrophe, when the su?ering millions have borne it 6 months.Ever sincerely yoursF. C. S. SchillerTo and from J. L. Hammond 5 Sept. 1914Dear HammondI am glad Norman Angell is replying and am very satis?ed to be displacedby him.As regards Belgium, there are some questions I should like to ask you, notin a controversial spirit, but because I wish, if possible, to continue to feelsome degree of political respect for the Nation, with which in the past I havebeen in close agreement.I. Were the Nation ignorant of the fact, known to all who took anyinterest in military matters, that the Germans, for many years past, hadmade no secret of their intention to attack France through Belgium inthe next war?II. Did the Nation in former years regard the violation of Belgium, if itshould occur, as a just ground for war with Germany?III. If so, why did they never give the slightest hint of this opinion, or askthe Government to make this view clear to Germany? If the object was to saveBelgium, this was an obvious duty.IV. Why did the Nation in the past protest against Continental entangle-ments, when the alleged duty of protecting Belgium already involved all thetrouble that could arise from an alliance with France and Russia?It seems to me that in the past, as in the present, the policy of the Nation hasbeen sentimental, in the sense that it has refused to face facts which wentagainst its policy. I do not see, at any rate, how it can be absolved from thecharge of either having been thoughtless in the past, or being hysterical now.If there is an answer, I should be very grateful for it.Yours sincerelyBertrand Russellthe autobiography of bertrand russell 254Oat?eld19 Oct. 1914Dear RussellYour letter – accusing my handwriting of a certain obscurity – was agreat shock, but less than it would have been had I not already received asimilar intimation, less tactfully conveyed, from the printers. I had thereforealready addressed myself to the painful task of reform, with the result thatyou see.My letter was in answer to one from you asking why if the Nationthought we should ?ght over Belgium it had not let its readers know thatthis was its opinion, and why if it took this view, it objected to foreignentanglements. (I send your letter as the simplest way.) First of all Imust ask you – in justice to the Nation – to distinguish between the Nationand me. I have had no responsibility for the paper’s line on foreign policy(or on Armaments) with which I have not associated myself. I agreedwith the N. entirely on Persia. I am therefore not quite the right personto answer your questions; but I think the Nation could clear itself ofinconsistency.1. I don’t know whether the Nation was aware of this or not. (Personally Iwas not. I always thought Germany might develop designs on Belgium andHolland and in the last article on Foreign Policy that I wrote in the Speaker Isaid we could not look idly on if she attacked them.)2. The Nation drew attention to our obligation to Belgium in April 1912,March 1913, and the week before the war.3. I imagine that they did not call upon the Government to impress this onGermany because they imagined that it was generally known that an EnglishGovernment would consider the obligation binding.4. The Nation argued that the entente with France and Russia made a gen-eral war more probable, and that if we were quite independent we couldmore easily protect Belgium. ‘Germany would not violate the neutralityof Belgium for the sake of some small military advantage if she might other-wise reckon on our neutrality’ (March 1.1913). They may have been wrong,their general criticisms of Grey may have been right or wrong and theiridea that it was possible to build up an Anglo-French-German entente mayhave been impracticable, but there seems to be no inconsistency in workingfor that policy for some years and in thinking that it is Germany that haswrecked it. Massingham’s view is that Germany 1) would make no conces-sions during the last fortnight for the Peace of Europe 2) insisted on invadingBelgium.If you say that you think the Nation has not allowed enough for the warlikeforces in Germany in the past I agree. I think that has been the mistake of allthe Peace people. In his book – in many respects admirable – on The War of Steelthe first war 255and Gold Brailsford was entirely sceptical, predicting that there would never bea great war in Europe again.YoursJ. L. HammondFrom Helen Dudley [1914]Thank you so much for the ?owers. They are a great comfort to me andyour letter also – I have read it many times. It was terrible the other evening –yet if we had not seen each other it might have been in?nitely more terrible –I might have come to feel that I could never see you again. That is all past now– I do understand how it is with you and I feel more than ever that aprofound and lasting friendship will be possible – I hope very soon – as soonas I get back my strength. Nothing that has happened makes any di?erence?nally – it was and still is of the very best.Goodbye now and if one may speak of peace in this distracted world –peace be with you.H.[Helen Dudley]To Geo. Turner, Esq. Trinity CollegeCambridge26 April 1915Dear SirI am sorry to say I cannot renew my subscription to the Cambridge LiberalAssociation, and I do not wish any longer to be a member of it. One of mychief reasons for supporting the Liberal Party was that I thought them lesslikely than the Unionists to engage in a European war. It turns out that eversince they have been in o?ce they have been engaged in deceiving theirsupporters, and in secretly pursuing a policy of which the outcome is abhor-rent to me. Under these circumstances I can do nothing directly or indirectlyto support the present Government.Yours faithfullyBertrand RussellThe writer of the following letter was a distinguished explorer and soldier. He was in command ofthe British Expedition to Tibet in 1903–4. He was a very delightful and liberal-minded man, forwhom I had a great regard. We travelled together on the ‘Mauretania’ in 1914.From Sir Francis Younghusband LondonMay 11 1915My dear RussellI am so distressed at what you say about feeling a sense of isolation becausethe autobiography of bertrand russell 256of your views regarding the war. It should be all the other way round. Youought to be feeling the pride your friends feel in you for your independenceand honesty of thought. Vain and conceited cranks may well be abominatedby their friends. But unfortunately it is not they who have the sense ofisolation which you feel. They are too satis?ed with themselves to have anysuch feelings. It is only men like you would have the feeling.But do please remember this that your friends admire and are helped byyou even though they may not agree. It is everything that at such a time as thisyou should have said what you thought. For you know more about theGermans and other continental countries than most of us and you have alsomade a special study of the ?rst principles of action. And in these times it isof the utmost importance and value that there should be men like you bywhom the rest of us can test themselves. I knew scarcely anything of Germanyuntil the war came on. And I am by heredity inclined to take the soldier’sview. So I approached this question from quite a di?erent standpoint to whatyou did. I was all the more interested in knowing what you thought, andtried to get my ideas straight and just by yours.From my own experience of Government action and of military attitudesI should say that it was almost impossible for any one outside the innerGovernment circle to get a true view at the ?rst start o?. The crisis came sosuddenly to the outside public. Underneath the surface it had been brewingup but we knew nothing of it – or very little. Then suddenly it breaks and wehave to form the best opinion we can. And as regards the military attitude Iknow from experience how frightfully dangerous it is when you have thephysical means of enforcing your own point of view – how apt you are todisregard any one else’s. I have seen that with military commanders on cam-paign and probably I have been pretty bad myself. This it seems to me is whatGermany is su?ering from. She certainly had accumulated tremendous powerand this made her utterly inconsiderate of the feelings and rights of others.And what I take it we have to drive into her is the elementary fact that it doesnot pay to disregard these rights and feelings – that she must regard them.Yours very sincerelyFrancis YounghusbandA specimen typical of many: RydeSept. 20 ’15It may be perfectly true, and happily so, that you are not a Fellow ofTrinity, – but your best friends, if you have any, would not deny that you area silly ass. And not only a silly ass, – but a mean-spirited and lying one atthat, – for you have the sublime impertinence and untruthfulness to talkabout ‘no doubt atrocities have occurred on both sides’. You, together withyour friends (?) Pigou, Marshall, Walter G. Bell, A. R. Waller, Conybeare, etc.the first war 257know perfectly well that to charge the British Army with atrocities is a perni-cious lie of which only an English Boche traitor could be guilty, – and yourpaltry attempt to introduce the Russians stamps you for what you are!YoursJ. BullThe occasion of the following letter was my taking the chair for Shaw at a meeting to discussthe War:From G. B. Shaw 10 Adelphi Terrace[London] W.C.16th October. 1915Dear Bertrand RussellYou had better talk it over with the Webbs. As far as I am concerned, doexactly as the spirit moves you. If you wish to reserve your ?re, it is quite easyto open the meeting by simply stating that it is a Fabian meeting, and that thebusiness of the Fabian Society is, within human limits, the dispassionateinvestigation of social problems, and the search for remedies for social evils;that war is a social problem like other social problems and needs suchinvestigation side by side with recruiting demonstrations and patrioticrevivals; that the subject of this evenings lecture is the psychological side ofwar; and that you have pleasure in calling upon etc etc etc etc.I am certainly not going to be obviously politic, conciliatory and bland.I mean to get listened to, and to make the lecture a success; and I also mean toencourage the audience if I can; but I shall do it with as much ostensiblede?ance of the lightning as possible. The important thing is that themeeting should be good humoured and plucky; for what is really thematter with everybody is funk. In the right key one can say anything: inthe wrong key, nothing: the only delicate part of the job is the establishmentof the key.I have no objection on earth to the lines you indicate; and before or aftermy speech is the same to me. Our job is to make people serious aboutthe war. It is the monstrous triviality of the damned thing, and the vulgarfrivolity of what we imagine to be patriotism, that gets at my temper.Yours everG.B.S.P.S. As this will not be delivered until late afternoon (if then) I send it toWebb’s.the autobiography of bertrand russell 258The occasion of the following letter was my pamphlet on the policy of the Entente, in which Icriticised Gilbert Murray’s defence of Grey.To Gilbert Murray 34, Russell ChambersBury Street, W.C.28th December 1915Dear GilbertThank you for your letter. I am very sorry I gave a wrong impression aboutyour connection with the ?.?. I certainly thought you had had more to dowith them.I agree with all you say about the future. I have no wish to quarrel withthose who stand for liberal ideas, however I may disagree about the war. Ithought it necessary to answer you, just as you thought it necessary to writeyour pamphlet, but I did not mean that there should be anything o?ensive inmy answer; if there was, I am sorry. I feel our friendship still lives in theeternal world, whatever may happen to it here and now. And I too can sayGod bless you.Yours everB. RussellThe following letter should have been included in Volume I [Part I of this edition] had it beenavailable at the time of the publication of Volume I. As it was not, I add it here to other lettersfrom Santayana.From George Santayana Queen’s AcreWindsorFeb. 8. 1912Dear RussellMany thanks for your message, which came this morning in a letter fromyour brother. I am going to spend Sunday with him at Telegraph House, butexpect to go up to Cambridge on Monday or Tuesday of next week, and counton seeing you. Meantime I have a proposal to make, or rather to renew, to youon behalf of Harvard College. Would it be possible for you to go there nextyear, from October 1912 to June 1913, in the capacity of professor of phil-osophy? Royce is to be taking a holiday, I shall be away, and Palmer will bethere only for the ?rst half of the academic year. Perry, Münsterberg, and twoor three young psychologists will be alone on hand. What they have in mindis that you should give a course – three hours a week, of which one may bedelegated to the assistant which would be provided for you, to read papers,etc. – in logic, and what we call a ‘Seminary’ or ‘Seminar’ in anything youliked. It would also be possible for you to give some more popular lectures ifyou liked, either at Harvard, or at the Lowell Institute in Boston. For the latterthere are separate fees, and the salary of a professor is usually $4000 (￡800).the first war 259We hope you will consider this proposal favourably, as there is no one whomthe younger school of philosophers in America are more eager to learn ofthan of you. You would bring new standards of precision and independenceof thought which would open their eyes, and probably have the greatestin?uence on the rising generation of professional philosophers in that country.There is no particular urgency in receiving your answer, so that youneedn’t write to me at all, but wait until I see you next week, unless yourdecision is absolutely clear and unalterable, in which case you might send mea line to Telegraph House. My permanent address isc/o Brown Shipley & Co.123 Pall Mall, S.W.Yours sincerelyG. SantayanaP.S. I didn’t mean to decline your kind o?er to put me up, when I go toCambridge, but as I am going in the middle of the week, I don’t knowwhether it would be equally convenient for you to do so.Oxford, May 5th [1915]I read this about ‘war babies’ in a Spanish newspaper: ‘Kitchener, in creat-ing an army, has created love. This is a great change in a country where onlymarriage was known before.’G. Santayana[Dec. ’17]The situation is certainly bad from a military point of view, or for thosewho are angry because the war interferes with their private or politicalmachinations. It may last a long time yet; or else be renewed after a mockpeace. But, looking at it all calmly, like a philosopher, I ?nd nothing to bepessimistic about. When I go to Sandford to lunch, which is often, it does myheart good to see so many freshly ploughed ?elds: England is becoming acultivated country, instead of being a land of moors and fens, like barbarousNorth Germany. That alone seems to me more than a compensation for alllosses: it is setting the foundations right. As for Russia, I rather like Lenin, (notthat fatuous Kerensky!); he has an ideal he is willing to ?ght for, and it is aprofoundly anti-German ideal. If he remains in power, he may yet have to?ght the Germans, and it will be with very poisonous gas indeed. Besides, Ithink their plans at Berlin have profoundly miscarried, and that the Prussianeducational-industrial-military domination we were threatened with isundermined at home. Military victory would not now do, because the morepeoples they rope in, the more explosives they will be exploding under theirown establishment.the autobiography of bertrand russell 260As for deaths and loss of capital, I don’t much care. The young men killedwould grow older if they lived, and then they would be good for nothing;and after being good for nothing for a number of years they would die ofcatarrh or a bad kidney or the halter or old age – and would that be lesshorrible? I am willing, almost glad, that the world should be poorer: I onlywish the population too could become more sparse: and I am perfectlywilling to live on a bread-ticket and a lodging-ticket and be known only by anumber instead of a baptismal name, provided all this made an end of livingon lies, and really cleared the political air. But I am afraid the catastrophewon’t be great enough for that, and that some false arrangement will bepatched up – in spite of Lenin – so that we shall be very much as we werebefore. People are not intelligent. It is very unreasonable to expect them to beso, and that is a fate my philosophy reconciled me to long ago. How elsecould I have lived for forty years in America?All this won’t interest you, but since it is written I will let it go.[G. Santayana]To Ottoline Morrell [Cambridge]1915Did you see in to-day’s Morning Post a letter from an American, dated ‘RitzHotel’, expressing his horri?ed bewilderment to ?nd, in New CollegeChapel, a tablet inscribed ‘Pro Patria’, on which are being inscribed thenames of New College men who have been killed in the war, among the restthree Germans! He expressed his horror to the verger, who replied ‘They diedfor their country. I knew them – they were very ?ne men.’ It is creditable toNew College. The worthy American thinks it necessary to give us a lesson inhow to be patriots.‘Elizabeth’ [my sister-in-law] expressed regret at the fact that her 5German nephews in the war are all still alive. She is a true patriot. TheAmerican would like her.I could come to you Tues. & Wed. 15th and 16th, if it suited you. I shouldlike to see [D. H.] Lawrence...[Cambridge]Sunday evg.[Postmark 10 May ’15]I am feeling the weight of the war much more since I came back here –one is made so terribly aware of the waste when one is here. And RupertBrooke’s death brought it home to me. It is deadly to be here now, with allthe usual life stopped. There will be other generations – yet I keep fearingthat something of civilisation will be lost for good, as something was lostwhen Greece perished in just this way. Strange how one values civilisation –more than all one’s friends or anything – the slow achievement of menthe first war 261emerging from the brute – it seems the ultimate thing one lives for. I don’tlive for human happiness, but for some kind of struggling emergence of mind.And here, at most times, that is being helped on – and what has been done isgiven to new generations, who travel on from where we have stopped. Andnow it is all arrested, and no one knows if it will start again at anything likethe point where it stopped. And all the elderly apostates are overjoyed.34 Russell ChambersWed. night[Postmark 27 My. ’15]I am only just realising how Cambridge oppressed me. I feel far morealive here, and far better able to face whatever horrors the time may bring.Cambridge has ceased to be a home and a refuge to me since the war began. I?nd it unspeakably painful being thought a traitor. Every casual meeting inthe Court makes me quiver with sensitive apprehension. One ought to bemore hardened.My Dearest, forgive me that I have been so horrid lately. But really I havehad rather a bad time, and I have been haunted by horrors, and I didn’twant to speak all that was in my mind until it had subsided, because it wasexcessive and mad. So I got sti? and dull.Friday[Postmark 11 Ju ’15]I think I will make friends with the No-Conscription people. The ?.?.?. istoo mild and troubled with irrelevancies. It will be all right after the war, butnot now. I wish good people were not so mild. The non-resistance people Iknow here are so Sunday-schooly – one feels they don’t know the volcanicside of human nature, they have little humour, no intensity of will, nothing ofwhat makes men e?ective. They would never have denounced the Phariseesor turned out the money-changers. How passionately I long that one couldbreak through the prison walls in one’s own nature. I feel now-a-days somuch as if some great force for good were imprisoned within me by scepti-cism and cynicism and lack of faith. But those who have no such restraintalways seem ignorant and a little foolish. It all makes one feel very lonely.I can’t make head or tail of Lawrence’s philosophy. I dread talking to himabout it. It is not sympathetic to me.July 1915Lawrence took up my time from morning till 10.30, so I couldn’t writeyesterday. We had a terri?c argument but not a disastrous one. He attacks mefor various things that I don’t feel to blame about – chie?y, in e?ect, forhaving a scienti?c temper and a respect for fact. I will send you his writtencomments on my syllabus. I shall be glad to know what you think of them.the autobiography of bertrand russell 262He took me to see a Russian Jew, Kotiliansky, and [Middleton] Murry andMrs Murry [Katherine Mans?eld] – they were all sitting together in a bareo?ce high up next door to the Holborn Restaurant, with the windows shut,smoking Russian cigarettes without a moment’s intermission, idle andcynical. I thought Murry beastly and the whole atmosphere of the three deadand putrefying.Then we went to the Zoo – the baboon gave me much cynical satisfaction:he looked long and deliberately at everybody, and then slowly showed histeeth and snarled, with inconceivable hatred and disgust. Swift would haveloved him. Then we went up to Hampstead, to the Radfords, where MrsLawrence was staying. I was dead tired after the ?rst hour, as we began arguingat once. I told Lawrence that I thought we ought to be independent of eachother, at any rate at ?rst, and not try to start a school. When he talks politics heseems to me so wild that I could not formally work with him. I hope he won’t