indulged in a shouting match because Chicherin had been a friend of myUncle Rollo and I had hopes of him. I shouted that I should denounce him asa murderer. It seemed to us and to Allen vital to get him out of Russia as soonas possible, and we felt that this order to wait for Soviet doctors wouldendanger his life. At last a compromise was e?ected by which the doctors sawhim at once. One of them was called Popo?; the name of the other I haveforgotten. The Soviet Government thought that Allen was friendly to themand that Guest and Mrs Snowden and I were anxious he should die so as tosuppress his testimony in their favour.At Reval I met by accident Mrs Stan Harding, whom I had not knownbefore. She was going into Russia ?lled with enthusiasm for the Bolsheviks. Ithe autobiography of bertrand russell 322did what I could to disenchant her, but without success. As soon as shearrived they clapped her into gaol, and kept her there for eight months.She was ?nally liberated on the insistent demand of the British Government.The fault, however, lay not so much with the Soviet Government as with acertain Mrs Harrison. Mrs Harrison was an American lady of good familywho was with us on the Volga. She was in obvious terror and longing toescape from Russia, but the Bolsheviks kept her under very close observation.There was a spy named Axionev, whom they had taken over from the ancienrégime, who watched her every movement and listened to her every word. Hehad a long beard and a melancholy expression, and wrote decadent Frenchverse with great skill. On the night-train he shared a compartment with her;on the boat whenever anybody spoke with her he would creep behindsilently. He had extraordinary skill in the art of creeping. I felt sorry for thepoor lady, but my sorrow was misplaced. She was an American spy,employed also by the British. The Russians discovered that she was a spy,and spared her life on condition that she became a spy for them. But shesabotaged her work for them, denouncing their friends and letting theirenemies go free. Mrs Harding knew that she was a spy, and therefore had tobe put away quickly. This was the reason of her denouncing Mrs Harding tothe Soviet authorities. Nevertheless, she was a charming woman, and nursedAllen during his illness with more skill and devotion than was shown by hisold friends. When the facts about her subsequently came to light, Allensteadfastly refused to hear a word against her.Lenin, with whom I had an hour’s conversation, rather disappointed me. Ido not think that I should have guessed him to be a great man, but in thecourse of our conversation I was chie?y conscious of his intellectual limita-tions, and his rather narrow Marxian orthodoxy, as well as a distinct vein ofimpish cruelty. I have told of this interview, as well as of my adventures inRussia, in my book Practice and Theory of Bolshevism.There was at that time no communication with Russia either by letter ortelegram, owing to the blockade. But as soon as I reached Reval I begantelegraphing to Dora. To my surprise, I got no reply. At last, when I was inStockholm, I telegraphed to friends of hers in Paris, asking where she was,and received the answer that when last heard of she was in Stockholm. Isupposed she had come to meet me, but after waiting twenty-four hours in theexpectation of seeing her, I met by chance a Finn who informed me that shehad gone to Russia, via the North Cape. I realised that this was a move in ourlong-drawn-out quarrel on the subject of Russia, but I was desperately worriedfor fear they would put her in prison, as they would not know why shehad come. There was nothing one could do about it, so I came back to England,where I endeavoured to recover some kind of sanity, the shock of Russiahaving been almost more than I could bear. After a time, I began to get lettersrussia 323from Dora, brought out of Russia by friends, and to my great surprise she likedRussia just as much as I had hated it. I wondered whether we should ever beable to overcome this di?erence. However, among the letters which I foundwaiting for me when I got back to England, was one from China inviting meto go there for a year to lecture on behalf of the Chinese Lecture Association,a purely Chinese body which aimed at importing one eminent foreignereach year, and had in the previous year imported Dr Dewey. I decided thatI would accept if Dora would come with me, but not otherwise. The di?cultywas to put the matter before her, in view of the blockade. I knew a Quakerat Reval, named Arthur Watts, who frequently had to go into Russia inconnection with Quaker relief, so I sent him a telegram costing severalpounds, explaining the circumstances and asking him to ?nd Dora if hecould, and put the matter before her. By a stroke of luck this all worked out. Ifwe were to go, it was necessary that she should return at once, and theBolsheviks at ?rst supposed that I was playing a practical joke. In the end,however, she managed.We met at Fenchurch Street on a Sunday, and at ?rst we were almost hostilestrangers to each other. She regarded my objections to the Bolsheviks as bour-geois and senile and sentimental. I regarded her love of them with bewilderedhorror. She had met men in Russia whose attitude seemed to her in every waysuperior to mine. I had been ?nding the same consolation with Colette as Iused to ?nd during the War. In spite of all this, we found ourselves taking allthe necessary steps required for going o? together for a year in China. Someforce stronger than words, or even than our conscious thoughts, kept ustogether, so that in action neither of us wavered for a moment. We had to workliterally night and day. From the time of her arrival to the time of our departurefor China was only ?ve days. It was necessary to buy clothes, to get passports inorder, to say goodbye to friends and relations, in addition to all the usual bustleof a long journey; and as I wished to be divorced while in China, it wasnecessary to spend the nights in o?cial adultery. The detectives were so stupidthat this had to be done again and again. At last, however, everything was inorder. Dora, with her usual skill, had so won over her parents that they came toVictoria to see us o? just as if we had been married. This in spite of the fact thatthey were completely and entirely conventional. As the train began to moveout of Victoria, the nightmares and complications and troubles of recentmonths dropped o?, and a completely new chapter began.the autobiography of bertrand russell 324LETTERSFrom J. E. LittlewoodTrinity CollegeCambridge[1919]Dear RussellEinstein’s theory is completely con?rmed. The predicted displacement was1''.72 and the observed 1''.75 ± .06.YoursJ.E.L.From Harold J. LaskiHarvard UniversityCambridgeAugust 29, 1919Dear Mr RussellI wish I knew how to thank you at all adequately for your letter. When Ihad ?nished that book I felt that I cared more for what you and Mr JusticeHolmes thought about it than for the opinion of any two living men; and tohave you not merely think it worth while, but agree with it is a very big thingto me. So that if I merely thank you abruptly you will realise that it is notfrom any want of warmth.I have ventured to send you my ?rst book, which has probably all the vicesof the book one writes at twenty-three; but you may be interested in the ?rstchapter and the appendices. And if you’ll allow me to, I’d like to send yousome more technical papers of mine. But I don’t want you to be bothered bytheir presence, and allow them to interfere with your work.My interest in liberal Catholicism really dates from 1913 when I readFiggis’ Churches in the Modern State at Oxford; and while I was writing my ?rstbook I came to see that, historically, the church and the State have changedplaces since the Reformation and that all the evils of uni?ed ecclesiasticalcontrol are slowly becoming the technique of the modern State – if they havenot already become so: it then struck me that the evil of this sovereigntycould be shown fairly easily in the sphere of religion in its state-connectionwhere men might still hesitate to admit it in the economic sphere. Thesecond book tried to bridge the gap; and the book I’m trying now to write isreally an attempt to explain the general problem of freedom in institutionalterms. If by any lucky chance you have time to write I’d greatly like to sendyou its plan and have your opinion on it.There is a more private thing about which I would like you to know in caseyou think there is a chance that you can help. I know from your Introduction torussia 325Mathematical Logic that you think well of She?er who is at present in thePhilosophy Department here. I don’t know if you have any personal acquain-tance with him. He is a jew and he has married someone of whom theUniversity does not approve; moreover he hasn’t the social qualities thatHarvard so highly prizes. The result is that most of his department is engagedon a determined e?ort to bring his career here to an end. Hoernle, who is atpresent its chairman, is certain that if someone can explain that She?er is worthwhile the talk against him would cease; and he’s ?nished a paper on someaspect of mathematical logic that he himself feels will give him a big standingwhen it can get published. Myself I think that the whole thing is a combi-nation of anti-semitism and that curious university worship of social prestigewhich plays so large a part over here. Do you know anyone at Harvard wellenough to say (if you so think) that She?er ought to have a chance? Of courseI write this entirely on my own responsibility but I’m very certain that ifLowell could know your opinion of She?er it would make a big di?erence tohis future. And if he left here I think he would ?nd it very di?cult to getanother post. Please forgive me for bothering you with these details.I shall wait with immense eagerness for the Nation. I owe Massinghammany debts; but none so great as this.Believe meYours very sincerelyHarold J. LaskiFrom this time onward I used to send periodical cables to President Lowell, explaining that She?erwas a man of the highest ability and that Harvard would be eternally disgraced if it dismissedhim either because he was a Jew or because it disliked his wife. Fortunately these cables justsucceeded in their object.Harvard UniversityCambridgeSeptember 29, 1919Dear Mr RussellThank you heartily for your letter. I am sending you some semi-legalpapers and a more general one on administration. The book I ventured tosend you earlier. I am very grateful for your kindness in wanting them.And I am still more grateful for your word on She?er. I have given it toHoernle who will show it to the members of the Philosophy Departmentand, if necessary, to Lowell. And I have sent copies to two members of theCorporation who will ?ght if there is need. I don’t think there is anythingfurther to be done at the moment. It would do no good to write to Perry.These last years, particularly twelve months in the War Department of the ??have made him very conservative and an eager adherent of ‘correct form’. Hethe autobiography of bertrand russell 326is the head and centre of the enemy forces and I see no good in trying tomove him directly. He wants respectable neo-Christians in the Departmentwho will explain the necessity of ecclesiastical sanctions; or, if they are notreligious, at least they must be materially successful. I don’t think universitiesare ever destined to be homes of liberalism; and the American system is in thehands of big business and dominated by its grosser ideals. Did you ever readVeblen’s Higher Learning in America?You may be interested to know that I have a graduate class at Yale this termreading Roads to Freedom. I’ve never met Yale men before; but it was absorbinglyinteresting to see their amazement that Marx and Bakunin and the rest couldbe written of without abuse. Which reminds me that in any new edition ofthat book I wish you would say a good word for Proudhon! I think his DuPrincipe Fédératif and his Justice Dans La Révolution are two very great books.And may I have a photograph with your name on it to hang in my study.That would be an act of genuine nobility on your part.Yours very sincerelyHarold J. LaskiHarvard UniversityCambridgeNovember 2 1919Dear Mr RussellMany thanks for the photograph. Even if it is bad, it gives a basis to theimagination and that’s what I wanted.The matter with Perry is the war. He got converted to conscription, was atWashington with the educational(!) section of the War O?ce and becameo?cialised. The result is that he looks aslant at all outside the ‘correct’ thingsmuch as a sta? major who saw life from Whitehall and the Army and NavyClub. He still means well – all New Englanders do; but he has lost hold ofPlato’s distinction between willing what is right and knowing what it is rightto will. I think he might be turned on She?er’s side if She?er would get hispaper out amid the applause of you and Whitehead and Lewis; but She?er is a?nnicky little fellow and publication halts on his whims and fancies. I haven’tgiven up hope, but I don’t dare to hope greatly.Yale is really interesting, or perhaps all youth, when one is twenty-six, isinteresting. I ?nd that when one presents the student-mind with syndicalismor socialism namelessly they take it as reasonable and obvious; attach the nameand they whisper to the parents that nameless abominations are being per-petrated. I spoke for the striking police here the other day – one of those strikeswhich makes one equally wonder at the endurance of the men and theunimaginative stupidity of the o?cials. Within a week two papers and twohundred alumni demanded my dismissal – teaching sovietism was whatrussia 327urging that men who get $1100 and work 73 hours are justi?ed in strikingafter 13 years agitation was called. As it happens Lowell does believe infreedom of speech, so that I stay; but you get some index to the presentAmerican state of mind.Yours very sincerelyHarold J. LaskiHarvard UniversityCambridgeDecember 4 1919Dear Mr RussellHoernle tells me that She?er’s paper is on its way to you. May I tell you howthe position stands? Hocking and Hoernle de?nitely ?ght for his reappoint-ment. Perry wavers on account of Huntingdon’s emphatic praise of She?er’swork and says his decision will depend most largely on what you and Mooreof Chicago feel. So if you do approve of it, the more emphatic your telegramthe more helpful it will be. There is a real ?ghting chance at the moment.Things here are in a terrible mess. Injunctions violating speci?c governmentpromises; arrest of the miners’ leaders because the men refused to go back;recommendation of stringent legislation against ‘reds’; arrest of men in theWest for simple possession of an ??? card; argument by even moderateslike Eliot that the issue is a straight ?ght between labor and constitutionalgovernment; all these are in the ordinary course of events. And neither Poundnor I think the crest of the wave has been reached. Some papers have actuallydemanded that the Yale University Press withdraw my books from circulationbecause they preach ‘anarchy’. On the other hand Holmes and Brandeiswrote (through Holmes) a magni?cent dissent in defence of freedom ofspeech in an espionage act case. I’ve sent the two opinions to Massinghamand suggested that he show them to you.This sounds very gloomy; but since America exported Lady Astor toEngland there’s an entire absence of political comedy.Yours very sincerelyHarold J. Laski[Plus ?a change.]Harvard UniversityCambridgeJanuary 5, 1919 [1920]Dear Mr RussellIt was splendid to have your telegram about She?er’s paper. I am afraid weare ?ghting a lost battle as it looks as if Hoernle will go to Yale, which meansthe autobiography of bertrand russell 328the withdrawal of our main support. Harvard is determined to be sociallyrespectable at all costs. I have recently been interviewed by the Board ofOverseers to know (a) whether I believe in a revolution with blood (b)whether I believe in the Soviet form of government (c) whether I do notbelieve that the American form of government is superior to any other (d)whether I believe in the right of revolution.In the last three days they have arrested ?ve thousand socialists with a viewto deportation. I feel glad that Graham Wallas is going to try and get me home!Yours very sincerelyHarold J. LaskiHarvard UniversityCambridgeFebruary 18th, 1920Dear Mr RussellAbove all, warm congratulations on your return to Cambridge. Thatsounds like a real return of general sanity. I hope you will not con?ne yourlectures to mathematical logic...I sent you the other day a volume of Duguit’s my wife and I translated lastyear; I hope you will ?nd time to glance at it. I am very eager to get awayfrom this country, as you guessed, but rather ba?ed as to how to do it. I seeno hope in Oxford and I know no one at all in Cambridge. Wallas is trying todo something for me in London, but I don’t know with what success. I amheartily sick of America and I would like to have an atmosphere again wherean ox does not tread upon the tongue.Yours very sincerelyHarold Laski16, Warwick Gardens[London] W.142.1.22Dear RussellThis enclosure formally. Informally let me quote from Rivers: We askedhim to stand as the labour candidate for London. This is part of his reply. ‘Ithink that a distinct factor in my decision has been The Analysis of Mind which Ihave now read really carefully. It is a great book, and makes me marvel at hisintellect. It has raised all kinds of problems with which I should like to deal,and I certainly should not be able to do so if I entered on a political life. κτλ.’What about Rivers, Joad, Delisle Burns, Cli?ord Allen as the nucleus of ournew utilitarians?YoursH. J. Laskirussia 329From Ludwig Wittgenstein[a postcard]CassinoProvincia CasertaItaly9.2.19Dear RussellI don’t know your precise address but hope these lines will reach yousomehow. I am prisoner in Italy since November and hope I may communi-cate with you after a three years interruption. I have done lots of logikal workwhich I am dying to let you know before publishing it.Ever yoursLudwig Wittgenstein[Postcard]Cassino10.3.19You cann’t immagine how glad I was to get your cards! I am afraid thoughthere is no hope that we may meet before long. Unless you came to see mehere, but this would be too much joy for me. I cann’t write on Logic as I’mnot allowed to write more than 2 Cards (15 lines each) a week. I’ve written abook which will be published as soon as I get home. I think I have solved ourproblems ?naly. Write to me often. It will shorten my prison. God bless you.Ever yoursWittgenstein13.3.19Dear RussellThanks so much for your postcards dated 2nd and 3rd of March. I’ve had avery bad time, not knowing wether you were dead or alive! I cann’t write onLogic as I’m not allowed to write more than two . a week (15 lines each).This letter is an ecception, it’s posted by an Austrian medical student whogoes home tomorrow. I’ve written a book called Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlungcontaining all my work of the last 6 years. I believe I’ve solved our problems?nally. This may sound arrogant but I cann’t help believing it. I ?nished thebook in August 1918 and two months after was made Prigioniere. I’ve gotthe manuscript here with me. I wish I could copy it out for you; but it’s prettylong and I would have no safe way of sending it to you. In fact you would notunderstand it without a previous explanation as it’s written in quite shortremarks. (This of cours means that nobody will understand it; allthough Ibelieve it’s all as clear as crystall. But it upsets all our theory of truth, ofclasses, of numbers and all the rest.) I will publish it as soon as I get home.the autobiography of bertrand russell 330Now I’m a?raid this won’t be ‘before long’. And consequently it will be a longtime yet till we can meet. I can hardly immagine seeing you again! It will betoo much! I supose it would be impossible for you to come and see me here?Or perhaps you think it’s collossal cheek of me even to think of such a thing.But if you were on the other end of the world and I could come to you I woulddo it.Please write to me how you are, remember me to Dr Whitehead. Is oldJohnson still alive? Think of me often!Ever yoursLudwig Wittgenstein[Cassino12.6.19]Lieber Russell!Vor einigen Tagen schickte ich Dir mein Manuskript durch Keynes’s Vermittelung. Ich schriebdamals nur ein paar Zeilen fuer Dich hinein. Seither ist nun Dein Buch ganz in meine Haendegelangt und nun haette ich ein grosses Beduerfnis Dir einiges zu schreiben. – Ich haette nichtgeglaubt, dass das, was ich vor 6 Jahren in Norwegen dem Moore diktierte an Dir so spurlosvoruebergehen wuerde. Kurz ich fuerchte jetzt, es moechte sehr schwer fuer mich sein mich mit Dirzu verstaendigen. Und der geringe Rest von Ho?nung mein Manuskript koenne Dir etwas sagen, istganz verschwunden. Einen Komentar zu meinem Buch zu schreiben, bin ich wie Du Dir denkenkannst, nicht im Stande. Nur muendlich koennte ich Dir einen geben. Ist Dir irgend an demVerstaendnis der Sache etwas gelegen und kannst Du ein Zusammentre?en mit mir bewerkstelligen,so, bitte, tue es. – Ist dies nicht moeglich, so sei so gut und schicke das Manuskript so bald Du esgelesen hast auf sicherem Wege nach Wien zurueck. Es ist das einzige korrigierte Exemplar,welches ich besitze und die Arbeit meines Lebens! Mehr als je brenne ich jetzt darauf es gedruckt zusehen. Es ist bitter, das vollendete Werk in der Gefangenschaft herumschleppen zu muessen und zusehen, wir der Unsinn draussen sein Spiel treibt! Und ebenso bitter ist es zu denken dass niemand esverstehen wird, auch wenn es gedruckt sein wird! – Hast Du mir jemals seit Deinen zwei erstenKarten geschrieben? Ich habe nichts erhalten.Sei herzlichst gegruesst und glaube nicht, dass alles Dummheit ist was Du nichtverstehen wirst.Dein treuerLudwig Wittgenstein[This and the following translations of Wittgenstein’s letters in German areby B. F. McGuinness.][Cassino12.6.19]Dear RussellSome days ago I sent you my manuscript, through Keynes’s good o?ces. Ienclosed only a couple of lines for you at the time. Since then your bookrussia 331has arrived here safely and I now feel a great need to write you a number ofthings. – I should never have believed that what I dictated to Moore in Norway sixyears ago would pass over you so completely without trace. In short, I am afraid itmight be very di?cult for me to reach an understanding with you. And mysmall remaining hope that my manuscript would convey something to you hasnow quite vanished. Writing a commentary on my book is out of the questionfor me, as you can imagine. I could only give you an oral one. If you attach anyimportance whatsoever to understanding the thing, and if you can arrange ameeting with me, please do so. – If that is impossible, then be so good as tosend the manuscript back to Vienna by a safe route as soon as you have read it.It is the only corrected copy I possess and it is my life’s work! I long to see it inprint, now more than ever. It is bitter to have to lug the completed work aroundwith me in captivity and to see nonsense rampant in the world outside. And it isjust as bitter to think that no one will understand it even if it is printed! – Haveyou written to me at all since your ?rst two cards? I have received nothing.Kindest regards, and don’t suppose that everything that you won’t be able to understand is apiece of stupidity!Yours everLudwig WittgensteinCassino19.8.1919Dear RussellThanks so much for your letter dated 13 August. As to your queries, Icann’t answer them now. For ?rstly I don’t know allways what the numbersrefer to, having no copy of the MS here. Secondly some of your questionswant a very lengthy answer and you know how di?cult it is for me to writeon logic. That’s also the reason why my book is so short, and consequently soobscure. But that I cann’t help. – Now I’m a?raid you haven’t realy got holdof my main contention, to which the whole business of logical props is onlya corolary. The main point is the theory of what can be expressed (gesagt) byprops – i.e. by linguage – (and, which comes to the same, what can be