our Tribunal. It amused me considerably that many of these same criticshad shortly before this been among the staunchest supporters of theWarren Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy.2Their newfound interest in impartiality did, however, give us the opportunity toexplain our own position. Clearly, we had all given considerable thoughtto some of the evidence we were about to assess. Our minds were notempty, but neither were they closed. I believed that the integrity of themembers of the Tribunal, the fact that they represented no state powerand the complete openness of the hearings would ensure the objectivity ofthe proceedings. We also decided to accept possible evidence from anysource, so I wrote to President Johnson inviting him to attend the Tribunal.Unfortunately, he was too busy planning the bombardment of the Vietnameseto reply.All this stir concerning the Tribunal naturally caused fresh interest inthe Foundation itself. The Atlantic Peace Foundation remained a registeredcharity; the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation became a company limited byguarantee, and has branches in several countries: Argentina, Australia andNew Zealand, France, India, Italy, Japan, the Philippines, and the UnitedStates. In London it not only retained the small central o?ces o? theHaymarket, which it had from its inception, but it provided a larger o?ce forthe War Crimes Tribunal. It also bought a larger freehold property into whichmuch of the work has been transferred. All this placed the work on a ?rmerfooting and prepared the way for further developments. For perhaps the ?rsttime, I was conscious of activity, centred on the Tribunal, involving world-wide support.In the late forties and early ?fties, I had been profoundly impressed by thehorror of Stalin’s dictatorship, which had led me to believe that there wouldbe no easy resolution of the cold war. I later came to see that for all histhe foundation 645ruthlessness, Stalin had been very conservative. I had assumed, like mostpeople in the West, that his tyranny was expansionist, but later evidence madeit clear that it was the West that had given him Eastern Europe as part of thespoils of the Second World War, and that, for the most part, he had kept hisagreements with the West. After his death, I earnestly hoped that the worldwould come to see the folly and danger of living permanently in the shadowof nuclear weapons. If the contenders for world supremacy could be keptapart, perhaps the neutral nations could introduce the voice of reasoninto international a?airs. It was a small hope, for I overestimated the power ofthe neutrals. Only rarely, as with Nehru in Korea did they manage to addsigni?cant weight to pressures against the cold war.The neutrals continued to embody my outlook, in that I consider humansurvival more important than ideology. But a new danger came to the fore. Itbecame obvious that Russia no longer entertained hope of world-empire, butthat this hope had now passed over to the United States. As my researches intothe origins and circumstances of the war in Vietnam showed, the UnitedStates was embarking upon military adventures which increasingly replacedwar with Russia as the chief threat to the world. The fanaticism of America’santi-communism, combined with its constant search for markets and rawmaterials, made it impossible for any serious neutral to regard America andRussia as equally dangerous to the world. The essential unity of Americanmilitary, economic and cold war policies was increasingly revealed by thesordidness and cruelty of the Vietnam war. For people in the West, this wasmost di?cult to admit, and again I experienced the silence or opposition ofthose who had come to accept my views of the previous decade. In the thirdworld, however, our support was very considerable. Cruelty has not gonewholly unchallenged.My views on the future are best expressed by Shelley in the followingpoem:O cease! must hate and death return?Cease! must men kill and die?Cease! drain not to its dregs the urnOf bitter prophecy.The world is weary of the past,O might it die or rest at last!Final stanza of ‘Hellas’ (478. 1096–1101).the autobiography of bertrand russell 646LETTERSOn ‘The Free Man’s Worship’27 July 1962Dear Professor HiltzThank you for your letter of June 27. As regards your 3 questions: (1)I have continued to think ‘The Free Man’s Worship’ ‘?orid and rhetorical’since somewhere about 1920; (2) This observation concerns only the style;(3) I do not now regard ethical values as objective, as I did when I wrote theessays. However, my outlook on the cosmos and on human life is substantiallyunchanged.Yours sincerelyBertrand RussellThanks to Julian Huxley for his pamphlets: ‘Psychometabolism’; ‘Eugenics inEvolutionary Perspective’; ‘Education and the Humanist Revolution’.Plas Penrhyn10 March, 1963My Dear JulianThank you very much for sending me your three papers which I have readwith very great interest. I loved your paper about psychometabolism, explain-ing why peacocks dance and women use lipstick, both of which had hithertobeen mysterious to me. I do not know enough about the matters of whichthis paper treats to be able to o?er any criticism. You touch occasionally onthe mind-body problem as to which I have very de?nite views which areacceptable to some physiologists but are rejected with scorn and contempt bypractically all philosophers, none of whom know either physics or physi-ology. You might ?nd it worth your while to read a short essay of mine called‘Mind and Matter’ in Portraits from Memory.What you say about eugenics has my approval up to a certain point, but nofurther. You seem to think that governments will be enlightened and that thekind of human being they will wish to produce will be an improvement onthe haphazard work of nature. If a sperm-bank, such as you envisage, hadexisted during the régime of Hitler, Hitler would have been the sire ofall babies born in his time in Germany. Exceptional merit is, and alwayshas been, disliked by Authority; and obviously Authority would controlthe sperm-bank. Consequently, in the degree to which eugenics was e?-cient, exceptional merit would disappear. I am entirely with you as to whateugenics could achieve, but I disagree as to what it would achieve.I have somewhat similar criticisms to make on what you say about educa-tion. For example: you dismiss silly myths which make up orthodox religion,the foundation 647and you do not mention that throughout the Western world nobody whoopenly rejects them can be a schoolmaster. To take another point: educa-tion has enormously facilitated total war. Owing to the fact that people canread, while educators have been at pains to prevent them from thinking,warlike ferocity is now much more easily spread than it was in formertimes.You seem to think that governments will be composed of wise andenlightened persons who will have standards of value not unlike yours andmine. This is against all the evidence. Pythagoras was an exile becausePolicrates disliked him; Socrates was put to death; Aristotle had to ?y fromAthens as soon as Alexander died. In ancient Greece it was not hard to escapefrom Greece. In the modern world it is much more di?cult; and that is onereason why there are fewer great men than there were in Greece.Best wishes to both of you from both of us.Yrs. everB. R.From Sir Julian Huxley31 Pond StreetHampstead, N.W.313th March, 1963Dear BertieSo many thanks for your fascinating letter. I can hear you chuckling aboutpeacocks and lipstick!As regards the mind-body problem, I think it must be approached from theevolutionary angle. We are all of us living ‘mind-body’ organisations, with along history behind us, and related to all other living organisations. To methis implies that mind and body in some way constitute a single unity.Of course you are right as to the dangers inherent in eugenic measures orapproved educational measures. On the other hand, one must do something!My attitude is neither purely optimistic nor purely pessimistic – it is that weand our present situation are far from perfect, but are capable of improve-ment, and indeed are liable to deteriorate unless something is done. This is tome the real point – that something must be done, though of course we musttry to see that it is, in principle, the right thing, and also must try to safeguardit as far as possible from abuse.Again, we must have an educational system of sorts – & I should havethought we ought to try to improve it, in spite of possible dangers –Juliette sends her best wishes,Yours everJulian H.the autobiography of bertrand russell 648To and from Alice Mary HiltonPlas Penrhyn9 June, 1963Dear Miss HiltonMy warm thanks for your book on Logic, Computing Machines and Automation. Ihave, so far, only had time to read parts of it, but what I have read hasinterested me very much. In particular, I am grateful for the nice things yousay about Principia Mathematica and about me. The followers of G?del hadalmost persuaded me that the twenty man-years spent on the Principia hadbeen wasted and that the book had better be forgotten. It is a comfort to?nd that you do not take this view.Yours sincerelyBertrand Russell405 East 63rd StreetNew York 21, New YorkJuly 2, 1963Dear Lord RussellThank you very much for your kind letter about my book on Logic, ComputingMachines and Automation. It was very thoughtful of you to write to me and I canhardly express my appreciation for your interest and your kindness. AlthoughI am aware of the fact that it doesn’t matter very much what I think of PrincipiaMathematica, I am convinced that future generations of mathematicians willrate it one of the two or three major contributions to science. I have thefeeling that the criticism stems from a lack of understanding rather thananything else. I cannot claim that I understand this tremendous work fully butI have been trying for several years now to learn enough so that I can at leastunderstand basic principles. I am quite certain no great mathematician(which I am certainly not) could possibly have read the Principia and think that‘the twenty man-years spent on the Principia had been wasted and that thebook had better be forgotten’. I am quite certain that it won’t be forgotten aslong as there is any civilisation that preserves the work of really great minds.I mentioned to you in the past that I am planning to edit a series which istentatively called The Age of Cyberculture and which is to include books bythinkers – scientists, philosophers, artists – who have a contribution to maketo the understanding of this era we are entering. It seems to me that humanityhas never been in so critical a period. Not only do we live in constant dangerof annihilation, but even if we do survive the danger of nuclear extinction,we are standing on the threshold of an age which can become a paradise orhell for humanity. I am enclosing a very brief outline of the series. BecauseI believe so strongly that understanding and communication among theeducated and thinking human beings of this world are so important I amthe foundation 649presuming to ask you to write a contribution to this series. I am going furtherthan that. I would like to ask you to serve on the editorial board. I know thatyou are a very busy man, and I am not asking this lightly. But I also know thatyou make your voice heard and I believe very strongly that this series willmake a contribution and possibly have considerable impact to further theunderstanding among people whose work is in di?erent disciplines and whomust cooperate and learn to understand one another. It is through the contri-butors and the readers of this series that I hope that some impact will bemade upon the political decision makers of this society and through themupon all of us who must realise our responsibility for choosing the rightdecision makers.It would give me personally the greatest pleasure to be allowed to workwith the greatest mind of this – and many other – century.I would like you to know that your recording has just become availablein this country (‘Speaking Personally, Bertrand Russell’) and that we havelistened to it with great enjoyment and have spent several happy and mostwonderful evenings in the company of friends listening to your words.Thank you again for all of your kindness.SincerelyAlice Mary HiltonTo John Paulos2nd August, 1966Dear Mr PaulosThank you very much for your letter.My reason for rejecting Hegel and monism in general is my belief that thedialectical argument against relations is wholly unsound. I think such astatement as ‘A is west of B’ can be exactly true. You will ?nd that Bradley’sarguments on this subject pre-suppose that every proposition must be of thesubject-predicate form. I think this the fundamental error of monism.With best wishes,Yours sincerelyBertrand RussellTo Marchesa Origo19 January, 1966Dear MarquesaI have been reading your book on Leopardi with very great interest.Although I have long been an admirer of his poetry, I knew nothing of his lifeuntil I read your book. His life is appallingly tragic and most of the tragedywas due to bad institutions.I cannot agree with Santayana’s remark: ‘The misfortunes of Leopardi werethe autobiography of bertrand russell 650doubtless fortunate for his genius.’ I believe that in happier circumstances hewould have produced much more.I do not know Italian at all well and have read most of his poetry in Italian;as a result I have probably missed much by doing so. I am grateful to yourbook for ?lling many gaps in my knowledge.Yours sincerelyBertrand RussellTo Mr Hayes25.11.1963Dear Mr HayesThank you for your letter of November 18. The idea which has been putabout to the e?ect that I am more anti-American than anti-Russian is oneof ignorant hostile propaganda. It is true that I have criticised Americanbehaviour in Vietnam, but I have, at the same time, been vehemently protest-ing against the treatment of Soviet Jews. When the Russians resumed TestsI ?rst wrote to the Soviet Embassy to express a vehement protest & thenorganised hostile demonstrations against the Soviet Government. I havedescribed the East German Government as a ‘military tyranny imposed byalien armed force’. I have written articles in Soviet journals expressingcomplete impartiality. The only matter in which I have been more favourableto Russia than to America was the Cuban crisis because Khrushchev yieldedrather than embark upon a nuclear war. In any crisis involving the dangerof nuclear war, if one side yielded & the other did not, I should thinkthe side that yielded more deserving of praise than the other side, becauseI think nuclear war the greatest misfortune that could befall the humanrace.In view of your letter, I am afraid I cannot write an article that would beacceptable to you as I have always expressed in print my criticisms of Russiaas often & as emphatically as my criticisms of the West.Yours sincerelyBertrand RussellFrom Arnold ToynbeeAt 273 Santa TeresaStanford, Calif. 94305United States9 May, 1967Dear Lord RussellYour ninety-?fth birthday gives me, like countless other friends of yourswho will also be writing to you at this moment, a welcome opportunity ofexpressing some of the feelings that I have for you all the time: ?rst of all, mythe foundation 651a?ection for you and Edith (I cannot think of either of you without thinkingof you both together), and then my admiration and my gratitude.I met you ?rst, more than half a century ago, just after you had responded tothe almost superhuman demand that Plato makes on his fellow philosophers.You had then stepped back out of the sunshine into the cave, to help yourfellow human beings who were still prisoners there. You had just come out ofprison in the literal sense (and this not for the last time). You had been put inprison, that ?rst time, for having spoken in public against conscription.It would have been possible for you to continue to devote yourselfexclusively to creative intellectual work, in which you had already made yourname by achievements of the highest distinction – work which, as we know,gives you intense intellectual pleasure, and which at the same time bene?tsthe human race by increasing our knowledge and understanding of thestrange universe in which we ?nd ourselves. You could then have led a fairlyquiet life, and you would have been commended unanimously by all thepundits. Of course, ever since then, you have continued to win laurels in this?eld. But you care too much for your fellow human beings to be contentwith your intellectual career alone, a splendid one though it is. You have hadthe greatness of spirit to be unwilling to stay ‘above the battle’. Ever since,you have been battling for the survival of civilisation, and latterly, since theinvention of the atomic weapon, for the survival of the human race.I am grateful to you, most of all, for the encouragement and the hope thatyou have been giving for so long, and are still giving as vigorously and asfearlessly as ever, to your younger contemporaries in at least three successivegenerations. As long as there are people who care, as you do, for mankind,and who put their concern into action, the rest of us can ?nd, from theexample that you have set us, courage and con?dence to work, in your spirit,for trying to give mankind the future that is its birthright, and for trying tohelp it to save itself from self-destruction.This is why Thursday, 18 May 1967, is an historic date for the hundreds ofmillions of your contemporaries who are unaware of this, as well as for thehundreds of thousands who do know what you stand for and what you strivefor. You have projected yourself, beyond yourself, into the history of theextraordinary species of which you are so outstanding a representative. Everyliving creature is self-centred by nature; yet every human living creature’smission in life is to transfer the centre of his concern from himself to theultimate reality, whatever this may be. That is the true ful?lment of a humanbeing’s destiny. You have achieved it. This is why I feel constant gratitude toyou and a?ection for you, and why 18 May, 1967, is a day of happiness andhope for me, among your many friends.Yours everArnold Toynbeethe autobiography of bertrand russell 652From Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, ???Oswald HouseNorthgateBeccles, Su?olk1 May 64My dear Lord RussellI apologise for not having written earlier to thank you for your hospitalityand, for me, a most interesting and inspiring visit. I have read the paper yougave me – ‘A New Approach to Peace’ which I found most impressive. There isnothing in it with which I could not whole-heartedly agree and support.I understand the relationship and functions of the Atlantic Peace Foundationand the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation and I hope to be able to make asmall contribution to the expenses of the former.If I can be of help in any other way, perhaps you or your Secretary will letme know. It is an honour to have met you.With best wishes and hopes for your success.Yours sincerelyC. J. AuchinleckFrom U Thant on the formation of the Bertrand Russell Peace FoundationSecretary GeneralIt is good to know that it is proposed to start a Foundation in the name ofLord Russell, to expand and continue his e?orts in the cause of peace.Lord Russell was one of the ?rst to perceive the folly and danger ofunlimited accumulation of nuclear armaments. In the early years he conductedpractically a one-man crusade against this tendency and he now has a muchlarger following. While there may be di?erences of views about the wisdom ofunilateral disarmament, and other similar ideas, I share the feeling of LordRussell that the unrestricted manufacture, testing, perfecting, and stock-pilingof nuclear armaments represent one of the greatest dangers to humanity andone of the most serious threats to the survival of the human race.I hope, therefore, that this e?ort to put on an institutional basis the crusadefor peace that Lord Russell has conducted for so long and with such dedicationwill be crowned with success.U Thant???????? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ????? ??????????H.I.M. Haile Selassie Dr Max Born, Nobel Prize forPhysicsthe foundation 653Prof. Linus Pauling, Nobel Lord Boyd Orr, ???,Prize for Chemistry and Nobel Peace Prizefor Peace Pablo Casals, Puerto Rico, CellistPres. Kenneth Kaunda Danilo Dolci, SicilyPres. Kwame Nkrumah Her Majesty Queen ElizabethPres. Ayub Khan of the BelgiansPres. Julius K. Nyerere Prime Minister JawaharlalPres. Leopold Senghor NehruThe Duke of Bedford Vanessa Redgrave, ActressDr Albert Schweitzer,Lambarene, Nobel Peace PrizeFebruary 1964? ??? ???????? ?? ?????by???????? ???????The nuclear age in which we have the misfortune to live is one whichimposes new ways of thought and action and a new character in internationalrelations. Ever since the creation of the H-bomb, it has been obvious tothoughtful people that there is now a danger of the extermination of man-kind if a nuclear war between two powerful nations or blocs of nationsshould break out. Not only would such a war be a total disaster to humanhopes, but, so long as past policies persist, a nuclear war may break out at anyminute. This situation imposes upon those who desire the continuation ofour species a very di?cult duty. We have, ?rst, to persuade Governments andpopulations of the disastrousness of nuclear war, and when that has beenachieved, we have to induce Governments to adopt such policies as will makethe preservation of peace a possibility.Of these two tasks, the ?rst has been very largely accomplished. It has beenaccomplished by a combination of methods of agitation: peace marches,peace demonstrations, large public meetings, sit-downs, etc. These wereconducted in Britain by the ??? and the Committee of 100, and in othercountries by more or less similar bodies. They have testi?ed – and I am proudthat I was amongst them – that nuclear war would be a calamity for thewhole human race, and have pointed out its imminence and its dangers. Theyhave succeeded in making very widely known, even to Governments, thedangers of nuclear war. But it is time for a new approach. The dangers mustnot be forgotten but now the next step must be taken. Ways and meansof settling questions that might lead to nuclear war and other dangers tothe autobiography of bertrand russell 654mankind must be sought and made known, and mankind must be persuadedto adopt these new and di?erent means towards securing peace.The culmination, so far, of the con?ict between rival nuclear groups wasthe Cuban crisis. In this crisis, America and Russia confronted each otherwhile the world waited for the destruction that seemed imminent. At thelast moment, the contest was avoided and it appeared that neither side waswilling to put an end to the human race because of disagreement as to thepolitics of those who would otherwise be living in Cuba. This was a momentof great importance. It showed that neither side considered it desirable toobliterate the human race.We may, therefore, take it that the Governments of the world are preparedto avoid nuclear war. And it is not only Governments, but also vast sections,probably a majority, of the populations of most civilised countries whichtake this view.The ?rst part of the work for peace has thus been achieved. But a moredi?cult task remains. If there is not to be war, we have to ?nd ways by whichwar will be avoided. This is no easy matter. There are many disputes which,