罗素自传（全本）-41

I don’t think I shall try a copy on my tame bishop because, although I amvery fond of him, intellect is not his strong point.the autobiography of bertrand russell 392I am going to write to Dorothy and make your suggestion.Yours a?ectionatelyRussellFrom Gertrude Beasly8 Woburn Place, W.C.1Gresham Hotel, LondonJune 21. 1925Dear Mr RussellShortly after you left in March I found a publisher for my book, a semi-private company in Paris. Several weeks ago a few of the proofs reached me.Yesterday morning I found myself before the Magistrate at Bow Street after anight in prison.In the afternoon of June 19 an o?cer from Scotland Yard called to see mebringing with him a bundle of the proofs of my book which he describedas ‘grossly obscene’. He said I would have to appear before the Magistrate onthe charge of sending improper matter through the post. He examined mypassport and found it had not been registered. I was arrested and escortedto Bow Street to register my passport, and detained over night. The AlienO?cer brought a charge of failure to register my passport to which I pleadedguilty before the Magistrate and o?ered explanation of my negligence. TheScotland Yard agent brought a charge of sending obscene literature by postand asked the Magistrate to punish (I believe he said) and make arrangementfor my deportation. The punishment, I believe, refers to a heavy ?ne orimprisonment.I am on bail, 10 pounds, and the case is to be tried on Saturday June 27 atabout 11 o’clock, I shall ?nd out de?nitely tomorrow as to the hour.Mr Ewer thinks he can ?nd an attorney to take my case. I shall go to theAmerican Consul tomorrow and talk with others here who know me. Shallprobably see Dr Ellis tomorrow.If you can o?er any advice I shall be glad.Sincerely yoursGertrude BeaslyMiss Beasly was a schoolteacher from Texas, who wrote an autobiography. It was truthful, whichis illegal.To Max Newman, the distinguished mathematician24th April 1928Dear NewmanMany thanks for sending me the o?-print of your article about me in Mind.I read it with great interest and some dismay. You make it entirely obvioussecond marriage 393that my statements to the e?ect that nothing is known about the physicalworld except its structure are either false or trivial, and I am somewhatashamed at not having noticed the point for myself.It is of course obvious, as you point out, that the only e?ective assertionabout the physical world involved in saying that it is susceptible to such andsuch a structure is an assertion about its cardinal number. (This by the way isnot quite so trivial an assertion as it would seem to be, if, as is not improb-able, the cardinal number involved is ?nite. This, however, is not a point uponwhich I wish to lay stress.) It was quite clear to me, as I read your article, thatI had not really intended to say what in fact I did say, that nothing is knownabout the physical world except its structure. I had always assumed spacio-temporal continuity with the world of percepts, that is to say, I had assumedthat there might be co-punctuality between percepts and non-percepts, andeven that one could pass by a ?nite number of steps from one event toanother compresent with it, from one end of the universe to the other. Andco-punctuality I regarded as a relation which might exist among percepts andis itself perceptible.I have not yet had time to think out how far the admission ofco-punctuality alone in addition to structure would protect me from yourcriticisms, nor yet how far it would weaken the plausibility of my meta-physic. What I did realise was that spacio-temporal continuity of percepts andnon-percepts was so axiomatic in my thought that I failed to notice that mystatements appeared to deny it.I am at the moment much too busy to give the matter proper thought, butI should be grateful if you could ?nd time to let me know whether you haveany ideas on the matter which are not merely negative, since it does notappear from your article what your own position is. I gathered in talkingwith you that you favoured phenomenalism, but I do not quite know howde?nitely you do so.Yours sincerelyBertrand RussellTo Harold Laski12th May 1928My dear LaskiI am afraid it is quite impossible for me to speak to the Socratic Society thisterm, much as I should like to do so. But the fact is I am too busy to have anyideas worth having, like Mrs Eddy who told a friend of mine that she was toobusy to become the second incarnation.I am not at all surprised that Bentham suggests companionate marriage;in fact one could almost have inferred it. I discovered accidentally from an oldenvelope used as a bookmark that at the moment of my birth my father wasthe autobiography of bertrand russell 394reading Bentham’s Table of the Springs of Action. Evidently this caused me to beBenthamitically ‘conditioned’, as he has always seemed to me a most sensiblefellow. But as a schoolmaster, I am gradually being driven to more radicalproposals, such as those of Plato. If there were an international governmentI should seriously be in favour of the root and branch abolition of the family,but as things are, I am afraid it would make people more patriotic.Yours everBertrand RussellTo Mr Gardner Jackson28th May 1929Dear Mr JacksonI am sorry I shall not be in America at the time of your meeting on August23rd, the more so as I shall be there not so very long after that. I think you arequite right to do everything possible to keep alive the memory of Sacco andVanzetti. It must, I think, be clear to any unprejudiced person that there wasnot such evidence against them as to warrant a conviction, and I have nodoubt in my own mind that they were wholly innocent. I am forced toconclude that they were condemned on account of their political opinionsand that men who ought to have known better allowed themselves to expressmisleading views as to the evidence because they held that men with suchopinions have no right to live. A view of this sort is one which is verydangerous, since it transfers from the theological to the political sphere aform of persecution which it was thought that civilised countries had out-grown. One is not so surprised at occurrences of this sort in Hungary orLithuania, but in America they must be matters of grave concern to all whocare for freedom of opinion.Yours sincerelyBertrand RussellP.S. I hope that out of the above you can make a message for the meeting;if you do not think it suitable, please let me know, and I will concoct another.From and to Mr C. L. Aiken8, Plympton St.Cambridge, Mass.March 2, 1930My Dear Mr RussellI am preparing a free-lance article on the subject of parasitic nuisanceswho bedevil authors: autograph and photograph hunters, those thoughtlessmyriads who expect free criticism, poems, speeches, lectures, jobs, and whoin general impose on the literary professional. (I suppose you will place mesecond marriage 395in the same category, but hope you can feel that the end justi?es the meansin this case.)Would you be so good as to send me an account of your grievances, thelength and nature of which of course I leave to you?Very truly yoursClarice Lorenz Aiken19th March 1930Dear Mr AikenIn common with other authors, I su?er a good deal from persons whothink that an author ought to do their work for them. Apart from autographhunters, I get large numbers of letters from persons who wish me to copy outfor them the appropriate entry in Who’s Who, or ask me my opinion on pointswhich I have fully discussed in print.I get many letters from Hindus, beseeching me to adopt some form ofmysticism, from young Americans, asking me where I think the line shouldbe drawn in petting, and from Poles, urging me to admit that while all othernationalism may be bad that of Poland is wholly noble.I get letters from engineers who cannot understand Einstein, and fromparsons who think that I cannot understand Genesis, from husbands whosewives have deserted them – not (they say) that that would matter, but thewives have taken the furniture with them, and what in these circumstancesshould an enlightened male do?I get letters from Jews to say that Solomon was not a polygamist, andfrom Catholics to say that Torquemada was not a persecutor. I get letters(concerning whose genuineness I am suspicious) trying to get me to advo-cate abortion, and I get letters from young mothers asking my opinion ofbottle-feeding.I am sorry to say that most of the subjects dealt with by my correspondentshave escaped my memory at the moment, but the few that I have mentionedmay serve as a sample.Yours very trulyBertrand RussellTo Miss Brooks55th May 1930Dear Miss BrooksI am not sure whether you are right in saying that the problem of Americais greater than that of China. It is likely that America will be more importantduring the next century or two, but after that it may well be the turn of China.I think America is very worrying. There is something incredibly wrong withhuman relations in your country. We have a number of American children atthe autobiography of bertrand russell 396our school, and I am amazed at their mothers’ instinctive incompetence. Thefount of a?ection seems to have dried up. I suppose all Western civilisation isgoing to go the same way, and I expect all our Western races to die out, withthe possible exception of the Spaniards and Portuguese. Alternatively the Statemay take to breeding the necessary citizens and educating them as Janissarieswithout family ties. Read John B. Watson on mothers. I used to think himmad; now I only think him American; that is to say, the mothers that he hasknown have been American mothers. The result of this physical aloofness isthat the child grows up ?lled with hatred against the world and anxious todistinguish himself as a criminal, like Leopold and Loeb.Yours sincerelyBertrand RussellHere is part of the preface I wrote:In view of the aggression of Western nations, the Chinese who were inmany respects more civilised than ourselves and at a higher ethical level, werefaced with the necessity of developing a policy with more military e?cacythan could be derived from the Confucian teaching. Social life in Old Chinawas based upon the family. Sun Yat Sen justly perceived that if China was toresist successfully the onslaughts of military nations, it would be necessary tosubstitute the state for the family; and patriotism for ?lial piety – in a word,the Chinese had to choose whether they would die as saints or live as sinners.Under Christian in?uence they chose the latter alternative.Assuming the nationalist (Chiang Kai Shek) government to be successful,the outcome must be to add another and very important member to theruthless militaristic governments which compete in everything except thedestruction of civilisation on which task alone they are prepared to cooperate.All the intellect, all the heroism, all the martyrdoms, and agonising disil-lusionments of Chinese history since 1911, will have led up only to this: tocreate a new force for evil and a new obstacle to the peace of the world. Thehistory of Japan should have taught the West caution. But Western civilisationwith all its intelligence is as blind in its operation as an avalanche, and musttake its course to what dire conclusion, I dare not guess.In her book This is Your Inheritance: A History of the Chemung County,N.Y. Branch of the Brooks Family (p. 167, published by Century House, WatkinsGlen, New York, U.S.A., 1963) she wrote: ‘Bertrand Russell’s preface (omitting the laudatoryremarks about the author) sums up what happened during our lifetime in China . . . This prefacewas taken down by me in the parlor of the May?ower hotel in Akron, Ohio on the morning ofDec. 1st, 1931 as Mr Russell paced the ?oor smoking his pipe. Then he signed it and we went tothe railroad station; he to go to another lecturing appointment and I to return to Oberlin.’second marriage 397To H. G. Wells24th May ’28My dear H.G.Thank you very much for sending me your book on The Open Conspiracy.I have read it with the most complete sympathy, and I do not know ofanything with which I agree more entirely. I enjoyed immensely your fableabout Provinder Island. I am, I think, somewhat less optimistic than you are,probably owing to the fact that I was in opposition to the mass of mankindduring the war, and thus acquired the habit of feeling helpless.You speak for example, of getting men of science to join the Open Con-spiracy, but I should think there is hardly a single one who would do so, withthe exception of Einstein – a not unimportant exception I admit. The restin this country would desire knighthoods, in France to become membres del’institut, and so on. Even among younger men, I believe your support wouldbe very meagre. Julian Huxley would not be willing to give up his ?irtationswith the episcopate; Haldane would not forego the pleasure to be derivedfrom the next war.I was interested to read what you say about schools and education gener-ally, and that you advocate ‘a certain sectarianism of domestic and sociallife in the interests of its children’ and ‘grouping of its families and theestablishment of its own schools’. It was the feeling of this necessity whichled us to found Beacon Hill School, and I am every day more convinced thatpeople who have the sort of ideas that we have ought not to expose theirchildren to obscurantist in?uence, more especially during their early yearswhen these in?uences can operate upon what will be their unconscious inadult life.This brings me to a matter which I approach with some hesitation, butwhich I had decided to write to you about before I read your book. Thisschool is costing me about ￡2000 a year, that is to say very nearly the wholeof my income. I do not think that this is due to any incompetence in man-agement; in fact all experimental schools that I have ever heard of have beenexpensive propositions. My income is precarious since it depends upon thetastes of American readers who are notoriously ?ckle, and I am therefore veryuncertain as to whether I shall be able to keep the school going. In order to beable to do so I should need donations amounting to about ￡1000 a year.I have been wondering whether you would be willing to help in any waytowards the obtaining of this sum, either directly or by writing an appealwhich might in?uence progressive Americans. I should be very grateful ifyou would let me know whether you would consider anything of the sort.You will see of course that an appeal written by Dora and me is less e?ectivethan one from an impartial pen, especially if that pen were yours.I believe profoundly in the importance of what we are doing here. If I werethe autobiography of bertrand russell 398to put into one single phrase our educational objects, I should say that we aimat training initiative without diminishing its strength. I have long held thatstupidity is very largely the result of fear leading to mental inhibitions, andthe experience that we are having with our children con?rms me in this view.Their interest in science is at once passionate and intelligent, and their desireto understand the world in which they live exceeds enormously that ofchildren brought up with the usual taboos upon curiosity. What we aredoing is of course only an experiment on a small scale, but I con?dentlyexpect its results to be very important indeed. You will realise that hardly anyother educational reformers lay much stress upon intelligence. A. S. Neill, forexample, who is in many ways an admirable man, allows such completeliberty that his children fail to get the necessary training and are always goingto the cinema, when they might otherwise be interested in things of morevalue. Absence of opportunity for exciting pleasures at this place is, I think,an important factor in the development of the children’s intellectual interests.I note what you say in your book on the subject of amusements, and I agreewith it very strongly.I hope that if you are back in England you will pay a visit to this school andsee what we are doing.Yours very sincerelyBertrand RussellFrom and to A. S. Neill, the progressive schoolmasterSummerhill,Lyme Regis, Dorset23.3.26Dear Mr RussellI marvel that two men, working from di?erent angles, should arrive atessentially the same conclusions. Your book and mine are complementary.It may be that the only di?erence between us comes from our respectivecomplexes. I observe that you say little or nothing about handwork in educa-tion. My hobby has always been handwork, and where your child asks youabout stars my pupils ask me about steels and screw threads. Possibly alsoI attach more importance to emotion in education than you do.I read your book with great interest and with very little disagreement. Yourmethod of overcoming your boy’s fear of the sea I disagreed with heartily! Anintroverted boy might react with the thought: ‘Daddy wants to drown me.’My complex again . . . arising from my dealing with neurotics mostly.I have no ?rst-hand knowledge of early childhood, for I am so far unmar-ried, but your advices about early childhood seem to me to be excellent. Yourattitude to sex instruction and masturbation is splendid and you put it in away that will not shock and o?end. (I have not that art!)second marriage 399I do not share your enthusiasm for Montessori. I cannot agree with asystem set up by a strong churchwoman with a strict moral aim. Her orderli-ness to me is a counterblast against original sin. Besides I see no virtue inorderliness at all. My workshop is always in a mess but my handwork isn’t.My pupils have no interest in orderliness until they come to puberty orthereabouts. You may ?nd that at the age of ?ve your children will have nouse for Montessori apparatus. Why not use the apparatus to make a train with?I argued this out with Madame Macaroni, Montessori’s chief lieutenant a fewyears ago. Is it not our awful attitude to learning that warps our outlook?After all a train is a reality, while an inset frame is purely arti?cial. I never usearti?cial apparatus. My apparatus in the school is books, tools, test tubes,compasses. Montessori wants to direct a child. I don’t.By the way, to go back to the sea fear, I have two boys who never enter thewater. My nephew age nine (the watch-breaker of the book) and an intro-verted boy of eleven who is full of fears. I have advised the other children tomake no mention of the sea, never to sneer at the two, never to try andpersuade them to bathe. If they do not come to bathing from their own innerDrang . . . well, it does not much matter. One of my best friends, old Dauvit inmy native village, is 89 and he never had a bath in his life.You will be interested to know Homer Lane’s theory about timetable suck-ing. He used to advocate giving a child the breast whenever it demanded it.He held that in sucking there are two components . . . pleasure and nutrition.The timetable child accumulates both components, and when the suckingbegins the pleasure component goes away with a rush and is satis?ed in a sortof orgasm. But the nutrition element is unsatis?ed, and he held that manycases of mal-nutrition were due to this factor, that the child stopped suckingbefore the nutrition urge was satis?ed.To me the most interesting thing about your book is that it is scholarly(nasty word) in the sense that it is written by a man who knows historyand science. I am ignorant of both and I think that my own conclusionscome partly from a blind intuition. I say again that it is marvellous that weshould reach very much the same philosophy of education. It is the onlypossible philosophy today, but we cannot hope to do much in theattack against schools from Eton to the ???. Our only hope is the individualparent.My chief di?culty is the parent, for my pupils are products of ignorant andsavage parents. I have much fear that one or two of them, shocked by mybook, may withdraw their children. That would be tragedy.Well, thank you ever so much for the book. It is the only book on educa-tion that I have read that does not make me swear. All the others are moralsdisguised as education.One warning however . . . there is always the chance that your son maythe autobiography of bertrand russell 400want to join the Primrose League one day! One in ten million chance, but wemust face the fact that human nature has not yet ?tted into any cause ande?ect scheme; and never will ?t in.If you ever motor to your Cornwall home do stop and see us here.Yours very trulyA. S. NeillSummerhill SchoolLeiston, Su?olk18.12.30Dear RussellHave you any political in?uence? The Labour Ministry are refusing to letme employ a Frenchman to teach French. The chap I want is with me now,has been analysed and is a tiptop man to deal with my bunch of problem kids.Other schools have natives to teach their languages . . . and I naturally askwhy the hell a damned department should dictate to me about my edu-cational ways. I have given the dept a full account of the man and why he isnecessary to me and the fools reply: ‘But the Dept is not satis?ed that a Britishsubject could not be trained in the special methods of teaching in operationin your school.’Have you any political bigbug friend who would or could get behind thebloody idiots who control our departments? I am wild as hell.Cheerio, help me if you can. I know George Lansbury but hesitate toapproach him as he will have enough to do in his own dept.YoursA. S. Neill20th Dec. 30Dear NeillWhat you tell me is quite outrageous. I have written to Charles Trevelyanand Miss Bond?eld, and I enclose copies of my letters to them.I wonder whether you make the mistake of mentioning psycho-analysis inyour application. You know, of course, from Homer Lane’s case that police-men regard psycho-analysis as merely a cloak for crime. The only ground toput before the department is that Frenchmen are apt to know French betterthan Englishmen do. The more the department enquires into your methods,the more it will wish to hamper you. Nobody is allowed to do any good inthis country except by means of trickery and deceit.Yours everBertrand Russellsecond marriage 401To Charles Trevelyan20th Dec. 30Dear TrevelyanA. S. Neill, of Summerhill School, Leiston, Su?olk, who is, as you probablyknow, very distinguished in the educational world, having developed from aconventional school dominie into one of the most original and successfulinnovators of our time, writes to me to say that the Ministry of Labour is refus-ing to allow him to continue to employ Frenchmen to teach French. He has atpresent a French master whose services he wishes to retain, but the Ministryof Labour has o?cially informed him that Englishmen speak French just aswell as Frenchmen do, and that his present master is not to be allowed to stay.I think you will agree with me that this sort of thing is intolerable. I knowthat many of the most important questions in education do not come underyour department but are decided by policemen whose judgment is takenon the question whether a foreigner is needed in an educational post. Ifthe principles upon which the Alien Act is administered had been applied inItaly in the 15th century, the Western world would never have acquired aknowledge of Greek and the Renaissance could not have taken place.Although the matter is outside your department, I cannot doubt that theslightest word from you would cause the Ministry of Labour to alter itsdecision. A. S. Neill is a man of international reputation, and I hate thethought of what he may do to hold up British Bumbledom to ridiculethroughout the civilised world. If you could do anything to set the matterright, you will greatly relieve my anxiety on this score.Yours very sincerelyBertrand RussellP.S. I have also written to Miss Bond?eld on this matter.From and to A. S. NeillSummerhill SchoolLeiston, Su?olk22.12.30Dear RussellGood man! That’s the stu? to give the troops. Whatever the result acceptmy thanks. I didn’t mention psychoanalysis to them. I applied on the usualform and they wrote asking me what precise steps I had taken ‘to ?nd ateacher of French who was British or an alien already resident in this country’.