Brixton Letter 61
BR to Ottoline Morrell
August 8, 1918
- ALS
- Texas
- Edited by
Kenneth Blackwell
Andrew G. Bone
Nicholas Griffin
Sheila Turcon
Cite The Collected Letters of Bertrand Russell, https://russell-letters.mcmaster.ca/brixton-letter-61Auto. 2: 89-90
BRACERS 18684
<Brixton Prison>1
Aug 8. ’18.
It is a joy getting your letters,2 Dearest O., they bring me in touch with your world, and that is most delightful. Thank you 1000 times for the snuff, which reached me safely* — it is a solace in the absence of my pipe! — I had a blow today in learning that after all I am not to be let out till Oct. 2.3 One gets very tired in here. But the leisure has been good for me — and it has been good to have a time for seeing the proportions of things. Provided I am left free after I come out, no harm will have been done. I want the fellowship proceeded with, unless people outside are definitely against it. I think G. Murray is better than my brother for dealing with Geddes,4 and I incline to letting G.M. manage the affair. Don’t you think so? If you agree, this view might be put to my brother. I never worry about it now, but it remains important.
————————
* Do you remember the man in The Rape of the Lock,5 who was “Of amber snuff-box justly vain, And the nice conduct of a clouded cane.” He is my ideal. If, when I come out, you will give me a clouded cane, I will do my best to make its conduct nice. It shall never lie with canes that are unclouded.
————————
Tell Miss Wrinch she ought to have had the whole typescript from Miss Kyle by now, and that she has my authority for speaking very severely to Miss Kyle. I am so glad you all like her. I fancy she has developed a good deal in the last few months. — I am very sorry to hear you have lost Philosophical Essays.6 I haven’t got it — no doubt you lent it, perhaps in time Millie7 will remember who to. It is out of print and I don’t possess a copy, or I would give you another. You didn’t lend it to me.
All you write about S.S.8 is interesting and poignant. I know so well the indignation he suffers from. I have lived in it for months, and on the edge of it for years. I think that one way of getting over it is to perceive that others might judge oneself in the same way, unjustly, but with just as good grounds. Those of us who are rich are just like the young women whose sex flourishes on the blood of soldiers. Every motor-tyre is made out of the blood of negroes under the lash,9 yet motorists are not all heartless villains. When we buy wax matches, we buy a painful and lingering death for those who make them.10 The clothes in which the Bishop of London goes to Purity Meetings are paid for by the rent of brothels. (Fact.)11 , a War is only the final flower of the capitalist system, but with an unusual proletariat. S.S. sees war, not peace, from the point of view of the proletariat. But this is only politics. The fundamental mistake lies in wrong expectations, leading to cynicism when they are not realized. Conventional morality teaches us to expect unselfishness in decent people. This is an error. Man is an animal, bent on securing food and propagating the species. One way of succeeding in these objects is to persuade others that one is after their welfare — but to be really after any welfare but one’s own and one’s children’s is unnatural. It occurs, like Sadism and Sodomy,12 but is equally against nature. A good social system is not to be secured by making people unselfish, but by making their own vital impulses fit in with other people’s.13 This is feasible. Our present system makes self-preservation only possible at the expense of others. The system is at fault; but it is a weakness to be disgusted with people because they aim at self-preservation. One’s idealism needs to be too robust for such weakness. It doesn’t do to forget or deny the animal in Man. The God in Man will not be visible, as a rule, while the animal is thwarted. Those who have produced Stoic philosophies have all had enough to eat and drink. The sum-total of the matter is that one’s idealism must be robust and must fit in with the facts of nature; and that what is horrible in the actual world is mainly due to a bad system. Spinoza, always, is right in all these things,14 to my mind. (2nd sheet later)
When I come out, after about a month of holiday (partly at Garsn. I hope) I mean to settle down to a very regular life in London, with strict working hours. I don’t want to live in a “rush”, but inevitably when I am not working there will be endless people to see, and business to attend to, and all the times of mere enjoyment. Here, I write because I can’t talk, but when I am able to see you it will seem useless to write long letters, at least it will usually, I should think.
Did you ever get the proofs of Roads to Freedom,15 and did you like it as well as the bits I read at Garsn.? If you didn’t get it, do write to Miss Rinder for it. I should like to know what you think of it.
I am glad to see boys are no longer to be sent into the front till they are 19.16 It is the first beginning of any sort of amelioration. The burden and weight of horror is so fearful — anything like that lightens it a little. The destruction of youth is so ghastly. — It is kind of everybody at Garsn. to talk and feel about me as you say they do.17 Since I have been here I have felt very humble. I have realized how many people bear how much with little complaint and little outside help; and I have felt I make more than my share of fuss, and get more than my share of affection. But oh I do value affection. It is the thing one ultimately wants — much more than admiration. — Your letters are a great joy, Dearest O — thank you for them 1000 times. I know how dreadful it must have been seeing S.S. like that for so short a time. Goodbye — my love, now and always.
Your
B.
All you say about C.M.18 is most generous. It would be good if you got to like her — there would be no difficulty on her side I am convinced.b
Please send me this book or some other that will serve the same purpose, as soon as possible. I am short of serviceable books.19 , c
- 1
[document] The letter was edited from a digital scan of the initialled, handwritten original in the Morrell papers at the University of Texas at Austin. The letter consists of two sheets, the first written on both sides, the second not. A third sheet is apparently filed with the letter, but it belongs to Letter 57. The present letter was extracted in BR’s Autobiography, 2: 89–90.
- 2
your letters Ottoline’s most recent letter was dated 4 August 1918 (BRACERS 114753). It was in reply to receiving Mind the previous day, doubtless conveying Letter 57. Her previous letter was that of 30 July (BRACERS 114752).
- 3
not to be let out till Oct. 2 This was BR’s expected date of early release from Brixton. He was, in fact, let out earlier, on 14 September 1918.
- 4
I think G. Murray is better than my brother for dealing with Geddes I.e., in connection with the fellowship plan.
- 5
The Rape of the Lock Alexander Pope’s mock-heroic social satire (1712, 1714) was based on the umbrage taken by the poem’s Belinda and her family when a lock of her hair was cut and stolen by her suitor. The man BR refers to, Sir Plume, does not play a major role in the poem: he blusters, incoherently and ineffectually, in an attempt to have the lock returned. BR’s ironical admiration of him was apparently on the basis of his snuffbox and cane alone. The passage BR accurately quoted is Canto V, lines 123–4. He repeated it in On Education (London: Allen & Unwin, 1926), p. 21, commenting that the man’s education had been “ornamental in the narrowest sense”. Pope’s polished poetry was eminently quotable, but BR regarded him as “the perfect exemplar of all that the Romantic movement rebelled against” (HWP, p. 676). As for the container of BR’s snuff, it is not known how Ottoline may have smuggled it to him.
- 6
lost Philosophical Essays A volume of papers that Longmans, Green published for BR in 1910. It included “The Free Man’s Worship” (as it was then titled). BR still did not have the 1910 edition when his library was inventoried in 1967.
- 7
Millie Millie Ellis, Ottoline’s maid and housekeeper at Garsington.
- 8
All you write about S.S. Ottoline wrote about Sassoon on 4 August 1918 (BRACERS 114753). A British bullet had grazed him in the head while he was on patrol, 10 July, and, slow to heal, he was invalided home:
“I saw SS on Thursday.… He is filled with a burning anger against the War people. The Triumphant happy Women who are delighting in their freedom — and their sex — at the expense of the men. Indignation obsesses him. His idial <sic> Temperament is outraged by all he sees around — and it is all fresh and horrible, coming back from the simple and fine life (in a way) out There. It shocks all the more — It makes life seem so utterly Trivial he says — I tried to say he must get rid of indignation — but it sounded so unsympathetic I felt. I tried to say there are a few people still existing who aren’t brutes, a few real people — and held you up! …
“It was very upsetting seeing him for so short a time, and feeling one could do so little for him. He was very hurt by the Review <see Letter 38> — he felt it had such a Vindictive tone in it, but is very Nice about it. Only sorry for JMM. Do you remember what you wrote to C.A. about the Necessity of Living and the temptation of self-destruction. I sent him a copy of it — and he finds it a great comfort. He copied it out into a little book. <See Letter 18, note 1.> …
“He has a great loathing of sex. It is an obsession.
“He is very fine for he has impersonal Passion — I think you would feel that he had developed a good deal — far less self-centred.” - 9
motor-tyre … blood of negroes under the lash BR was referring to the brutal exploitation of native labour working the rubber plantations of the Congo Free State, which from 1885 to 1908 was effectively the private fiefdom of Belgian King Leopold II. He later wrote that these abuses — exposed but not eradicated completely after a lengthy public campaign led by BR’s anti-war associate, E.D. Morel — “were probably the worst and most systematic atrocities in the long blood-stained annals of the oppression of negroes by white men” (“The Value of Free Thought” [1944] in Understanding History [New York: Philosophical Library, 1957], p. 94).
- 10
wax matches … who make them Friction-lit matches were a notable Victorian invention and the misery they caused to the people making them — often children, usually young girls — a long-standing Victorian atrocity. The problem was not with the wax, as BR seems to suggest, but with the white phosphorus which ignited the wax which, in turn, ignited the wooden match. Its fumes produced an excruciatingly painful and grotesquely disfiguring condition known as “phossy jaw” (phosphorus necrosis). The condition had been documented in parliamentary reports on child labour in the 1860s and, later, by William Booth and Annie Besant, but it reached national attention in 1888 when the London match girls formed a union and went on strike, in a major victory for trade unionism in Britain. The use of white phosphorus was banned internationally by a Berne Convention in 1906 and in Britain in 1910.
- 11
clothes … Bishop of London goes to Purity Meetings … rent of brothels (Fact.) Arthur Foley Winnington-Ingram (1858–1946) was Bishop of London for 38 years after his appointment in 1901. He was a notoriously fervent champion of “social purity” legislation and campaigns. After the First World War he became chair of the London Council for the Promotion of Public Morality and the Church of England Temperance Society. What BR states as “Fact” possibly relates to the pre-Reformation history of the London diocese, when the Church’s substantial holdings of land in the capital included the notoriously licentious area of Covent Garden. Under Henry VIII, this property passed into the possession of BR’s distant forebear, the 4th Earl of Bedford. It seems more likely, however, that BR was confusing the London and Winchester dioceses. Medieval and early modern bishops of the former cathedral city also occupied a grand episcopal palace at Southwark and owned much adjacent land on the south bank of the Thames. Since the City of London’s jurisdiction did not extend to these parts of the county of Surrey, gambling and prostitution were rife and the Bishops of Winchester did indeed collect rental income from the brothel-keepers.
- 12
Sadism and Sodomy Although he rarely analyzed these subjects, there is evidence BR thought the basis of a man’s (sexual) sadism was “the added pleasure when the woman is unwilling, because it enhances his sense of power” (Letter 62). More generally, he held that we have an impulse to cruelty, sometimes extreme, and later instanced the Nazis. “Sodomy” he used as another synonym for homosexuality (Sassoon was “inverted”; and see note 10 to Letter 75), against which he was somewhat prejudiced, although he knew and respected a range of homosexual individuals. Just three years earlier BR had written Ottoline that “D.H. Lawrence has the same feeling against sodomy as I have; you had nearly made me believe there is no great harm in it, but I have reverted; and all the examples I know confirm me in thinking it sterilizing” (BRACERS 19036). On C.D. Broad (Letter 36), he told Ottoline: “As you might gather, he is homosexual, which makes men much more alive to the dreadfulness of war” (BRACERS 18323); Rinder and BR debated this in connection with the novel Despised and Rejected (BRACERS 79631 and Letter 102).
- 13
A good social system … impulses fit in with other people’s. This statement neatly puts BR’s ethical theory of compossibility into his political philosophy. He did so at much greater length in Human Society in Ethics and Politics (1954). In Principles of Social Reconstruction (1916) and Political Ideals (1917) he had emphasized the importance of fostering what he called creative impulses, the satisfaction of which would not preclude their satisfaction by others.
- 14
Spinoza, always, is right in all these things Spinoza held that the drive to self-preservation was a paramount feature of human nature: “Each thing, in so far as it is in itself, endeavours to persevere in its being” (Ethics, Bk. III, Prop. 6, White–Stirling trans.). Yet self-preservation need not be narrowly selfish. As BR wrote later, “self-preservation alters in character when we realize that what is real and positive in us is what unites us to the whole, and not what preserves the appearance of separateness” (HWP, p. 573).
- 15
Did you ever get the proofs of Roads to Freedom Ottoline had probably not yet received these proofs. But in her letter to BR of 17 August 1918, she indicated that they had arrived and that she had already read Part I. She considered it to be “quite excellent” (BRACERS 114755). See note 14 to Letter 75.
- 16
boys are no longer to be sent into the front till they are 19 This assurance had been provided by Ian Macpherson, Under-Secretary for War, in a House of Commons debate on 7 August 1918. The crisis of military manpower in the spring had resulted in eighteen-year-olds not only being called up for training and held in reserve, but also in being sent into combat. This represented a departure from the established practice of no military service overseas before the age of nineteen (except for some young officers with prior experience in the Officer Training Corps). Macpherson announced that this “original regime” would be restored at the end of the month (“War Situation”, Parliamentary Debates [Commons], 5th ser., 109 [7 Aug. 1918]: 1,479).
- 17
kind of everybody at Garsn. to talk and feel about me as you say they do Ottoline had written in the letter BR was answering: “All here talk of you every few hours and all Love, adore and worship you! Quite true this is.”
- 18
All you say about C.M. On Colette, Ottoline had written in the earlier letter to which BR was replying: “I am so unspeakably happy you are satisfied Now about our relationship. Indeed I beg of you Not to think I have any <thrice underlined> unkind feelings about C.M. for I haven’t. I am sure if I knew her well I should find her very sympathetic and generous and Courageous — and full of fine Vitality” (30 July <1918>, BRACERS 114752). But for a very different response — Ottoline wishing to keep clear of both “Lady Connie” and Elizabeth Russell — see R. Gathorne-Hardy, ed., Ottoline at Garsington: Memoirs of Lady Ottoline Morrell, 1915–1918 (London: Faber and Faber, 1974), p. 253.
- 19
serviceable books Books (and journals) in which letters could be concealed in uncut pages.
Brixton Prison
Located in southwest London Brixton is the capital’s oldest prison. It opened in 1820 as the Surrey House of Correction for minor offenders of both sexes, but became a women-only convict prison in the 1850s. Brixton was a military prison from 1882 until 1898, after which it served as a “local” prison for male offenders sentenced to two years or less, and as London’s main remand centre for those in custody awaiting trial. The prison could hold up to 800 inmates. Originally under local authority jurisdiction, local prisons were transferred to Home Office control in 1878 in an attempt to establish uniform conditions of confinement. These facilities were distinct from “convict” prisons reserved for more serious or repeat offenders sentenced to longer terms of penal servitude.
C.D. Broad
Charlie Dunbar Broad (1887–1971), British philosopher, studied at Trinity College, Cambridge (1906–10), where he came in contact with BR, whose work had the greatest influence on him, though he was taught primarily by W.E. Johnson and J.M.E. McTaggart. (He wrote the definitive refutation of McTaggart’s philosophy after the latter’s death.) In 1911 BR examined Broad’s fellowship dissertation, which was published as Perception, Physics, and Reality (1914) and which BR reviewed in Mind in 1918 (15 in Papers 8). BR reviewed more books by Broad in the 1920s, and Broad returned the favour over the decades. Outstanding among his reviews was that of the first volume of BR’s Autobiography in The Philosophical Review 77 (1968): 455–73. From 1911 to 1920 Broad taught at St. Andrews University; in 1920 he moved to Bristol as Professor of Philosophy before returning to Trinity in 1923, where, as Knightbridge Professor of Moral Philosophy, he remained for the rest of his life. He wrote extensively on a wide range of philosophical topics, including ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and psychical research. His philosophical writings are marked by the impartiality and clarity with which he stated, revised, and assessed the arguments and theories with which he was dealing, rather than by originality in his own position. BR and Moore were the two philosophers with whose views his were most closely aligned. Broad was evidently devoted to BR. One of the current editors was introduced to Broad upon visiting Trinity College Library in 1966. He was keen to hear about BR from someone who had recently talked with him. Following BR’s death Broad introduced a reprint of G.H. Hardy’s Bertrand Russell and Trinity: a College Controversy of the Last War (Cambridge U. P., 1944; 1970).
Clifford Allen
(Reginald) Clifford Allen (1889–1939; Baron Allen of Hurtwood, 1932) was a socialist politician and publicist who joined the Cambridge University Fabian Society while studying at Peterhouse College (1908–11). After graduating he became active in the Independent Labour Party in London and helped establish a short-lived labour newspaper, the Daily Citizen. During the war Allen was an inspiring and effective leader of the C.O. movement as chairman of the No-Conscription Fellowship, which he co-founded with Fenner Brockway in November 1914. Court-martialled and imprisoned three times after his claim for absolute exemption from war service was rejected, Allen became desperately ill during his last spell of incarceration. He was finally released from the second division of Winchester Prison on health grounds in December 1917, but not before contracting the tuberculosis with which he was finally diagnosed in September 1918. He was dogged by ill health for the rest of his life. BR had enormous affection and admiration for Allen (e.g., 68 in Papers 13, 46 in Papers 14), a trusted wartime political associate. From February 1919 until March 1920 he even shared Allen’s Battersea apartment. A close friendship was soured, however, by Allen’s rejection of BR’s unforgiving critique of the Bolshevik regime, which both men witnessed at first hand with the British Labour Delegation to Russia in May 1920 (see Papers 15: 507). Yet Allen was far from revolutionary himself and did not even identify with the left wing of the ILP (which he chaired in the early 1920s). He was elevated to the peerage as a supporter of Ramsay MacDonald’s National Government, an administration despised by virtually the entire labour movement. Although Allen’s old intimacy with BR was never restored after the Russia trip, any lingering estrangement did not inhibit him from enrolling his daughter, Joan Colette (“Polly”) at the Russells’ Beacon Hill School.
Constance Malleson
Lady Constance Malleson (1895–1975), actress and author, was the daughter of Hugh Annesley, 5th Earl Annesley, and his second wife, Priscilla. “Colette” (as she was known to BR) was raised at the family home, Castlewellan Castle, County Down, Northern Ireland. Becoming an actress was an unusual path for a woman of her class. She studied at Tree’s (later the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art), debuting in 1914 with the stage name of Colette O’Niel at the Duke of York’s Theatre, London, in a student production. She married fellow actor Miles Malleson (1888–1969) in 1915 because her family would not allow them to live together. In 1916 Colette met BR through the No-Conscription Fellowship and began a love affair with him that lasted until 1920. The affair was rekindled twice, in 1929 and 1948; they remained friends for the rest of his life. She had a great talent for making and keeping friends. Colette acted in London and the provinces. She toured South Africa in 1928–29 and the Middle East, Greece and Italy in 1932 in Lewis Casson and Sybil Thorndike’s company. She acted in two films, both in 1918, Hindle Wakes and The Admirable Crichton, each now lost. With BR’s encouragement she began a writing career, publishing a short story in The English Review in 1919. She published other short stories as well as hundreds of articles and book reviews. Colette wrote two novels — The Coming Back (1933) and Fear in the Heart (1936) — as well as two autobiographies — After Ten Years (1931) and In the North (1946). She was a fierce defender of Finland, where she had lived before the outbreak of World War II. Letters from her appeared in The Times and The Manchester Guardian. Another of her causes was mental health. She died five years after BR in Lavenham, Suffolk, where she spent her final years. See S. Turcon, “A Bibliography of Constance Malleson”, Russell 32 (2012): 175–90.
Dorothy Wrinch
Dorothy Maud Wrinch (1894–1976), mathematician, philosopher, and theoretical biologist. She studied mathematics and philosophy at Girton College, Cambridge, and came under BR’s influence in her second year when she took his course on mathematical logic. She taught mathematics at University College, London, 1918–21, and then at Oxford, 1922–30. Her first publications were in mathematical logic and philosophy, and during the 1920s she wrote on the philosophy of science. But in the 1930s her interests turned to mathematical biology and crystallography, and in 1935 she moved to the United States on a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship and remained there for the rest of her life. Unfortunately, as a biologist she is best known for a long and stubborn controversy with Linus Pauling about the structure of proteins in which he was right and she was wrong. See Marjorie Senechal, I Died for Beauty: Dorothy Wrinch and the Cultures of Science (New York: Oxford U. P., 2013). Chapter 7 is devoted to Wrinch’s interactions with BR in Brixton.
Elizabeth Russell
Elizabeth Russell, born Mary Annette Beauchamp (1866–1941), was a novelist who in 1891 married Graf von Arnim-Schlagenthin. She became known as “Elizabeth”, the name she used in publishing Elizabeth and Her German Garden (1898), and she remained widely known as Elizabeth von Arnim, although the Library of Congress catalogues her as Mary Annette (Beauchamp), Countess von Arnim. She was a widow when she married BR’s brother, Frank, on 11 February 1916. The marriage was quickly in difficulty; she left it for good in March 1919, but they were never divorced and she remained Countess Russell (becoming Dowager Countess after Frank’s death in 1931).
Eva Kyle
Eva Kyle ran a typing service. She did work for the No-Conscription Fellowship and took BR’s dictation of his book, Roads to Freedom, in the early months of 1918. He annotated a letter from her: “She was an admirable typist but very fat. We all agreed that she was worth her weight in gold, though that was saying a great deal.” Her prison letter to him is clever and amusing. She typed his major prison writings and apologized for the amount of the invoice when he emerged.
Fellowship Plan
Since the upper-age limit for compulsory military service had been increased to 50 in April 1918, BR was faced with the unnerving prospect of being conscripted after his release from Brixton. Early in his imprisonment he was already wondering about his “position when I emerge from here” (Letter 9). While his conviction was still under appeal, he had broached with Clifford Allen and Gilbert Murray the possibility of avoiding military service, not by asserting his conscientious objection to it, but by obtaining accreditation of his philosophical research as work of national importance (see note to Letter 24). The Pelham Committee, set up by the Board of Trade in March 1916, was responsible for the designation of essential occupations and recommending to the local tribunals, who adjudicated claims for exemption from military service, that C.O.s be considered for such positions. BR reasoned to Murray on 2 April that a dispensation to practise philosophy (as opposed to working outside his profession), would enable to him to “avoid prison without compromise” — i.e., of his political and moral opposition to conscription (BRACERS 52367). Although BR intended to withdraw from political work, he told Murray two days later, he would not promise to abstain from peace campaigning (BRACERS 52369). It should be noted that C.O.s who accepted alternative service in special Home Office camps were expressly prohibited from engaging in pacifist activities (see John W. Graham, Conscription and Conscience: a History, 1916–1919 [London: Allen & Unwin, 1922], p. 231).
BR was far from sanguine about the prospect of success before a local tribunal. But he came to think (by early June) that his chances would be improved if his academic supporters interceded directly with the Minister of National Service, Sir Auckland Geddes. In addition, he calculated that such entreaties would be more effective if those acting on his behalf could secure and even endow a fellowship for him and thereby have “something definite to put before Geddes” (Letter 12; see also Letters 15 and 19). BR definitely wanted to rededicate himself to philosophy and would have welcomed a new source of income from academic employment (see Letter 22). But the “financial aspect was quite secondary”, he reminded Frank on 24 June (Letter 27); he was interested in the fellowship plan primarily as a safeguard against being called up, for teachers over 45 were not subject to the provisions of the recently amended Military Service Act. In the same letter, however, BR told his brother that “I wish it <the plan> dropped” on account of reservations expressed to him in person by Wildon Carr and A.N. Whitehead (see also Letter 31), two philosophers whom he respected but who seemed to doubt whether BR’s financial needs were as great as they appeared (see note to Letter 102).
Yet BR’s retreat was only temporary. On 8 August, he expressed to Ottoline a renewed interest in the initiative, and a few days later, she, her husband and Gladys Rinder met in London to discuss the matter. As Ottoline reported to BR, “we all felt that it was useless to wait for others to start and we decided that P. and I should go and see Gilbert M. and try and get him to work it with the Philosophers” (11 Aug. 1918, BRACERS 114754). BR probably wanted Murray to spearhead this lobbying (see also Letters 65 and 70) because of his political respectability and prior success in persuading professional philosophers to back an appeal to the Home Secretary for BR’s sentence to be served in the first division (see Letter 6). Murray did play a leading role but not until early the following month, when BR was anxious for the fellowship plan to succeed as his release date neared. The scheme finally gathered momentum after a meeting between Ottoline, Rinder and Carr on 6 September 1918, at which the philosopher and educationist T. Percy Nunn, another academic supporter of BR, was also present. Within a few days Murray had drafted a statement with an appeal for funds, which was endorsed by Carr, Whitehead, Nunn, Samuel Alexander, Bernard Bosanquet, G. Dawes Hicks, A.E. Taylor and James Ward. This memorial was then circulated in confidence to philosophers and others, but only after BR’s release from Brixton. (Financial pledges had already been made by a few of BR’s friends and admirers, notably Lucy Silcox and Siegfried Sassoon.) BR’s solicitor, J.J. Withers, became treasurer of this endowment fund, the goal of which was to provide BR with £150 or £200 per annum over three years. On 30 August BR had confessed to Ottoline that he did not want an academic position “very far from London” (Letter 89) and reiterated this desire in a message to Murray communicated by Rinder (Letter 97). On 6 September Rinder (BRACERS 79633) hinted that she already knew where the appointment would be, but there are no other indications that a particular establishment had been decided upon. Ultimately, no affiliation was contemplated for BR, so the memorial stated, because “in the present state of public feeling no ordinary university institution is likely to be willing to employ him as a teacher” (copy in BRACERS 56750). The circular talked instead of a “special Lectureship”, and the £100 BR received from the fund early in 1919 was explicitly issued as payment for lectures (on “The Analysis of Mind”; see syllabus, in Papers 9: App. III.1) that he would deliver that spring. BR’s solicitor also informed him that provision existed to pay him a further £100 for an autumn lecture course (see syllabus, ibid.: App. III.2), and Withers anticipated that these arrangements might “last two or three years” (2 Jan. 1919, BRACERS 81764). BR had already obtained a £50 gift from the fund in November 1918. Somewhat ironically, the critical importance of a teaching component to the fellowship plan — as insurance against conscription — was reduced by the authorities hesitating to hound BR any further after his imprisonment, and all but nullified by the end of the war a few weeks later. (There were no fresh call-ups, but the last of the C.O.s already in prison were not released until August 1919, and conscription remained in effect until April 1920.)
Frank Russell
John Francis (“Frank”) Stanley Russell (1865–1931; 2nd Earl Russell from 1878), BR’s older brother. Author of Lay Sermons (1902), Divorce (1912), and My Life and Adventures (1923). BR remembered Frank bullying him as a child and as having the character and appearance of a Stanley, but also as giving him his first geometry lessons (Auto. 1: 26, 36). He was accomplished in many fields: sailor, electrician, house builder, pioneer motorist, local politician, lawyer, businessman and company director, and (later) constructive junior member of the second Labour Government. Frank was married three times. The first marriage involved serious legal actions by and against his wife and her mother, but a previous scandal, which ended his career at Oxford, had an overshadowing effect on his life (see Ruth Derham, “‘A Very Improper Friend’: the Influence of Jowett and Oxford on Frank Russell”, Russell 37 [2017]: 271–87). The second marriage was to Mollie Sommerville (see Ian Watson, “Mollie, Countess Russell”, Russell 23 [2003]: 65–8). The third was to Elizabeth, Countess von Arnim. Despite difficulties with him, BR declared from prison: “No prisoner can ever have had such a helpful brother” (Letter 20).
Gilbert Murray
Gilbert Murray (1866–1957), distinguished classical scholar and dedicated liberal internationalist. He was Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford, 1908–36, and chair of the League of Nations Union, 1923–36. He and BR enjoyed a long and close friendship that was ruptured temporarily by bitter disagreement over the First World War. After Murray published The Foreign Policy of Sir Edward Grey, 1906–1915, in defence of Britain’s pre-war diplomacy, BR responded with a detailed critique, The Policy of the Entente, 1904–1914: a Reply to Professor Gilbert Murray (37 in Papers 13). Yet Murray still took the lead in campaigning to get BR’s sentence reassigned from the second to the first division and (later) in leading an appeal for professional and financial backing of an academic appointment for BR upon his release (the “fellowship plan”, which looms large in his prison correspondence). BR was still thankful for Murray’s exertions some 40 years later. See his portrait of Murray, “A Fifty-Six Year Friendship”, in Murray, An Unfinished Autobiography with Contributions by His Friends, ed. Jean Smith and Arnold Toynbee (London: Allen & Unwin, 1960).
Gladys Rinder
W. Gladys Rinder worked for the No-Conscription Fellowship and was “chiefly concerned with details in the treatment of pacifist prisoners” (BR’s note, Auto. 2: 88). More specifically, she helped administer the Conscientious Objectors’ Information Bureau, a joint advisory committee set up in May 1916 and representing two other anti-conscription organizations — the Friends’ Service Committee and Fellowship of Reconciliation — as well as the NCF. One C.O. later testified to her “able and zealous” management of this repository of records on individual C.O.s (see John W. Graham, Conscription and Conscience: a History, 1916–1919 [London: Allen & Unwin, 1922], p. 186). Rinder exhibited similar qualities in assisting with the distribution of BR’s correspondence from prison and in writing him official and smuggled letters. Her role in the NCF changed in June 1918, and after the Armistice she assumed control of a new department dedicated to campaigning for the immediate release of all imprisoned C.O.s. She appears to have lost touch with BR after the war but continued her peace advocacy, which included publishing occasionally on international affairs. In 1924 she travelled to Washington, DC, as part of the British delegation to a congress of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Decades later Colette remembered Rinder to Kenneth Blackwell as somebody who “seemed about 40 in 1916–18. She was a completely nondescript person, but efficient, and kind” (BRACERS 121687).
J. Middleton Murry
J. Middleton Murry (1889–1957), critic and editor, was educated in classics at Brasenose College, Oxford, before establishing in 1911 the short-lived avant-garde journal, Rhythm. In May 1918 he married the author Katherine Mansfield, to whose literary legacy he became devoted after her death from tuberculosis only five years later. The couple were frequent visitors to Garsington Manor, and Murry appears at one time to have had a romantic yearning for Ottoline (see note to Letter 48). Although Murry’s scornful treatment of Sassoon’s poetry annoyed BR (see Letter 39), he became, nevertheless, a frequent contributor to The Athenaeum during Murry’s two-year stint as its editor (1919–21). After the ailing literary weekly merged with The Nation in 1921, Murry continued his vigorous promotion of modernism in the arts from the helm of his own monthly journal, The Adelphi, which he edited for 25 years. During the First World War he worked as a translator for the War Office but became an uncompromising pacifist in the 1930s. One of the last assignments of his journalistic career was as editor of the pacifist weekly, Peace News (1940–46). Source: Oxford DNB.
Siegfried Sassoon
Siegfried Sassoon (1886–1967), soldier awarded the MC and anti-war poet. Ottoline had befriended him in 1916, and the following year, when Sassoon refused to return to his regiment after being wounded, she and BR helped publicize this protest, which probably saved him from a court martial. BR even assisted Sassoon in revising his famous anti-war statement, which was read to the House of Commons by a Liberal M.P. on 30 July 1917. Sassoon’s actions were an embarrassment to the authorities, for he was well known as both a poet and a war hero. Unable to hush the case up, the government acted with unexpected subtlety and declared Sassoon to be suffering from shell-shock and sent him to Craiglockhart War Hospital for Officers, near Edinburgh. After a period of recuperation in Scotland overseen by military psychiatrist Capt. W.H.R. Rivers, Sassoon decided to return to the Front (see Jean Moorcroft Wilson, Siegfried Sassoon: Soldier, Poet, Lover, Friend [New York: Overlook Duckworth, 2014]). He was again wounded in July 1918 and was convalescing in Britain during some of BR’s imprisonment. Although each admired the other’s stand on the war, BR and Sassoon were never close in later years. Yet Sassoon did pledge £50 to the fellowship plan fund (see BRACERS 114758), and decades later he donated a manuscript in support of BR’s International War Crimes Tribunal (see BRACERS 79066).
Sir Auckland Geddes
Sir Auckland Geddes (1879–1954; 1st Baron Geddes, 1942) was returned unopposed as Conservative M.P. for Basingstoke in a by-election held in October 1917. Before this entry into civilian public life, he held the rank of Brigadier-General as director of recruiting at the War Office. He was an ardent champion of conscription even in peacetime and had a long-standing interest in the military, which he expressed before the war as a volunteer medical officer in the British Army Reserve. He had studied medicine and was Professor of Anatomy at McGill University, Montreal, when the outbreak of war prompted an immediate return to Britain in order to enlist. After a riding accident rendered Geddes unfit for front-line duties, he became a staff officer in France with a remit covering the supply and deployment of troops. He performed similar duties at the War Office until his appointment in August 1917 as a Minister of National Service with broad powers over both military recruitment and civilian labour. Geddes held two more Cabinet positions in Lloyd George’s post-war Coalition Government before his appointment in 1920 as British Ambassador to the United States. After returning from Washington on health grounds three years later, Geddes embarked upon a successful business career, becoming chairman in 1925 of the Rio Tinto mining company. See Oxford DNB.
Ottoline Morrell
Lady Ottoline Morrell, née Cavendish-Bentinck (1873–1938). Ottoline, who was the half-sister of the 6th Duke of Portland and grew up in the politically involved aristocracy, studied at St. Andrews and Oxford. She married, in 1902, Philip Morrell (1870–1943), who became a Liberal M.P. in 1910. She is best known as a Bloomsbury literary and artistic hostess. BR and she had a passionate but non-exclusive love affair from 1911 to 1916. They remained friends for life. She published no books of her own but kept voluminous diaries (now in the British Library) and was an avid photographer of her guests at Garsington Manor, near Oxford. (The photos are published in Lady Ottoline’s Album [1976] and mounted at the website of the National Portrait Gallery.) In the 1930s she had a large selection of BR’s letters to her typed, omitting sensitive passages. BR’s letters to her are with the bulk of her papers at the University of Texas, Austin.