Emmet writes: "Thank you very much for so kindly writing about my essay on infinite number. I will take your advice and read Section C of Part III of Principia Mathematica."

Enequist writes: "I have read that you intend to come in January 29 to Frankfurt a.m. on account of a antimilitaristic congress. If that will happen, you are invited to stay at the home of Herr and Frau Dr. Paul Oppenheim". He provides BR with Oppenheim's address.

BR's pocket diaries do not show that he made the trip.

Epstein writes: "The bust of you in bronze will be £300, as agreed." He adds that he would be "very happy to show it in the Leicester Galleries this summer."

Ervine found the source of the quotation in the Belfast Telegraph. He recorded the statements allegedly made by BR in the New Statesman on 15 September 1928, and left them in a notebook which had not been opened for a long while.

In fact, the article was by Frank Russell, then 2nd Earl Russell. See B&R S28.02.

Ervine asks BR for permission to use an extract from The Scientific Outlook. It would be included in a book he is publishing on the life of George Bernard Shaw.

Esdaile thanks BR for his postcard. He will send his solution to the free will and determinism conundrum, and asks BR where he could possibly secure its publication.
Esdaile continues his story about the "Houri" in BR's rented out home.

Ewen congratulates BR on obtaining a scholarship at Trinity College, Cambridge. Ewen was BR's tutor; BR mentions him in "Greek Exercises". BR used to discuss theology with him. Ewen was an atheist and BR suspects that he left because others thought he was undermining BR's faith. Ewen also introduced BR to Karl Marx and non-Euclidean geometry. Ewen writes: "I congratulate you with all my heart though such a feat is almost too much for mere congratulation. In fact such an exhibition of mental athletics rather excites a feeling of admiring wonder. I would hardly venture to tell you so if I did not know that you are too sensible to allow your head to be turned by success."

BR thanks Ellis for her letter and says he does not think the Committee can move on until Miss Marshall returns.

BR is in the dark on where the National Committee will head.

Ellis discusses the case of the New Zealanders, in which Arthur Watts is interested.

Ellis discusses the plight of the New Zealanders. She mentions questions asked by Snowden, Denman and Harvey, perhaps in the House of Commons.

Her enclosure of a J.A.C. minute is not present.

Ellis discusses the High Commissioner's illness and how this has made things difficult for the Committee. BR's enclosure to Mr. Ammon is mentioned, as is Dr. Hodgkin.

Ellis wishes BR good luck on behalf of the Friends' Service Committee: "We wish to assure you that our thoughts will go with you into this new service and we sincerely trust that you will be given sufficient physical strength to stand what it entails." The context is BR's upcoming imprisonment. BR has identified Ellis as Lady Parmoor, stepmother of Sir Stafford Cripps. [It was Edith Ellis's twin sister, Marian, who became Lady Parmoor.]

Harrop is surely John A. Harrop of the N.C.F.

Edwards invites BR to give "Political Ideals" on March 1 in Tuffley, Gloucester, the lecture being no. 1 on the syllabus that Harrop evidently circulated.

Edwards writes on behalf of the local U.D.C. And I.L.P and other bodies.

This is a transcription of document .049789.

Also in file: a carbon copy.

Due to the quantity of material, there will be delay in submitting Einstein on Peace to BR for his preface.

Paul Oppenheim may have a photograph of BR and Einstein together.

Eliot tells BR that "the people will be leaving at the end of this week". He says that Vivien will be using the house (was document .049723) this spring and "will go down as presently as possible and look after your articles."

Noted at the foot: "Signed April 11, 55".

The original, ribbon copy of this letter is presumably in the Albert Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Another image of this letter arrived from the Rotblat papers, Churchill College, in June 2015. The image appear to have been made from the photocopy catalogued here and sent to Rotblat at some time.

Eliot accepts the arrangement whereby Eliot will stay in BR's flat in London. Eliot is grateful for BR's kindness and hopes that BR will let him know if he needs the place for himself at some point. Eliot asks if it would be possible for the both of them to meet soon in Eastbourne.

BR thanks Eliot for his "nice letter" and adds, "In old days when we were huddled together in Russell Chambers, we could hardly have expected that lapse of time would make us so respectable. I will test your opinion against George Trevy's as soon as I get the chance. Yours ever, BR."

Another photocopy of this letter arrived from Valerie Eliot in Rec. Acq. 1077.

Vivien Eliot informs BR that she went to Marlow and packed up his table but was unable to get help to bring it back.

She hopes to go back soon: "tomorrow, unless my cold turns to influenza". She asks BR to have patience because it may take a few more trips before he can have everything back.

Eklund sends BR his monograph "Russells Antinomi orh Andra Paradoxala Motsagelser" (abo, 1916) on the contradiction about "the class of all classes that are not members of themselves".

He would like to know BR's opinion on his solution. He summarizes the earlier chapters and has translated the last one, his own solution, for BR to read and comment on.

The monograph is not present.

Elcaness replies to BR's statement that Santayana changed his views on human ends from the "objective" position he shared with G.E. Moore to a "subjective" position. Elcaness puts forth an argument to prove the "objectivity of morals" exists. He notes that the standard of psychiatry, an "eclectic" discipline which BR has followed, helps to "decide between Nietzsche and yourself".

Typed on the back of Elcaness' letter.

BR says that "The question of the objectivity or subjectivity of ethics is a difficult one and I cannot pretend that my own views completely satisfy me." BR tells him that all that he has to say on morals is in the first part of Human Society in Ethics and Politics. BR disagrees with Elcaness' view that psychiatry provides a healthy standard. The values of "good" and "bad" are the ethical premisses upon which the scientific decision of whether a mind is healthy or not is finally based. BR concludes: "Psychiatry alone cannot prove that it would be a bad thing if we were all mad (as most of us are)."

Eliot, an Associate Professor of Sociology, says that he has enjoyed BR's book Bolshevism in Theory and Practice and notes BR's analysis of political motivation. He sends BR an essay he wrote in 1919, published "about a year ago", which he feels is in the same direction as BR's book.

Elkin writes sarcastically on BR's article in the Independent, entitled "For Conscience Sake". He makes a few remarks about BR's views and concludes: "I assure you that your communication on politics has been very illuminating, far more enlightening than your writings in philosophy, and for that I thank you."

Hammill is Elledge's pupil in a Sunday school and asks BR about his article "Why I Am Not a Christian". He believes that BR is concerned with a narrow part of Christianity, Roman Catholic, while ignoring other denominations such as Baptists in his essay.

Honeywell is a student in Elledge's Sunday school class. He writes to BR concerning his essay "Why I Am Not a Christian". He agrees partly that people turn to Christ because of fear.

Roberts is a student in Elledge's Sunday school class and writes to BR concerning his essay "Why I Am Not a Christian". She shares her experience of being a Christian.

Dawson is a student in Elledge's Sunday school class. He writes to BR concerning his essay "Why I Am Not a Christian" and says that BR did not allow for much interpretation although the piece was good.

BR writes: "I should like to say to you that your willingness to consider my book despite your profound disagreement with its assumptions is admirable." He defends his view by saying that pure faith is not enough to justify the practice of Christianity. "Inner conviction" is too varied in humans to establish a point of view. No religion has more foundation than any other; indeed, "none of them seem to have any justification."

Ellis writes about what she would like to be changed in the movement: "I want more of the spirit which was shown in Russia in the past". BR made a contemporary annotation: "This letter is a reply to one of mine. It helps to show the difficulties. BR."

BR thanks Ellis for her letter and discusses the complications which have arisen in the J.A.C. due to Miss Marshall's absence and illness.

Typed on the verso of Ellis' letter. BR replies to Ellis by saying that he suffers from the same problem, as two of his three children are earnest Christians. He offers himself as someone who was deeply Christian and has changed his mind. He recommends the study of Encyclopaedia Biblica by Reverend T.K. Cheyne.

Ellis requests BR's help. His three bright and accomplished children have "become infected with Christianity in virulent form." Ellis would like some advice from BR as to what he should say to change their minds about their faith, to reverse the process of their "gradually being impaired in their competence by the blight of their 'faith'". He would like them to read BR's essay Why I Am Not a Christian and asks if he could recommend a person who has changed their mind about Christianity to speak to them. As well, he would like BR to recommend an academic work on prophecies.

Ellis writes: "Your preface to the book Burning Conscience shows a great understanding and forgiveness. I have read of your interest in the present demonstrations in aid of the prisoners in Greece". He thanks BR for the good things he has done and his dedication to matters affecting humanity. He concludes, "What a pity the members of '100' who wrote of their prison experiences could not spare some time to aid prison reform."

He encloses a letter he wrote to the Observer and a typed extract on a prosecution for homosexuality involving American airmen.

BR responds to the concerns Ellis raises in his letter of June 10 about the prisoners. BR thinks "prejudice against homosexuality is so widespread that it will be difficult to help these two prisoners. I am, however, trying to see what can be done for them and arising out of their case". BR adds that Ellis' remark about the Committee of 100 not making time to "aid prison reform" is wrong. He says that most do "spare considerable time to aid prison reform".

Ellis is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army who is transmitting his brochure (not present) on "Bovarysm: The Art-Philosophy of Jules de Gaultier". He notes that Gaultier is an idealist and BR is a neutral monist; however, he feels the two philosophies have some things in common. He comments on BR's interesting use of behaviourism as an instrument of philosophical investigation.

Ellis has reviewed BR's Philosophy, presumably in his journal.

This is a transcription of document .049800. There is also a carbon copy.

Ellison and Co. inform BR that the will he had them prepare on 14 December 1945 is still valid if he has not made another one. They remind him of this in view of his recent divorce.

Elms asks for BR's help in campaigning for the implementation of the proposals on homosexuality which were advocated by the Wolfenden Commission. Elms asks BR if he could introduce a Bill as a private member so that legislation may be passed to decriminalize homosexuality. He offers to send BR a copy of the Bill to review.

Elwenspoek asks BR if he would be willing to grant him the rights for a German edition of A History of Western Philosophy.

The publisher in question, who refused to ask BR for the rights himself, is Globus Verlag in Hamburg.

Elwenspoek read A History of Western Philosophy as a P.O.W. in the U.S.

BR apologizes to the Reverend about being out when he called. He thanks him for bringing detective stories which he promises to return when the Russells have done reading them.

Ely thanks BR for Nightmares. She writes: "I am tempted to send him [President Eisenhower] the book though I fear that he is becoming increasingly incapable of absorbing anything except superficial advice."

Ely sends news of Bryn Mawr College.

Emmet asks BR about S.C. Kapoor who is applying to the University of Manchester for an assistant lectureship position in philosophy. Kapoor mentioned that BR would possibly write on his behalf. Emmet says that Kapoor knows symbolic logic well but the Department is looking for moral/political philosophy lecturers. She says that if BR does recommend him, they will consider Kapoor's application seriously and perhaps inform him of other job opportunities.

BR writes that he thinks well of Kapoor. He encloses a letter (not present) to Ayer about him. He finds him to be knowledgeable in the theory of types and mathematical logic in general. He adds "I talked with him also on political subjects, and thought him very sane. He does not want a job in India, because there (he says) you have to lick the boots of the authorities."

Edith copied this on the verso of Emmet's letter.

Emmet encloses an essay he submitted to Professor Ryle for his consideration for inclusion in Mind.

Endres writes from New York and has almost completed writing "all but the last chapter of a book treating on Jews, Judaism and Zionism." As he believes that Zionism requires more attention than he has been able to give it, he has asked "the world's masterminds" for their opinion on the political movement. He notes some prominent personalities whom he has approached, among them George Bernard Shaw and Edmund Rothschild of Paris. He asks BR for his opinion on the economic sustainability of Zionism and "what great and resistless impulse will in your estimation, compel the Jews to fulfil Jeremiah's prediction in which he says: '... and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.'" Endres asks BR what he thinks of the plausibility of the "Yellow race to subjugate the White race".

There is no indication that BR replied.

Enequist informs BR that he should be able to go to England some time between August and October; however, he would like to know where he can meet BR and how much expenses will be.

He refers to BR's letter to him of 1928/03/12.

Ensore asks BR for advice on how he may go about getting a degree in philosophy. He has studied Greek and Roman philosophers as well as the moderns such as Kant, Hegel, Hume and Bergson. He is a C.O.

The date in Roman numerals requires interpretation.

Epstein informs BR: "I now have your portrait in bronze. Would you and Lady Russell care to come to my studio to see it, or would you like me to deliver it to you?"

BR thanks Erni for his generous gift of an oil painting that was presented to him by Vanessa Redgrave for his 90th birthday.

Schoenman told BR that reproductions of the painting will be made and sold for the benefit of the BRPF and the movement against the danger of nuclear war.

Ervine has searched for the origin of the statement made by BR which he quoted in the Belfast Telegraph on 8 October 1955, but cannot find it. He writes: "I hope that you do not feel that the quotation was made offensively. You have had so much influence on my mind that, in sheer self-defence, I have to find some ground of disagreement between us, so that I may convince myself that I have a mind of my own." He promises to send the reference once he has found it.

BR informs Ervine that he has read his article from the Belfast Telegraph of 8 October 1955 and that he is in agreement with his main point. However, BR wonders about a quotation Ervine includes — a remark on television ascribed to BR in 1928. However, BR does not remember making it and would like Ervine to provide a reference.

Esser met BR in Peking when he was a patient in the German hospital in 1921. Esser was his physician at that time and writes to BR from Germany, where he has been for the past few months. He lives in China with his wife, and although he is a medical doctor, he teaches philosophy in Chinese. He has used A History of Western Philosophy as a foundation for his lectures and as a required textbook. He would like to meet with BR when he goes to England. He discusses Marxism in China.

Estern is the Principal of Danvers College where a woman made an unsubstantiated charge against BR in her speech-making. BR was "distributing pamphlets of a very objectionable nature among children." Estern told her that he would write to BR on the subject and ask for any pamphlets distributed to children so that he could see for himself. Estern adds that he would like to meet with Mrs. Russell and BR.

Huxley tells BR that Cyrus Eaton, "the American millionaire humanist" who organized the Pugwash conferences, has asked to have some meetings arranged with British humanists while he visits in England. Huxley asks BR to RSVP for a lunch meeting on 24 September 1958.

There is a handwritten postscript at the bottom of the letter.

Burnett writes: "A resolution was passed welcoming and supporting the views put forward in the article by you in The Observer, 'reducing the perils of the nuclear age' in which you said that the only hope of reducing world tension lies in attempting a compromise with real concessions from both West and East."

In French. Evadis has been reading The Philosophy of Mr. B*rtr*nd R*ss*ll.

BR responds to Evans' letter by telling him his favourite song: "Sweet Molly Malone", who sings of the streets of London.

Evens has just read BR's The Policy of the Entente. He asks two detailed, difficult questions, referring by page number. He would appreciate a response from BR.

The writer is Honorary Secretary of the Norwood, Brixton and Streatham Branch of the Union of Democratic Control.

Everard writes to BR about what seems to be an imminent event or function. She mentions that she will also be writing to Havelock Ellis as well and tells BR, "Please do not distress yourself and do get well soon."

The pocket diary notes for Nov. 12: Anderton's Hotel, Fleet St., 7. The occasion was a dinner and public welcoming for Emma Goldman. See the account, "Dinner to Emma Goldman", Freedom, 38 (Nov.-Dec. 1924): 60: "Mr. Russell, who has the most acute philosophical mind in England, made the most complete avowal of anarchist convictions of the evening."

A handwritten note states: from one of my tutors". The hand is Edith Russell's.

Ewing is the retired Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia. He read BR's "This Is My Philosophy" in the Melbourne Argus, the final article of three on communism, capitalism and socialism. He makes some observations for BR's consideration. He sends BR a copy of his book Money Pitfalls in Labour's Socialism—The Cure (1947).

Jennings encloses a resolution that she seconded at a meeting. Miles Malleson spoke on "the cinema and its bearing upon socialism". The enclosed resolution states: "This meeting of the Fabian Nursery desires to express its approval of the work done by Bertrand Russell in the cause of truth and freedom, and protests against all attempts to discredit his work or dishonour his name."

Feakins hopes BR will make a lecture tour in 1927.

Forster thanks BR for appreciating his book, which is probably The Longest Journey (1907).

BR is glad that Forster came to BR's 90th birthday dinner and spoke of Bob, presumably Robert Trevelyan.

In German.

This is a transcription of document .050104 (.050099 was not used), record76734. Also in the file: a carbon copy of the transcription. Both are corrected by BR and another hand.

The letter is preceded by a separate note by BR on Fry's attachment to Mrs. Masefield.

Fry congratulates BR on his Tripos ranking, especially in view of his interest in "general culture".

Written after Roger Fry's death on 9 September 1934 by his partner.

Roger Fry's sister thanks BR for the loan of his letters from him. (Were there more than 4 at this time?)

Fairchild thanks BR for his letter of sympathy when her brother died. Mrs. Fairchild, her mother, also writes a few lines to BR about how her faith has helped to console her.

Fairchild does not have such comfort as she quotes Leibniz: "'everything for the best in the best of all possible worlds' seems just words."

BR is asked to assist the Brotherhood Church by helping to reduce its debt resulting from the riot in 1917 on the occasion of a Workers and Soldiers Council Conference. BR was to speak then. The Pastor was Rev. F.R. Swan.

Fairchild tells BR of her encounter with Sidney Waterlow. She asked Waterlow if he knew BR and "I wonder if you think him as great a man as I do?" She adds his reply: "one of our greatest".

Fairlie writes to express his sympathy to BR about "the series of injustices which have been done to you by the government". He saw a list of these enumerated in the Nation. Fairlie heard BR speak in Glasgow in Nov. 1915.

Falk discusses the George Boole papers which were donated to the Royal Society. Todhunter and de Morgan had the mathematical papers and created a supplementary volume on differential equations. Falk's father has ordered Boole's writings on "The Laws of Thought" and seeks publisher for a book. The book is on the "laws of thought", written so that a non-mathematical reader may understand the ideas therein.

Falk asks if BR would read the book and offer his qualified opinion so that his father may believe that it is worth publishing.

This letter from John Falk, Oswald's father, was sent to BR as indicated in document .049855.

John Falk writes about the Laws of Thought written by George Boole. He remarks: "I have for 20 years wished to see the 'Laws of Thought' reprinted with some of these mss and perhaps a biography added".

Farley, BR's secretary, informs BR that A.J. Muste, a member of the international peace movement, is now in India and has left no address where he may be reached. Farley informs BR that he has not drafted a reply to Muste's letter.

Farley writes on Argyll Mansions letterhead.

Farrow writes to BR concerning a question he has about a certain passage on properties in The Problems of Philosophy.

Farrow states that he is a member of Trinity College, Cambridge.