A.J. AYER TO RUPERT CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS, 5 APR. 1962
BRACERS 58186. ALS. McMaster
Transcribed by A. Duncan. Proofread by K. Blackwell and H. Hardy

<letterhead>
13, CONWAY STREET,
LONDON, W.1.
April 5 1962

Dear Rupert,

Thank you for your letter. I am afraid you have been put to a lot of trouble even though the results have been largely negative. I hope it all comes right in the end. I must say I don’t find the present position altogether satisfactory.

First as to the venue. I should like to avoid the Café Royal if possible. Their banqueting halls are gloomy, the food expensive and not good. I rather like the idea of the Zoo. I am no longer on very good terms with Zuckerman, but they are not so bad as to make difficulties. Failing the Zoo, I think the Hotel Connaught might be a good place, if they could take us. Our problem is the problem of numbers. There are about ninety people in the revised list, excluding the celebrities from abroad. My idea is that we should drop the numbers down to about seventy-five. But perhaps we can reckon on fifteen to twenty refusals. It is hard to tell. I suppose that most of those whom we invite will want to come if they possibly can.

I am not entirely happy about Edith’s (or Mr. Schoenman’s?) second thoughts. I agree with you about the Labour M.P.s. I see no reason to ask Mr. Allaun or Alaun (who is he?) or Mr. Silverman. And if we have the Foots we should also have the Crossmans.

Other additions are puzzling. Do we really need three Roman Catholic priests? It is not a bad idea to have Father Copleston as he is a serious philosopher, but do we want Father D’Arcy and the Abbot of Downside as well? And why Lord Hailsham? Is he a special friend of Bertie’s? Or is it the idea that we ought to have some member of the government? And why the Bishop of Southwark? Is it just to balance the Roman Catholics? I did not much take to him, the only time I met him.

One name I insist on our removing is that of Mr. Foges, a rather smarmy crook who runs the Rathbone Press. It was he who persuaded Russell to put his name to the picture book which was ghosted for him. And, though I don’t feel so strongly about it, I would also like to exclude Dieter Pevsner, a rather silly young man whom I have to deal with on my Penguin series and find not nasty but tiresome. As the list is too long, I also think that we can dispense with L.L. Whyte[.]

The present president of the Royal Academy is Sir Maurice Bowra, the Warden of Wadham. I believe that Hinshelwood is still president of the Royal Society but I am not sure. And I also believe that Dean Matthews is dead. Anyhow let us assume that he is.

The exclusions from the original list are also puzzling. I take it, as you do, that the omission of the Blackett’s is an oversight, but what about Richard Hughes? I thought they were friends. And surely it is wrong to rule out nearly all the philosophers. As it stands we have no representation at all of Cambridge philosophy. I think we must ask Broad unless Bertie has a strong personal antipathy to him. And I think that we ought to ask the Braithwaites as well. I also think it important to include some younger philosophers who admire Bertie’s work. That is why I suggested the Quintons and the Williams’s. I have no objection to Jim Urmson (not a professor by the way) who is a nice fellow, but he is not the most prominent of the Oxford linguistic philosophers. If Edith wants to have a member of that school — to show that there are no hard feelings — why not Strawson who is much the most gifted of them? And what about Ryle? I hear that he and Bertie don’t get on very well, but he is the sort of titular head of the profession, and ought perhaps therefore to be asked. Will you sound Edith out about this?

I am rather pleased that Edith isn’t insisting on having all the cousins, but I agree with you that it might be imprudent to exclude all the children. I suppose it was thought difficult to pick or choose between them. The original idea was to have just the daughter with her clergyman husband. I would rather like to ask Amberley, but I gathered from Edith that he was in an odd mental state — and also that in that case it would be difficult to exclude Dora, though I don’t really see why it should be.

I had a very interesting time in Russia, which I will tell you about when I see you, and now I am off to France where I shall be until Easter. Will it be time enough if we get the invitations out at the end of the month? The immediate problem is to get the venue settled and find out how much it will cost. I think we can rely on Scho[e]nman to do this part of the donkey work, though I wouldn’t trust him with the invitations. We might, however, ask him to get some cards printed. How do you think they should be phrased? “You are invited to a banquet in honour of Earl Russell on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday” or [“]The pleasure of your company is requested at ...” and then at the bottom Tickets ... so much? No doubt the printer will have some stock formulas for occasions of this kind.

In case you need urgently to get in touch with me, my address after next Friday until Easter will be Chateau des Costes, Le Castellet, Var France.

Re-reading your letter, I note that you will be in London on Wednesday and Thursday. We are in rotten health, but I do very much want to see you. Could you for example manage drinks on Wednesday? Ring me up in any case.

Yours
Freddie