BOOKS
641
lit erary probl em . He is w itho ut do ubt a first-rate writ er, and it is a pit y
tha t academi c "Eng. Lit. " ign ores him.
Some o f hi s books are still as immed ia tely rd c\'ant as they ever
wcre. lik e
Th e Practice and Th eory of Bo lsh e"ism.
tho ugh it was
publi shed as long ago as 1920. And
Th e Prob lems of Ph ilosop h y.
whi ch Russell used to refer to as hi s "shilling shocker," rema in s th e
bes t poss ibl e introducti on to phil osoph y as Ru sse ll conce ived it. Even
th e
History of W estern Ph i losophy,
wha tever its defects, is o ften very
good readin g. Yet just as it seems to be agreed by p hil osoph ers th at
(leav in g pure logic and ma thema ti cs o ut o f it ) Ru ssell wro te n o
phil osophi cal masterp iece and tha t ap art from th eir hi sto rical impo r–
tan ce, hi s books survive onl y in p ages a nd p aragraph s, so in the rea lm
o f bell es-l ettres there is no thing o f Ru ssell' s tha t sta nds by itself as a
cl ass ic. no equi va lent o f
Candid e.
Hi s essays a nd popul ar books, such
as
Marriage an d M orals, Th e Co nq uest of H ap piness.
etc. , a re a lways
spa rklin g and witty, o ften wi se (and unwi se), but thi s gen era ti on may
conclude th a t th ey ha ve served their turn a nd tha t wha t good o r bad
they mi ght do h as now been don e. T oday Ru sse ll writing on sex is
d istin ctl y an aphrodi siac, and a litera ry trea tment o f Ru ssell (no ne
seem s to exi st) mi ght th row some li ght on wh y thi s is so.
But thi s kind o f commenta ry would be unsat isfactory if it d id no t
go deep er th an ques ti on s o f style. And to go deeper som ethin g mo re
tha n sound lit era ry judgment is required; a rea l phil osophica l interest
is essenti a l. Fo r the profoundest genera l th eme whi ch the student o f
Ru ssell has to tackl e is the rela ti on between th e p ro blems o f a
phil osoph er as a phil osoph er and mo re genera l huma n probl em s. And
in Russell's case thi s th eme is cl ose ly linked with th e ques ti o n . d ea rl y a
li vin g o n e. wh ether th ere is a n ythin g a t a ll tragic a bo ut him-apa rt
from th e sen se in whi ch evcry huma n bein g' s life can be seen as
trag ic- and comi c a lso. Russell o ft en ass ures hi s readers. as h e ass ured
hi s mi stresses. tha t h e was a to rmented soul. but do wc a lways beli e\'('
it?
It
seems
to
me tha t if there ever was a tragic experi en ce fo r him it is
to be looked [o r in th e Rus sell o f th e yea rs before
PrinC/tJia I\ l ath emat–
lea.
in the p eriod of th e breakdown o f his first ma rriage.
If
we could be
cl ea r a bo ut just wh a t Russell 's phil osophi cal problems rea ll y were, a t
the time when hi s genius was a t its zenith-a nd th ey may well no t h ave
co incided with his la ter acco unt o f th em-it mi ght be poss ibl e to
become d ea rer a bout hi s human probl ems a lso and th eir rela ti on
to
the
o th ers. Although Mr. Cl a rk may suppl y some ma teri a ls for a critique a t
this leve l, h e has himself don e n o thin g to gi ve us onl'.
W.W. ROBSON
