Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Archives

Textual Studies RUSSELes MARGINALIA IN HIS COpy OF BRADLEY'S PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC MELANIE CHALMERS AND NICHOLAS GRIFFIN l Philosophy I McMaster University Hamilton, ON, Canada L8s 4K1 I. ORIGIN AND DESCRIPTION OF THE MARGINALIA T here has been interest recently in Russell's earliest philosophical work, work he did while he was under the influence of the British neo-Hegelian movement. Among the philosophers who influenced him during the period, the most important was F. H. Bradley. Hitherto, however, little attention has been paid to his study of Bradley's Principles ofLogic, which first appeared in 1883.2 Most philosophers who study Bradley read his Logic in the light of Appearance and Reality, which appeared ten years later. Russell, in contrast, read Appearance andReality in the light of the Logic. The Logic, in fact, tended to dominate his understanding not only of Bradley, but of the neoI We would like to thank Ken Blackwell for his careful editorial work on this paper. 1 Russell's copy of Tht Principles ofLogic is the first edition (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, 1883) and is inscribed in his hand on the half-title: "B Russell I Trin. Coli. Camb. I June 1893". The inside of the front board bears the bookplate ofBerrrand and Alys Russell; this very exemplar of their bookplate is reproduced in Russell, no. 19 (autumn 1975): 18. At an unknown date, the book was apparently loaned to G. H. Hardy. It was acquired by the Russell Archives in 1976 from Ian Hacking, who bought it at Galloway and Ponee's sale of Hardy's library. In 1922 Bradley brought out a corrected and expanded edirion in rwo volumes (London: Oxford U. P.). Since it is the later edition that is now most widely available, page.references will be given to both editions. Page numbers in square brackets are to the second edition. If only a single number is given. the reference is the same in both editions . All page references will be to Bradley's Logic unless otherwise indicated. russell: [he Journal of the Bemand Russdl Archives McMaster University Libraxy Press n.s. '7 (summer 1997): 43-70 ISSN 0036-01631 44 MELANIE CHALMERS & NICHOLAS GRIFFIN Hegelian movement as a whole, at least in so far as it had views on logic. Russell kept a comprehensive list ofthe books and papers that he read from February 1891 until March 1902, in a small bound book titled "What Shall I Read?"3 which was presented to Russell by his maternal grandmother, Lady Stanley of Alderley. Although this list cannot be regarded as a complete record for the time covered, it does indicate that Russell read The Principles ofLogic on tWo occasions. "What Shall I Read?" reveals that Russell first read Bradley's Logic in September 1893 and reread it in January 1898. These readings frame Russell's period as a neo-Hegelian. In 1893, Russell is just beginning his exploration of this position. Bradley's Logic had been recommended to Russell in September 1892 by the Oxford philosopher Harold Joachim. Joachim was an idealist who had been strongly influenced by Bradley (they were both at Merton College). He was also the brother-in-law of Russell's Uncle Rollo, and Russell, who at the time was studying mathematics at Cambridge but contemplating switching to philosophy, as~ed his advice about what to read. Joachim sent him a long list of mainly historical works but recommended Bradley, among works on logic, as "First rate-but very hard".4 The following summer, Russell started the formal study ofphilosophy and, although logic was not among the subjects he studied, he put Bradley's Logichigh on his list ofbooks to read. It was in fact the second important neo-Hegelian work that he read.5 By 1898, when the problems with neo-Hegelianismwere piling up, Russell turned again to Bradley hoping for a plausible solution. A critical examination ofRussell's marginalia in his copy of The Principles ofLogic reveals some dues as to when the various comments and observations were made. It seems that many of the inscriptions were made on Russell's first reading of the book in 1893. Comments expressing either doubt about...