Bertrand Russell: Philosophy, Made in Wales
Bertrand Russell: “The secret to happiness is to face the fact that the world is horrible.”
WHEN BERTRAND RUSSELL, one of the founders of analytic philosophy, Nobel prize winner, activist and outright rebel received the Order of Merit, in the King’s Birthday Honours of 1949, it neatly demonstrated how confused the establishment were about, arguably, Britain’s finest ever philosopher.
On awarding the honour King George VI is said to have remarked ‘You have sometimes behaved in a manner that would not do if generally adopted.’ Russell remained silent in response but later admitted he was tempted to reply, ‘That’s right, just like your brother’.
The brother in question was of course Edward VIII – of Wallis Simpson fame.
That such confusion exists in the mind of the establishment is unsurprising. What is, perhaps, more surprising is the ambivalence that this man, one of Wales’s finest exports, inspires in Welsh people. He was, and remains, a Welsh national treasure. A hero for these, and indeed any other times.
Bertrand Russell was born at Cleddon Hall in Trellech in 1872 and died at his home, Plas Penrhyn in Penrhyndeudraeth, in 1970. In the 98 intervening years he broke every mould that attempted to shape him, examined each aspect of our tumultuous world that his agile brain chanced upon, and fought against a wide range of inequalities and injustices. Through it all he retained a wry sense of humour – one which he turned on himself almost as much as he did the world at large.
Russell was a polymath; a renaissance man with an astonishingly wide field of study. The range of topics that he claimed an expertise in was manifold. In fact on the subject of happiness he said, “Let your interests be as wide and varied as possible, and let your reactions to the things and persons that interest you be as far as possible friendly rather than hostile.”
Never an advocate of absolutes, Russell was a voracious seeker after truth, and one of the most opinionated specimens that humanity has ever produced. His study ranged widely from the evolution of science through to mathematics, religion, sex, government, ethics, humanitarianism, technology and much else. Thankfully he was as prolific a writer as he was a reader. And, it is this extensive body of work that allows us to bring his ideas and opinions vividly to life today.
With that wealth of information in mind it’s worth asking “What would Bertrand say?” about some of the issues facing Wales in 2010. Russell is a Welsh national treasure. But he is not the sort of treasure to remain under lock and key, only to be gazed upon whilst respectfully filing past. This is philosophy to be used – to be applied. After all, “Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible. Thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought is great and swift and free.”
Russell was known for his contempt of typical governmental procedures. He didn’t like being told what to do and he didn’t like bullies. He believed, passionately, that the balance of power in society was wrong. It was this hostile attitude to the power of ‘big’ government that made him a natural supporter of the idea of devolved government, which he saw as more representative and less distant from the people it was most likely to affect. In Proposed Roads to Freedom (1918) he wrote:
Government by majorities can be made less oppressive by devolution, by placing the decision of questions primarily affecting only a section of the community in the hands of that section, rather than of a Central Chamber. In this way, men are no longer forced to submit to decisions made in a hurry by people mostly ignorant of the matter in hand and not personally interested. Autonomy for internal affairs should be given, not only to areas, but to all groups, such as industries or Churches, which have important common interests not shared by the rest of the community.
In short, the idea of remote and abstracted government ruling its people from a distance was anathema to Russell. Government that was more localised and based in smaller communities and areas would allow for a relative increase in the liberty of its subjects.
Devolution was an integral part of Russell’s political philosophy, and one that he applied equally to local and national governments. It is hard to imagine him viewing the limits currently applied to the Welsh Assembly with anything but frustration. Though doubtless he would have viewed said institution as a valuable step forward, the idea of its power being curtailed by a larger and more remote seat of power would not have met with his approval.
Russell truly loved Wales; whenever he refers to his home country in his autobiography it is with a sense of homecoming, peace and camaraderie. In the late 1950s, while Russell was working flat-out in opposition to nuclear proliferation, (The Russell-Einstein Manifesto having been signed in 1955), he received news that his eldest son was ill. Russell made arrangements to move the whole family to Plas Penryhn, a house that he’d recently purchased in North Wales. He loved it because “Above all, it had a most lovely view, south to the sea, west to Portmadoc and the Caernarvon hills, and north to the valley of the Glasslyn to Snowdon. I was captivated by it…” Russell said that despite the fact that his work required him to travel often to cities, he was never happier than when in the countryside. He had great respect for his fellow countrymen and women, and indeed found it easier to discuss pacifism, liberalism and political philosophy in the Welsh mining communities than he did in London.
It is, perhaps, on the subject of religion which Russell divides opinions most. His attitude is neatly summed up with the enigmatic phrase, “Sin is geographical.” When Russell was asked toward the end of his life, what he would do if, when he died, he did in fact find himself before God, he answered, “I should reproach Him for not giving us enough evidence.” Russell didn’t believe that an individual required religion in order to be morally ‘good’, saying in his book ‘Why I am not a Christian’ that, ‘Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.’
In 21st century Wales, every major religion is represented, as well as a number of others. In addition to this approximately 1 in 6 of the population claims no religion whatsoever.
Long before the appearance of Christianity, Wales was a place full of spiritual wonder and beliefs. Faith is still very much a live topic in Wales, and it speaks highly for the enlightened attitude of the Welsh that so many different philosophies are able to coexist primarily peacefully. The challenges of a multicultural and multi-faith society wouldn’t have troubled Russell unduly – but racism, protectionism and right wing nationalism would have. What he would have made of the BNP and their counterparts can only be imagined.
Russell was as opinionated on matters of art and culture as he was on subjects like politics and philosophy.
The main things which seem to me important on their own account, and not merely as a means to other things, are knowledge, art, instinctive happiness, and relations of friendship or affection.
Knowledge, (along with a language to learn it from), and art, (the expression of feeling, knowledge or self), can contribute greatly towards happiness, friendship and affection. Together they make a potent formula and it was a formula that was often a source of fascination for Russell.
Of course, language is irrevocably linked to culture, and concern over the decline in the Welsh language is an ever present issue for the Welsh people. Often clarity in the Welsh language debate is lost and Russell has advice for those who lose their mooring, adrift on the sea of debate, “The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.”
The language of our homeland is precious. It is part of an ancient rhythm set within the pulse; it is the means by which humanity emerged victorious from its own dark age. Newborn babies can recognise their mother’s accents, and conquering regimes ban native languages. Fighting for the Welsh language is a battle worth waging, but it will not be won by enforcing exclusions or penalties on non-speakers; that is not the way of progress. Languages are preserved because they are treasured and used, not policed.
The first step in finding a solution to the Welsh language problem must be to cut through the bitter arguments that so often become about semantics rather than achievable ways to work together with a common goal. There can be a tendency to overcomplicate and over-intellectualise issues that are of such a nature. They will always provide ample fodder for more argument and debate instead of magically presenting their own solutions to us. This often begs the question of those involved. Is it an argument that is wanted – or a solution? The truth is “The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation.” Cooperation is badly needed for the preservation of the Welsh language. Identity, freedom, and inclusiveness are the hallmarks of an accomplished people.
Bertrand Russell was indefatigable. Right up to his death, aged 97 in 1970, he was fighting battles. He fought for nuclear disarmament, against aggression in the Middle-East, and for humanitarian reform amongst other things. And he was, every inch of him, Welsh. He would be proud of his country in 2010, and Wales should be proud of him.
Bertrand Russell deserves the last word, and what could be more appropriate than this exhortation to always think and challenge the dominant ideology of the world around you.
I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn’t wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Penrhyndeudraeth -
Moscow – Delhi – Penrhyndeudraeth
Washington – Moscow – Peking
Penrhyndeudraeth – Washington + Moscow
That list of names on the cover of the Penguin Special ‘Unarmed Victory’ by Bertrand Russell takes us back to a time when the only speedy means of communication was the telegram. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, Russell bombarded Kennedy, Kruschev and U Thant (at the UN) with messages urging restraint, as the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war. The references to Delhi and Peking (as Beijing was known at the time) refer to his intervention in the border confrontation between India and China that same year.
With the benefit of hindsight, it seems unlikely that Russell had much influence on the world events – though he was certainly known to all the leaders with whom he communicated. (Kruschev replied in a telegram delivered to Plas Penrhyn; Kennedy did not.) At the end of the Cuba crisis though, a procession of CND supporters and locals processed up to Bertie’s house and two children were chosen to deliver the thanks of the Welsh people to the great campaigner. (One of those children now occupies an elevated position in the public life of Wales.)
The events were recalled in a BBC radio documentary called ‘On the Edge’, broadcast on the 30th anniversary of the Cuba Crisis, which included reminiscences of many of those who knew and worked with Russell during his time in Penrhyndeudraeth.
“I find that English people, when they try to please American opinion, are very apt to make mistakes.”
Bertrand Russell said this in a letter to Gilbert Murray, quoted in his autobiography. The middle volume of it is available here and the quotes I’ll make will be taken from it, should anyone want to see them in context.
-
Firstly I want to thank Erin for a stimulating and thought provoking essay. I was following it and the debate “live” but decided to hold back until I’d done a little fact checking for myself. I trust it’s not too late to comment now.
But to transpose BR’s comment, I think it might be equally true to say that American people, when they try to please Welsh opinion, might make one or two mistakes. Not necessarily mistakes of fact, but mistakes of emphasis, because we each have certain blind spots … things that seem so obvious to us that we can’t quite understand how others could see it differently.
I lived a few years in America, and quite a few more years flying back and forth. One thing that struck me was that Americans tend to think that one’s place of birth is much more defining to them than it would be to others. So there is almost something axiomatic in saying that because someone was born in Wales, they must be Welsh. I feel that there is a large element of that in her thinking, such that when his Welshness was questioned, it brought out very strong reactions. At one end of the spectrum this was saying, in effect, “He was born and died in Wales, what else could he be?” At the other end were outright denials that he was Welsh at all.
Erin’s intention, I think its fair to say, was to “please Welsh opinion” by showing us how an undoubtedly great thinker is linked to Wales. She wanted us to be more aware of him and proud of him … and of course we should be proud of him, no matter how strong or tenuous his links with Wales might have been. By any measure he can be called a great man.
-
But there are several things Erin said in the essay that seemed to me to be vastly over-egging the pudding of BR’s Welshness:
First, the title of the essay says that his philosophy was “made in Wales”. But as he left Wales at a very young age, there seems to me very little to suggest that Wales had any sort of influence on how his thoughts developed … and they were certainly fully developed by the time he took to buying a house (we would probably call it a holiday home) in Wales.
Second, when Erin says, “Russell truly loved Wales; whenever he refers to his home country in his autobiography it is with a sense of homecoming, peace and camaraderie” she makes it appear that he regarded Wales as his home country. This is misleading, although I’m sure it is in no sense deliberate. It’s fair to say that BR had a home in Wales which he both loved and enjoyed retreating to. The part that is misleading is to say that he thought of it as “his home country” … to my mind that is a sort of logical “short circuit” brought about by connecting the “fact” that BR was Welsh because he was born and died in Wales, and the “fact” that Wales is a country.
Third, the three paragraphs on the Welsh language seem to be more speculation than anything else (because it doesn’t seem that BR ever talked about Welsh, though he wrote a lot, and I can’t claim to have read everything). However in the context of the essay, it made it appear that BR would have been more concerned about Welsh, and therefore his identity as Welsh, than would be warranted.
Fourth, Erin said, “And he was, every inch of him, Welsh.” And in the comments said “He was Welsh and he considered himself so.”
-
Now, although speed reading is no substitute for scholarship, I have to say that the evidence I can find most certainly does not point to BR regarding himself as Welsh. Here are a few illustrative quotes:
“Various things I have undertaken to do will keep me here till the end of October; then (D.V.) I shall return to England, Peter & Conrad too, if the danger from submarines is not too great. We can’t bear being away from home any longer. In England I shall have to find some means of earning a livelihood.”
“I think you are entirely right in what you say about the Labour Party. I do not like them, but an Englishman has to have a Party just as he has to have trousers, and of the three Parties I find them the least painful.”
“I find that I cannot maintain the pacifist position in this war. I do not feel sufficiently sure of the opposite to say anything publicly by way of recantation, though it may come to that. In any case, here in America an Englishman can only hold his tongue, as anything he may say is labelled propaganda.”
“Opinion here [the US] varies with the longitude. In the East, people are passionately pro-English; we are treated with extra kindness in shops as soon as people notice our accent. In California they are anti-Japanese but not pro-English; in the Middle West they were rather anti-English. But everywhere opinion is very rapidly coming over to the conviction that we must not be defeated.”
“In the midst of this, I was myself tortured by patriotism. The successes of the Germans before the Battle of the Marne were horrible to me. I desired the defeat of Germany as ardently as any retired colonel. Love of England is very nearly the strongest emotion I possess, and in appearing to set it aside at such a moment, I was making a very difficult renunciation.”
“I was glad to get your letter. I had begun to feel anxious. I am glad Lawrence was so wonderful. I have no doubt he is right to go, but I couldn’t desert England. I simply cannot bear to think that England is entering on its autumn of life, it is too much anguish. I will not believe it, and I will believe there is health and vigour in the nation somewhere. It is all hell now, and shame but I believe the very shame will in the end wake a new spirit. The more England goes down and down, the more profoundly I want to help, and the more I feel tied to England for good or ill. I cannot write of other things, they seem so small in comparison.”
“As a patriot I am depressed by the downfall of England, as yet only partial, but likely to be far more complete before long. The history of England for the last four hundred years is in my blood.”
I think these quotes prove fairly conclusively that Bertrand Russell regarded his home country as England, and himself as English. He certainly didn’t say these things about Wales or speak of himself as being Welsh.
-
But in saying this I am aware (but need to say it so that others reading this will also be aware of it) that what BR meant by “England” might well be something rather different from the way we use the word “England” today. In short, it is possible that he was using the word in the same way as we today would use the word “British”.
He certainly used England in some instances to talk about things that concerned the UK as a whole. He talks about English diplomacy and foreign relations and England being at war. So his patriotism for “England” might simply be directed towards what we would now call “Britain”.
But to counter that there are instances where he does use the word “Britain” in the same way as we would today.
“The Labour Party is the only one whose foreign policy is sane and reasonable, the only one which is likely to save Britain from even worse disasters than those already suffered.”
“I went to Washington to argue that I must be allowed to perform my duties in the House of Lords, and tried to persuade the authorities that my desire to do so was very ardent. At last I discovered an argument which convinced the British Embassy.”
However the following quotes seem to indicate that he used “England” and “Britain” interchangeably and without being aware of any difference … in a way that most of the world, including many people in England, still does:
“Friends of China in England urged England in vain to do likewise. At last it was decided that, instead of a punitive payment, the Chinese should make some payment which should be profitable to both China and Britain.”
“I viewed America in those days with the conceited superiority of the insular Briton. Nevertheless, contact with academic Americans, especially mathematicians, led me to realize the superiority of Germany to England in almost all academic matters.”
-
Yet as a “counter to that counter”, it appears from this quote that RB was quite capable of distinguishing between England and Scotland:
“We travelled up in the train with Ramsay MacDonald, who spent the time telling long stories of pawky Scotch humour so dull that it was almost impossible to be aware when the point had been reached. It was decided at Leeds to attempt to form organizations in the various districts of England and Scotland with a view to promoting workers’ and soldiers’ councils on the Russian model.”
And he can also differentiate between England and Ireland (and it is worth noting that for the first half of his life Ireland was just as much a part of the UK as Scotland was and still is). So I would suggest that the best way of understand the way BR thought is to say that he did not regard England and Wales as two different countries, but instead regarded Wales as a part of England. Though this will seem a very alien (and offensive) concept to us now, this was in fact the “official” view of Wales (explaining for example why Wales has never been on the flag or the Royal Standard, whereas England, Scotland and Ireland are).
So perhaps when he talked about going home to Wales, he was simply thinking in the same way as someone else would talk about going home to Devon or Cambridgeshire … i.e. as the part of England from which they came. And that, of course, would not diminish any love he had for Wales any more than it would diminish a Yorkshireman’s love for Yorkshire. He definitely chose to live out his last days here, and that choice might even indicate an attachment to Wales rather than just a fondness for the quality of the scenery. It’s just that he wouldn’t have thought of Wales as a country.
And can we really blame him for that? BR was right at the heart of what we would call the “Establishment” so why would he be expected to see things differently? After all, in a political sense Wales has only recently begun to be officially recognized as a country again.
A very interesting, if long, critique, MH. It seems the Russell family rose to prominence for their support of the Tudors in the 16th century. I wonder how long their association with Monmouthshire is. Their family seat is at Cleddon Hall in Trellech.
In efforts to reclaim and understand sentiments of nationality, which has its roots primarily in self-identification, it is easy to overlook context. It should be noted that self-identification as ‘Welsh’ in the 2001 Labour Force Survey indicates that place of birth does significantly impact a sense of national identity.
For historical context, it may be interesting to note that the US Emigration service did not differentiate between Welsh and English emigrants until 1875, while the British Emigration Service did not distinguish between Welsh and English until 1908! “Thus, between 1875 and 1908, a migrating Welsh person was an English statistic on leaving Britain and did not become a Welsh statistic until landing in America,” according to Professor John Davies in his 2001.
It seems evident that for a man born in 1874, he would use England and Britain more or less interchangeably. It is also worth remembering the audience to whom Russell was addressing.
A very interesting, if long, critique, MH. It seems the Russell family rose to prominence for their support of the Tudors in the 16th century. I wonder how long their association with Monmouthshire is. Their family seat is at Cleddon Hall in Trellech.
In efforts to reclaim and understand sentiments of Welsh nationality, which has its roots primarily in self-identification, it is easy to overlook context. It should be noted that self-identification as ‘Welsh’ in the 2001 Labour Force Survey indicates that place of birth does significantly impact a sense of national identity.
For historical context, it may be interesting to note that the US Emigration service did not differentiate between Welsh and English emigrants until 1875, while the British Emigration Service did not distinguish between Welsh and English until 1908! “Thus, between 1875 and 1908, a migrating Welsh person was an English statistic on leaving Britain and did not become a Welsh statistic until landing in America,” according to Professor John Davies in his 2001.
It seems evident that for a man born in 1874, he would use England and Britain more or less interchangeably. It is also worth remembering the audience to whom Russell was addressing.
Much as I respect MH’s research and argument – possibly the most substantiated response – I can’t believe how many of the comments have focussed on whether Russell was Welsh, either because he said so explicitly, it was implied, or someone else is saying it.
Quite frankly, does it matter?
I suppose it does matter, partly because of the way the piece was titled. But titles on the site are decided by the editors not the writers, so it’s not fair to point the finger at Erin (though I accept, MH, that you did not know that and are not seeking to say Erin is misleading anyone.)
It also matters because, by a peculiarly tortuous route, we have got into the philosophy of national identity. And I guess that’s why the flood of comments are still coming. This is of course an interesting area, but national identification varies over time doesn’t it? That may be especially true of a person born in Monmouthshire which has been an oft-debated area over the centuries.
“It seems evident that for a man born in 1874, he would use England and Britain more or less interchangeably. It is also worth remembering the audience to whom Russell was addressing” writes David Llywelyn. I think this is a pretty valid point.
Ultimately national self-identification as Welsh was possibly not as important in most of Russell’s lifetime as it is today. I don’t know that, of course, any more than anyone can produce a definitive answer on Russell’s nationality. But that’s the thing with philosophy and ideas: it’s all about debate.
For one I remain hugely greatful to Erin for writing a clever, articulate and thought provoking column. This one has been one of the real jewels WalesHome.org has ever published
MH
I’m grateful for your detailed response, but you should reconsider your early remarks. They come very close indeed to falling foul of WalesHome.org’s ad hominem rule, if not actually transgressing it. That clause in our Comment Policy for a good reason; namely because we want those leaving comments to address the argument, not what they imagine to be the character, background or motives of the person making it.
I am not going to enter into a lengthy debate with you about this, not least because the rest of your comment is a valuable contribution. But you should take the opportunity to clarify that you were not actually being as patronising toward Erin as your comments imply.
Although I am happy to participate in fair debate and receive criticism when due I have to agree with Adam that I found the comments about my opinions being based on my nationality to be patronising.
To MH: Firstly I was not trying to “please” Welsh opinion, although I do believe the Welsh should be more aware of him and his brilliance. And why not be proud and celebrate? I believe there is something there to celebrate and claim. Secondly, you said many “Americans tend to think that one’s place of birth is much more defining to them than it would be to others.” This statement is as accurate and inaccurate as any other statement applied to approximately 300,000,000 people. At any rate, it doesn’t apply to me to such an extent that it clouds my powers of reasoning.
By all means, disagree with me on the point that he was Welsh if you like, but please not on the grounds that I was born in America, the irony is upsetting.
Forgive me if I sound ill tempered in this post but to be honest I am a bit weary of the argument, therefore this will be my last comment on the subject of Russell’s nationality. I think it is being looked at all too narrow minded. Why must everything be black and white, one or the other? Why must he be declared non-Welsh because he was not exclusively Welsh? The implications of this type of thought are disturbing. Clearly what this article has highlighted is that there is a great issue of identity in Wales that I think is rather sad. I do not think this question of identity belongs only to Wales by any means, its found everywhere these days, the backlash of a shrinking world.
I’d like to emphasise that this quote is not directed at any of the contributors to this debate, but rather on the mindset that in my opinion has missed out on some worthwhile points (Russell’s, not mine) while focusing on one issue. From Bertrand, of course, “A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”
Russell was a great British philosopher, and would have considered himself as such. He liked Wales, loved the place, but never at any point showed awareness of its cultural or political distinctiveness. His philosophy is straight in the lineage of British philosophy, and his politics reflect the intellectual and progressive British Left at a crucial moment in its history.
That ’s surely enough of an achievement for anyone. I’m no expert , thank god, in how one becomes ‘born and bred’ or ‘every inch’ Welsh or anything else, but I can’t imagine terms like that are of much use in this case or in many others.
Simon Brooks makes a valid point that it has to be possible to assess the man’s contribution to Welsh thought , or the influence of welsh ideas and culture on his thought. He’s also right to evoke people like Raymond Williams, who left Wales early but remained engaged with it , as a counterexample. You can be Welsh and uninterested in Wales, non-Welsh and totally obsessed by it, etc etc., which is why identity debates carried on in terms of identity politics are so pointless.
I am nonetheless interested in what, in Russell’s thought, might be construed as owing something to Wales or influencing its culture. No-one has addressed that, except Brooks and MH, and Adam by making the opposite point. That surely would have been the debate to have.
However, I think that accusations of ‘narrowness’, nationalism (or worse) against anyone who dares be sceptical about the welshness of Russell’s thought are indicative of the way legitimate questions of identity, belonging, etc are policed by people – on both sides – with axes to grind.
It is surely possible to question Russell’s inclusion and the terms on which that inclusion is offered, without necessarily being intent on ‘excluding’ him.
I fail to see why it’s more ‘nationalistic’ to question the Welshness of Russell’s philosophy than to attempt to appropriate both him and it. In fact, it’s just as ‘nationalistic’ to appropriate as to exclude. Do you think we can try ignoring both questions and address the man’s ideas as ideas?
I share Erin’s weariness with the question of ‘identity’, and I think it’s a pity the debate got bogged down in this.
@MH – I agree with Adam and Erin that your initial comments were patronising and offensive. It rather invalidated the rest of your comment. I’m tired of repeating my reasons for believing Russell to be Welsh. So I won’t bother responding if you don’t mind.
I commissioned, edited and headlined this piece. And, without wanting to sound offensive, I’ve been doing this job long enough to not care less whether a couple of readers, out of the hundreds that have read my headline, think it’s wrong. I think it’s fine, and so did the author of the piece.
I agree with Patrick (welcome back to the thread!) that it’s a shame we didn’t get into a wider discussion about the ideas of Bertrand Russell and how they may have been influenced by his relationship with Wales.
I personally would have liked to debate his pacifism.
He did have a relationship with Wales throughout his life, as I outlined in one of my previous comments – he certainly didn’t just abandon his nation.
It wasn’t the intention of the piece to prompt a discussion about how Wales influenced Russell’s philosophy (the point of the piece – for the umpteenth time – was to try and apply some of Russell’s ideas to contemporary Welsh issues). However, I’d be delighted if that was the route the thread took now.
I’m sorry that some people have taken what I intended as kindness as being patronizing. I was trying to offer an explanation of why Erin had made points in her original essay that were in some instances misleading (though I presumed this was not intentional) and in some instances simply unsupportable from the evidence.
However, it does not take any particular genius to see that when Simon Dyda made what I considered to be a relevant, and obvious, point it was jumped on as somehow implying something. The agendas and suppositions then kicked in. I thought the only way to cut through that was to provide firm evidence to support the fact that BR considered his country to be England and his nationality to be English.
-
However, rather than leave it at a bald “You got that wrong” (something that I now realize should be directed at both author and editor) I then went on to try and explain that the “either/or” definition of Welsh and English nationality that we hold now could be considered in another, more subtle, way. The explanation I offered was intended to invite any that were troubled by Russell’s designation of himself as English to nonetheless celebrate and be proud of his connexions with and love for Wales, rather than (as was evident from some comments) think of him as exclusively English. I am only sorry that I did not make that point more clearly, so as to avoid the misunderstanding that is evident from what some have said in response.
-
I would like to add one more point that occurred to me as I was considering what David Llewellyn wrote. You will remember that I quoted this:
“As a patriot I am depressed by the downfall of England, as yet only partial, but likely to be far more complete before long. The history of England for the last four hundred years is in my blood.”
The strange thing about this quote is “four hundred years”. Why such a precise number? David noted that the Russell family rose to prominence with the Tudors, and the family maintained a position of power and influence from that point on. I’ve little doubt that the family would be able to trace its origins back further than 400 years, so Russell might be saying that his family was only involved in English affairs for that period, and that before then they were a Welsh family which had no influence on English history. If that hypothesis is correct (and I admit it is somewhat more tenuous than I would like, because it might equally mean that the family had no effect on any history before then) it would lend some weight to the idea that he considered himself to be part of a Welsh family. It would take someone with a better knowledge of him and love for his work to see whether this can be substantiated.
-
But let’s move on. If the point of the essay was not quite “what it said on the tin” I’d be more than happy to talk about how to apply some of his ideas to contemporary Welsh issues. However I suspect he would say that we would be better advised to think up some ideas of our own … but that we should examine and apply them with the same rigour as he did.
A brilliant essay and contribution.
I particularly liked your choice of this quote; “The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.” Very apt.
Let MH’s opening remarks be the absolute last word on this sub-strand of the debate. Everyone has now had their say. I’ve let the rather daft claim about “agendas and suppositions” through in the name of ventilating and ending this part of the conversation. I’ve invited him to clarify his remarks toward Erin, which he has done and which others can judge the credibility of. That’s it.
The rest of the discussion is fully on-limits, should others wish to continue it.