The most recent Russelliana talk, on Saturday, April 15, was “Bertrand Russell and Jane Addams on War and Peace,” with speakers Marilyn Fischer and Barb Lowe of the Jane [Addams] Collectiv. and Andy Bone of the Bertrand Russell Research Centre.

Russell and Addams, it is clear, were both appalled by the First World War and encountered public opprobrium and worse for their anti-war stands. In her article in the latest issue of Russell, and in her talk, Fischer showed how Russell and Addams both used the era’s scientific theories in formulating their pacifism and accounting for civilization’s “descent into barbarism.” But, she argued, there were significant differences in their critiques of war, especially as regards what counts as progress in civilization. During the discussion, the guest speakers further examined the scientific theories and political thought and actions of these two figures of huge importance to the history of the American, British, and international peace movements.

On Saturday, February 11, the online Russelliana talk was “90 Seconds to Midnight: Russell, Pugwash, and Nuclear Weapons,” with guest speakers Tony Simpson, of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, Andy Bone, of the Bertrand Russell Research Centre, and David Ellwood of Pugwash, the international organization founded in 1957 by Joseph Rotblat and Bertrand Russell in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, Canada, following the release of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, with the aim of reducing the danger of armed conflict and seeking solutions to global security threats. The topic concerned the fact that The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which sets the Doomsday Clock closer to or further from midnight as a function of the danger of nuclear war, set the clock at 90 seconds to midnight in January of this year, “the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been ... largely (though not exclusively) because of the mounting dangers of the war in Ukraine,” and threats of the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia.

Other Russelliana talks include one on November 13th by Russell Society member Peter Stone, on Russell’s little book What is Democracy, and before that, on Saturday, October 22, Ruth Derham, author of the new book To Be Frank: The Politics and Polemics of a Radical Russell. According to Derham, “The 2nd Earl Russell, John Francis Stanley (i.e., Frank Russell, Bertrand’s older brother), described himself as a socialist and strong individualist, but he was primarily and innately rebellious. To this one can add ‘rationalist, atheist, orator and persistent social campaigner.’ Born into privilege, raised and educated to be ‘useful’ and autonomous, Frank Russell pursued a path that brought him into conflict with the established order, spurring him to prove that he was no vacuous aristocrat but a worthy successor to his illustrious grandfather, Lord John Russell, who had twice been Prime Minister.
         Giving voice to his deep-seated abhorrence of injustice, Frank Russell became an early advocate of controversial causes such as divorce reform and votes for women. He was the first peer to join the Fabians and speak as a ‘candid friend’ of the burgeoning Labour Party.” This collection from his desk, compiled by his biographer, illustrates Frank Russell’s diversity, humanity, humour and candour as, with similar principles but different methods to his brother, polymath Bertrand Russell, he pioneered campaigns for many rights we take for granted today.

And on Saturday, September 17th, the Russelliana talk was on Russell and Wittgenstein, with guest speakers Jose Zalabardo and James Connelly. Jose Zalabardo spoke on passages of Russell’s manuscript in which some central ideas of the Tractatus appear as targets, including the Tractarian accounts of expressions and logical form and the picture theory, and James Connelly spoke on Russell, Wittgenstein, and the Second Edition of Principia Mathematica, arguing that while Russell understood Wittgenstein’s proposals for the second edition of Principia, he did not implement them in ways that strictly cohered with Wittgenstein’s intentions, because he did not find the associated ideas plausible enough. Instead, Russell attempted to revise and reconstruct Wittgenstein’s ideas as charitably and fruitfully as possible, but found they were not up to the task of providing a foundation for mathematics of the sort envisioned in PM.

Further Russelliana talks will be scheduled after this year’s Annual Meeting. Be sure to keep an eye out for them.