“I know no one else … so well qualified to form an opinion”

During his early years at Trinity College, Cambridge, Russell—as he wrote decades later in My Philosophical Development—“was indoctrinated with the philosophies of Kant and Hegel.” Indeed, idealist philosophy was dominant in Britain at the time, but in the last two years of the nineteenth century, Russell was instrumental in changing the philosophical landscape. He wrote: “This was so great a revolution as to make my previous work … irrelevant to everything that I did later.” This “revolution” was a reaction against Kant and Hegel and the introduction of a new approach that has since become known as “analytic philosophy.” The impact was enormous.

From the very beginning, Russell gave due credit to his Cambridge colleague, G.E. Moore (1873-1958), for leading the way in this revolution. As Russell recounted in his Autobiography: “Moore, like me … was for a short time a Hegelian.  But he emerged more quickly than I did, and it was largely his conversation that led me to abandon both Kant and Hegel. In spite of his being two years younger than me, he greatly influenced my philosophical outlook.” Moore’s 1899 article “The Nature of Judgment” marked the beginning of the revolution in print. His Principia Ethica would appear in 1903. In the same year, Russell’s first major contribution to the movement appeared, The Principles of Mathematics, which he had been working on for a number of years.

Moore had entered Trinity College, Cambridge, as an undergraduate in 1892, Russell’s third year there. They got to know each other particularly well through their membership in a group of intellectual elites known as the Apostles. Russell was immediately impressed by Moore’s intellect: “for some years” Moore “fulfilled my ideal of genius.  He was in those days beautiful and slim, with a look almost of inspiration, and with an intellect as deeply passionate as Spinoza. He had a kind of exquisite purity.”

It was this “exquisite purity” that would lead many to become devoted disciples of Moore, even outside the field of philosophy. Among these disciples were, in later years, members of the Bloomsbury group, such as Lytton Strachey, Clive Bell, and J. Maynard Keynes, who—during their own, later, student days at Cambridge—would have known Moore and Russell. The Bloomsberries revered Moore, viewing him as almost saint-like. To varying degrees, they approached his Principia Ethica as a guidebook, but it was also his personality and childlike innocence that charmed them. He had a reputation for never telling a lie and, in discussions, he approached each question with considerable gravity, leaving no stone unturned and often reflecting on a matter in silence for long periods. In style, he and Russell could not have been more different, for Russell was quick on his feet, loquacious, and displayed a razor-sharp intellect. In general, the Bloomsberries admired Russell but never warmed to him in quite the same manner as they did Moore.  In terms of the relationship between Moore and Russell, their very different personalities led to irritations, especially on Moore’s part.

At the time of this letter—March 15, 1903—Moore is putting the finishing touches on Principia Ethica. Meanwhile, Russell had finished writing The Principles of Mathematics the previous year, and it would be published two months after this letter was written. In the letter, Moore is not discussing a philosophical question, however, but is seeking Russell’s advice on a much more practical matter--whether he should apply for a recently vacated professorship at University College, London. After all, even philosophers have to make a living. Moore lays out the matter in considerable detail, mirroring his slow, methodical, philosophical style. He obviously holds Russell’s opinion in high regard: “I know no one else who seemed to me at the same time so likely to be interested in my decision and so well qualified to form an opinion on most of the points involved.” But Moore also displays his straightforward honesty, as he tells Russell: “I don’t know that I should take the advice you gave.” There are about 100 letters between Moore and Russell in the Russell archives (many of them dealing with philosophy), but Russell’s reply to this particular letter is not among them.

Moore’s dilemma would not be unfamiliar to academics today, as he is concerned that the position—with its heavy teaching requirements—will not allow him time to write. But, unlike most of today’s academics, Moore has a small private income that he can rely upon if need be. In fact, it is this route that he takes, living for a few years as an independent researcher before returning to Cambridge as a lecturer, where he would spend the rest of his career.

Sources: (1) Bertrand Russell. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, 1872-1914 (Volume I). London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1967. (2) Bertrand Russell. My Philosophical Development. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1959. (3) Ronald W. Clark. The Life of Bertrand Russell. Jonathan Cape and Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1975. (4) Nicholas Griffin, ed. The Selected Letters of Bertrand Russell: The Private Years, 1884-1914. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. (5) The chronology in The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 4: The Foundations of Logic, 1903-05. Routledge, 1994.