“Clark’s fatuous book”: Comments on Ronald W. Clark’s Life of Bertrand Russell
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'ocuments “CLARK’S FATUOUS BOOK”: COMMENTS ON RONALD W. CLARK’S LIFE OF BERTRAND RUSSELL Edith Russell Edith Russell had already written the lives of Carey Thomas and Wilfrid Scawen Blunt when she married Bertrand Russell in 1952. She preserved his Wles as no one before had, and took a great interest in his earlier years as she did in his current campaigns and family. When Clark’sz Life appeared in 1975, she reacted strongly to it. She wrote three drafts of her comments, each draft more extensive, and including information only she would have, such as Russell’s views on personal matters, even his habits of dress (see the long entry on p. 46). She numbered the comments within the chapters and referred to them in her Wnal (and often diYcult) manuscript by page and comment number. On the verso of the dustjacket, having turned it inside out, she wrote: “Clark’s fatuous book”; then she replaced the jacket in its new state. Not all of her original comments are present in the Wnal version, which she headed “Comments on Clark’s Biography of BR; Rather Rough Notes”. She also made a summaryofheroverallattitudeandcomplaints.AltogetherCountessRusselllaboured hard in her eTort to correct for researchersz—zespeciallyfuturebiographersz—zwhat she saw as imbalance, errors in fact, and appreciation of her esteemed husband. Along with similar but shorter critical notes on Dora Russell’s autobiography and a draft book by Michael Burn, the document was listed in the Wnding-aid to her papers (see S. Turcon, “The Edith Russell Papers”, Russell 12 [1992]: 61–78). This unabridged excerpt goes to the end of Chapter 7 (about 1912). Where her comments needed con text I have supplied footnotes.—K.B. “Acknowledgements” 9/1wwC. guards himself: “Neither she [i.e. me, E.R.] nor any member of the BR Estate nor of the brpf, has read the ms., and there are, indeed passages in it with which they will probably disagree. However, if a devoted widow and russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies n.s. 29 (summer 2009): 35–52 The Bertrand Russell Research Centre, McMaster U. issn 0036-01631; online 1913-8032 December 2, 2009 (5:28 pm) E:\CPBR\RUSSJOUR\TYPE2901\russell 29,1 060 red.wpd E:\CPBR\RUSSJOUR\TYPE2901\russell 29,1 060 red.wpd 36 edith russell equally devoted colleagues agreed at all points with an objective biographer something would be wrong.” C. evidently considers himself an objective biographer. I do not. I hold, as B. did, that no one can be wholly objective. The point is that a biographer, like any historian, should be as objective as he can be. He must recognize and admit his own prejudices so that his reader may know from what standpoint the writer makes his observations. C. does not recognize and certainly does not admit his prejudices. From his judgments I should think that he is both insular and parochial, for instance, although he does not recognize this bias. Also, the ba lance of his book, overweighted as it is by details of and from what in anyone else would be called B’s “private life”, is destroyed by C’s desire to amass as much possible “new material” as he can—evidently in order to sell his book. This stress of C’s upon “objectivity” is the result of his inability to weigh the worth or the possibility of achieving this fetish of professional writers. The “ob jective biographer” is merely the claptrap of contemporary professional writers. 9/2wwC. speaks of the “unrivalled knowledge” of B’s “life and works” of K. Blackwell and J. Slater. I question this. They know a great deal. But, up to date, they have missed a very great deal. (Also, they did not know B. and clearly often misunderstand a great deal—though probably much less than Clark. I question their capacity for this “knowledge”.) 9/3zwwC. speaks of Colette’s “undeviating devotion to Russell”. There is no mention or suggestion here or anywhere in the book of Colette’s many and ardent aTaires with others. 9/4wwC. does not mention the help oTered—and given—to him by Conrad and his wife Elizabeth Russell or by...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".