In the first volume of his autobiography Russell says that he had known Alfred North Whitehead during his Pembroke lodge days. This relationship was renewed later when Bertrand joined the Cambridge University. Whitehead had examined him for his entrance examination and had discovered the genius in Bertrand. He was Bertrand’s teacher while he was a student and later when Bertrand received his fellowship Whitehead became his friend and collaborator in writing his Principia Mathematica (Russell 1: 144). Both Bertrand and Whitehead had deep regard for each other. Russell describes him as a person who had a delightful humour and great gentleness. Russell says that Whitehead’s devotion to his wife and children was profound and passionate and he was a person who was aware of the importance of religion. Evelyn Whitehead also played a prominent role in Russell’s life though Russell does not reveal all the facts in his autobiography.

In the chapter titled "Principia Mathematica" of Russell’s autobiography he speaks of the International Congress of Philosophy that was held in Paris in July 1900. Bertrand had gone to Paris along with Whitehead and another eminent mathematician named Borel. Ray Monk points out in his biography of Russell that both Alys and Evelyn had accompanied Russell to Paris. More over, the four of them had taken a week’s holiday to go round Paris. According to Monk, "it was probably during this holiday that Russell first became attracted to Evelyn Whitehead for whom for many years he had harboured an unspoken affection"(Monk 129-30).

According to Monk, Russell believed himself to be the one who suffered most on account of his marriage to Alys just as Evelyn endured her painful marriage to Whitehead. Bertrand thought that both Evelyn and himself were prisoners of solitude and this feeling gave rise to a secret but unexpressed relationship between them. In 1901, Bertrand was working on his Principles of Mathematics and felt that Whitehead’s proximity would help him with his work. As the famous historian F. W. Maitland was away, his house in Downing College, The West Lodge, was available to Bertrand. Both the Russells and the Whiteheads moved into the West Lodge. At this time Evelyn used to be severely ill with bouts of acute chest pain which showed symptoms of angina. Russell at this point in the autobiography narrates an incident that turns out to be one of the noteworthy passages in the autobiography. This incident becomes a turning point, a conversion in his life (Russell 1: 146). One day Bertrand and Alys had gone to listen to Gilbert Murray’s rendering of "The Hippolytus." They returned home to find Evelyn in intense agony. Russell relates this incident in passionate terms thus:

Witnessing Mrs. Whitehead’s unbearable agony Bertrand felt that the ground seemed to give way beneath him. Russell says that ever since his marriage he had forgotten all " the deeper issues" and he had been "content with flippant cleverness." Within no time Bertrand realised that "the loneliness of the human soul is unendurable." Then Bertrand saw Whitehead’s youngest son who was barely three years old. Bertrand took his hand and led him out of the room to prevent him from troubling his mother. Russell says that the little boy felt at home with him and from that day until his death in the war they were close friends. During that short period Bertrand ceased to be an imperialist and became "a pro-Boer and a pacifist." He was filled with "semi-mystical feelings about beauty, with an intense interest in children" (Russell 1: 146). This passage which becomes a kind of conversion to Bertrand carries the details of many insights he had during the short period in which he witnessed Mrs. Eleven’s paroxysms of pain. The fact that Bertrand and Alys had just returned home after listening to Gilbert Murray’s reading his own translation of "The Hippolytus" is noteworthy. The great change that came over was caused by the spectacle of Evelyn’s suffering against the background of the story of "The Hippolytus." Ray Monk quoting from a letter from Russell to Ottoline written in 1911, that is not included in the autobiography, offers Russell’s own explanation about the incident. Here Bertrand tells Ottoline that he understood at the moment of Evelyn’s extreme agony, that she too like him had a life of "utter loneliness." Of this she would never mention anything to Bertrand and he could do nothing but sympathise with her in silence. He says that, at that time he made up his mind to bring "some good and some hope into her life . . . It was during that year I learnt whatever wisdom I possessed before meeting you" (Monk 136). Russell’s letter to Gilbert Murray dated 26.2.01 reproduced in volume one of the autobiography tells us how "The Hippolytus" affected Russell:

Bertrand’s reason for being carried away while listening to Murry’s reading of "The Hippolytus" is that, "The centre of the play is an intense love that has both to be kept secret and to remain unconsummated: the love of Phaedra, who is married to Theseus, for Theseus’ bastard son, Hippolytus. Denied any form of expression, this secret love consumes Phaedra, depriving her of any interest in anything else and finally, of the will to live"(Monk 136). When her secret is out Phaedra commits suicide. Monk quotes the line that Bertrand had by hearted: " ‘ . . . that dark spell that about her clings, / sick desires of forbidden things.’ " (136)

Thus it is evident that it is Bertrand’s emotional involvement with Evelyn and her suffering that brought about his conversion. He identified himself Evelyn in her agony. Her solitude was very much similar to that of his own, thought Bertrand. Another point brought to light by Ray Monk is Bertrand’s own identification with Evelyn’s youngest son Eric who was less than three years old at the time. Russell, says Monk, perhaps saw his own childhood in those five minutes of intense agony. He himself had lost his mother as early as three years of age. This is what made Russell lead the child away from the scene of his mother’s agony. The irony of the situation is that when Russell says that he was able to understand human suffering after his witnessing Evelyn’s agony, Russell was at the same time mentally relegating the thoughts of his first wife Alys. Interestingly, soon another passage follows in his autobiography where Russell realises the fact that he no longer loved Alys.

Russell had made an attempt to write a spiritual autobiography which was called "Prisons." When this project turned out to be a failure, Russell with the help of Lady Ottoline Morrell tried to convert it into a novel. The novel was called The Perplexities of John Forstice and is referred to in the third volume of Russell’s autobiography (Russell 3: 34). According to Monk, John Forstice, the hero of the novel, "is a very thinly disguised Russell" (Monk 267). Monk has a brief analysis of the story and the story reads as follows. Forstice attends a garden party where he meets representatives of various worldviews. In their discussions, each one of them reveals their views about the world. Forstice returns from the party utterly perplexed by the pessimistic view presented by one of the guests who was a clever but decadent financier. In his troubled mental state he asks himself, " ‘ Is everything in life really worthless?’ " when he asks his wife the same question she bursts into tears and says " ‘ Do you know that in all the years of our marriage, this is the first time you have shown any real interest in me? We have lived side by side, yet utterly separate, you were so absorbed in your projects and your calculations that often you did not hear what I said’ " (Monk 156). Then, Forstice’s wife, who according to Monk is Alys and Evelyn rolled into one, reveals a tragic secret, which she had kept from him for over a year. She was the victim of an incurable cancer. Overwhelmed by this news, Forstice is shocked into a state where he under goes a conversion. Monk points out that Russell had had a similar experience when he had seen Evelyn writhing in agony while suffering an angina attack. Another point that Monk lays before the reader is an entry in Beatrice Webb’s diary (Monk 156). Beatrice Webb was disappointed, according to Monk to discover that Russell spent much of his time with the Whiteheads when Alys was kept away from London on a rest cure.

Evelyn on her part was also jealous about Russell’s relationship with other women. Russell has an entry in his journal dated 6 April. Here Russell reports Alys’ mentioning a remark made by Evelyn about Russell’s fickleness. Monk says that one likely cause of Evelyn’s accusation of fickleness was Russell’s great affection for Ivey Pretious, a pretty twenty - four year old girl who served as a secretary for the Free Trade Union (Monk 174).

Evelyn had also tried to put an end to the affair Russell had with Lady Ottoline. Whether it was jealousy or her selfless desire to save the Russells from the brink of a marital disaster is unknown. However, Lady Ottoline had some doubts about Russell’s attitude towards Evelyn. Monk quotes from Lady Ottoline’s journal:

Russell’s relationship with Andrew North Whitehead was basically academic. The wonderful portrait that Russell has in his autobiography proves that theirs was a friendship that he cherished. His relationship with Evelyn is left unmentioned in the autobiography except for the passage where Bertrand witnesses her attack of angina and as a result he undergoes a spiritual conversion. However, his biography reveals a secret relationship, that Russell had efficiently concealed in his autobiography.

In the chapter titled "Cambridge Again" in the first volume of his autobiography, Russell speaks of his desire to help the liberals during the election of January 1910. For some reason he could not help the candidate from his own constituency and hence chose one from another. This was Philip Morrell, an old friend of Logan Pearsall Smith. Bertrand had known Mr Philip Morrell’s, wife slightly as children and later after their marriage, used to see both of them occasionally. Earlier, Bertrand never had any high opinion of Philip and regarding Mrs. Morrell, she offended his puritan prejudices as she used scent and powder excessively. Lady Ottoline Covendish - Bentinck, as she was known, was the sister of the Duke of Portland.

During the election, Bertrand campaigned in support of Philip. He addressed meetings and spoke for him and the Liberal cause. Philip was not popular with the people. This was a fact Bertrand knew before hand. He quotes the reaction of a colonel when Bertrand, along with the others, had gone on a campaign: "Do you think I’d vote for a scoundrel like that? Get out of the house, or I’ll put the dogs on you!" (Russell 1: 202). This threat would not dampen Bertrand’s enthusiasm, as in the course of the campaign, he had many opportunities of getting to know Lady Ottoline Morrell. Bertrand, by the time the campaigning was over, had discovered that Ottoline was extra ordinarily kind to all sorts of people and was very much in earnest about public life. The campaigning came to an end and as perhaps expected by Bertrand, Philip lost his seat in the election.

A year and three months later, in the month of March 1911, Bertrand received an invitation to give three lectures in Paris. Bertrand, finding that it would be convenient for him to spend the night in London on his way to Paris, requested the Morrell’s to put him up at their house in Bedford Square. On The 19^th of March, Bertrand arrived at Philip Morrell's house to break journey, on his way to Paris. As Philip was away at Burnley, Bertrand was left, to use his own phrase, "tête-à-tête" with Ottoline. Their conversation during the dinner was about Burnley, Politics and the sins of the government. After dinner the conversation became intimate and Russell says that he made timid approaches to which lady Ottoline Morrell responded. Of what happened later in the evening Russell says: "It had not, until this moment occurred to me that Ottoline was a woman who would allow me to make love to her, but gradually, as the evening progressed, the desire to make love to her became more and more insistent" ( Russell 1: 203).

Russell says that he had never had complete relations with another woman except Alys, his first wife. Though because of "external" and "accidental" reasons he could not have "full relations" with Ottoline on that occasion, however, they became lovers as soon as possible (1: 203). This was also the time when Bertrand was thinking of leaving his first wife Alys. He had banished Alys from his heart almost nine years ago: "The nine years of tense self denial had come to an and, and for the time being I was done with self denial" (1: 203). As there was not enough time to settle future plans, during that one evening, they decided to meet later at Studland, where Ottoline was to be joined by Bertrand for the weekend. Before the weekend, Bertrand told Alys about Ottoline and she flew into a rage insisting up on a divorce bringing in Ottoline’s name. All that Bertrand could do was to threaten Alys with suicide. Russell says:

What perhaps drew Ottoline and Russell together was the fact that both of them had a lot of qualities in common. Russell says:

Russell in his autobiography acknowledges the fact that Lady Ottoline had a great influence upon him. According to him, the relationship was wholly beneficial. When Bertrand behaved like a typical aristocrat she laughed at him. When he was self- centred and self-righteous she made him conscious of it. After he met Ottoline he ceased to be a puritan and became much less censorious than he had been. For Russell their happy love which had come after many love less years made everything else easier.

According to Monk, Russell had met Ottoline in September in 1909 before he participated in Philip Morrell’s 1910-election campaign (Monk 196). They had met at Bagley wood. The following is an entry in Ottoline's diary quoted by Monk:

This was indeed the beginning, for both Bertrand and Ottoline, of a long lasting relationship, which neither of them could put an end to, even when they desired it. They could not set themselves free from each others spell. On his way to Paris Bertrand could not get him self to concentrate on the lectures he had to deliver. Instead, his mind was flooded with the overwhelming experience of the conquest he had made the previous night. He wrote to Ottoline:

From Paris Bertrand wrote a letter to Alys which reads as follows:

The contrast one sees in these two letters is meaningful and obvious. But as Alys was used to receiving such notes, Monk says that she suspected nothing. Bertrand was surely looking for new connections that would stimulate him both intellectually and sexually.

In his intense and overwhelming love for Ottoline, Russell wrote her that she should tell Philip, her husband about their love and Russell in turn would reveal it to Alys. Bertrand did not want to hide his love for Ottoline as a guilty secret. According to Monk "this was all moving much too quickly" for Ottoline. "In her marriage to Philip, it is true, she was far from fulfilled, and she had had passionate affairs before, with Augustus John, Henry Lamb and Roger Fry, the last two of which were by no means finished when Russell came into her life" (Monk 203).

Russell was a well known intellectual in aristocratic circles and to possess him as a lover was an exciting experience. Though she was partly carried away and elated at the thought of possessing Russell, deep inside her lay a horrible feeling that she was being untrue to him. She wrote: "The intoxication of his own feelings blinded him from seeing that I was not equally in love with him; to tell him this was more than I had courage to do" (qtd. in Monk 204).

Ottoline was devoted to Philip and their daughter Julian. Neither did she want to leave them nor did she want a scandal that would ruin Philip. She could not accept Russell’s demand that Ottoline and Philip sleep in separate beds. Monk says that Russell, who was horrified to learn that Ottoline still had sexual relations with her husband had made this strange demand. Russell wanted all or nothing: "I don’t know quite why I have to ask for all or nothing" (qtd. in Monk 204).

If Ottoline was not totally happy with Bertrand she should have told him so and brought an end to their relationship. But she chose to keep him. Bertrand had written to Ottoline to tell her of his relationship with the Whiteheads: "The Whiteheads are my best friends -- they have known all my intimate concerns, or all that could be told, and they have helped me in all difficulties" ( Monk 205).

Bertrand had asked Ottoline to meet Evelyn Whitehead. This naturally would have triggered off the fear in Ottoline that it was possible that this meeting would bring an end to her relationship with Bertrand. She wrote back to Russell saying that she would meet Evelyn but in return she wanted Bertrand to promise her that he would see her just once more: "I long for you to take me completely once and let me pour myself into you" (qtd. in Monk 205).

This was a game that Ottoline played countless times, whenever Russell showed his desire to terminate his relationship with her. Bertrand who was very willing to make such a promise invariably took the bait on all such occasions. Monk says about Ottoline: "As illustrated time and again in her life (in, for example, her relationships with Roger Fry, Henry Lamb and Lytton Strachey), she had a quite extraordinarily deep seated reluctance to part with any of her friends or lovers. Several times she broke with Russell, only to relent, and several times when Russell wanted to break off, she successfully won him back" (Monk 343).

By the 19 March 1912, the anniversary of his falling in love with Ottoline, dark clouds of disappointment had already begun to appear. Ottoline was in Lausanne and was in no hurry to come back. She wrote a letter to Russell on the 19 March. In this letter, she insisted that Russell was not even to think of coming to Paris to join her. With her maid in the next room, there would be no opportunities for any romantic encounters. She was enjoying the freedom of her separation from him. This "plunged him into a wild, almost insane mood of anguish." He told her later: "Ever since the letter you wrote on the anniversary of our meeting, I have longed for death . . . it is your gradual inexorable withdrawal -- like the ebbing tide -- that keeps me over and over again at the very last point of agony" (Monk 255).

Ottoline’s reaction to this complaint was: " ‘I think it was the tooth ache that made your write so’ " (qtd. in Monk 257). This was how Ottoline handled Russell. She loved his intellect but abhorred his physical self, especially when she was in other male company. Various entries in her journal show that there were times when Ottoline could not think of Russell without a feeling of disgust. Monk quotes an entry from Ottoline’s memoirs about Breach House in Cholsey where she used to meet Russell. She says about the room where she "tried" to read history and philosophy: "To that room I do not desire to return. It is dark and melancholy in my memory" (qtd. in Monk 287).

Russell perhaps never realised that his demands, both physical and emotional, were too much for Ottoline to bear. She wrote: "I would give my right hand to be free from Bertie" (Monk 288). Physically and sexually, she found Russell unattractive. "Again and again one finds dark hints in Ottoline’s journals that Russell disgusted her, without it being spelled out quite why. Russell himself was inclined to believe that it had much to do with his bad breath"(qtd. in Monk 288). To this fact Russell makes a reference in his autobiography.

"I was suffering from pyorrhoea although I did not know it, and this caused my breath to be offensive, which also I did not know, she could not bring herself to mention it, and it was only after I had discovered the trouble and had it cured, that she let me know how much it had affected her" (Russell 1: 206).

Monk offers another view. Russell bad breath, is not the only reason. Ottoline was physically unattractive and she defended herself with this charge of bad breath made against him. However, besides Russell’s bad breath and her lack of physical attraction, which photographs of Ottoline included in the autobiography prove to the contrary, there was a deep-seated cause for Ottoline’s unwillingness then to give herself wholly to him. Russell was too much of an intellectual giant for Ottoline to feel comfortable in his company. Where as with her other lovers, Ottoline was happy. An entry in her journal is a sketch of Russell the man:

In the early days of his relationship with Ottoline, Russell felt that she was the fresh breath and light that he found after the agonisingly long period of his unfruitful marital relationship he had with Alys. His first wife’s puritan prejudices were now replaced by the rejuvenating sense of freedom he discovered in Ottoline’s relationship with him. Bertrand believed that it was necessary to possess this source of inspiration and liberating force. He was willing to make any kind of sacrifice to possess her. According to Monk, Ottoline found his work too academic for her to understand and this was one of the reasons that made Russell turn to topics of social importance. He wanted Ottoline to understand his work and more than that he wanted her consent and sympathies in all matters, academic or personal. Monk quotes from one of his letters to Ottoline that is not included in his autobiography:

This is a turning point in Bertrand’s life, academically and personally. The reason for his withholding this revealing letter could probably be that he did not want his readers to see how deep his involvement with Ottoline was. However, one of the numerous letters that he wrote to Ottoline reproduced in his autobiography states other reasons for his turning away from Mathematics and academic Philosophy to lighter subjects. Ludwig Wittgenstein who was Russell’s student had severely criticised Russell’s work on Theory of Knowledge. Russell wrote a letter to Ottoline where he said that he was emotionally shattered and was filled with utter despair. He needed Ottoline but she was busy with other things and could not give him time. Added to this was Wittgenstein’s criticism, which made him think that what wanted doing in Logic was too difficult for him. Philosophy, says Russell thus lost hold on him. "That was due to Wittgenstein more than the war, what the war has done is to give me a new and less difficult ambition, which seems to me quite as good as the old one" (Russell 2: 57). On reading this one is tempted to ask whether it was really Wittgenstein or Lady Ottoline Morrell who had such a profound influence over Russell and who changed the course of his life. Russell would do anything for Lady Ottoline Morrell.

There are about twenty four letters addressed to Lady Ottoline Morrell included in his Autobiography. The topics they discuss range from strictly personal matters to contemporary social and political issues. The First World War and Russell’s participation in the No Conscription Fellowship are also topics dealt with here .Not all letters written to Ottoline are included in the Autobiography, though most of them have been published else where. One finds that Russell has consciously with held some of the more revealing letters. Of the twenty four letters included in the second volume of the autobiography, the first four on pages 51 to 53 mention soldiers who died in the war and the effect of the war on himself. In letter 3 on page 52 of volume 2 he says: "Cambridge has ceased to be a home and a refuge to me since the war began. I find it unspeakably painful being thought a traitor." Russell’s active participation in the No Conscription Movement had caused those who favoured the war to consider him a traitor. Russell thought that the Union for Democratic Control was too much of a weak organisation: "So Sunday schooly -- one feels they don’t know the volcanic side of human nature, they have little humour, no intensity of will, nothing of what makes men effective" (Russell 2: 52).

It was Lady Ottoline Morrell who brought D.H. Lawrence and Russell together. Though at first Russell was not excited at the prospect of meeting him Russell was determined to please Ottoline. Russell says that nothing good came out of this friendship. The time spent with Lawrence for discussions proved to be unproductive, and he wrote to Ottoline in July 1915: " . . . His attitude is a little mad and not quite honest, or at least very muddled" (Russell 2: 53).

On the other hand it was through Ottoline that Russell met Joseph Conrad. She knew that Russell revered Conrad more than any other author. After Ottoline had met Conrad she wrote to Russell and arranged a meeting between them. Conrad was to become a lasting influence in Russell’s life. However, Monk believes that this meeting was stage managed by Ottoline. It was her way of keeping Russell from slipping away from her hold.’ He says:

In a revealing letter to Ottoline dated 9 September 1915, Russell speaks of his yearning to have children and his solitude that was becoming unbearable. It also reveals the depth of their relationship. "Don’t worry about me. It will be all right as long as I don’t let my thoughts get too concentrated on what I cannot have. I loved the children’s picnic because for once I was not a ghost" (Russell 2: 55). In the same letter he goes on to say that in her presence he is often "paralysed with terror, stiff and awkward from the sense of her criticism." One is forced to think that this relationship was more or less one from which both of them could not escape. Russell’s letters to Ottoline are indictors to the ups and downs in his life. They touch almost all the important happenings in his life. They are appeals for help and at times confessions of sins committed: "Sense of sin is one of he things that trouble me at these times. The state of the world is at the bottom of it I think, and the terrible feeling of impotence . . . . Can you think of anything that would help me? I should be grateful if you could. My existence just now is really too dreadful (Russell 2: 56).

When he was filled with utter despair he turned to Ottoline for consolation. Unfortunately Lady Ottoline could not place herself completely at Russell’s disposal. She had other interests. But Lady Ottoline wanted to be attached to a celebrity and Bertrand Russell surely was one, as an academician and an intellectual. But the cold intellectual giant in him scared her off. This long lasting relationship was carried on until her death but was not as passionate all through as the early years.

Lady Constance Malleson who later on took up the stage name Colette O’Neil was the youngest child of Lord and Lady Annesley. Contrary to the expectations of her parents, who belonged to the class of Protestant landed gentry in Ireland, she set her heart on a career as an actress. After her marriage with Miles Malleson she disengaged herself from her aristocratic background and led a bohemian life. Bertrand knew her husband. As Colette, as she was popularly called, was not a busy artist at the time, she worked at the No Conscription Fellowship office as a secretary. Her insistence on freedom was what made her popular among the members of the NCF. Clifford Allen who was with Bertrand at the time he met her, described her as a young girl who was "generous with her time, free with her opinions and whole hearted in her pacifism" (Russell 2: 26). This introduction was enough for Bertrand to plan to get to know her. After one of the NCF conventions, Bertrand asked her out to dinner and after dinner, he walked her back to her flat. The events that followed were more or less similar to that of an earlier occasion -- Russell’s first tête-à-tête with Lady Ottoline Morrell. Colette did not hesitate to invite Bertrand to her flat and they sat up till the early hours of the morning talking:

This is how he describes their first encounter. A similarity with his meeting with Ottoline could easily be seen here. This was a time of loneliness for Bertrand and he was on the lookout for new female friends. Colette had appeared on his horizon when Bertrand’s relationship with Lady Ottoline Morrell had become cold. She had failed to respond to Bertrand’s demands. However, Russell says that it was the brutality of the war that made him look for refuge in this newly found relationship: "The harshness and horror of the war world overcame me, but I clung to Colette. In a world of hate, she preserved love, love in every sense of the word from the most ordinary to the most profound and she had a quality of rock-like immovability, which in those days was invaluable" (Russell 2: 26).

It is interesting to note the way Bertrand dethroned Lady Ottoline Morrell from his heart and placed Colette in her stead. After a three day’s honeymoon spent at the Cat and the Fiddle with Colette, Bertrand went to Garsington, Ottoline’s home for Christmas. Among the many guests present, there were two well-known personages: Katherine Mansfield and Middleton Murry. Bertrand had met them before, but he speaks of Katherine in detail as he was attracted to her in a special way. Apart from the fact that she was an intellectual unlike Lady Ottoline and Colette, she expressed her hatred for Lady Ottoline in such a way that it helped Bertrand to make up his mind to end his affair with Ottoline and to allow free scope for his feeling for Colette:

Colette’s involvement with the NCF work brought opportunities for Bertrand to be with her often. Colette and her husband were present at most meetings. As part of the expansion programme of the NCF, it was decided to form organisations in the various districts of England and Scotland. Meetings were held at many places and Russell spoke to the people on the importance of resisting compulsory conscription. One such meeting was held at the Brotherhood Church in Southgate road. This was one of the occasions that brought Colette and Russell closer to each other. The people in the neighbourhood of the church were made to believe by the patriotic news papers that the NCF workers were German spies and they aided German aeroplanes to find targets to drop bombs. While the meeting was in progress, the slum population mobbed the church injuring most of the NCF members present. On this occasion, Colette was with Bertrand. Bertrand was unable to go to her rescue as there was an angry mob between them. In his autobiography, he says that after this unfortunate incident they went home together in a mood of deep dejection. At this time, Colette was willing to share his unhappiness.

Bertrand was imprisoned for six months for saying that "American soldiers would be employed as strike-breakers in England, an occupation to which they were accustomed when in their own country." This article came in The Tribunal, a journal of the No Conscription Fellowship (Russell 2: 79 - 81). While Bertrand was in prison Lady Ottoline and Colette used to visit him alternately. Bertrand used to send letters to Colette using a secret method. He discovered methods of passing letters by enclosing them in uncut pages of books. By another method, he gave letters to Colette, which were read by the Governor of the prison. He says, "I professed to be reading French Revolution Memoirs, and to have discovered letters from Girondin Buzot to Madame Roland. I concocted letters in French, saying that I had copied them out of a book" (Russell 2: 35). Soon the affair was to take a different turn. Russell says in his autobiography that there was one fact that made him mind being in prison. Colette took on another lover exactly a year after Russell had fallen in love with her. Bertrand was deeply troubled and was bitterly jealous on hearing this news and for a fortnight, he had to depend on a doctor to administer sleeping draughts for him to sleep (2: 37).

The next reference that Russell makes to Colette is in the chapter titled " Russia" in his autobiography. Around mid 1919 Bertrand had become tired of Colette and had already met Dora Black. One day he managed to say good bye to Colette. This was just after he had invited Dora Black to Lulworth for a long visit. However, Colette could not let go of Bertrand so easily and she cabled back saying that she was on her way to Lulworth. About this rather awkward happening Russell says: "However, the day after Littlewood and I got to Lulworth I had a telegram from Colette to say that she was on her way down in a hired car, as there was no train for several hours. Fortunately, Dora was not due for some days, but throughout the summer I had difficulties and awkwardness in preventing their times from overlapping" (Russell 2: 96). The impulse that prompted Russell to keep both women from meeting each other was surely not respectable. This was a game that Russell played with many women including the wife of T.S.Eliot.

In 1920 Bertrand was in Russia. After he returned to England, he desired to express his changing moods before leaving England and while in Russia. For some unknown reason Russell wrote four antedated letters addressed to Colette. They are included in the autobiography but say nothing about his relationship with her. The statement that he makes in his autobiography about his leaving Colette and his acceptance of Dora Black has a ring of untruth about it. The reason he says is that Colette was unwilling to have children and he felt that he could not afford a further delay in fulfilling his desire to be a father. Dora on the other hand, was entirely willing to be the mother of his children even without marriage. This is sound argument that defends his reason to leave Colette but is also bad ethics. Bertrand, it is true, yearned to have children. Alys, his first wife could not conceive for reasons unmentioned in his autobiography and Lady Ottoline Morrell, his mistress, could not either, on account of a physiological problem, she had. Colette wanted to maintain her theatre artist image and was thus unwilling to comply with his wishes of raising a family. Bertrand had known about Colette’s unwillingness to be a mother in 1918 when she was pregnant by Maurice Elvey and had wanted an abortion. Bertrand had willingly paid her hospital charges. These details, says Ray Monk, are glossed over in Russell’s autobiography. Colette’s affair with Elvey aroused Bertrand’s bitter jealousy. Bertrand also urged Colette to leave her husband just as he had done in the case of his first mistress Lady Ottoline Morrell. Like Ottoline, Colette preferred to live with her husband and have affairs with Bertrand and other men .The reason he gave her to leave her husband was: "I stayed far too long with my wife, and I don’t want you to repeat the same mistake" (qtd. in Monk 538). In return, Colette constantly provoked Bertrand’s jealousy by telling him that often she saw Maurice Elvey and that there was another person -- Colonel Mitchell -- of the US army. All these matters made Bertrand’s stay in the prison unbearable though the prison conditions were first class.

During his days in prison, Bertrand had made detailed plans about what to do just after his release. He wrote to Ottoline, his former mistress, that at first he would go away with Colette, as Ottoline would be busy with her work, and would not be able to stay on for a long period. Unfortunately for Bertrand, he was released from prison much earlier than he had expected. Though Colette had promised a passionately warm, welcome it so happened that she was not free on the night Bertrand was released, as she had promised to meet Colonel Mitchell for dinner. This "anticlimax" as Monk calls it confirmed Russell’s jealous fears and he flew into a rage (Monk 540). Bertrand spent the night he was released from prison at his brother Frank’s house in Gordon Street. He could suffer this solitude no longer and he wrote to Lady Ottoline Morrell: "The truth is I am worn out. I need looking after & someone to see after the mechanism of life & leave my thoughts free for work. Since I quarrelled with Alys I have never found any one who would or could take me away for holidays when I am tired or take care of me & now I find without something of the kind I am no good" (qtd. in Monk 544). Russell’s autobiography, says Monk, does not speak of these incidents. It passes over the entire winter of 1918 - 19 in complete silence.

Colette was at this time undergoing an extremely bad time as far as her work was concerned. She had no new parts coming her way and it seemed as though it was time for her exit from the world of acting. Monk quotes her saying in her autobiography After Ten Years: "Nothing on earth is more demoralising than the life of an out of work actress in London" (Monk 555). Evidently, she was depressed during this period. However, she had a friend named Dennis Bradley says Monk, who taught her to believe in herself and gave her all the mental courage she needed at this time. Colette perhaps compared Bertrand with Bradley. She thus ignored many of Bertrand’s letters, which were pleas for physical intimacy. Monk says Russell clearly had little feeling for her mood: "More urgent in his mind than her need for work was his need to be with her, to make love to her." In a letter Russell sent to Colette, quoted by Monk he says: "When I love, I want to be with the person I love & times of absence are a constant pain" (555). Bertrand was telling her that he could not do without her physical nearness. At the same time, Bertrand was making urgent requests to Dora Black to meet him and to spend at least two nights with him. This was Bertrand’s response to Dora’s letters that spoke of her philosophy of sex. Another reason that made Bertrand abandon Colette was that, in the mean time Colette had managed to get a major role in Lewis Carson’s production of The Trojan Women. While Colette was deliriously happy, says Monk, Russell languished in his jealousy, imagining her to be passionately in love with Lewis Carson. In the chapter titled "The Coming Back," Monk says that even when the moment came for the final parting, Bertrand was undecided. He wanted to take on Dora but could not abandon Colette completely. Bertrand and Dora were in China and the news came home that Bertrand would marry Dora as soon as he got his divorce from Alys. But Colette got a note written in April 1921: "When I come home, we can still have times together as wonderful as the old times" Colette’s hopes were shattered in no time as she received another letter in June of the same year informing her of Dora’s pregnancy. The first thing that Bertrand did after coming back from China was to write a "Curiously ambivalent and ambiguous letter that was probably designed to be a farewell" (Monk 605).Colette’s reply to this letter is worth quoting in full. She wrote:

Russell has very tactfully concealed most of the details about his affair with Colette in his autobiography. She is dismissed with a few references and none of their letters that matter are reproduced in the work.

In the chapter titled "Marriage," in Russell’s book Marriage and Morals, he discusses the institution of marriage "merely as a relation between men and women," without any reference to children. Russell says it is a legal institution though in most communities it is also a religious institution. Several conditions are needed for marriages to be happy. Russell takes each of these and proves that none of them can exist in a modern society. He says, "The more civilised people become the less capable they seem of life long happiness with one partner." Russell comments that "marriage is easiest where people are least differentiated" (Russell, Marriage 91). On the other hand, when people have myriad interests and have their own individuality, partners are soon dissatisfied with each other and thus marriages fail. Another condition for happy marriages in a society is the shortage of free women and absence of social occasions for married men to meet them. Further if there is no possibility of sexual relationship outside marriage most men will be forced to be satisfied with what they have and thus they would be happy. This bitter cynicism in Russell’s attitude towards the institution of marriage has its source in his personal experiences, some of which are detailed in his autobiography. Russell concludes this list of strange conditions by saying that if social customs do not change and if partners in a marriage do not expect any thing from each other, marriages would be happy. These conditions do not exist and this is Russell’s way of saying that most marriages in the modern world are unhappy. He says, "Among the modern world none of these conditions for what is called happiness exist, and accordingly one finds that not many marriages after the first few years are happy" (Marriage 92). Russell says that one of the causes of unhappy marriages is "bad sexual education." This condition is common among well to do families. Peasant children, says Russell, learn "the facts of life" as they can observe not only human beings but also animals and are thus "saved from both ignorance and fastidiousness." Another factor that encourages unhappiness in marriages is religion. Christian teaching, according to Russell, idealises virginity in both the male and the female. Whenever two individuals who are sexually inexperienced marry Russell says, "the results are unfortunate." He adds, "sexual behaviour among human beings is not instinctive, so that the inexperienced bride and the bridegroom who are probably quite unaware of this fact, find themselves overwhelmed with shame and discomfort." What Russell suggests is that this inexperience in sexual matters leads to other complications. He is of the opinion that things are a little better " when the woman alone is innocent but the man has acquired his knowledge from prostitutes" (Marriage 92 – 93). Here Russell’s liberalism in sexual matters gives the lie. He does not entertain the thought that women can also gain sexual experience before marriage. Women need to be "innocent." Most men according to him are ignorant of the fact that wooing is necessary before physical contact. Similarly, "many well-brought up women do not realise what harm they do to marriage by remaining reserved and physically aloof." The lack of proper sexual education is the reason for the problems mentioned here. Russell makes the observation that uninhibited civilised men and women are polygamous in their instincts. "They may fall deeply in love" says Russell "and be for some years absorbed entirely in one person, but sooner or later sexual familiarity dulls the edge of passion, and then they begin to look elsewhere for a revival of the old thrill" (Marriage 93). This statement reminds one of Russell’s break up with his first wife. Russell was absorbed in his relationship with Alys for a while and then because of his infatuation with Mrs. Evelyn Whitehead he found all of a sudden, while taking a bicycle ride that he loved Alys no more. There were numerous other relationships in which Russell was engaged deeply for a time, out of which he excused himself when he was satiated. Lady Constance Malleson, Lady Ottoline Morrell, Helen Dudley, and Mrs. Vivien Eliot are some of the women with whom Russell had extramarital relationships.

In the modern world, women are emancipated and this according to Russell is another cause for marital unhappiness. The husband, much to his displeasure finds that he has to adapt himself to his wife. When the husband has extramarital relationship he either hides it from his wife or pleads guilty when he is found out. However, when the wife has a relationship with another man the marriage invariably breaks up (Marriage 94). This was indeed the case with Russell and Dora. Russell says that love can flourish only when it is free and spontaneous. When loving some one becomes a duty, it ceases to give pleasure. For all these reasons, marriage has become difficult. One solution he suggests, as an example from America is easy divorce:

Here Russell does not consider the fact that in other society partners in a marriage stay together, love each other sincerely and stay away from extramarital relationships when the marriage is barren. Inability to have children need not necessarily, lead to divorce. On the other hand, incompatibility may be a valid reason. Russell married four times in his life. Alys his first wife was barren. After he obtained divorce from Alys he married Dora Black. Dora and Russell had two children. To his third wife Patricia Spence was born a boy child who was named Conrad. About his separation from his third wife, he says, "When in 1949, my wife decided that she wanted no more of me, our marriage came to an end"(Russell 3: 16). Russell married his fourth wife Edith Finch in 1952. These autobiographical details are self-explanatory and form the basis of all the theory one finds in Marriage and Morals. The conditions for marital happiness are detailed by Russell towards the end of the chapter. He says, "There must be a feeling of complete equality on both sides; there must be no interference with mutual freedom; there must be the most complete physical and mental intimacy; and there must be a certain similarity in regard to standards of values" (Marriage 96). Russell closes the chapter by saying that husbands and wives must be free in their private lives, what ever the law says.

In the chapter, titled "Trial Marriage" Russell puts forward the idea of companionate marriage. These ideas are based on Judge Ben B. Lindsay’s books The Revolt of Modern Youth and Companionate Marriage (1927). Just after the First World War, many social and political changes were taking place in America and Europe. Russell comments on the morality of the young: "Very many girls of respectable families have ceased to think it worth while to preserve their ‘virtue’, and young men instead of finding an outlet with prostitutes, have had affairs with girls of the kind whom, if they were richer, they would wish to marry" (Marriage 105). Two things are evident in this statement. Russell considers only "girls from respectable families." This indicates the fact that Russell was aristocratic in his preferences. Secondly, Russell accepts prostitution and does not think it a social evil. About the changes in America, Russell says that prohibition and easily affordable privacy have contributed to sexual practices without any restriction: "Owing to Prohibition, it has become "de rigueur" at any cheerful party for everybody to get more or less drunk. Owing to the fact that a very large percentage of girls possess cars of their own, it has become easy for them to escape with a lover from the eyes of parents and neighbours" (Marriage 105). Russell says that, conventional moralists have imposed certain undesirable features, on this state of affairs. He calls for a change in conventional morality. According to Russell Prohibition induces a certain desire to circumvent the law. Getting drunk thus becomes a heroic act. Similarly breaking the conventions of sex also brings a feeling of triumph among the young:

Russell remarks that the moralists have thus been successful in promoting fornication by making the whole activity spicier. He writes, "They have compelled young people to take sex neat, divorced from daily companionship, from a common work, and from all psychological intimacy" (Marriage 106).

This condition, according to Russell brings a complete dissociation between parents and children after the children reach their adolescence. The positive side to this state of affairs in America, according to Russell, is that the young are "freer from priggery" and " less enslaved to authority devoid of rational foundation." They are less likely to be cruel, brutal and violent. Herein Russell envisages a future generation that will be tolerant of sexual experiments. It is under these circumstances that Judge Ben B. Lindsey proposed the new institution of companionate marriage. The basic idea behind companionate marriage is "to introduce some stability into the sexual relations of the young" (Marriage 108). What prevents or delays marriages among the youth is the financial commitment the relationship involves, especially when there are children to be looked after. In companionate marriage, at least during the early years, there should be no intention of having children. Russell says that young men and women who enter such a relationship should be instructed on the use of contraceptives and other methods of birth control. As long as there are no children divorce should be made possible by mutual consent. In the event of a divorce, the wife should not be entitled for alimony. Russell says that Judge Lindsey believes that such relationships would be welcomed by the young, especially university students. They would thus be freed from "the Dionysiac characteristics of their present sex relations" (Marriage 108). Judge Lindsey’s proposals were rejected and they cost him his job, just as Russell was taken to court while at America by Mrs. Kay. The moralists argued that these proposals would not have been approved by Christ and even by "the more liberal American divines." Russell welcomes this idea and says:

Russell goes further in advocating premarital sexual experience as essential. He writes that the sexual act is not instinctive in human beings. It is absurd, according to Russell, to demand that men and women enter upon a life long relationship without prior knowledge as to their "sexual compatibility." Russell says that it is desirable to have the first experience of sex with a partner who has previous knowledge. No marriage should be legally binding until the wife’s first pregnancy. As marriages are intended to lead to children, no marriage should be regarded as consummated until the couple has children born to them in wedlock.

In the chapter, titled "Divorce" Russell says that it has been in practice in most countries throughout history wherever marriage has been unendurable. Different countries and different ages had diverse laws, and a difference has often existed between the law and custom related to divorce. According to Russell, divorce laws should be lenient but custom should not favour divorce. He explains, "I take this view because I regard marriage not primarily as a sexual partnership, but above all as an undertaking to co-operation in procreation and rearing of children" (Marriage 145). The church has always viewed divorce from the point of view of theological conception of sin. The Catholic Church maintains that "marriage is indissoluble in the sight of God." Marriage is taken to be a sacrament. Russell points out that Protestants on the other hand favoured divorce partly out of the opposition to Catholic doctrine on the sacraments. The Protestants also said that the indissolubility of marriage is a cause of adultery. However, the Protestant Church views adultery with extreme disfavour. Russell’s objections against the views of both the churches are as follows: In the case of a spouse who becomes insane after marriage the Catholic Church does not grant divorce to the sane partner. Russell says, " to decree that in this case the sane partner shall never be permitted any legally recognised sex relations is a wanton cruelty which serves no public purpose whatever." (Marriage 146). The sane partner is left with these options: "He or she may choose to lead a celibate life; or may have clandestine relationships; or may decide to live in "open sin." A life of continence is indeed painful for one who has had sexual experience. Clandestine relationships cannot develop their best possibilities without children and a common life" (Marriage 146). However, Russell says that the third alternative, that of living in "open sin" is the least harmful. But for economic reasons, it is considered to be impossible as a professional like a doctor or a lawyer may lose his standing in society and may even be ostracised. Living in "open sin" is thus only possible for the rich and for artists and writers who can live in a bohemian society.

Russell writes that when a spouse deserts the other, divorce is possible. Here the law recognises what is already a fact. There is awkwardness in this because people may resort to desertion when marriages become intolerable. It is natural that men and women have strong impulses to adultery unless they are bridled by inhibitions or strong moral feelings. Hence, Russell says that to his mind adultery in itself should not be a ground of divorce. Though men and women have impulses to adultery there may still be affection between the spouses. They may even desire that the marriage should continue. Russell gives the example of the husband who has to be away from the house for a long period. In such cases he says, "Infidelity in such circumstances ought to form no barrier whatever to subsequent happiness, and in fact it does not, where the husband and wife do not consider it necessary to indulge in melodramatic orgies of jealousy. "The psychology of adultery" Russell continues, "has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot co-exist with a serious affection for another" (Marriage 149).

Russell warns that, adulterous intercourse should not lead to children. Adultery was considered a serious crime when in the old days contraceptives were not popular. In the modern-day when contraceptives are freely available it has become easy "to distinguish sexual intercourse as such from marriage as a procreative partnership" (Marriage 149). Russell suggests that adultery has become a less serious crime today.

When either of the partners find that it is impossible to "live amicably" or "without some grave sacrifice" they may want a separation. If then, "there is no legal redress, hatred is sure to spring." Russell continues, "Where a marriage breaks down owing to incompatibility or to an overwhelming passion on the part of one partner for some other person, there should not be, as there is at present, a determination to attach blame. For this reason, much the best ground of divorce in all such cases is mutual consent" (Marriage 150). For Russell more than anything else, sexual incompatibility is a strong reason for seeking divorce. This is very clearly based on his personal experiences as seen in his autobiography.

Having spoken at length about the legal aspect of divorce, Russell speaks about the custom that is involved in divorce. He says, "As we have already seen, it is possible for the law to make divorce easy while, nevertheless, custom makes it rare" (Marriage 151). Regarding this Russell says that marriage is a partnership that should last at least until their children attain youth. It should not be swayed by temporary amours. The most important factors that would bring stability to marriage are sexual compatibility, children, and sexual freedom outside marriage without jealousy. He says, "When marriage is conceived in relation to children, a quite different ethic comes into play. Thus husband and wife, if they have any love for their children, will so regulate their conduct as to give their children the best chance of a happy and healthy development" (Marriage 153). Thus according to Russell, an easy divorce is not the solution but a re-adjustment and a repositioning of the individuals involved will lead to a stable marriage.

In the system he commends one sees a tendency for Russell to take the male point of view. This is so especially when he frees men from the duty of sexual fidelity in marriage. Both the chapters "Marriage" and "Divorce" form the source of his ideas about the family and morality. It is interesting to note that all of his ideas spring from his own personal experiences, most of which are discussed in his autobiography. Moreover, they have a connection with his ideas on religion. In his chapter "Christian Ethics," he discusses the epistles written to the Corinthians by St. Paul. Russell’s objections to the tenets of St. Paul which form the basis of Christian Ethics are levelled at the manner in which St. Paul handles marriage and sex in his letters to the Corinthians. According to Russell, "St. Paul holds that sexual intercourse, even in marriage is something of a handicap in the attempt to win salvation" (Marriage 36) Russell says that a view of this sort goes against the biological facts and "can only be regarded by sane people as a morbid aberration." Russell finds this "morbid aberration" throughout the Christian religion and morality practised in the modern world. The outcome of such an attitude according to Russell is expressed in the following lines: "It is evident that, where such views concerning sex prevailed, sexual relations when they occurred would tend to be brutal and harsh, like drinking under Prohibition "The art of love was forgotten and marriage was brutalised," argues Russell (Marriage 39). The Catholic Church made matters even worse. When St. Paul regarded marriage as a "legitimate outlet for lust," the Catholic Church made sexual intercourse legitimate within marriage only when children were desired. Russell points out that "if the wife hates sexual intercourse, if the child is likely to be diseased or insane, if there is not enough money to prevent the utmost extreme of misery, that does not prevent the man from being justified in insisting on his conjugal rights provided only that he hopes to beget a child" (Marriage 41).

Russell argues that the position taken by the Catholic Church in insisting that sexual intercourse within marriage should lead to children cannot be accepted as valid. The reason according to Russell is that " however ardently a man may desire children, if it happens that his wife is barren he has no remedy in Christian ethics." The positive purpose of marriage namely procreation has only a subordinate role here, the primary one being the prevention of sin. The Church holds the view that "there is something essentially impure in the sexual act, although this act must be excused when it is performed after fulfilling certain preliminary conditions" (Marriage 44). According to Russell, this attitude of the Church is purely superstitious and absurd.

Since the Christian moralists were men, Russell says that the Christian ethics through the emphasis laid on sexual virtue degraded the position of women. Woman was regarded as the temptress and her opportunities were heavily restricted. "The patriarchal system . . . did much to enslave women, but a great deal of this was undone just before of the rise of Christianity. After Constantine, women’s freedom was again curtailed under the pretence of protecting them from sin. It is only with the decay of the notion of sin in modern times that women have begun to regain their freedom" (Marriage 46).

Russell wrote, "My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race" (Russell, Why I am not a Christian 27). His ideas on religious and political dogma have always been sharply incisive and uncompromising. These ideas were expressed while the churches were organised and powerful in the west. His scathing remarks were never considered by the church but they have whenever possible used political leverage in countering Russell’s kind of unorthodoxy. His objections to religious dogma are based on two footings: 1. Intellectual 2. Moral. The intellectual argument that Russell used to demolish scepticism is the idea that nothing need be accepted without adequate evidence. The fundamental idea that comes under fire is that of the existence of God. Religious and political dogma is the insistence and acceptance of various doubtful propositions to be true. He examines all dogmatic creed in the light of his rational scepticism and demystifies both religion and politics. Russell’s arguments rake strong foundations to expose orthodox and organised authoritarianism. In Russell’s Can Religion Cure Our Troubles? he says, "positions of authority will be open to the orthodox. Historical records must be falsified if they throw doubts on received opinions. Sooner or later unorthodoxy will come to be dealt with by the stake, the purge, or the concentration camp" (Why I am not a Christian 156-157). According to Russell religious and political dogma are greatly responsible for the miseries of human existence. An attitude of rational scepticism will cause to emerge a happier and more harmonious society. He says that only by the free use of intelligence, unencumbered by any creed, can we discover and initiate the way to individual and social well being. It would be worth while to review Russell’s "Liberal Decalogue":

1. Do not feel absolutely certain of any thing.
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition . . . endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for if you value intelligence, as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
8. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness. ( Russell 3: 60)

This decalogue is evidently the basis of Russell’s rational scepticism and is central to his objections to religion, Christianity in particular. This set of commandments is opposed to any creed or dogma, be it religious or political.

The basis of Russell’s objections to religion is found in his Why I am Not A Christian. At the very outset of the essay, Russell says that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. They are belief in God and immortality and belief in Christ or acceptance of Christ as a divine and the best and the wisest of men. The rest of the essay is a recounting of the reasons to reject religion in general and Christianity in particular. When freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that it was possible to disprove the existence of God, the Catholic Church emphatically stated that the existence of God could be proved by unaided reason and set up various arguments to prove it. "The first cause argument" is one of them. It says that everything we see in this world has a first cause. If one were to trace backwards through all causes, one would finally reach the first cause. This first cause is named God. Russell says that this argument has lost its validity. He says that reading John Stuart Mill’s autobiography was an experience that made him aware of a line of argument to refute the first cause argument. There was revelation for Russell in Mill’s sentence: "My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, ‘Who made God?’ " (Russell 1: 41). Russell shows the fallacy of the first cause argument thus: "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God so that there cannot be any validity in that argument." (Why I am not a Christian 15). Russell says that there is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. According to him, the idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

Russell proceeds to dismiss the Natural Law Argument in the following fashion. In the Newtonian Cosmogony it was God who was responsible for the movement of the planets. He was the Prime Mover. It was believed that Nature behaved in a uniform fashion. Now we find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. Observing the behaviour of atoms one finds that they are much less subject to law than people thought. The natural laws according to Russell, are only statistical averages as would emerge from the laws of chance. He distinguishes between natural laws and human laws:

Russell says that such arguments as the Argument of Natural laws change with time and as time goes on they become less respectable intellectually. Another argument that Russell examines is the Argument from Design. It was generally argued that everything was created for the benefit of man. The environment in which he lives was created for him. If it was created slightly differently Man would not be able to exist on this earth. Russell turns this argument backwards and points out that the environment was not made suitable to the inhabitants, conversely the inhabitants made themselves suitable to the environment or adapted themselves to it. He thus dismisses the argument of design stating that there is no evidence of design in this world. Russell explains that the life that is on this earth is made possible only for a period during the process of decay of the whole solar system. Hence, when the solar system progresses in its process of decay life will vanish from this earth. Russell caps his argument against existence of God with this question:

After the intellectual arguments, Russell examines the moral arguments for the existence of God. The arguments discussed above namely, The First Cause Argument, The Natural Law argument, The Argument from Design were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in his The Critique of Pure Reason. But subsequently he invented a new one – a moral argument. Russell says that though Kant was sceptical in intellectual matters, " . . . in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he imbibed at his mother’s knee’ (Why I am not a Christian 19). The argument put forward by Kant was extremely popular during the 19^th century. It says that there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. Russell’s comment is that if there is a difference between right and wrong and if that difference is due to God’s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer significant to say that God is good. This argument presupposes the fact that right and wrong in their essence is logically anterior to God. This is equivalent to saying that there is a superior deity who gave orders to God. Russell’s arguments imply that the distinction between right and wrong should not rest on God’s existence -- for if the suggestion is that an act is wrong because God so wills it, then nothing would be right or wrong independently of God’s will, and the undesirable consequences follow that there is no right and wrong for God and that God is good is an insignificant statement.

According to Russell, no proof is necessary to show that there is injustice in this world. Here the wicked prosper and the good suffer. If you are going to have justice in this universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth and the theologians say that there must be a God, heaven and hell. Russell says that this is a curious argument. People who suffer would be able to say that this is the only world they know and since there is injustice here, in all probability there is injustice in the promised world also. Russell closes the argument by saying that what moves the people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught to worship even as little children. The next reason to believe in God is the desire for safety -- the feeling that God will look after his devotees who are under his care (Why I am not a Christian 20).

After making these remarks on religion in general, Russell moves on to examine Christian dogma. He says that he is unable to accept Christ as the best and the wisest of men. Nevertheless, Russell points to the fact that he would agree with Christ on a good many points than most Christians do. Russell shows that what most of Christ said is either not practicable or worthy of a wise man. Christ’s words: "Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" Russell says that this principle which is as old as Lao-Tze and the Buddha is not one that the Christians accept or practise. "Judge not lest ye be judged" is yet another saying of Christ who has also said: "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away If thou wilt be perfect go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor." Russell in an understatement says that these statements are difficult to live up to. According to Russell, Christ was not wise in saying that his second coming was imminent: "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the son of man be come" and "There are some standing here which shall not taste death, till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom." The early Christians believed this and they did not do such things as planting trees in their gardens as they believed that the second coming was near (Why I am not a Christian 20-21).

Russell boldly lays bare the moral issues in Christianity and shows that Christ was inhuman and a bit of a sadist. Christ, Russell says believed in hell and everlasting punishment. He condemns those who would not listen to his preaching to the ever-lasting fires of hell. This Russell says is not an uncommon attitude with preachers but it makes him less respectable. Russell points out that the same attitude is not found in the Buddha or Socrates. Indignation, according to Russell, is surely unworthy of a sage. Russell quotes Christ: "Ye serpents, ye generation of viper, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? And "Whosoever speak the against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come." This text according to Russell has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world. According to Russell, a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would not have fear and terror of that sort into the minds of the people. Christ is preoccupied with the thoughts of hell, everlasting punishment in a furnace of fire, wailing and gnashing of teeth and such other sadistic modes of punishments. Russell suggests that Christ finds a kind of pleasure in contemplating the wailing and gnashing of teeth otherwise it would not occur so often in his teachings. The teachings of Christ are punctuated with the doctrine of cruelty (Why I am not a Christian 22 – 23). Two other instances referred to by Russell are those of The Gadarene Swine and the fig tree. In both the cases, Christ is shown to be guilty of cruelty and irrationality. Being omnipotent and omniscient He could have sent the evil spirits else where and saved the pigs in the case of the fig tree which had no fruition in spite of the fact that it was pointed out by His disciples Christ curses the fig tree. Russell says: "I cannot myself feel either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects (Why I am not a Christian 24).

Christian religion is accepted by the people not because it has anything to do with argumentation. Christians are told emphatically, even as children that it is wrong to attack religion. Virtue is equated with religion and one would be wicked if one were to reject or question religion.

In the ages of faith when belief in Christianity was intense the state of affairs has been worse. There was the Inquisition and the burning of women at the stake. According to Russell, the Church has always been the enemy of the people.

Russell States:

Religion, says Russell, is based primarily upon fear. It is the fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death that is cloaked by religion. Fear generates cruelty and cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. Science says Russell, has forced its way step by step against religion. It will help mankind get over the fear with which we have lived. He concludes by saying that we ought to make the best of we can of the world. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. If it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these years. A good world needs according to Russell, knowledge, kindliness and courage apart form free intelligence and hope for the future.