THE CREATION OF

WITTGENSTEIN

i
Also available from Bloomsbury

Portraits of Wittgenstein, edited by F.A. Flowers III and Ian Ground

The Radial Method of the Middle Wittgenstein, Piotr Dehnel
Wittgenstein and the Problem of Metaphysics, Michael Smith
Wittgenstein on Internal and External Relations, Jakub Mácha
Wittgenstein, Religion and Ethics, edited by Mikel Burley

ii
THE CREATION
OF
WITTGENSTEIN
UNDERSTANDING THE ROLES OF
RUSH RHEES, ELIZABETH
ANSCOMBE AND GEORG HENRIK
VON WRIGHT

Edited by Thomas Wallgren

iii
 BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK
1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA
29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland

BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published in Great Britain 2023

Copyright © Thomas Wallgren and Contributors, 2023

Thomas Wallgren has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editor of this work.

Cover design by Louise Dugdale

Cover images, Left, Science History Images.
Right, GRANGER – Historical Picture Archive, both via Alamy Stock Photo.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission
in writing from the publishers.

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for,
any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given
in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret
any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist,
but can accept no responsibility for any such changes.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: HB: 978-1-3501-2109-6
ePDF: 978-1-3501-2110-2
eBook: 978-1-3501-2111-9

Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk

To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com
and sign up for our newsletters.

iv
 CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLES ix
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv

1 Introduction 1
Thomas Wallgren

PART ONE PORTRAITS OF WITTGENSTEIN’S LITERARY HEIRS

2 Rush Rhees: ‘Discussion is my only medicine’ 21

Lars Hertzberg

3 A Portrait of Elizabeth Anscombe 37

Duncan Richter

4 Georg Henrik von Wright – A Biographical Sketch 53

Bernt Österman

v
vi CONTENTS

PART TWO UNDERSTANDING HOW THE EDITORS SHAPED

WITTGENSTEIN’S POSTHUMOUS PUBLICATIONS, AND
APPRECIATING THE PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF
THEIR ACHIEVEMENT

5 The Letters which Rush Rhees, Elizabeth Anscombe

and Georg Henrik von Wright Sent to Each Other 69
Christian Erbacher

6 The Revision of Wittgenstein’s Remarks on the

Foundations of Mathematics 105
Kim Solin

7 Naked, Please! Elizabeth Anscombe as Translator and

Editor of Wittgenstein 137
Joel Backström

8 From a Collection of Aphorisms to the Setting of

Wittgenstein’s Later Philosophy: G.H. von Wright’s Work
on Wittgenstein’s General Remarks 175
Bernt Österman

9 ‘. . . finding and inventing intermediate links’:

On Rhees and the Preparation and Publication of
Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’ 203
Peter K. Westergaard

10 Editorial Approaches to Wittgenstein’s ‘Last Writings’

(1949–1951): Elizabeth Anscombe, G.H. von Wright
and Rush Rhees in Dialogue 235
Lassi Jakola

11 Art’s Part in Wittgenstein’s Philosophy 273

Hanne Appelqvist

12 Unearthing the Socratic Wittgenstein 293

Thomas Wallgren

APPENDIX 1 335
Wittgenstein’s will. Facsimile of G.H. von Wright’s
exemplar, kept at WWA.
CONTENTS vii

APPENDIX 2 339
Table of writings published posthumously with
Ludwig Wittgenstein named as author and at least one of the
following as editor: Rush Rhees. G.E.M. Anscombe,
G.H. von Wright.
Created by Rickard Nylund in cooperation with Thomas Wallgren

BIBLIOGRAPHY 351
Compiled by Patrik Forss in cooperation with Thomas Wallgren

NOTE ON ARCHIVAL RESOURCES 373

Compiled by Anna Lindelöf in cooperation with
Bernt Österman and Thomas Wallgren

INDEX 377
 FIGURES

5.1 The ‘black box’ of editing Wittgenstein that mediates

between the ‘input’ of Wittgenstein’s papers and the
‘output’ of printed volumes. © Christian Erbacher. 76
5.2 Year-wise distribution of the correspondence between
Wittgenstein’s literary heirs. © Christian Erbacher. 79
10.1 Source-graph: On Certainty (1969). © Lassi Jakola. 240
10.2 Source-graph: Remarks on Colour (1977) © Lassi Jakola. 241
10.3 Source-graph: Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology,
vol. 2 (1992). © Lassi Jakola. 242
10.4 Source-graph: Vermischte Bemerkungen (1977). © Lassi Jakola. 244
10.5 Source-graph: G.H. von Wright’s unpublished edition of
Wittgenstein’s ‘Last writings’. © Lassi Jakola. 249
10.6 Source-graph: Rush Rhees’s plan for a Suhrkamp edition of
On Certainty (1970). © Lassi Jakola. 255
10.7 Thematic classifications in MSS 169–177: a proposal.
© Lassi Jakola. 258
A1.1 Facsimile of G.H. von Wright’s copy of Wittgenstein’s will
kept at The von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives, University
of Helsinki. The editor thanks the Master and Fellows of
Trinity College for permission to reproduce the text of the
will in the present volume. 336

viii
 TABLES

5.1 An overview of the correspondence between Wittgenstein’s

literary executors between 1951–1999. 78
5.2 Letters 1951 80
5.3 Letters 1952 81
5.4 Letters 1953 81
5.5 Letters 1954 82
5.6 Letters 1955 82
5.7 Letters 1956 83
5.8 Letters 1957 83
5.9 Letters 1958 83
5.10 Letters 1959 84
5.11 Letters 1960 84
5.12 Letters 1961 85
5.13 Letters 1962 85
5.14 Letters 1963 86
5.15 Letters 1964 86
5.16 Letters 1965 86
5.17 Letters 1966 87
5.18 Letters 1967 87
5.19 Letters 1968 88
5.20 Letters 1969 88
5.21 Letters 1970 89
5.22 Letters 1971 90
5.23 Letters 1972 90
5.24 Letters 1973 90

ix
x TABLES

5.25 Letters 1974 91

5.26 Letters 1975 91
5.27 Letters 1976 92
5.28 Letters 1977 92
5.29 Letters 1978 93
5.30 Letters 1979 93
5.31 Letters 1980 94
5.32 Letters 1981 94
5.33 Letters 1982 95
5.34 Letters 1983 95
5.35 Letters 1984 95
5.36 Letters 1985 96
5.37 Letters 1986 96
5.38 Letters 1987 97
5.39 Letters 1988 97
5.40 Letters 1989 98
5.41 Letters 1990 99
5.42 Letters 1991 99
5.43 Letters 1992 99
5.44 Letters 1994 100
5.45 Letters 1995 100
5.46 Letters 1996 100
5.47 Letters 1998 100
5.48 Letters 1999 101
5.49 List of abbreviations used in the calendar. 101
10.1 The remarks from MS 169–177 published in
Vermischte Bemerkungen. 260
A2.1 Table of writings published posthumously with Ludwig
Wittgenstein named as author and at least one of the
following as editor: Rush Rhees. G.E.M. Anscombe,
G.H. von Wright. 340
 CONTRIBUTORS

Hanne Appelqvist is Docent of Theoretical Philosophy at the University

of Helsinki and currently works as the Deputy Director of the Helsinki
Collegium for Advanced Studies. She is the author of Wittgenstein and
Aesthetics, forthcoming in the Elements in the Philosophy of Ludwig
Wittgenstein, editor of Wittgenstein and the Limits of Language and has
published a number of articles on the affinities between Wittgenstein and
Kant. She is Editor-in-Chief of Estetika: The European Journal of Aesthetics
and President of the Nordic Wittgenstein Society.
Joel Backström is Docent of Philosophy at the University of Helsinki. He
is the author of The fear of openness: An essay on friendship and the roots
of morality (2007), and co-editor of Moral Foundations of Philosophy of
Mind (2019). He has published on ethics, on the philosophical dimensions
of psychoanalysis, on Wittgenstein and on Anscombe, including chapters in
the Oxford Handbooks on Wittgenstein (2011) and on Elizabeth Anscombe
(2022). He is also the editor, with Thomas Wallgren, of a forthcoming
collection of previously little known and/or hard-to-access essays in cultural
critique by G.H. von Wright (in Swedish).
Christian Erbacher received his doctorate from the University of Bergen
(Norway) for his research at the Wittgenstein Archives at the University
of Bergen (WAB) between 2007–2010. Incited by the opening of The von
Wright and Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Helsinki (WWA),
he has conducted several international research projects on the history of
editing Wittgenstein. On this topic, he has published many journal articles
as well as the monograph Wittgenstein’s Heirs and Editors. The volume The

xi
xii CONTRIBUTORS

Happy Afterlife of Ludwig W. with his collected papers on the history of

editing Wittgenstein is in press.
Lars Hertzberg is Professor emeritus of Philosophy at Åbo Akademi University,
Finland. He has written essays on ethics, the philosophy of language, philosophical
psychology and Wittgenstein, some of which have been collected in The Limits
of Experience and in Wittgenstein and the Life We Live with Language. He has
also done a translation of Wittgenstein’s Philosophische Untersuchungen into
Swedish together with Martin Gustafsson (2021).
Lassi Jakola is a doctoral student in Philosophy and in Ancient Greek
language and literature at the University of Helsinki. His research focuses
on G.H. von Wright’s ethics and philosophy of values, the philosophy of
Ludwig Wittgenstein, and on ancient Greek Philosophy, with special focus
on the sophistic movement (fifth century BCE ) and Aristotle. He is currently
finishing his doctoral dissertation in social and moral philosophy on G.H.
von Wright’s Varieties of Goodness.
Bernt Österman is Curator of The von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives and
Docent of Philosophy at the University of Helsinki. He has written articles on
the philosophy of Georg Henrik von Wright and recently published the book
Skriv så ofta du kan [Write as often as you can], Helsingfors and Stockholm
2020, containing the correspondence between von Wright and Eino Kaila.
Another interest is the development of methods for philosophical discussions
and philosophical practice.
Duncan Richter is a Professor of Philosophy at the Virginia Military
Institute. His research focuses on Wittgenstein, Anscombe, and ethics. He
is the author of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus: A Student’s Edition (2021) and
Anscombe’s Moral Philosophy (2011), as well as other books and articles on
related topics.
Kim Solin is Docent of Philosophy at the University of Helsinki, Finland,
and currently works as a Senior Faculty Administrator at Uppsala University,
Sweden. He is an Honorary Research Fellow in Philosophy at The University
of Queensland, Australia. In 2015–2017, he led the project Rush Rhees and
Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics at The von Wright and Wittgenstein
Archives, funded by the Swedish Research Council.
Thomas Wallgren is a Professor of Philosophy and the Director of The
von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Helsinki. He
is the author of Transformative Philosophy: Socrates, Wittgenstein and the
Democratic Spirit of Philosophy, co-editor of the translations of Gandhi’s
Hind Swaraj into Finnish and Swedish, and co-editor of Moral Foundations
CONTRIBUTORS xiii

of Philosophy of Mind (2019) and of Challenging Authoritarian Capitalism –

The Transformative Power of the World Social Forum (2023). Wallgren has co-
edited and published books and essays on various topics in Wittgenstein and
von Wright scholarship, philosophy of mind, moral philosophy, development
studies, political theory and the philosophical discourse of modernity.
Peter K. Westergaard is Associate Professor at the Department of
Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies, Faculty of the Humanities, University
of Copenhagen, Denmark. His areas of research are the history of ideas and
the philosophy of religion. Westergaard’s interests centre on the philosophy
of Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. His most recent publications are Mennesket
er et ceremonielt dyr. Ludwig Wittgensteins Bemærkninger om Frazers ‘Den
gyldne gren’ [Man is a ceremonial Animal. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Remarks
on Frazer’s ‘The Golden Bough’], Copenhagen 2013, Kritik og tro. Hume,
Kant, Nietzsche og Wittgenstein [Critique and Belief. Hume, Kant, Nietzsche
and Wittgenstein], Copenhagen 2015, Nietzsche. Hvis man altid går til
grunden. En afslutning [Nietzsche. If one always goes to the Ground. A
Conclusion], Aalborg 2018, and Georges Bataille. Hulen, offeret og maleriet
[Georges Bataille. The Cave, the Sacrifice, and the Painting], Aalborg 2021.
 ABBREVIATIONS

FOR PUBLICATIONS BY LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN

AL Aufzeichnungen über Logik September 1913
BBB Preliminary Studies for the ‘Philosophical Investigations’.
Generally known as The Blue and Brown Books
BGM Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der Mathematik
CC Cambridge Letters: Correspondence with Russell, Keynes,
Moore, Ramsey and Sraffa
CLF Briefe an Ludwig von Ficker
CV Culture and Value
GB Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’
LE A Lecture on Ethics
LW1 Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1
LW2 Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 2
NB Notebooks 1914–1916
NL Notes on Logic September 1913
OC On Certainty
PB Philosophische Bemerkungen
PG Philosophical Grammar
PI Philosophical Investigations
PR Philosophical Remarks

xiv
ABBREVIATIONS xv

PT Prototractatus: An early version of Tractatus Logico-

Philosophicus
PU Philosophische Untersuchungen
RF Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough
RFM Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
ROC Remarks on Colour
RPP1 Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1
RPP2 Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 2
TLP Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
ÜG Über Gewissheit
VB Vermischte Bemerkungen: Eine Auswahl aus dem Nachlaß
Z Zettel

FOR ARCHIVES
AA Collegium Institute Archive of G.E.M. Anscombe, Philadelphia
ÅAL Åbo Akademi University Library, Turku
FIBA Brenner Archives, Innsbruck
NLF National Library of Finland
RBA The Richard Burton Archives, Swansea University
WAB The Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen
WL Wren Library, Cambridge
WWA The von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives at the University of
Helsinki.

OTHER
BEE The so called Bergen electronic edition, which aims to present all
of Wittgenstein’s Nachlass, was published between 1998 and
2000 by Oxford University Press in cooperation with WAB. (See
Bibliography, Electronic Resources.)

See also explanatory notes by the chapter authors.

xvi
 CHAPTER ONE

Introduction
THOMAS WALLGREN

With two exceptions the books we read as books by Ludwig Wittgenstein

have not been created by him alone. The exceptions are the Logisch-
philosophische Abhandlung (1921) and the Wörterbuch für Volks- und
Bürgerschulen (1926). All other books ascribed to Wittgenstein are the result
of the co-creative work by Wittgenstein and his posthumous editors. This
fact has passed without much notice, motivating a perplexed scholar to raise
the concern that ‘Wittgenstein’s readers have remained unaware of the
extent to which the published ouvre is the product of his editors’ decisions.’
(Stern 1994: 443.) The fundamental proposition that informs this volume is
that the said concern has not lost its currency.
Three further proposals guide the investigations collected here. The first
is that engagement with Wittgenstein matters for the future of Western
civilization. We might call this the enlightenment proposal. This first
proposal, in turn, has three aspects. One is that enlightenment matters, that
practices of reason contribute to the shaping of civilizations. The second
aspect is that the self-understanding of philosophy contributes to the
understanding of reason in culture at large as well as to the formation of the
practices of reason. The third aspect is that engagement with Wittgenstein
remains important to the self-understanding of philosophy, at least in its
modern Western form. For these reasons engagement with Wittgenstein
matters, not only, and perhaps not primarily, for discussion of specific
topics in academic philosophy, but more generally for all discourses of
self-understanding and self-determination in our times.1

1
2 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

The second proposal that motivates the studies presented here is that the
necessity to engage, again and better, with Wittgenstein, can only be rightly
appreciated if we take seriously the complexity of the conditions of our
access to his accomplishment. The third proposal is that studies of how the
conditions of access to Wittgenstein have been created may have the potential
of fundamentally changing our perception of what he created and of our
notion of his philosophical life and work. So, whereas the second proposition
may alienate readers who are not already convinced of Wittgenstein’s
importance, the first and third propositions uphold a promise of a rich
reward for those who are willing to take on the challenges introduced by the
second.
The proposal that the conditions of access to what Wittgenstein created
presents serious challenges is not new, but it remains an open question how
to define and deal with these challenges.2 This lies in the nature of things. As
illustrated below, and shown in detail throughout this volume, the question
of what exactly Wittgenstein created, where we can find it, what form it has
and what the premises are that affect our engagement with it, is probably
more complex in terms of empirical facts and text-critical and philosophical
considerations than is the case with any other influential modern philosopher.3
Wittgenstein published less than a hundred pages of philosophy during
his lifetime.4 When he died he left behind some 20,000 pages of writings in
manuscripts and typescripts.5 In his will Wittgenstein appointed ‘Mr. R.
Rhees Miss G.E.M. Anscombe and Professor G.H. von Wright’ to ‘publish as
many of my unpublished writings as they think fit.’6 Between 1951 and 2001
Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright edited or co-edited some twenty books
out of the Nachlass.7 Of all interventions by others than Wittgenstein himself
that have contributed to the shaping of the conditions for understanding
Wittgenstein, or, to the creation of what he is for us, their editorial work
stands out as the most remarkable one.8 The contributors to the present
volume illuminate this editorial work from different viewpoints. The
ambition is not to arrive at a conclusion but to open up perspectives and to
suggest opportunities for learning and enrichment.
The title of the present volume indicates an interest of two kinds. One
interest is in Wittgenstein’s editors; in what they did, and why they did what
they did, when from the Nachlass they created the publications which,
together with the Tractatus Logico-Philsophicus, have become the most
important source for an understanding of Wittgenstein. The second interest
is in Wittgenstein’s readers. Inevitably, one part of our understanding of
what we read when we read Wittgenstein’s posthumous publications will be
our understanding, or lack of understanding, of the role played by Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright, and of other editors, in shaping them. This
INTRODUCTION 3

volume provides its readers with resources for taking enhanced responsibility
for how they understand and respond to the co-creation of the works
posthumously published in Wittgenstein’s name.9
Some scholars, including most notably the first person mentioned by
Wittgenstein in his will, his ‘friend Mr. R. Rhees’, have in their work as
Wittgenstein editors and interpreters been guided by the ambition of
presenting to others how he might have wanted to present his ideas.10 Other
scholars would perhaps say, in the spirit of what was in the 1950s called New
Criticism, or that of Roland Barthes, that all interest by posthumous editors
in the intention of the author is a superfluous and perhaps harmful
intervention, betraying a wrongheaded fascination with a spurious notion of
authenticity, which can only stand in the way of the real task; engagement
with the text itself. Arguably, among the three original literary executors of
Wittgenstein, especially Anscombe, and to some extent also von Wright,
were sympathetic to such views. Obviously, a great deal of important
philosophical work has been done in which publications attributed to
Wittgenstein have been studied with little or no attention to the distinction
between an author-centred and a text-centred approach or any other aspect
of the complexities of the creation of Wittgenstein as understood and studied
in the present volume. Quite often the results have been presented as
interpretations of Wittgenstein. Authors who interpret Wittgenstein also
often claim Wittgenstein’s backing for views they advocate. That is of course
commonplace in philosophy; a thing we do. One might also argue that for
strictly philosophical purposes the conflation of interpretation of the text
with interpretation of the author is a moot point. The argument would be
that what matters in philosophy is in fact argument. Hence, the task of
scholars is to use whatever resources they can find to develop their arguments.
When this is the task, it is always legitimate to turn to texts by Wittgenstein,
or by ‘Wittgenstein’, to use it as material for our own work. The question
whether quotation marks are needed around the name is of no interest. If
this idea is taken to its logical conclusion it would of course make all
referencing superfluous in philosophy, allowing us to leave behind, as
Wittgenstein may sometimes have wished to, as vain, any discussion of debt
and ownership of ideas, or right or wrong in the interpretation of authors
and texts.11
Just as the present volume is not interested in finding fault with what
Wittgenstein’s editors have done, nor is it interested in blaming scholars
whose only interest is to cherry-pick, or gold-mine, Wittgenstein’s work for
their own purposes. Cherry-picking is of course acceptable, and similarly, it
is admissible for philosophers not to take a critical interest in how
Wittgenstein’s editors may have made it difficult to discern some aspects of
4 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

what is most unique in his achievement. But then something vital may also
get lost. One relevant theme that has caught the attention of most contributors
to the present volume, is the tension between Wittgenstein’s philosophical
self-understanding and that of some of his editors. To see Wittgenstein aright
one must, arguably, not see him as someone who is arguing about problems
that belong to particular fields of philosophy with the aim to solve or dissolve
them. One must also not see him as inventing new problems or new methods
or new ways of conceiving philosophical questions and ideas. One must
perhaps rather see him as doing all of that while also always asking: What is
reason? What is it to reason? What is life with reason? What is the place, role
and function of reason in our relation to ourselves and to others and what
could that role at best be? How are these questions part of the further
questions of what it is to be someone who is striving for dignity, meaning and
freedom; for a life we might recognize as our life and willingly share with
others?
These questions – or questions such as these – are not always a living part
of the everyday of professional academic philosophy and we do not have to
bring them into discussions of Wittgenstein. But if we do not introduce such
questions we may be missing out on significant parts of what these
conversations may quite naturally involve. Of course, it does not follow that
there is one straightforward and clear-cut alternative to the gold-mining
approach to Wittgenstein, which one arrives at after careful study of the
complexities of the creation of the Wittgenstein problematique. In this
regard it is instructive to ask: What is relevant to consider when we try to
learn from Wittgenstein? Where and how can we find it? To illustrate the
matter let us consider briefly the question of the relation between a
philosopher’s life and work and how any view on it is intrinsically related to
the seemingly easy and straightforward question of how to identify and
describe Wittgenstein’s Nachlass.
Wittgenstein sometimes said that philosophy was his life.12 The significance
of this notion guided Rhees as editor of Wittgenstein to a high degree. In
contrast, von Wright operated much more than did Rhees with the idea that
the philosophy/life distinction is fruitful in our engagement with Wittgenstein.
Nevertheless, he too found it difficult to know where to draw the line
between what material is, and what is not, relevant to the interpretation
of the philosophy.13 In 1969 von Wright published an article that he called
‘The Wittgenstein Papers’ (von Wright 1969). He there uses a distinction
between manuscripts, typescripts and dictations as his main device for
categorizing and describing the then known Wittgenstein Nachlass. Von
Wright lists all items known to him and provides information in particular
about their physical appearance, length in pages and, when possible, the
INTRODUCTION 5

dates of origin. He presents the information as a catalogue where he gives

the various items numbers in presumed chronological order.14 In an appendix
to his catalogue, von Wright also lists Wittgenstein letters that have been
published. From the perspective of the life vs philosophy issues, the inclusion
of letters as a separate uncatalogued category, invites question. So does the
exclusion of other items. The question of the remarks in the manuscripts
written in code has been much discussed. In the von Wright catalogue
there is no mention of their existence. That seems problematic in view of
von Wright’s aspiration, over many years, to make all of the writings in his
catalogue publicly available to scholarly study, while still excluding the
coded remarks.15 A large bulk of writings, which are not listed in the von
Wright catalogue, are those that derive from oral transmission. Many pupils
who attended Wittgenstein’s lectures took notes and there now exists a
considerable number of publications based on them. In his description of
the Nachlass von Wright mentions that such material exists (1982: 39) but
he does not explain why he does not include them in the catalogue.16 A
different category of writings, difficult to denote, which provides access to
Wittgenstein but is not included in the von Wright catalogue, is manuscripts
and typescripts written in the hand of another person, even though the
writing has happened in Wittgenstein’s presence under his close guidance.17
Moreover, in the study of Wittgenstein, memoirs and recollections by
people who knew him have played a significant role. A fair number of
publications exists that have the aim of giving a good idea of what Wittgenstein
said during longer conversations and there are in addition many fragments
with reports and quotes in memoirs and letters.18 These testimonies also
belong to the history of how what Wittgenstein created has been made
available to the public, but, again, von Wright’s catalogue does not mention
any of them.
We may conclude that in the way von Wright in his catalogue defined the
realm of the Nachlass we see the extent to which he was inclined to the view
that we can keep an interest in Wittgenstein’s life apart from an interest in
his work. But at other times von Wright expresses a rather different bias,
such as when he writes:

The insight that Wittgenstein is inimitable should discourage any

temptation to try to imitate him and encourage each one of us to consider
what is his or her own Aufgabe as philosopher. This is not an idle
exhortation. It is an urge to reconsider one’s motives for philosophizing,
what drives us along. Only if what drives us along is integral to our being,
as it was with Wittgenstein, are we philosophers in the full sense of the
word.19
6 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

If von Wright is correct, the question to what extent we can say that we are
engaging with what Wittgenstein created when we study his philosophy
through the reading of what we take to be his philosophical writings,
irrespective of a study of his life, of ‘what drove him along’, or, when we
study his life and care less about his philosophical writings, is in his case a
burning matter for all philosophers. But, then, who is a philosopher? Where
in our culture and our lives does philosophy happen? There is already
for institutional reasons a tendency to take easy answers to these questions
for granted. But at least in the case of Wittgenstein these answers are up for
grabs.20 Nevertheless, the massive interest in Wittgenstein in academic
discourse often pays scant attention to the non-academic, but not necessarily
non-philosophical, reception which unfolds, richly but rather intractably, in
the world of the everyday, and more visibly in the arts, where Wittgenstein
is often acknowledged as a source of inspiration. It would be a large part of
any comprehensive engagement with the Wittgenstein legacy to study the
non-academic reception and its interplay with the academic one.21 Even
though the present volume is primarily directed at philosophers, it also
aspires to present elements that are useful for further study of this interplay.
*
The scheme of the volume is as follows: we offer historically contextualizing
essays (chapters 2–5) and then move gradually from studies with a close-up
examination of the editorial work of Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright in
individual cases (chapters 6–8) to studies with an increasing emphasis on the
exchange between the editors and the philosophical significance and
consequences of their policies and choices (chapters 9–12). The attentive
reader will find that the interests of the various authors sometimes converge,
and that occasionally the very same quotes from letters and other archival
sources are used in more than one chapter. There is indeed some overlap, as
well as both tension and complementarity between the chapters. We hope
this will serve as an invitation to continued dialogue with the issues at hand.
Chapters 2–4 present personal philosophical portraits of Wittgenstein’s
literary executors. The chapters are vital for the collection because of the
intricacy, and intimacy, of the question how the executors understood and
wanted to take on the task given to them in Wittgenstein’s will. Their task
was to ‘publish as many of [Wittgenstein’s] unpublished writings as they
think fit’.22 But who were ‘they’? The aim of this section of the volume is to
provide a basic platform for understanding the work undertaken by Rush
Rhees, Elizabeth Anscombe and Georg Henrik von Wright as editors of
Wittgenstein as an integral part of their individually quite different journeys
in philosophy and life.
INTRODUCTION 7

In his portrait of Rhees, Lars Hertzberg brings to life the impression

Rhees made on many who knew him well, including Wittgenstein, as a
person who combined to an exceptional degree philosophical talent, human
kindness, humility and the courage to stand by one’s moral convictions
(chapter 2). Hertzberg notes that Rhees has so far been noted and remembered
primarily as a ‘student and expounder of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s views’, a
fate he attributes partly to Rhees’s lack of personal ambition. Hertzberg
suggests that as an heir to and interpreter of Wittgenstein Rhees is remarkable
not least because he, like his teacher, embodied to a high degree the notion
that ethical or existential matters and philosophical work are deeply
intertwined.23 Hertzberg also draws attention to Rhees as a critic of
Wittgenstein and seeks to explain how, especially in Rhees’s work in the
philosophy of language, the probing of the question ‘What does it mean for
there to be language?’ constitutes an original contribution that takes us
beyond what we can find in Wittgenstein’s work.
As in the case of Rush Rhees, the forceful character of Elizabeth Anscombe
rarely failed to impress the people she met. In his portrait of Anscombe,
Duncan Richter notes that the picture of her as a ‘scary kook’, a champion
of Roman Catholicism and a feminist has become well-known (chapter 3).
While capturing Anscombe’s true features, the impression they make may
also stand in the way of coming to appreciate both her personality as a whole
as well as her philosophical achievement. Richter draws special attention to
three aspects. One is the philosophical integrity of the dialogue with the
Catholic tradition both in her life and in her published work. Another is the
significance for Anscombe’s philosophical development of the critical
engagement with Hare’s moral philosophy, which she shared with her
close female student friends and colleagues at Oxford, Philippa Foot, Iris
Murdoch and Mary Midgley. Richter notes, among other things, how this
formative experience from the 1940s explains deep differences between
Anscombe’s moral philosophical outlook, as expressed in her influential
paper ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ and that of Wittgenstein. Richter also
provides a portrait of Anscombe as interpreter of Wittgenstein, bringing
out, for instance, her scepticism of ‘the tendency of Wittgensteinians to
treat language-games as needing no justification.’
In Bernt Österman’s biographical sketch of Georg Henrik von Wright we
meet a scholar with mild manners whose outward character did not present
any of the friction with the academic world that we meet in the cases of
Wittgenstein, Rhees and Anscombe (chapter 4). Österman succinctly presents
key facts about von Wright’s career, including the invitation to the young
von Wright to succeed Wittgenstein at Cambridge. Österman also takes us
behind the scenes to present lesser-known aspects. He explains the deep
8 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

commonality that existed in the cultural and educational formation of von

Wright and Wittgenstein as ‘middle Europeans’ and how this shared
background contributed to the forming of von Wright’s friendship with
Wittgenstein. Another lesser-known dimension of von Wright’s intellectual
personality highlighted by Österman is the engagement in current social and
political concern which he shared with Norman Malcolm, his closest friend
from Wittgenstein’s classes in Cambridge, but not with Wittgenstein.
Österman concludes his portrait with an incisive commentary on ‘the gap
between what von Wright saw as his professional work [in philosophy] and
his existentially oriented writings’. In the Nordic area von Wright’s essays on
Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Spengler and, later, also on the Vietnam War, the
ecological crisis and the pathologies of modernity, written in his native
Swedish, have for many decades served as key references in popular debates
about our culture and times. The topic Österman addresses is therefore
better known in the Nordic countries than in other areas. It, nevertheless,
opens important perspectives on von Wright’s contributions to Wittgenstein
scholarship.24
The history of the cooperation between Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright
as Wittgenstein editors is the topic of Christian Erbacher’s contribution
(chapter 5). Drawing on his in-depth study of archival holdings over the past
ten years Erbacher manages to give readers in one chapter a comprehensive
overview of a history of the close cooperation between three strikingly
different philosophical personalities over almost five decades. In his highly
informative tables Erbacher summarizes facts about the most essential source
material for the study of the creation of Wittgenstein; the letters which his
literary executors sent to each other, providing year-by-year counts of the
number of letters and their location.25 In the commentary to the tables,
Erbacher gives overviews of themes discussed in the correspondence, also
pointing out key tasks for future research in order to fill present gaps in our
understanding of this history.
The cavalcade of thematically focused studies of how Rhees, Anscombe
and von Wright created Wittgenstein for us is opened with Kim Solin’s
chapter on how Wittgenstein’s work on the philosophy of mathematics has
been made available (chapter 6). There are three editions of what has been
published as Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der Mathematik / Remarks
on the Foundations of Mathematics (RFM). While the second edition, from
1967, is substantially the same as the original 1956 edition, the third edition,
essentially completed in 1974, differs from the earlier ones in some respects.
Solin argues that the revisions are triggered to a large extent by the editors’
disappointment in the mid-1960s with the reception of their editions by
Kreisel and other influential scholars in mathematics and the philosophy of
INTRODUCTION 9

mathematics. Solin’s close-up study of the correspondence between Rhees

and von Wright, in particular from October 1972 to May 1973, lays bare
how controversies about technical matters concerning layout and form of
presentation are intertwined with philosophical issues, such as the question
whether to use a thematic principle for joining texts from separate sources.26
Solin also shows how the views held by Rhees and von Wright on the relation
between mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics develop through
the exchange. Rhees emerges as more engaged than von Wright in the matter,
focusing increasingly on the vital role he thinks Wittgenstein’s work on the
philosophy of mathematics played in the development of key themes in all
his later philosophy, including rule-following, intelligibility, the relevance of
addressing the concerns of concrete persons and more. Solin concludes that
von Wright, who maintained a ‘logician’s perspective’ on RFM, prevailed in
the editorial controversies. As a consequence, what gets suppressed in the
published editions is Rhees’s efforts to bring out how Wittgenstein was
struggling to find ways of overcoming our attraction to intellectual
mystifications, such as ‘mythological’ interpretations of forms of calculation
used in mathematics.
Anscombe contributed immensely to the creation of Wittgenstein both by
providing to anglophone readers her highly praised English renderings of
most of the posthumous editions and as an editor. In chapter 7 Backström
examines Anscombe’s reflections on how the translator can deal with
differences in linguistic resources which are linked to differences in cultural
heritage and also with the riddle of the ineliminable personal element in
understanding the text and its author. Backström discusses the philosophical
implications of the differences between how Anscombe and, fifty years
later, Hacker and Schulte, handle the translation of the German word ‘Seele’
as ‘soul’ or ‘mind’. His discussion brings him to questions about the tensions
between Wittgenstein’s self-understanding and the understanding of
philosophy that Wittgenstein thought was characteristic of professional
academic milieus. Backstöm’s interrogation of Anscombe as editor takes off
from the observation that Anscombe’s preferred, explicit policy was what
she called ‘minimum editing’. He then discusses three kinds of intervention
between the text and the reader that Anscombe, nevertheless, could not
avoid. One is her and Rhees’s decision to publish the Philosophical
Investigations as a work with two parts; the second her effort to present
Wittgenstein as a philosopher who worked on separable topics; the third
is the suppression for a long time of remarks written in code. Backström
argues that even though there are reasons to question the inclusion of
part II in the PI, its status is in fact not radically different from that of
part I, primarily because neither part was finalized for publication by
10 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Wittgenstein. On the separability issue, or, the ‘compartmentalization issue’,

Backström suggests that Anscombe’s idea that the discussion of certainty,
colour and the philosophy of psychology in Wittgenstein’s late manuscripts
are separable is problematic on both philological and philosophical
grounds.27 Finally, Backström argues that the coded remarks from
1914–1916, which have often been read as being merely of personal interest,
are in fact highly relevant for interpretations of Wittgenstein’s views of
the will, and of the existential and moral difficulties in relations between
people.
In the 1960s von Wright made a collection of remarks ‘of a general nature’
which he extracted both from Wittgenstein’s published books and from
unpublished manuscripts and typescripts. In the 1970s he returned to the
material and in 1977 a different collection was published as Vermischte
Bemerkungen by Wittgenstein, edited by von Wright and his assistant, Heikki
Nyman. In chapter 8 Österman argues that von Wright’s editing was informed
by two different interests and proceeded in two stages. In the first stage von
Wright wanted to provide access to Wittgenstein as a writer of aphorisms in
whose work philosophical and artistic genius combined. Österman shows
that this interest has roots in von Wright’s conversations with Wittgenstein
before the war and in von Wright’s early conviction that in order to illuminate
the deepest issues in life, the resources of art are more apt than those of
philosophy. However, as Österman shows, it is only when this first interest is
complemented with von Wright’s own growing concern with the social and
political maldevelopments of his time that von Wright decides that the
general remarks can and need to be published separately from Wittgenstein’s
strictly philosophical work. Hence, in the published book two qualities stand
out: many remarks have an aphoristic quality and many are remarks on the
crisis of our times, or of modernity. The selection thus reflects a conception
of philosophy typical of von Wright, but not necessarily of Wittgenstein, in
which properly philosophical work stands in an uneasy relation to writings
on the deepest and most acute existential, cultural and contemporary social
and political matters. Österman shows how von Wright’s work was inspired
by like-minded work on Wittgenstein by Toulmin and Janik (1973) and
Kristóf Nyíri (1976), and by his discussions with members of the Praxis and
Frankfurt Schools. Through close study of archival sources, Österman also
makes clear that von Wright at the time took greater interest in affinities and
differences between Marx and Wittgenstein than is apparent from his
published writings.
In the later 1960s and early 1970s it became clear to Rhees, Anscombe
and von Wright that there were deep differences in their views about how to
edit Wittgenstein for publication. The views of Anscombe and von Wright
INTRODUCTION 11

often prevailed, making it difficult, at the time, and even up to today, to

appreciate and assess the work of Rhees and the philosophical energy he
brought to the discussion between the literary executors in meetings,
manuscripts and letters. In chapter 9 Peter Westergaard illuminates crucial
moments in Rhees’s work at the time by presenting in detail the work he did
on what we know as Wittgenstein’s Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Golden
Bough’ (GB), or, ‘Remarks on Frazer’ (RF). It is essential to Rhees’s handling
of these remarks that he sees them as standing in close philosophical
continuity with his philosophy of language, ethics and other key motives of
his later work. Rhees suggests various ways of publishing the Remarks on
Frazer together with other materials, such as the Lecture on Ethics, but
Anscombe and von Wright in the end brushed most of Rhees’s suggestions
aside and went on to publish on the basis of the topical, ‘compartmentalizing’
approach. In his reflections, Westergaard shows how acquaintance with
Rhees’s failed suggestions provides us with an opportunity to try to see
Wittgenstein’s philosophy through his eyes. He also provides a memorable
portrait of the ethos of Rhees’s editorial effort and cooperative engagement.28
As evidenced vividly in Westergaard’s contribution, anyone who studies
closely the correspondence between the literary executors is likely to be
struck by the differences in outlook between Rhees, Anscombe and von
Wright that come to the fore around 1970. In Jakola’s chapter (chapter 10)
the differences are highlighted through a penetrating study of the editorial
work and discussion of one particular case; the work on the items identified
as MS 169-177 in the von Wright catalogue. As Jakola points out, the bulk
of this material has been published in OC, ROC and LW2 (On Certainty
1969, Remarks on Colour 1977 and Last Writings on the Philosophy of
Psychology, vol. 2: The Inner and the Outer 1992). One philosophical
consequence has been that these publications, and in particular OC, have
paved the way for the idea that we see in these writings the emergence of a
final, third Wittgenstein, different from the first Wittgenstein of the Tractatus
and the second Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations. Jakola’s
careful reconstructions of the views of each of the three, Rhees, Anscombe
and von Wright, indicates that this notion of ‘three Wittgensteins’ is to a high
degree the result of Anscombe pushing through her view on how to publish
the material in MS 169-177. Using instructive tables and diagrams Jakola
shows that the realized history is certainly not the result of any obvious,
almost mechanical editorship, but has involved choices that could not have
been philosophically innocent. Jakola also presents the suppressed positions
of von Wright and Rhees on the case. Jakola, moreover, presents his new
discovery that before the publication of OC in 1969 von Wright in fact
developed a detailed proposal for an edition to be published from the
12 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

manuscript materials in question. This proposal was essentially completed in

1967–1968. It differed substantially both from the plan that was realized,
based on Anscombe’s compartmentalizing scheme, and from the suggestions
made by Rhees.29
Taking her point of departure from the study of the remarks von Wright
collected and published as Vermischte Bemerkungen (VB), Appelqvist in her
contribution (chapter 11) invites readers to a critical reappraisal of three
themes in Wittgenstein scholarship in view of von Wright’s formative
intervention. The first is the idea of Wittgenstein as a writer of aphorisms.
Appelqvist does not question Österman’s views on von Wright’s motives for
presenting Wittgenstein in this light nor the worth of such presentation.
Nevertheless, she argues through concrete case studies that what to von
Wright ‘looked like isolated aphorisms’ do in fact make more sense when we
see how they belong and contribute to sustained philosophical reflection.
Appelqvist’s further topics are Wittgenstein’s relation to philosophical
tradition and the question of the role of aesthetics in his philosophy.
Wittgenstein’s suggestion in his early work, especially in the Tractatus, that
ethics, aesthetics and logic stand on a par has been much studied. In his later
work a similar perspective has not always been seen. Von Wright’s collection,
VB, may have reinforced the view that in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy
attention to art and aesthetics is not an integral part of his philosophy.
Appelqvist argues that such views fail to recognize the extent to which
Wittgenstein in his later work is also steeped in a German tradition. In this
tradition, which goes back to Kant and Baumgarten, aesthetics is understood
as the investigation of the domain of sensibility and as a necessary part of a
comprehensive philosophy of the forms of judgement, reason and
understanding. Appelqvist proceeds to a study of the role played in
Wittgenstein’s later philosophical investigations by his remarks on art, in
particular on music. In her perceptive analysis she shows how the analogy
between understanding music and understanding language is key both to the
argument in the Tractatus and to what she calls the ‘hard core’ of Wittgenstein’s
later work, his discussion of rule-following. These elements – the close
rapport between aesthetics and the philosophy of logic and language, and
also the continuity of Wittgenstein’s philosophy with a German idealist
tradition – are, Appelqvist argues, there in Wittgenstein, but are not easy to
see for contemporary analytic philosophers who are not always versed in the
history of German philosophy and whose understanding of Wittgenstein’s
interest in aesthetics has often been shaped by their reading of von Wright’s
editing of VB.
In his contribution in chapter 12, Wallgren suggests that it is illuminating
to think of the history of the editorial effort of Rhees, Anscombe and von
INTRODUCTION 13

Wright as a story with two parts. The first part is characterized by effortless
agreement between the literary executors and by their enthusiastic common
resolve ‘to give Wittgenstein to the world’. This part of the story was crowned
with what seemed at least at first to be, simply, a resounding success. The
second part of the story is that of emerging and deepening self-criticism and
of growing intellectual divergence and moral distance between the three.
Looking back at their cooperation, von Wright writes to his colleagues in
1988 that it is ‘much to be regretted that we never had a clear understanding
. . . about the nature of the work we wanted to do with the Nachlass’.30
Wallgren highlights five elements in the second part of his narrative. The first
is the suggestion that the depth of the philosophical challenges involved in
the task of moving from Wittgenstein’s manuscripts to publications first
became obvious to the literary executors when they started considering the
publication of a complete edition. They then gradually recognized the
controversial nature of their first editorial achievement, the PI with two
parts, and therewith also the problems involved in the very idea of
Wittgenstein as the author of works. Wallgren moves on to investigate in two
separate but interrelated steps how Rhees’s and von Wright’s later work as
editors, from the mid-1960s onwards, can be seen as complementary
corrections to the earlier publications’ record. Rhees’s ambition was to show
that there is close contact between Wittgenstein’s work over the years on
seemingly different topics, and how this unity ‘of logic and ethics’ in his
work was rooted in Wittgenstein’s notion that philosophy is always also a
morally transformative work on oneself. In von Wright’s later editorial and
interpretative work we can discern a similar, even if more convoluted,
engagement with the comparable notion that in philosophy we try to
overcome confusions in our language and lives which are occasioned by
pathologies in habits of thinking that are typical of one’s times. Hence, any
philosophical effort to come to terms with challenges to one’s own
understanding caused by malfunctionings of our language-games will
inevitably involve, as one of its dimensions, a critical engagement with the
contemporary social and political constellation. Wallgren moves from these
observations on Rhees and von Wright to discussion of two further issues.
One is the question whether, and if so, how, Wittgenstein’s qualms about
publishing are related to his conception of philosophy and of its value. The
other is what to do with the fact that in his later years, at least after the
autumn of 1936, a large part of Wittgenstein’s work consisted not in writing
new materials but in arranging it, or ‘composing’ out of it, a ‘criss-cross’
form of philosophical dialogue between multiple voices. The literary
executors did not reflect on these issues in their publications or
correspondence. These omissions in the attention of the literary executors
14 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

have, Wallgren suggests, made it unnecessarily difficult to see reason to

attend to two aspects of Wittgenstein’s contribution. The first is the depth of
Wittgenstein’s affinity with the Socratic and Pyrrhonian sceptical notion that
philosophy is concerned with the unending search for deeper understanding
more than with the search for solutions to problems, or even, their
dissolution. The other is his contribution to the ‘Left-Hegelian’ discourse of
the dialectics of enlightenment and, more generally, the questioning of
enlightenment optimism.
The volume has been compiled with the ambition of keeping Wittgenstein
alive. It aspires to show that by paying attention to neglected detail pertaining
to the complex history of the creation of Wittgenstein we may still discover
much needed and sorely overlooked resources for intellectual enrichment
and moral orientation in our times and perhaps in all times.
*
The research for this volume has been funded by the Academy of Finland
research project ‘The Creation of Wittgenstein’ (2016–2021). The materials
used here have been presented at the conference ‘Von Wright and Wittgenstein
in Cambridge: Von Wright Centenary Symposium’, Strathaird, Cambridge,
20–23 September 2016 and at the workshop ‘The Creation of Wittgenstein’,
at Kilpisjärvi biological research station, University of Helsinki 16–20 April
2018. The von Wright and Wittgenstein research seminar, co-hosted by the
philosophy unit and the von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives of the
University of Helsinki, has served as a venue where many of the ideas
developed in the various chapters have first been tested. The editor is grateful
to all participants at these gatherings for inspiring discussions and for their
generosity in sharing their knowledge and insights. He has also been much
helped by further discussion and correspondence with Anat Biletzki, James
Conant, Mladen Dolar, Peter Hacker, Leszek Kosczanowicz, Stefan
Majetschak, Anat Matar, André Maury, Volker Munz, Yrsa Neuman, Alois
Pichler, Lotar Rasinski, Rupert Read, Viggo Rossvaer, Josef Rothhaupt, Arvi
Särkelä, Joachim Schulte, David Stern, Niklas Toivakainen and Nuno
Venturinha, and by discussion at his home in the hills near Siena with the late
Brian McGuinness. Patrik Forss, Carolina Lillhannus, Anna Lindelöf and
Rickard Nylund have provided invaluable research assistance. The Nordic
Wittgenstein Society has served as a constant source of inspiration, and
colleagues and students at the philosophy unit of the University of Helsinki
have provided a most supportive daily working environment. My greatest
debt is to the contributors to this volume. Thank you all.
Helsinki, February 2022
Thomas Wallgren
INTRODUCTION 15

NOTES
1. To the extent that the modern West, and its consequences, shape the planetary
condition(s) the dynamics of this civilization also affect the planetary future(s).
My use of the word ‘all’ in this passage ‘to all discourse of self-understanding
and self-determination in our times’ is, hence, deliberate. I will not here discuss
critically my use of the word ‘our’ in the phrase ‘our times’. Useful resources
for addressing this topic are, for instance, Dussel 1985, Santos 2014, de la
Cadena 2015 and Escobar 2018. On self-realization and self-determination as
typically modern ideals, see, for instance, Kant 1977, Tugendhat 1986 and
Theunissen 1982. One might read Wittgenstein’s Tractatus as articulating a view
of the hopeless futility of these ideals and his Philosophical Investigations as a
transformative recuperation of them.
2. Seminal contributions include Cavell 1976 [1969], Cavell 1979, Drury 2019,
Pichler 2004, Rothhaupt 1996, Rothhaupt, J. G. F. and W. Vossenkuhl ed.
(2013), Schulte 2001a and 2005, Stern 1996, Venturinha, N. ed. 2010, and von
Wright 1982a, 1982c, 1982d and 1982e.
3. Comparable cases are Nietzsche, Husserl and Heidegger. However, they all
published much more during their lifetime than Wittgenstein did.
4. There were four philosophical publications altogether, or five, if we count the
German-only edition of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, the Logisch-
philosophische Abhandlung from 1921, and the bilingual edition of the same
from 1922, as separate publications. Wittgenstein also published the dictionary
for primary schools mentioned above. See Bibliography.
5. In this estimate I follow Stern 1996: 453. According to one early estimate by
Huitfeldt, there are up to five million words in the Nachlass (ibid. 473, n 19).
Today the fullest information is provided in the bibliography compiled by
Pichler, Biggs and Uffelmann 2019, first published as Pichler, A., M. A. R. Biggs
and S. A. Szeltner 2011.
6. In this volume the names of Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright are given in this
order, the order in which they appear in the will, when they are referred to as
the collective of literary heirs and executors defined in it. In view of substantial
considerations the names may also appear in a different order, as for instance in
the title of chapter 10.
7. The exact number depends on how one defines what belongs to Wittgenstein’s
Nachlass. For an overview of the posthumous publications out of it edited by
Rhees, Anscombe and / or von Wright see Appendix 2 to this volume. The
Bergen electronic edition (BEE), which aims to present all of Wittgenstein’s
Nachlass, was published between 1998 and 2000 under the auspices of von
Wright, but it was not edited by him. See Pichler 2010.
8. Wittgenstein’s will did not oblige Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright to publish
any of his writing. We may note, in particular, that even the PI (Philosophische
Untersuchungen / Philosophical Investigations) is not a work that Wittgenstein
had finished, but the result of co-creation by him and his editors. It, and any
other posthumous works by Wittgenstein, might not have been published, and
they might have been published in a different form. To say this is to state a fact.
16 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

It does not prejudice one’s views on the special status of the PI or on any other
controversial aspect of the posthumous editorial history.
9. For discussion of the responsibility of readers, or users, of the various
Wittgenstein materials, see Pichler 2004 and Pichler 2021a.
10. Readers of the various contributions to this volume will gain a more nuanced
and precise idea of this aspect of Rhees’s editorial profile, and of all further
suggestions and claims about the views of the editors and their work made in
this Introduction.
11. One example of how the issue pointed to here has played a role in scholarly
debates is the discussion of the relevance of Wittgenstein’s use of the expression
‘he who understands me’, not the expression ‘he who understands my work’, in
remark 6.54 in the Tractatus. See Conant 2000 and 2002 and also the Preface
to the PI.
12. This is reported by von Wright, in von Wright 1993c: 152, and by Rhees in a
letter to Mr. Stonborough, 8 April 1973 (WWA Wri-FC-005).
13. The chapters by Hertzberg, Solin, Backström, Österman, Westergaard, Jakola
and Wallgren in this volume (chapters 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12) are all relevant
for how Rhees and von Wright as Wittgenstein editors dealt with the life/work
question. That Anscombe too was sensitive to this issue is emphasized especially
in Richter’s contribution (chapter 3 in this volume).
14. Updated versions of the von Wright catalogue have been published in von
Wright 1982c: 42-49 and in BEE. See also the additional information to the
von Wright catalogue in Wittgenstein 1993 and Wittgenstein 2003. The von
Wright catalogue is also the basis for the scope and structure of BEE and for the
web resource wittgensteinsource.org. In 1997 von Wright included the copies
he had of lecture notes taken by people attending Wittgenstein’s classes and of
copies of Wittgenstein’s correspondence in his catalogue of Wittgenstein
materials kept with the Department of Philosophy, Helsinki University. The
1997 version of von Wright’s catalogue is available at https://www2.helsinki.fi/
sites/default/files/atoms/files/wittgensteinmaterials.pdf
15. See Backström’s discussion of the coded remarks in his contribution to the
present volume (chapter 7).
16. For information about Wittgenstein’s lectures and publications based on them
see Klagge 2019 and Pichler, Biggs and Uffelmann 2019.
17. The most noteworthy cases are the books published as McGuinness (ed.) 1984
and Gibson and O’Mahony (2020).
18. Malcolm 1958, Drury 1981 and Bouwsma 1986 are some of the most extensive
reports from conversations. Flowers and Ground (eds.) 2016 provide a large
collection of further testimonies. See also Wittgenstein 1993, Klagge (ed.) 2001,
Wittgenstein 2003 and Drury 2019. The literary executors also all made
important contributions to this genre. See Rhees (ed.) 1981, Erbacher, C., A.
dos Santos Reis and J. Jung (2019) and von Wright 1958.
19. Page 12 in one of the typescript versions for von Wright’s opening address at
Kirchberg in 1977. The quoted passage is crossed out in the typescript and has
not been published. The typescript is kept at WWA, Wri-SF-065-b.
INTRODUCTION 17

20. The biography of Wittgenstein’s early years by McGuinness (1988), and the
biography by Ray Monk (1990) are examples of works in which narrow
‘academic’ issues concerning the interpretation of particular philosophical
remarks by Wittgenstein and the ‘larger’ issues of the unity of his life and his
philosophical work form one integrated discourse.
21. Rothhaupt and Vossenkuhl (eds.) 2013 open up an interesting perspective on
this large canvas.
22. Emphasis added.
23. Here Hertzberg provides a framework for discussion of a theme that reoccurs
in several later chapters in this volume, especially in chapters 6, 9 and 12.
24. Some of the topics addressed by Österman in his biographical sketch are
discussed in chapters 8, 11 and 12.
25. Erbacher’s review covers all letters between any of the three literary executors
from the time after Wittgenstein’s death in April 1951 to Anscombe’s death in
January 2001. At the National Library of Finland there are at least four letters
from Anscombe to von Wright from the time before this. The number is
uncertain because some letters are without date.
26. This question will gradually emerge as a major focus of interest in the present
volume. See chapters 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
27. Discussion of the first and second issue continues in greater detail but with a
congenial overall thrust in later chapters. The Part II issue is addressed
especially in chapter 12. The compartmentalization issue is discussed in most
chapters but is a major topic in chapters 9 and 10.
28. Westergaard’s contribution thus stands in close dialogue with the portrait of
Rhees in chapter 2 in this volume.
29. Jakola has elsewhere published his detailed reconstruction of von Wright’s
proposal from 1967–68 (Jakola 2021). For discussion of the philosophical
themes also addressed by Jakola, see chapters 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 in this volume.
30. Letter from von Wright to Rhees and Anscombe 18 August 1988 (WWA,
Wri-FC-006.)
18
 PART ONE

Portraits of Wittgenstein’s
Literary Heirs

19
20
 CHAPTER TWO

Rush Rhees: ‘Discussion

is my only medicine’
LARS HERTZBERG

1. LIFE1
Rush Rhees was born in Rochester, New York, in 1905. His father, Rush
Rhees Sr, had been a professor of New Testament interpretation and was
president of Rochester University, which was at the time affiliated with the
Baptist faith. Rush Rhees Jr enrolled in the university in 1922 and took up
philosophy. Two years later, a headline in The New York Times read
‘Radicalism of Rochester President’s Son Causes Professor to Bar Youth from
Class’. Professor George Forbes had dropped Rhees from his class because,
he claimed, Rhees was bent on refuting everything Forbes taught; according
to Forbes he was guilty of shallow thinking and inordinate conceit. Rhees on
his part is supposed to have said: ‘I am radical. Dr Forbes is not. That is why
I am debarred . . . From a Puritan I have revolted into an atheist.’2 (It should
be mentioned that, while Rhees, as far as I know, remained unaffiliated with
any church for the remainder of his life, he later on came to have a deeply
reflective understanding of religious life.) Rush Rhees Sr was abroad at the
time. The clash led to Rhees leaving the university and the United States. It
is my understanding that after this he only returned to his country for a few
short visits, sometimes staying at the family’s cottage in Maine.
From Rochester Rhees went straight to Edinburgh, where he studied with
A. E. Taylor and Norman Kemp Smith. In a letter, Kemp Smith wrote about
Rhees:

21
22 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

He is quite a picture, like the young Shelley, & rather lives up to it – tho’
quite a nice & simple youth – wearing his shirt collar loose and open at
the neck . . . He aspires to be a poet, but conceals this high ambition
under the very thin disguise of journalism.

However, his greatest influence at Edinburgh was John Anderson, who later
went to teach in Australia. (Anderson had a role in the shaping of Australian
realism. Thus, D. M. Armstrong acknowledged that Anderson had had a
formative influence on his thinking.) Anderson, who was an ardent believer in
academic freedom of speech, and who at times was a Trotskyite and an anarchist,
seems to have had a long-lasting influence on Rhees’s political attitudes.3
Rhees went to teach at Manchester for four years, then visited the
University of Innsbruck in order to work on the philosophy of Brentano
with Alfred Kastil. At this time he was particularly interested in the concept
of continuity.
In 1933 Rhees was admitted as a doctoral student at Cambridge. His plan
was to go on with the work on continuity. (He would write an essay on the
topic later on.4) Rhees’s supervisor was G. E. Moore. At the insistence of
Moore, he began attending Wittgenstein’s lectures, at first finding it hard to
make sense of them. However, his doubts gradually vanished, and a friendship
grew between the two philosophers. Christian Erbacher suggests that

Rhees’ intelligent unruliness, his acquaintance with the University of

Manchester—where Wittgenstein had once studied engineering—and his
experiences in Wittgenstein’s homeland Austria may have further
contributed to a mutual sympathy. In any case, three years after their first
encounter, Rhees and Wittgenstein had become discussion partners also
outside class.5

In that same year Rhees wrote, in a statement about his work:

Notwithstanding the opportunities that were furnished to me and the

time I have allowed myself . . . I have succeeded neither in preparing
anything for publication nor in completing a thesis for a Ph.D. Nor can I
say that I see any great likelihood for my doing so.6

This report is indicative both of his strong tendency towards self-criticism –

which after all is not so very uncommon among doctoral candidates in
philosophy – and a much less common ability to be totally upfront about it.
However, it should be noted that at this time aiming for a doctorate was
rather uncommon among those aspiring for an academic career in Britain. A
RUSH RHEES: ‘DISCUSSION IS MY ONLY MEDICINE’ 23

doctorate, it was thought, made for a narrower range of competence,

compared with spending the corresponding time teaching at a university.7
Wittgenstein did not share Rhees’s low opinion of his abilities. In a letter
of recommendation in 1939 he wrote:

I have known Mr. R. Rhees for 4 years; he has attended my lectures on

philosophy and we have had a great many discussions both on philosophical
and general subjects. I have always been strongly impressed by the
great seriousness and intelligence with which he tackles any problem.
Mr. Rhees is an exceptionally kind and helpful man and will spare no
trouble to assist his students.8

In 1938 Wittgenstein asked Rhees to do an English translation of the

Philosophische Untersuchungen (in the shape it had at the time). However,
he did not approve of Rhees’s attempt, actually calling it awful – although he
was at pains to point out that Rhees was a good man and philosopher, and
that translating the text was a very difficult task.9 (Wittgenstein’s reaction
should perhaps be understood as a – somewhat exaggerated – expression of
the shock many writers are liable to feel on seeing their own texts in
translation. I am not aware of any problems in the translation that would
objectively justify Wittgenstein’s dismissal.)
In 1940 Rhees was appointed to a temporary teaching position in Swansea,
having worked for a time as a welder in a factory. Later on the teaching
position was made permanent, and he stayed on at the department as a
lecturer (refusing promotion to a senior lectureship), until he retired in
1966. Chance, it appears, had brought Rhees to Wales, to the country from
which his family name originated.
Wittgenstein enjoyed visiting and having discussions with Rhees in Swansea.
While he was staying in Newcastle during the war, he wrote to Malcolm: ‘I am
feeling rather lonely here & may try to get to some place where I have someone
to talk to. E.g. to Swansea where Rhees is a lecturer in philosophy.’10 After the
war, he would like to escape Cambridge for Swansea.11
Rhees started the Philosophical Society which went on to have weekly
meetings for as long as the Swansea Philosophy Department continued in
existence. He was a powerful source of inspiration for those who came into
contact with him. Rhees had a formative influence on colleagues such as
Peter Winch, Roy Holland, David Cockburn, Ilham Dilman and Howard
Mounce. Cora Diamond spent a year teaching at Swansea, but she tells me
his philosophical importance for her came later. A prominent student of
Rhees’s was D. Z. Phillips, who was to be senior lecturer and then professor
at Swansea from 1967 until his death in 2006.
24 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

On retiring Rhees moved to London, then to Cambridgeshire. During

this period he would have regular discussions with Peter Winch, Norman
Malcolm (his fellow student from his Cambridge years) and Raimond
Gaita. From Cambridgeshire he moved back to Swansea, where he led
post-graduate seminars. He died there in 1989. For Rhees, discussion
was the core of a life in philosophy. During his final illness, he is reported
to have said, ‘Discussion is my only medicine. When that is finished,
so am I.’12
For my own part, I had the fortune of meeting Rush Rhees on a few
occasions in the 1970s and 1980s. To me he was one of those very rare
people whose seriousness and lack of posturing strikes one immediately.
Meeting him had the effect of making me read him in a different spirit: to
discern the absolute earnestness of his searching style.

2. WORK
Rhees was sparing when it came to publishing his own work. A handful of
articles appeared, most of which were brought together in the collection
Discussions of Wittgenstein (1970). Many of them were concerned with
what might be called the philosophy of logic, which is another way of
saying that they contain reflections on philosophical method. There are
essays on the Tractatus, on Wittgenstein’s views on ethics, on Philosophical
Investigations. Rhees was one of the first to question the sharp distinction
that had been drawn between the earlier and the later Wittgenstein. The
essays that have received most attention are ‘Can There Be a Private
Language?’, and ‘Wittgenstein’s Builders’. In the huge discussion about
private language that has taken place since his essay on the topic appeared in
1954, very little has been added to the clarity he achieves there. As for the
essay on the builders, I want to return to that later.13
In 1969, D. Z. Phillips, Rhees’s erstwhile student, then colleague at
Swansea, collected some of Rhees’s unpublished writings in Without Answers.
Most of these papers had not been written for publication, but were part of
an interchange with individual philosophers or for special occasions. Their
themes, roughly, are science and society, moral philosophy, the philosophy
or religion, art and education.
Rhees himself edited the collection Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal
Recollections, with contributions by among others Hermione Wittgenstein,
Fania Pascal, Maurice Drury and a postscript by Rhees himself.
Apart from his own work, Rhees, along with Elizabeth Anscombe and
Georg Henrik von Wright, took an active part in the editing of Wittgenstein’s
Nachlass.14
RUSH RHEES: ‘DISCUSSION IS MY ONLY MEDICINE’ 25

While a large part of Rhees’s time was devoted to the posthumous

publication of Wittgenstein’s work, most of what has appeared of his own
work has been brought out posthumously through the editorship of D. Z.
Phillips. The published Nachlass, seven volumes in all, consists of excerpts
from Rhees’s manuscripts, letters and notes, which Phillips had made in long
hand.15 What apparently inspired Phillips to undertake this Herculean task
– which he completed in a surprisingly short time – was his having discovered
new dimensions of depth in his former teacher’s work, centring around the
concepts ‘growth of understanding’, ‘possibility of discourse’ and ‘unity of
language’. Having completed the edition, Phillips devoted the remaining
years of his life to the attempt to make Rhees’s work more widely known.

3. RHEES AND WITTGENSTEIN

In the English-speaking philosophical establishment, Rush Rhees has come
to be seen as little more than a student and expounder of Ludwig
Wittgenstein’s views. This characterization, however, is far from just: he was
an original thinker in his own right, as is obvious from a careful reading of
what he published, and even more so from the posthumous publications. In
fact, the relation between his thought and that of Wittgenstein would merit
careful scrutiny.
There are, I believe, several reasons for the neglect of Rhees’s own
philosophy. Apart from the dearth of publications in his own name, much of
which consists in editorial comments or discussions of Wittgenstein’s life and
his philosophy, Rhees seemed to have little concern with his own fame. He
felt no need to underscore his own originality, and he was anxious to
acknowledge his indebtedness, such as it was, to Wittgenstein. But
independently of that, there was a genuine affinity in philosophical outlook
between Wittgenstein and Rhees, as shown both in their style of doing
philosophy and in their view of the philosopher’s task. Rhees seems not to
have fit the conventional mould of academic philosopher any better than
Wittgenstein did, as shown, for instance, by his unwillingness or inability to
play the game of self-promotion. They both rejected the widely received idea
of philosophy as the testing ground of various philosophical theories: realism
vs idealism, materialism vs dualism, etc.; they shared the view that committing
oneself to one or the other of these abstract labels had little to do with
thinking seriously about the issues. Both of them exerted their influence,
above all, through personal interaction with students and colleagues; this
was connected with the fact that their influence, by all accounts, was not
limited to a purely intellectual sphere, but was to a large extent what might
be called ethical or existential. They shared the idea that, rather than
26 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

cleverness, what philosophy requires is the strength to overcome one’s

predilections concerning the way the problems of philosophy are to be
understood.
Much of Rhees’s writings is quite unlike Wittgenstein’s in its form of
address. While Rhees is responding to someone else’s remarks, Wittgenstein’s
starting point is his own intellectual temptations. Even when his notes are
inspired by reading or talking about some thinker (St Augustine, Goethe,
Frege, Freud, Moore, Russell), that thinker soon recedes to the background.
Though Wittgenstein’s notes were not intended as contributions to current
debate in philosophy, neither were they written for particular persons;
rather, one might say, they were aimed at a timeless audience. Wittgenstein
may not have aspired to fame; his feelings on that score were probably
divided. In any case it is obvious that he was not indifferent to the sort of
impact his work would have on the course of philosophy. This is clear from
some of the reflections that have been assembled in Culture and Value.16
This is connected with another difference between their writings:
Wittgenstein seems to have made a clear separation between two sorts of
question: on the one hand, the (shall we say?) timeless and impersonal
philosophical questions that are the subject matter not only of the Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus, but also (though in a radically different form) of
Philosophical Investigations; and, on the other hand, what might be labelled
questions of ‘culture and value’: questions engaging his individual existence
or provoked by his times, e.g. matters of art and aesthetics, religion, ethics,
psychoanalysis or anthropology. While there are plenty of discussions of
such topics both in his notebooks and in his lectures, no reference is made to
any of them in the selection which forms the basis of Philosophical
Investigations. With Rhees the situation is different.17
This brings us to some points of style and method. Wittgenstein’s aim in
Philosophical Investigations is to elicit the active cooperation of the reader.
Many remarks are like a tool kit: they often contain suggestions for thought-
experiments, exercises to be carried out by the reader, or small bits of
dialogue, in which the reader must learn to distinguish between the voice
expressing the view of the writer’s alter ego still in the grips of misleading
pictures, or misunderstanding the other party’s responses, and that of the
writer himself, trying to disentangle the confusions.
Rhees’s rhetoric is very different from Wittgenstein’s, though quite as
distinctive. Or maybe it is better characterized as an absence of rhetoric: he
does not use striking simile, formulates no epigrams. The flow in his texts is
much more even than that of Wittgenstein: like that of an even breath (at the
same time, his use of English has a tinge of eccentricity). Rhees often proceeds
by marking off the matter under discussion – this might be language,
RUSH RHEES: ‘DISCUSSION IS MY ONLY MEDICINE’ 27

conversation, faith in God, etc. – by alternately pointing out how it differs

from things with which we might be tempted to assimilate it, and, on the
other hand, how it resembles things with which we are not used to comparing
it. The differences between their philosophical temperaments is visible even
on a typographical level: Wittgenstein’s texts are made up of distinct remarks,
often connected with quick shifts of temper and rhythm (sometimes moving
from one genre to another), as against the continuous tread of Rhees’s
writing.
In Rhees’s texts there is a stronger sense of the author’s presence; this is
undoubtedly connected with the way in which they came about. Wittgenstein,
for the most part, is making us see how bewildering something may seem,
rather than expressing his own bewilderment. In most cases, the reason he
asks the questions he asks is not that he does not know the answer to them,
rather, he is drawing attention to them as questions, in order to show, for
instance, that they are pointless or ambiguous. In Rhees’s writing, on the
other hand, the struggle seems to be present in the text itself. With Rhees,
much more than with Wittgenstein, one is witnessing philosophy growing
out of his own everyday experiences and encounters. (I am not suggesting
that one form of writing is more valuable than the other.)
Perhaps one difference in their style could be summed up by saying that
in Wittgenstein the second person is continually present, whereas in Rhees it
is the first person. Your troubles vs mine.

4. ‘WITTGENSTEIN’S BUILDERS’18
Rhees was not only an interpreter but, in a sense, also a critic of Wittgenstein.
It is true that Wittgenstein’s thought was the fertile ground from which
Rhees’s thinking grew, and in fact, calling him a critic of Wittgenstein might
easily lead to misunderstanding. In most other cases, the critique of
Wittgenstein has been driven by a desire to counteract his influence in
philosophy. Rhees’s attitude is the opposite of this. He considered
Wittgenstein’s influence in philosophy to be a salutary one, indeed, the most
important contribution to philosophy in the twentieth century; at the same
time, he thought, Wittgenstein on some points was liable to oversimplify
matters, and hence his thoughts were in need of modification.
This concerns, above all, Wittgenstein’s use of the notion of a language-
game. In his discussion of the Augustinian picture of language, Wittgenstein
suggests that the builders’ game, i.e. an Augustinian language suitably
amended, might be the whole language of a tribe; he also claims that all of
human language could be thought of as simply consisting of a range of
different language-games. Rhees finds these ideas problematic. What is
28 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

missing in the game perspective on language is the way speaking is connected

with life. Rhees reflected deeply on what is involved in the game metaphor
in a way that many other readers of Wittgenstein have not: this primarily
concerned the contrast between playing a game and really doing something
– really meaning what one says. In what follows, I shall give an outline of
Rhees’s critique of the language-game metaphor. After that, I shall make an
attempt to understand how Rhees thought about the connections between
speaking and life. I will suggest that one can distinguish between what might
be called an anthropological and an ethical strand in his thinking, and will
raise the question how these are related to one another.
Consider the landscape into which Wittgenstein introduced the concept
of a language-game. Starting earlier, but culminating around the turn of the
previous century, there had been a shift in philosophers’ focus, within the
Anglo-American tradition, from thoughts or judgements to sentences or
propositions. This shift has been characterized as a rejection of what came to
be called psychologism – a conception of meaning as a matter of the mental
contents associated with speaking or hearing words spoken – in favour of a
perspective on language as a logical structure. A basic assumption was that
a judgement could, ideally, be identified on the basis of the composition of a
sentence expressing the judgement. In principle, if not always in practice, it
was thought, one could determine the logical properties of a judgement on
the basis of the composition of the sentence expressing it. The sense was, as
it were, packaged into the sequence of words (sounds or marks) of which the
sentence consisted.
This perspective on language offered an excuse for not looking at what
speakers are actually doing when they utter words in specific contexts, since
what is expressed is taken to be laid down in the form of words itself. It
encouraged what I should like to call a spirit of apriorism: the feeling that
we can survey the possible uses of a word or sentence by simply contemplating
it, in a vacuum as it were. This inclination was what Wittgenstein was trying
to battle. (‘Don’t think but look’, he says in discussing the meanings of the
word ‘game’. PI 2009, § 66.) Against the fixation on words and sentences, he
introduced the notion that in order to get at the sense of what someone is
saying we need to be clear about its role in a larger context, in what he called
a language-game. It is only as used in a context that a sentence can be said to
possess a distinct form. This, it should be clear, is not a return to psychologism.
For instance, the way a person’s words are to be taken is a matter that may
be debated; it is not fixed, say, by the contents of her mind at the moment of
speaking.
Rhees, on his part, considered the holistic perspective developed by
Wittgenstein an unqualified advance in our thinking about what it is to
RUSH RHEES: ‘DISCUSSION IS MY ONLY MEDICINE’ 29

speak. However, in Rhees’s view Wittgenstein did not go far enough in his
holism. According to Rhees, the fragmentation in the view of language
evident in the emphasis on sentences (propositions) was to some degree
preserved in the idea of language being made up of a range of independent
language-games. This conception led to a schematic view of the relation
between different uses of language: in fact, to a new apriorism (this term is
not used by Rhees). Against this, Rhees emphasized the way things said are
bound up with the relations between speakers, within the context of a life
lived with language. As Rhees puts it:

When [someone] makes the move in chess he is not telling me anything.

And if I understand what he is telling me, it is not just like understanding
the sort of moves he is making: knowing the rules or the uses of the
expressions he is ‘moving’. There is much more of a background of
common understanding than that . . . In understanding one another, there
are other standards than simply those of what is grammatically correct;
standards such as good faith, and so on, come in here as well. And more
is taken for granted than is held in grammar books and dictionaries. You
have to learn the way people speak. 19

Comparing speaking to a game might encourage us to consider simply the

behaviour: the uttering of certain sounds, in conjunction with the immediate
context. Rhees is telling us to look beyond this. But what is this larger context
that is relevant? In fact Rhees’s discussion might be thought to point in two
different directions: to what might be called the ‘having something to say’
theme (or ‘the place in life’ theme) on the one hand, and the ‘remarks
hanging together’ theme on the other hand.

5. ‘THE UNITY OF LANGUAGE’

Rhees sometimes speaks about sharing a language, speaking the same
language, but it is important not to give this idea the wrong emphasis. We
might be tempted to put the focus on what distinguishes some cases of
speaking (say, cases of speaking English or cases of playing this language-
game) from others (say, those of speaking Swedish or playing another
language-game), whereas what Rhees was concerned with was the way
speakers’ words are connected. (It might be said that the notion of languages
as delimited from one another has no role here.) Central notions here are
those of ‘a common understanding’, a shared view of ‘what makes sense,
what can be understood, what it is possible to say, what one might try to say’
(WPD, p. 193).
30 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Now, spelling out what Rhees means by the unity of language is no simple
matter. He makes it clear that he is not speaking about a common (logical)
system underlying all the different things we say, the way pure mathematics
underlies all the different applications of mathematics (ibid.). The unity of
language is not a formal unity in the sense of formal logic.20 In fact, I believe
he would have argued, making the unity of language a matter of deductive
relations would be a case of putting the cart before the horse: it is only
because of the way things said are interrelated in people’s lives that we can
speak of utterances standing in deductive relations. How what I say in this
situation is taken up is shown in how others go on with it. The dependence
is shown in people’s lives with language, it is not something that can be
ascertained from outside.
As the matter is put in David Cockburn’s illuminating discussion of
Rhees’s thoughts about the unity of language:

Rhees writes: “Philosophy is concerned with the intelligibility of language,

or the possibility of understanding. And in that way it is concerned with
the possibility of discourse.” It is, I think, important to be clear what
Rhees does not mean by this. His suggestion is not that philosophy is
concerned with “the conditions of the possibility of discourse”. We are
tempted to think that one of the aims of philosophy is to investigate
something – the nature of language perhaps – on which our speaking with
each other depends. Many philosophers have seen their task in that way;
and many – perhaps including Rhees – have taken this to be one of
Wittgenstein’s concerns. Rhees’s opposition to this view of philosophy is
seen in remarks such as the following: “The language – what you
understand when you understand the language – is not something apart
from understanding people and speaking with them. Something which
makes that possible”. Sharing a language with another is not what makes
discussion between us possible. Sharing a language with another is nothing
other than being able to speak with her.21

For Rhees, then, philosophy’s concern is with the question, not how language
is possible, but what it means for there to be language. What we say does not
make sense because it belongs to the language, rather speaking a language
simply consists in being able to make oneself understood by means of words.
‘The unity of language’ is not to be regarded as a well-defined technical
term. It is rather a way of gesturing towards certain aspects of our life with
language, how the different things we say hang together and bear on one
another, something that a preoccupation with language-games tends to make
us overlook. Rhees, we might say, is trying to restore the balance upset by
RUSH RHEES: ‘DISCUSSION IS MY ONLY MEDICINE’ 31

Wittgenstein’s critique of the philosophical idea of language as a formal

unity; a critique which led Wittgenstein’s readers to suppose that he thought
of language as fragmented into a range of watertight compartments. What
Wittgenstein did emphasize, however, was the different things speaking can
be – an emphasis that Rhees would endorse.
I should like to quote a passage from a note written by Rhees in July
1958, in which a number of the themes that recur in these notes are
brought up:

Perhaps at this point one would have to bring in the matter of the various
standards that are relevant to discourse between people; which makes it
possible for them to understand one another. It is always important that
we may use the same language in pretence or deceit. Genuineness and
deceit. The possibility of this distinction belongs to what we mean by
speaking: saying something, telling one something.22

Rhees keeps coming back to the point that the language-game metaphor
encourages us to think of acquiring language as a matter of acquiring a skill
or a technique. This is connected with Wittgenstein’s emphasis, especially in
the early parts of the Philosophical Investigations, on the central role of drill
in the acquisition of language, apparent in the remarks on ostensive definition
in connection with the discussion of Augustine, in the discussion of rule-
following, in the discussion of knowing how to continue a number series.
The issue in these sequences of remarks turns on the central role of reaching
conformity in our judgements.
Rhees suggests that Wittgenstein tended to model his thinking about
language too much on mathematics. He may well be right about this.
Wittgenstein had of course to some extent been moulded by the inheritance
of logicism.23 It could be suggested that in mathematics the signs used are
internal to what is being said. Or differently put, to regard something as a
mathematical expression is already to consider it as being used in a particular
type of context. In thinking about mathematics, the emphasis in connection
with learning will be on gaining mastery of the signs to be used, the criterion
of mastery being conformity with one’s community; the speaker’s relation to
the signs she produces will not be important. What tends to be left out in the
account Rhees attributes to Wittgenstein is the importance, in learning to
speak, of the speaker’s coming to express herself. (This critique, I believe,
applies in particular to the early part of the Philosophical Investigations,
maybe up to and including § 242.)
Rhees found it particularly important to emphasize the ability to take part
in conversation with others. In order to carry on a conversation one would
32 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

have to have an understanding of the people one is talking to and the things
one is talking about, one would have to see the point of remarks made.
Rhees discusses this issue in some notes from September 1957:

Understanding the remark he is making is not simply a question of

knowing English. It is a question of finding that he is saying something
intelligible; that he is saying something sensible. And what do you have to
know, in order to see that? . . . It does not do to say that you have to learn
the language . . ., if that means that you have to acquire a kind of
equipment.24

As for finding that the other is ‘saying something sensible’: what does this
amount to? I guess what Rhees has in mind here is that we must have some
idea of how uttering these words in these circumstances might be an
expression of this speaker: if we have no idea of what the speaker is
expressing, of what sense it makes for her to utter those words in that
situation, we would have no sense of the speaker having said something,
whether or not it had the ring of an English sentence.
In this connection, Rhees talks about ‘the growth of understanding’. This
notion, according to Rhees, was central to Plato, and it was something the
sophists questioned. He wrote (in May–June 1957):

If you understand anything in language, you must understand what

dialogue is, and you must see how understanding grows as the dialogue
grows. How understanding the language grows. For the language is
discourse, is speaking. It is telling people things and trying to follow
them . . .
You understand what is said when you learn from it, not otherwise – or
not fully anyway.25

‘Learning from it’ must involve more than simply receiving information. It
may involve things like discovering alternative ways of seeing things, where
this may be a way of learning about the world and at the same time learning
about other people.
What we have been discussing so far are what might be called the
anthropological aspects of speaking and intelligibility. However, for Rhees,
these issues evidently also had a moral dimension. This is connected with the
centrality of the distinction between the genuine and the deceitful.
In Rhees’s view, Plato’s critique of the sophists has bearing on this issue.
According to the sophists, to speak intelligibly is to speak effectively (WPD
p. 24). I succeed in making myself understood if I succeed in getting my
RUSH RHEES: ‘DISCUSSION IS MY ONLY MEDICINE’ 33

interlocutor where I want her; if I am able the get her to agree with whatever
it is I want her to agree with. Since effects are what matters to the sophists,
they have no use for the distinction between the genuine and the deceitful.
Accordingly, the image of language as a collection of games or a toolbox
would have been adequate for their view of what it is to speak. Plato, on the
other hand, says Rhees,

thought it particularly important to be able to recognize discourse: to be

able to recognize when something is being said, and to tell the difference
between this and the imitations that were offered by the rhetoricians and
the sophists . . . here the point is that there must be a distinction between
what is real understanding and what passes for understanding.26

We are now moving on ground that is markedly different from the

anthropological reaches of Philosophical Investigations. How are we to
understand the discussion about the sophists? What are they to us?
Obviously, the reason Rhees finds it important to reflect on the sophists is
that in his view the sophist is someone who lurks in each one of us. The
word ‘sophist’ marks a certain kind of moral temptation that besets our
attempts at conversation. Sophistry is a guard against an openness we find
counterproductive or embarrassing, though unlike the professional sophists
we are liable to do so without acknowledging it even to ourselves.
Conversations often fail because we yield to self-deception. On this reading,
when Rhees criticizes the sophists he is challenging us to keep our
conversations genuine, to keep them such as to contribute, if possible, to a
growth of understanding on the part of the participants, rather than resort
to strategies like flattery or obfuscation. We should refrain from thinking of
speaking as similar to playing a game, on the one hand because this view is
philosophically limiting, but on the other hand also because our own
conversations will suffer if we do. What would need spelling out is how the
ethical unity Rhees is speaking about here is related to the connectedness
between remarks in a conversation that we were discussing earlier. That is a
task that I am not able to undertake in the present context.
For all their differences, there was a close temperamental affinity between
Wittgenstein and Rhees, closer, I think it can be said, than that between
Wittgenstein and his other literary executors, Anscombe and von Wright.
The interaction between Wittgenstein and Rhees came to form a vigorous
source of philosophical regeneration, succeeding, at least for a time, in giving
some of its saltiness back to English-speaking philosophy. What their
influence will be in the long run is hard to predict. At present, that influence
seems largely to be in abeyance.27
34 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

NOTES
1. This section is largely based on D. Z. Phillips’s introduction to Rush Rhees on
Religion and Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. xi–xxii.
2. See http://www.campustimes.org/2016/03/24/when-rush-rhees-son-dropped-
out/. Accessed on 31 December 2019.
3. For a discussion between Wittgenstein and Rhees, in which Wittgenstein is
trying to talk Rhees out of joining a Trotskyite party, see Rush Rhees ‘Postscript’
in Rhees (ed.), Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal Recollections (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1981), pp. 229 f.
4. ‘On Continuity: Wittgenstein’s Ideas, 1938’, in his collection Discussions of
Wittgenstein (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970), pp. 104–157.
5. Christian Erbacher, ‘Wittgenstein and His Literary Executors’, Journal for the
History of Analytical Philosophy, Volume 4, Number 3 (2016), p. 4.
6. Phillips, ‘Introduction’, p. xv.
7. On this, see Cora Diamond, ‘Reflections of a Dinosaur’, in Proceedings and
Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Volume 93, November
2019, pp. 87–104. Diamond points out that at one time the British D.Phil. ‘was
a degree largely for Americans’. This might explain why Rhees took the unusual
step of enrolling for a doctorate.
8. Wittgenstein: Gesamtbriefwechsel/Complete Correspondence: Innsbrucker
Electronic Edition, second edition, ed. Brian McGuinness et al. Innsbruck:
Intelex. Quoted in Phillips, op. cit., p. xvii.
9. Erbacher, op.cit., p. 8. For the translation, see http://www.wittgensteinsource.org/
10. Quoted in Wittgenstein, Ludwig and Rush Rhees, 2015. ‘Wittgenstein’s
Philosophical Conversations with Rush Rhees (1939–50): From the Notes of
Rush Rhees’, edited by G. Citron. Mind 142 (2015), pp. 1–71.
11. Phillips, op.cit., p. xix, Citron, op.cit.
12. Phillips, op.cit., p. xx.
13. For an (incomplete) bibliography of Rhees’s life-time publications, see the
memorial volume Wittgenstein: Attention to Particulars – Essays in Honour of
Rush Rhees, ed. by D. Z. Phillips and Peter Winch (Basingstoke and London:
Macmillan, 1989), pp. 200 f.
14. On Rhees as editor of Wittgenstein’s Nachlass, see the contributions to the
present volume by Solin, Westergaard and Jakola.
15. These are On Religion and Philosophy (1997), Wittgenstein and the Possibility of
Discourse (1998; 2nd edition 2006), Moral Questions (1998), Discussions of Simone
Weil (1998), Wittgenstein’s ‘On Certainty’ (2003), In Dialogue with the Greeks,
Volume I: The Presocratics and Reality (2004) Volume II: Plato and Dialectic (2004).
16. For instance:
Is it just I who cannot found a school, or can a philosopher never do so? I
cannot found a school, because I actually want not to be imitated. In any case
not by those who publish articles in philosophical journals.
—CV 1998
RUSH RHEES: ‘DISCUSSION IS MY ONLY MEDICINE’ 35

17. Cp Bernt Österman’s discussion of von Wright’s editing of Culture and Value
and Peter Westergaard’s discussion of Rhees as editor of Wittgenstein’s
‘Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough’ in their contributions to this volume.
18. The following section largely draws on two earlier papers of mine: ‘Rush Rhees
on Philosophy and Religious Discourse’ (Faith and Philosophy 18 (2001)), pp.
431–442, and ‘Rhees on the Unity of Language’ (Philosophical Investigations 33
(2012), pp. 224–237).
19. Wittgenstein and the Possibility of Discourse, 1st edn, p. 62. First italics mine.
This work will henceforth be referred to as WPD.
20. WPD, p. 193 and pp. 245 f.
21. David Cockburn, ‘Rush Rhees: The Reality of Discourse’, in John Edelman
(ed.), Sense and Reality: Essays out of Swansea, Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag,
2009, pp. 1–22. The quotation is from pp. 1f. (The Rhees quotations are from
WPD, p. 32 and p. 277.)
22. WPD p. 263 f.
23. On the contrast between speaking and the mathematical use of expressions, see
Rhees, ‘Continuity: on Wittgenstein’s Ideas, 1938’, op. cit.
24. WPD pp. 206 f.
25. WPD p. 27.
26. WPD p. 258; August 1958.
27. I wish to thank David Cockburn and Thomas Wallgren for useful comments on
this essay.
36
 CHAPTER THREE

A Portrait of
Elizabeth Anscombe
DUNCAN RICHTER

Three pictures of Anscombe are dominant. In one she is a scary kook, in

another she is a champion of Roman Catholicism, and the third has Anscombe
as a feminist. There is something to each of these, but even adding all three
together might well miss something, most obviously the value of her work as
a contribution not only to Catholic thinking but to philosophy in general.
Starting with these three aspects of her identity I will try to present a fuller
picture of her and her work.
In his biography of Iris Murdoch Peter J. Conradi gives a striking
description of Anscombe:

Fair without being blonde, of fine profile, broad noble brow and
extraordinary stamina, Anscombe was both poor and unselfconscious
enough to collect cigarette stubs from the gutter, and appears in Iris’s
journals being pilloried for wearing trousers at early Mass, living at 27
St John’s Street in a squalor that Iris, tolerant in such matters, finds
noteworthy, and getting arrested for wandering about with her hair down
at 5 a.m., then refusing to give her name to the police.
—Conradi 2001: 283–284

There is clear evidence of Anscombe’s eccentricity here, but it is mostly

explained by her poverty and her willingness to stick up for herself. Why

37
38 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

should she have to give her name to the police if her only crime is being
outside early in the morning with her hair down? Much of her odd behaviour
involves sticking up for herself. She once talked a man in Chicago out of
mugging her by getting him to see that she was a guest in his city, and
there is a famous story of her, upon being refused entry into a restaurant
because she was wearing trousers, simply taking them off.1 Since Anscombe
often wore a tunic this might have worked as a kind of dress even if
she removed her trousers, but no doubt it would have been a shock to see
her undressing in this way. These stories are funny, but they also show
courage and the imagination to look for, and find, a good alternative
when faced with a seemingly no-win dilemma. This is exactly what she
thought was lacking in people who wanted to bomb civilians during the
Second World War, so her rejection of apparent dilemmas is both a feature
of her character and an idea that found its way into her thinking about
ethics.
Another story bears closer inspection too. In her obituary of Anscombe
for the Guardian, Jane O’Grady reports that:

She chain-smoked for some years, but bargained with God, when her
second son was seriously ill, that she would give up smoking cigarettes if
he recovered. Feeling the strain of this the following year, she decided
that her bargain had not mentioned cigars or pipes, and took to smoking
these.
—O’Grady 2001

Anscombe’s cigar-smoking is a key part of the picture of her as an eccentric,

but consider the circumstances in which she made this bargain with God.
There is nothing funny about them at all. The (supposedly) comical image of
a woman smoking cigars is the result of a woman with a commitment to
keeping her word facing serious stress, including the stress of having a child
close to death.
That said, it is true that Anscombe was both scary and kooky. Anthony
Kenny’s friendship with her ended abruptly in 1965 when he told her that
he intended to get married despite having taken an oath of celibacy when he
became a priest. He was no longer a priest, but in the eyes of the Church the
oath still applied. Anscombe was not sympathetic, telling him that, ‘Our
greatest wish for you must be that you will be desperately unhappy in your
marriage’ (Kenny 2019: 7). Before their friendship fell apart, Anscombe’s
unconventional side showed itself as, Kenny remembers, he would sometimes
take a bath at her house and she would sit on the edge to discuss philosophy
with him (see Kenny 2019: 6).
A PORTRAIT OF ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE 39

The second, Catholic hero, picture is closer to the truth, but a partial
picture at best, and one that invites misunderstanding. She ‘read her way
into the Catholic faith’ although her parents were against her growing wish
to be a Catholic (Haldane 2019b: 6). Because of her parents’ opposition, she
did not join the Church until her first year at Oxford. Her father was a
soldier, a scientist, and an atheist. Her mother, after whom she was named,
was a classics teacher and more religious, albeit only slightly so. Anscombe
studied classics and philosophy, became very religious, and spoke out against
unjustified military aggression. She was also against scientism. It seems
therefore that she took more after her mother than her father.
So far as she had an ideology it would have been Catholicism, but this is
not to suggest that she ever distorted anything or was less than fully honest
in order to advance a Catholic agenda. Her daughter Mary Geach says,
‘When giving me an account of a debate of hers with a noted Christian
apologist, she had told me that bad arguments for the truth should be refuted’
(Geach and Gormally 2011: 10–11). Part of her rejection of consequentialism
involves the refusal to do bad in order that good may come, and this includes
deliberately promoting faulty reasoning.
This does not mean that her religion had no influence on her philosophy.
Her Catholicism may have meant that she read things, such as the work of
Aquinas, that most of her contemporaries were not reading. She also seems
to have found at least something of value in this work. In ‘Necessity and
Truth’, she writes that:

We are nowadays in some ways closer to the ancient [sic] and the medievals
than we are to, say, Kant and Hegel. There are doubtless many points
which go together to form this situation: but if the reviewer [i.e. Anscombe]
were challenged to name what most strikes him he would point to the
eclipse in recent philosophy of the notion of “the given” and the manner
of the current gradual redeparture from atomistic conceptions. Asked
what was given, a present-day English speaking philosopher would be
very likely to say ‘the lot’. We start mediis in rebus; our philosophic
activity is one of describing and clarifying this milieu to ourselves.
—Anscombe 1981a: 84

Mary Geach writes that she once asked Anscombe whether she or Peter
Geach (Mary’s father) was the better philosopher. Anscombe replied ‘that he
had the more powerful intellect, but that she had the greater ability to see
about and around a problem’. (Geach and Gormally 2011: 18). Whatever
we make of the accuracy of this assessment, I think it fair to say that
Anscombe believed that in philosophy it is important to look about and
40 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

around problems. In this way, from the midst of an issue, we can clarify and
describe where we are.
She certainly was a Catholic, but she was also a Wittgensteinian and an
individual with a mind of her own. It is potentially misleading, therefore,
when Candace Vogler writes that it seemed to her, when she read Intention,
that ‘there was a ghost writer at work in that slender volume’ (Vogler 2019).
The alleged ghost writer in question is Aquinas. Mary Geach notes that
Anscombe said she did not like to bring up Aquinas’ name because doing so
tended to make one sort of person (Catholics, presumably) uncritically
accepting of whatever was attributed to him and another sort (non-Catholics)
uncritically dismissive of it (see Geach and Gormally 2011: 17). ‘Anscombe
drew upon [Aquinas’] thought to an unknowable extent,’ Mary Geach tells
us, but she did not write a lot about him, even in her unpublished papers
(Geach and Gormally 2011: 8).
Her correspondence with G.H. von Wright suggests sources other than
Aquinas for her work on intention. Anscombe says that ‘The notion of
“practical knowledge” can only be understood if we first understand
“practical reasoning”,’ which, she says, means the same thing as ‘practical
syllogism’ (Anscombe 1957: 57). In a letter to von Wright dated only
‘Thursday’ (apparently from 1954, not long before Easter) she says that her
interest in practical syllogism comes from three things: reading the PI,
especially §611 and the following passages on willing and doing, with a
small group of people in Oxford; reading the Nicomachean Ethics because
of her teaching duties; and her husband’s reasoning in an Aristotelian manner
while taking medicine. Given the difficulty that people have had in
understanding Intention I think it is worth quoting from this letter extensively.
Here is the relevant part:

I spent some of this last term discussing the Investigations with a small group
of people here [i.e. Oxford], and in the end we got to the discussion of ‘Tun’
and ‘wollen’. (611+) This – together oddly enough with my reading
Aristotle’s Ethica Nicomachea for teaching purposes – has got me on to a –
to me – very interesting line about ‘how does one know what one is doing?’
– when e.g. one is writing a letter. I have been writing about it and even
think I might go so far as to publish. I want to say that I know what I do as
I know what I say. That is, not from the facts at all. The connexion with
Aristotle is this: he says – and it always puzzled me very much – that the
good of practical reasoning is ‘truth in agreement with right appetition’. I
now understand this. “p, and q – so I do (or will do) R.” Of course this last
isn’t made true by the considerations leading to it, it is made true by my
doing whatever it is. The idea of some kind of desirableness modifying a
A PORTRAIT OF ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE 41

concept of truth seemed so extraordinarily odd; and would be odd if – as

one tends to suppose in advance – the truth in question is something shewn
to the intelligence that arrives at it. Peter [Geach] said to me the other day “I
am a big man, and I need a big dose, so I’ll take two tablespoons (doing so);
do you know, my father used to reason like that?” We were of course not
talking about philosophy at the time at all. It finally revealed to me what
Aristotle meant by the “practical syllogism.”2

Geach, like Anscombe, had read a lot of Aquinas, so it is not wrong to

suspect that Aquinas’ work influenced Anscombe’s thinking on intention.
Indeed, Benjamin Lipscomb quotes a letter to Philippa Foot in which
Anscombe writes that, ‘It might be useful to refer to Intention p. 65 . . . to
elucidate St. Thos. use of ‘material object’ . . . or to use St. Thos. to elucidate
me!’ (Lipscomb 2021: 299, note 39). But the main influences on Intention,
Anscombe’s letter suggests, were Wittgenstein, Aristotle and Geach.
It can be hard to pinpoint the ways in which Aquinas influenced
Anscombe’s work. The importance of Christianity in her thinking, however,
is self-evident. In her essay on ‘War and Murder’ she writes that, ‘The truth
about Christianity is that it is a severe and practicable religion, not a
beautifully ideal but impracticable one’ (Anscombe 1981c: 56). She lived her
faith accordingly. Late in her life she was arrested while protesting outside an
abortion clinic in Stockport, which shows that her opposition to abortion
was practical as well as philosophical.3 She also opposed homosexuality,
which could have complicated her relationship with Wittgenstein. When W.
W. Bartley’s book appeared, in which Wittgenstein was said not only to have
been gay but to have been very actively and casually so, Anscombe was
‘enraged’ and refused to believe it (Murdoch 2016: 426). ‘If by pressing a
button it could have been secured that people would not concern themselves
with his [i.e. Wittgenstein’s] personal life I should have pressed the button,’
she wrote to Paul Engelmann (Monk 1990: 583) Denis Paul gives evidence
of the lengths to which Anscombe could go:

I was present when Elizabeth Anscombe burnt a section of a few lines

from a late manuscript book after obtaining a photograph of the other
side of the leaf so that it would not suffer similarly. She said that this burnt
passage referred to someone who was still alive and so felt herself entitled
to destroy it.
—Paul 2007: 13

Monk also says, however, that, having feared that Wittgenstein’s literary
executors would not cooperate with his project of writing a biography of
42 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Wittgenstein, he found ‘the exact opposite’ to be the case (Monk 1990: xi).
All three were ‘exceptionally kind, co-operative and helpful’ (Monk 1990:
xi), and he thanks Anscombe especially for meeting with him several times
and for letting him see Francis Skinner’s letters to Wittgenstein.
The third common image of Anscombe that I mentioned above is
Anscombe as a kind of feminist. When she objected to the proposed awarding
of an honorary degree to President Truman, the male dons at St John’s
College were told that ‘the women’ were ‘up to something’ and mobilized to
defeat her (Anscombe 1957: 65). The women in question certainly included
Anscombe and probably Philippa Foot. Of her Oxford colleagues, the only
one ‘with whom she was entirely comfortable,’ according to Kenny, was
Foot, despite Foot’s atheism (Haldane 2019a: 17).
Foot, Murdoch and Mary Midgley were undergraduates at Somerville
College, Anscombe at St Hugh’s. Although in different years – Anscombe
matriculated in 1937, Murdoch and Midgley in 1938, and Foot in
1939 – they became friends. The balance between the sexes at Oxford
shifted in their favour with the start of the Second World War, especially
from May 1940, when men started to enlist or be conscripted, and then
even more when the age of conscription was lowered, in 1941, to nineteen
(see MacCumhaill and Wiseman 2018). The war also meant that many of
the younger members of the faculty were unavailable to teach, so the
education Anscombe and her friends received was somewhat old fashioned.
Her tutors included Donald MacKinnon, remembered more as a theologian
than as a philosopher, and Fr. Victor White, OP, whose instruction she
specially requested (Berkman 2021: 709). She studied Literae Humaniores,
also known as Greats, which is mostly classics (Ancient Greek and
Roman language, literature, history and philosophy) but includes modern
philosophy as well. Anscombe’s interest in Aquinas and her reading
Greats (unlike Foot, for instance, who read the more modern Philosophy,
Politics and Economics) probably made her even less inclined towards
then current trends such as logical positivism and the moral philosophy of
R. M. Hare.
After they graduated, Anscombe, Foot, Murdoch and Midgley continued
to meet in order to discuss philosophy. Murdoch said that Anscombe’s
‘ruthless authenticity’ made her ‘feel more & more ashamed of the vague
self-indulgent way in which [she had] been philosophizing’ (Conradi 2001:
266). Murdoch also refers to Anscombe as ‘an old friend-foe of mine’ in a
letter to Raymond Queneau (dated 12 August 1959, in Horner and Rowe
2016: 200). The four women formed a sort of quartet, with Anscombe’s
religiously inflected moral seriousness creating a certain tension, but not a
barrier, between them.
A PORTRAIT OF ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE 43

Clare MacCumhaill and Rachael Wiseman argue that Hare’s moral

philosophy became something of an obsession for the four. They rejected the
fact/value distinction and the version of ordinary language philosophy that
Hare practiced. Against the former they aimed to draw on ‘Wittgenstein’s
methods and the ‘moth-eaten traditions’ that they had assimilated at Oxford’
to ‘show that a true description of the world would be one that included
normative concepts’ (MacCumhaill and Wiseman 2018). Against the latter
they drew on Wittgenstein again to study ‘the patterns and norms by which
human life is lived’ (MacCumhaill and Wiseman 2018). Perhaps this interest
in how human life is actually lived helps explain why Anscombe takes a
historical view of ethical and religious language and its meaning in ‘Modern
Moral Philosophy’, unlike Wittgenstein in the Lecture on Ethics, who writes
about ethics and religion in an ahistorical and rather essentialist way.
With these partial pictures behind us, perhaps it would be good to
complete the picture by starting at the beginning. Though British, Anscombe
was born in Limerick, Ireland in 1919. Her father, Alan Wells Anscombe,
was a captain in the British Army when she was born, and the family later
moved back to Britain, where her mother, Gertrude Elizabeth Anscombe
(née Thomas) was a headmistress and her father a science teacher. Anscombe
was the youngest of three children (and the only girl) in her family, which
lived in south London.
Before university she was educated at Sydenham High School, a private
school for girls in southeast London.4 The Headmistress from 1917 to 1930,
Miss Sanders, ‘established a rigorous curriculum, insisting that all girls were
taught classics to provide a full and rounded liberal education’ (Sydenham
High School website). The school’s motto is ‘Nyle ye Drede’: fear nothing,
which seems to suit Anscombe rather well.
It was because of her interest in metaphysics, and two topics in particular:
causality and perception, that Anscombe found her way to philosophy. She
had read a book called Natural Theology that seemed to assume that anything
that happened must have a cause, which had puzzled her (see Anscombe
1981b: vii). Her interest in perception came from reading a book by Father
Martin D’Arcy, S.J., called The Nature of Belief. After this, Anscombe says,
‘For years’ she ‘would spend time, in cafés, for example, staring at objects
saying’ to herself: ‘ “I see a packet. But what do I really see? How can I say
that I see anything more than a yellow expanse?” ’ (Anscombe 1981b: viii).
This was before she began to study philosophy at university. H. H. Price’s
lectures on phenomenalism and perception, and his book Hume’s Theory of
the External World, although she did not agree with him, appealed to her
because they alone seemed really to be about the issues that concerned her.
Her interest in philosophy, then, was sparked by religious reading, but was
44 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

not itself particularly religious. It was not, for instance, about the problem of
evil or ethical questions or proofs of the existence of God.
She shared her interest in philosophy and Catholicism with her husband,
whom she met at Oxford. Geach was at Balliol College and receiving
instruction from the same Dominican priest as she was, Fr. Richard Kehoe,
OP (Berkman 2021: 708). They married three years later in 1941. In the
same year, Anscombe graduated with First Class honours (on the strength of
her papers in philosophy). For the first few years of their marriage Geach and
Anscombe lived apart, as she was studying while he, a conscientious objector
to the Second World War, worked in a pine forest (see Schwenkler 2019).
Like Anscombe, Geach read Greats. His father had studied with Russell
and Moore at Cambridge, and taught him philosophy, starting with logic,
before he went to university.5 He was attracted to the work of J. M. E.
McTaggart, but realized he would have to rethink when he became a
Catholic. His conversion came from arguing with Catholics as an
undergraduate and becoming convinced that they were right. He was
received into the Church in 1938 and as a result started reading Aquinas. He
says, ‘I have kept on reading Aquinas ever since; [. . .] his influence has been
constant.’ (P. Geach 1991: 8). Anscombe learned a lot of philosophy from
him, both while she was an undergraduate and for some time after this.
However, ‘her real development was to come only under the powerful
stimulus of Wittgenstein’s lectures and her personal conversations with him.’
(P. Geach 1991: 11). Anscombe read the Tractatus before Geach did, having
bought a copy after browsing in Blackwell’s bookshop (see P. Geach 1991:
14). Anscombe once told Kenny that she didn’t ‘have a single idea in [her]
head that wasn’t put there by Wittgenstein’ (Haldane 2019a: 19).
In 1942 she moved to Newnham College, Cambridge, where she had a
Research Fellowship. At Cambridge, in the autumn of 1944, she first met
Wittgenstein (see Erbacher 2016: 17). In a letter to Rush Rhees dated
28 November, 1944 Wittgenstein says that among those coming to his
lectures is ‘a woman, Mrs so & so who calls herself Miss Anscombe, who
certainly is intelligent, though not of [Georg] Kreisel’s caliber.’ Wittgenstein’s
lectures at this time were mostly on the philosophy of psychology, and
Anscombe attended nearly all of them from the time she first became a
graduate student onwards (see Erbacher 2016: 19).
In his 1945 recommendation letter in support of Anscombe’s application
for a research fellowship, Wittgenstein says that Anscombe (‘Mrs. Geach’)
has attended his lectures for four terms and ‘is, undoubtedly, the most
talented female student’ he has ‘had since 1930,’ when he started lecturing.
Only eight or ten of his male students, he says, have equalled or surpassed
her (see Golanski).
A PORTRAIT OF ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE 45

Despite Wittgenstein’s lukewarm recommendation, Anscombe returned

to Oxford in 1946 as a Research Fellow at Somerville College. She now
travelled to Cambridge for weekly tutorials with Wittgenstein. At these she
was joined by W. A. Hijab. At their joint request, the tutorials were on the
philosophy of religion (see Monk 1990: 497–498).
It was at Wittgenstein’s last lecture in Cambridge in the spring of 1947
that Anscombe met von Wright (see Erbacher 2016: 21). During this term
von Wright met Anscombe, Geach and Malcolm, and they all became friends.
Anscombe respected von Wright as well as liking him, discussing a variety of
philosophical topics with him (as witnessed by their correspondence).
Anscombe decided to learn German in 1946, which pleased Wittgenstein,
who arranged for her to stay in Vienna for a few months in 1950 (see
Erbacher 2016: 29). They discussed her translating the Philosophical
Investigations, and he was enthusiastic about the way she translated his
work. The translations about which he was enthusiastic were not necessarily
those that made it into print two years after his death, but they probably did
discuss her translation of the Investigations, since he moved into her house
in April 1950. The ground floor and the first floor were occupied by lodgers,
while Wittgenstein had a room on the second floor.6
Anscombe and Geach endured ‘a long period of comparative poverty’
before Geach managed to get an academic job at Birmingham in 1951 (Geach
1991: 12). By this time they already had three children. Wittgenstein helped
them financially when their second child, John, was born, and he helped
their daughter Barbara with elementary arithmetic (see Geach 1991: 14).
Geach stayed in Birmingham during the week and travelled home at
weekends (see Geach 1991: 19). Home life with seven children, a demanding
academic position, and a largely absent husband cannot have been easy for
Anscombe.
On the day Wittgenstein died she was at the home of his doctor, Edward
Bevan, and his wife Joan, who had invited Wittgenstein to stay with them at
the very end of his life. Also present were Ben Richards, Yorick Smythies and
M. O’C. Drury (see Monk 1990: 579). Drury remembered that Wittgenstein
had said ‘he hoped his Catholic friends [i.e. Anscombe and Smythies] would
pray for him.’ So Father Conrad Pepler, whom Smythies had brought along,
said prayers. Then Dr Bevan pronounced Wittgenstein dead, and he was
given a Catholic burial the next morning. Anscombe describes the
circumstances of the decision to make the burial Catholic as follows:

After Wittgenstein was dead we sat in the Bevans’ drawing room and Con
Drury said he would like him to have [a] Catholic burial. He asked Ben,
who said he would like it, and Smythies, who was a Catholic, and said he
46 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

would. I thought they would ask me and was going to say I wouldn’t do
it myself but would not oppose them; but I guess Dr Drury thought I
would like it anyway and did not ask me.7

Those who made the decision were prompted by something Drury

remembered. Wittgenstein had told Drury that he would have done as
Tolstoy did when he gave his brother an Orthodox funeral despite the fact
that Tolstoy himself was very critical of the Russian Orthodox Church.
‘When Drury mentioned this, everyone agreed that all the usual Roman
Catholic prayers should be said by a priest at the graveside,’ Monk records
(Monk 1990: 580). Monk also points out that Tolstoy went against his own
beliefs in order to honour his brother’s, while Drury, who was Anglican, and
Smythies, who was Catholic, could be regarded as having acted according to
their own rather than Wittgenstein’s beliefs. On the other hand, Wittgenstein
apparently had asked that his Catholic (not just Christian) friends pray for
him, and even Richards, who was very close to Wittgenstein and was baptized
only at the end of his life, thought that Wittgenstein would have liked a
Catholic burial. So Anscombe’s somewhat reluctant acceptance of the
decision is understandable.
It is clear enough that Wittgenstein influenced Anscombe, but the nature
of his influence might be easier to understand if we attend to how she
understood his work. Of the Tractatus she says that ‘almost all that has been
published about’ it (she was writing in the late 1950s, but the ‘almost all’
comment remains in the revised version of 1971) ‘has been wildly irrelevant’
and identifies the main reason for this as neglect of Frege (Anscombe 1971:
12). Philosophers with a background in empiricism or idealism, she thinks,
are likely to misunderstand both Frege and the Tractatus (see Anscombe
1971: 12–13). In her essay ‘Ludwig Wittgenstein’ she claims that she ‘can
characterise Wittgenstein’s latest period—not his middle period or periods—
as marked by the realisation consequent upon the middle work, that “it’s not
as simple as all that” ’ (Geach and Gormally 2011: 201). In this essay
Anscombe seems to reject attempts to derive positions or doctrines from
Wittgenstein’s work. She also mentions here the tendency of Wittgensteinians
to treat language-games as needing no justification and being beyond
criticism. In response she says both that we ought not to talk about language-
games except in cases where the game in question can be described and,
more importantly, that Wittgenstein himself, in Zettel §608–610, says that
certain concepts (‘our concepts of causality’ in this case) might need or
deserve to be upset. So he is not committed to accepting all language-games
just as they are currently played. Relatedly, in ‘A Theory of Language?’ she
says that,
A PORTRAIT OF ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE 47

we ought to remember that there can be a difference of opinion about

grammar, even though ‘grammar’ is the word for what the disagreement
is about—just as there can be different beliefs about God, though the
word is not the wrong one to use for the topic of disagreement.
—Geach and Gormally 2011: 240

One interesting thing about this is that it suggests that a grammatical

remark need not be an uncontroversial remark. This is not to deny that a
series of remarks might be both grammatical and uncontroversial, but there
is a tendency for readers of Wittgenstein to think of grammatical reminders
and grammatical remarks as being things that, just as such, everyone will
automatically agree upon.8 Anscombe denies this. So her claim that certain
uses of words or concepts do not make sense is not necessarily intended to
be uncontroversial or undeniable.
Anscombe ends her essay on Wittgenstein by saying that he thought of his
work as not a finished thing whose findings could be set down in a book but
a matter of ‘constantly enquiring’ (in Geach and Gormally 2011: 206). Her
final sentence is that: ‘Predictions of ‘what Wittgenstein would say’ about
some question one thought of were never correct.’
In ‘The Question of Linguistic Idealism,’ she talks about Wittgenstein’s
‘dislike of rationality, or would-be rationality, in religion’ (Anscombe 1981a:
122). This led him to make some mistakes, she says, as when he ‘was
impatient of being told’ that when God is said to move without moving
this is not meant as a paradox or contradiction, since the first ‘moves’ is
transitive and the second is intransitive (i.e. the idea is that God causes other
things to move but does not himself move in doing so). Instead of wanting
to hear explanations of why religious beliefs might be less irrational than
they sound, Wittgenstein saw religion as being like something jagged, and he
wanted it to be kept jagged rather than encased under a smooth surface, as
some people would have it. Of this desire of his Anscombe remarks: ‘I don’t
know how to distribute this between philosophical observation on the one
hand and personal reaction on the other’ (Anscombe 1981a: 122). The
implication is that she did distinguish between the philosophical and the
personal, but also that she did not always find herself able to draw the line in
a particular case. She goes on to make a similar point about Wittgenstein’s
detestation of natural theology (i.e. the attempt to prove God’s existence
on the basis of natural experience and reason). It is difficult to say, she
notes, ‘what part of this was philosophical (and therefore something which,
if right, others ought to see) and what part personal’ (Anscombe 1981a:
123). This clarifies the distinction she means to make between the
philosophical and the personal: the former can be right and such that others
48 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

ought to see while the latter, presumably, is more like a matter of personal
inclination that need not be shared and perhaps is not apt to be identified as
either right or wrong.
Kenny says that Anscombe once told him that, ‘On the topic of religion,
Wittgenstein is sheer poison.’ (Haldane 2019a: 20) He quotes an article that
Anscombe wrote for The Tablet in which she says: ‘I do not think a Catholic
could accept Wittgenstein’s Tractatus if he understood it, because of its
teaching on ethics’ (Anscombe 1954: 13).
Despite distinguishing the personal from the philosophical, Anscombe
nevertheless begins the introduction to her book on the Tractatus with some
biographical material about Wittgenstein, much as Three Philosophers
(co-written with Peter Geach) provides a short biography of each philosopher
before it gets into the philosophy. In An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s
Tractatus some of this is purely biographical, concerning when and where he
was born, the size of his family, his father’s occupation, and so on. Some,
though, is more obviously relevant to questions of how to understand
Wittgenstein’s work, such as the influence of Schopenhauer.
As far as Anscombe’s other work goes, it began before she ever met
Wittgenstein. Her first philosophical publication came in 1939, while she
was still an undergraduate, when Anscombe published with Norman Daniel
a pamphlet called ‘The Justice of the Present War Examined: A criticism
based on traditional Catholic principles and on natural reason.’9 This work
of applied ethics is not something she considered purely philosophical,
which suggests that she may have shared something like Wittgenstein’s
view of what is and is not philosophy (roughly, that ethics is not really
philosophy, and philosophy proper is more or less either metaphysics or
a new, Wittgensteinian alternative or solution to metaphysics). In this
pamphlet Anscombe opposed not a war against Nazi Germany but the war
that had been declared, on the grounds that the British government’s
intentions were not ‘upright’ with regard to either means or ends, and that
the probable evil effects of the war outweighed, as she saw it, the probable
good effects (largely because of the government’s allegedly unjust aims)
(Anscombe 1981c: 73). There was little evidence, she believed, that
concern for Poland was the real reason for the British government’s going
to war, and too much evidence that they would target civilians in their
prosecution of the war. According to Kenny, just war theory had been
‘almost totally forgotten’ during the Second World War but has made a
comeback since. He credits Anscombe as having brought about this
revival more than any other individual (Haldane 2019a: 13). A year after
the pamphlet was published the Archbishop of Birmingham complained
that it had not been submitted to ecclesiastical authority. Anscombe and
A PORTRAIT OF ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE 49

Daniel, reluctantly, withdrew it (see Anscombe 1981c: vii and Schwenkler

2019).
The earliest ‘purely philosophical writing’ that she published, she says,
was ‘A Reply to Mr C. S. Lewis’s Argument that “Naturalism” is Self-
Refuting’ (Anscombe 1981b: ix). This was in the Socratic Digest around
1947. So her earliest philosophical interests mainly revolved around
questions of causation (the response to Lewis concerned an argument about
causes as well) and intention (as in the true intention of the British government
in going to war with Germany in 1939), although her interest in
phenomenalism seems distinct from this web of issues.
In 1956 she almost single-handedly, and quite publicly, opposed the
awarding of an honorary degree by Oxford University to President Truman.
However many lives (military and civilian, US and Japanese) the bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have saved (and the number is unknowable
but possibly high), it meant the intentional targeting of civilians.10 Anscombe
regarded this as utterly unacceptable. A year later she published a book on
the concept of intention, and the year after that came her essay on ‘Modern
Moral Philosophy’, which, among other things, rejects consequentialism and
its disregard of intention.
For her inaugural lecture as the Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge
University, given in 1971, she chose the subject of causation, which had been
the issue that first got her interested in philosophy. She held this position
from 1970 until 1986, when she retired. Although the paper deals with
metaphysics, in it Anscombe attacks a conception of causality that she regards
as part of a way of thinking that characterizes a whole culture, and that is
hard to square with belief in freedom and moral responsibility.
Anscombe’s work was heavily influenced by both her religious belief and
Wittgenstein. In each case, though, I think she was attracted to the way of
thinking in question because it fitted with the way she already thought. She
was Catholic not because she was born, or married, into it, but as a result of
reading and thinking. She was not afraid to challenge the thought of other
Catholics. Similarly, she was not afraid to disagree with Wittgenstein or
other Wittgensteinian philosophers. Her Wittgensteinian approach to
causality and intention was not a result of discipleship and did not merely
repeat what Wittgenstein said. Her work in ethics is unlike Wittgenstein’s,
but not completely. It is still concerned with questions of language use and
of sense. And it connects with her other, perhaps more obviously
Wittgensteinian, work.
I have tried to move beyond caricatures to reveal a fuller picture of
Anscombe as a philosopher and a human being, but it is worth thinking
about the caricatures still. She can seem like a kook because she was so at
50 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

odds with the world around her. Her Catholicism and her being a woman in
a man’s world also put her at odds with most of the people around her. So
in a sense she was odd. And she had the integrity to let this oddness show.
She also had the strength to live the odd, difficult life to which her convictions
committed her.11

NOTES
1. According to Jane O’Grady the restaurant was in Boston, Massachusetts.
According to Nicholas Denyer, however, (quoting Anscombe) ‘It was a bar, and
it was in Toronto!’ See Lipscomb 2021: 291 note 3.
2. Elizabeth Anscombe to Georg Henrik von Wright no date, The Georg Henrik
von Wright Collection, COLL. 714.11-12, National Library of Finland. This
letter is quoted with permission from M. C. Gormally.
3. See https://churchpop.com/2016/10/18/rare-pics-surface-of-elizabeth-anscombe-
arrested-for-blocking-abortion-clinic/ for photographic evidence.
4. This was confirmed to me by Laura Hooper, Director of Marketing and
Communications, Sydenham High School. Some sources give her school as
Sydenham School, others as Sydenham High School. These are different
schools.
5. I am indebted to Luke Gormally for information about Geach’s father.
6. For discussion of Anscombe as translator of Wittgenstein, see Backström, this
volume.
7. The quotation, as well as other information in this paragraph, was provided by
Luke Gormally in private correspondence. It comes from a notebook entitled
‘Anecdotes about Wittgenstein’ (Anscombe Archive, Collegium Institute,
University of Pennsylvania). The quotation is published with the permission of
M. C. Gormally.
8. After all, see Philosophical Investigations, part 1, §128. Oskari Kuusela argues
(Kuusela 2020) that grammatical statements are not ones that must be accepted
by all speakers of the language but that they are clarificatory remarks made in
response to particular problems. A remark is clarificatory if and only if it
clarifies, not if it ought to clarify (see Kuusela 2020: 28). So there is room for
disagreement and for the rejection of proposed grammatical remarks. This does
not contradict PI, part 1, §128 because that remark says only that ‘everyone
would agree’ to theses advanced in philosophy, not that everyone would
necessarily agree. Kuusela credits Anthony Kenny with this observation, actually
made in connection with PI, part 1, §599 (Kuusela 2004: 173).
9. Her first publication of any kind was an essay on her religion, entitled ‘I am
Sadly Theoretical: It is the Effect of Being at Oxford’ The Catholic Herald, 8
July 1938. It can be read in Berkman 2021.
10. Estimates I have seen of the number of lives saved by these bombings range
from the thousands to the millions, but see also Rufus E. Miles, Jr.: ‘if a
decision had been taken not to use the atomic bomb, there were three
A PORTRAIT OF ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE 51

nonnuclear strategies, each of which was considered in some degree by

President Truman and his military and civilian advisers, and all three of which
could have been tried, seriatim, with an extremely high probability of success
and with a relatively small number of deaths. The first, in fact, might have
achieved its purpose with no fatalities at all’ (Miles, Jr, 1985: 124).
11. Christian Erbacher, Luke Gormally, Bernt Österman, and Thomas Wallgren
have helped me make this better than it otherwise would have been. I am
grateful to them all.
52
 CHAPTER FOUR

Georg Henrik von Wright

– A Biographical Sketch
BERNT Ö STERMAN

1. THE ‘MIDDLE EUROPEAN’ FINN

‘I think that Wittgenstein felt at home in my family; we had a similar middle
European background and shared, on the whole, our artistic and literary
valuations’, Georg Henrik von Wright wrote in a late article about
Wittgenstein (von Wright 2001b: 178). However, the talk about a ‘similar
middle European background’ could easily be misunderstood. Von Wright
did not come from a Central European country, but from a small Nordic
country, Finland. Thus, the ‘middle European background’ had all to do
with his cultural heritage, in which the music of Beethoven and Schubert,
and writers like Goethe, Schiller and Lichtenberg, played an important part.
With Wittgenstein, von Wright also shared an affinity with Spengler’s cultural
pessimism, in which the idea of the West in a state of decline was prominent.
As a Finn, von Wright was also the only one of Wittgenstein’s three
literary executors whose native language was not English. He belonged to
the Swedish-speaking minority of Finland, as did some other well-known
Finns, such as the composer Jean Sibelius, the painter Helene Schjerfbeck
and the writer of the Moomin books, Tove Jansson. English was not even the
first foreign language he learned; it was German (not counting Finnish). As
a consequence of his Nordic origins, his name is also often mispronounced
in international contexts.1 In addition to being one of the literary executors,
von Wright was also Wittgenstein’s successor as professor of philosophy at

53
54 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Cambridge. He will also be remembered as the developer of the cataloguing

system for the Nachlass known as the von Wright catalogue. However, he
was also a prominent philosopher in the logical-analytical tradition, who
earned recognition for his work in philosophical logic, extending the formal
methods of modern logic to new fields of research such as the philosophy of
norms and the philosophy of action. Later he also wrote non-formal works
on the philosophy of human sciences, the philosophy of value and the
philosophy of mind. In 1989 a volume dedicated to the philosophy of Georg
Henrik von Wright was published in the Library of Living Philosophers
series. A part of von Wright’s work that has remained fairly unknown outside
of the Nordic countries are the essays he wrote in Swedish, his native
language.2 They included essays on the great Russian writers Dostoevsky and
Tolstoy, as well as Werner Jaeger’s epic Paideia, and Spengler’s morphological
philosophy of history. A concern for the state of Western civilization surfaces
early, gradually turning into a critique of the modern form of life. Towards
the end of his life, von Wright acquired the position of an outstanding Nordic
Intellectual who took part in many public debates. He was also twice voted
Finland’s leading intellectual in polls conducted by the largest newspaper in
Finland, Helsingin Sanomat.
People who met von Wright during his later years generally had the
impression of a friendly, but somewhat old-fashioned man. A recurring
characterization is that of a gentleman (Chen Bo 2016: 12; Janik 1985: 15).
At his office he was never seen without a jacket and a tie. People were often
struck by his ‘bushy eyebrows’ (Pichler 2016, 154; Hertzberg 2016b, 95).
He was also experienced as an attentive listener, who carefully formulated
his own arguments (in a low voice) (Bulygin 2016: 39; Chen Bo 2016: 12).
When speaking German and English, the melody of his Swedish Finn dialect
could clearly be heard. Occasionally he would also insert words from his
native language, such as ‘jo’ and ‘just’ (Schulte 2016: 192–93). Slips of paper
with tedious schedules that have been preserved testify to von Wright’s
ability to organize his daily routines. He also appears to have had the talent
of working in conditions many would experience as distracting. Family
members remember how the door to his room always stood open while
working at home. In summertime, spent at a cottage at Vålö in the Finnish
archipelago, von Wright either worked at the dinner table between mealtimes,
or sitting outside, preferably in the basking sun (see also Hertzberg 2016b:
100). Among friends, von Wright was also known as a person with a great
sense of humour, who enjoyed ‘good literature, good music, good food, and
. . . fine wine’ (Garzón Valdés 2016: 64; Hertzberg 2016b: 103). According
to the family, however, von Wright could also appreciate simple Finnish food
like sausages and mashed potatoes.
GEORG HENRIK VON WRIGHT – A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 55

However, beside the rational, cultivated gentleman of more official

contexts and the more relaxed figure close friends could encounter, there is
also another aspect of von Wright’s personality. One of his closest friends,
the Finnish Art Historian and writer Göran Schildt, who knew von Wright
since the mid-1930s, has drawn a picture of his friend as a highly sensitive
person, who underwent sharp transitions from anxiety and pessimism to
being lively and sociable, from one day to the next (Schildt 2003: 109).
Schildt also thinks that there may have been a connection between von
Wright’s emotional side and his analytical approach to philosophy. He
suggests that the latter might have acted as a ‘useful barrier’ against his
friend’s strong inclinations towards ‘emotional evaluations’ (Schildt 2003:
109). Although Schildt’s characterization of his friend stems from a time
when they both were only approaching their thirties, there are indications
that at least something of the sensitive character of von Wright remained
with him at an older age. Lars Hertzberg has described his friend as follows:

[H]is apparent cheerfulness camouflaged a strong tendency to worry:

About his family’s safety, academic life in Finland, world peace, the state
of the environment.
—Hertzberg 2016b: 95

2. THE FORMATIVE YEARS

Georg Henrik von Wright was born 14 June 1916 at Eira hospital in Helsinki,
only a few hundred metres from his last home at Fabriksgatan 26 were he
died 16 June 2003, two days after his eighty-seventh birthday. At the time of
his birth, Finland was still a part of the Russian empire but was to declare its
independence in December the following year. Before moving to Fabriksgatan
in 2002 von Wright for forty-six years lived at Skepparegatan 4 in the same
district of Helsinki. The summers were spent at Vålö in the Finnish
archipelago some 50 km from Helsinki, where his father had built a villa in
1918.
Georg Henrik was the first child of Tor von Wright and Ragni von Wright
(née Alfthan). Later there would be two younger sisters. Both parents had a
degree in Economics. The father was a managing clerk at the Agros company,
a von Wright family company which sold agricultural machinery. Owing to
the father’s work, the family spent the years 1919–1921 in New York, where
they lived in Brooklyn. On this stay, Tor von Wright bought a Corona Travel
typewriter with a three-row keyboard, on which the boy Georg Henrik
began to write at the age of nine. It came to serve him throughout his life (as
56 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

‘virtually impossible to wear out’), forming a liaison between the writer and
his working tool that may be difficult to fully comprehend in the age of
computers (von Wright 2001a: 10, 16, 29).3
Besides economics, the father had also studied philosophy under the
guidance of Edward Westermarck, who also came to be much appreciated by
his son (von Wright 2001a: 29; 1983b: 26). It was also the father who
introduced him to philosophy by handing him copies of Wilhelm Jerusalem’s
Einleitung in die Philosophie and Hans Larsson’s Psykologi in his early teens
(von Wright 2001a: 32). It is noteworthy that the Austrian philosopher
Jerusalem (1854–1923) was a strong defender of the idea of philosophy as a
Weltanschaungslehre, rejecting a conception of philosophy as an
Einzelwissenschaft (special science) (Jerusalem 1913: 1, 18). This opposition
between two fundamentally different ways of understanding philosophy is
close to the division in his own thought that von Wright would later often
return to: the tension between narrow (logically oriented) professional work
and the drive he felt to make philosophy relevant to his life (von Wright
1989: 18).
However, a major incitement to the intellectual development of the young
boy was the time he as a twelve-year-old spent in the South Tyrolian town
Meran (Merano) 1928–29, following medical advice. It was here he became
interested in mathematics and learnt German well enough to read German
literature. Following his interest in the German culture, von Wright read
books like Heinrich Heine’s Buch der Lieder, Goethe’s Die Leiden des jungen
Werther and J. P. Eckermann’s Gespräche mit Goethe from a young age (von
Wright 2001a: 19–20, 33; 1983a: 15). Some writing for student journals
during the 1930s show that he also read Nietzsche in his youth. The
acquaintance with the poems of Heine also led von Wright to try his skills as
a composer, resulting in the lied ‘Wenn ich bei meiner Liebsten bin’, written
as a sixteen-year-old (slightly borrowing its tune from the Marseillaise).
Another influence belonging to the German language sphere was Jacob
Burckhardt’s Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, which inspired von
Wright to make a journey to Italy with his friend Göran Schildt in 1937.
However, there were also some English writers that were important to von
Wright, such as George Bernard Shaw and Aldous Huxley. He was also to
become an admirer of the great Russian writers Dostoevsky and Tolstoy.
The formative years included important encounters with two philosophers
von Wright has called his ‘father figures’, Eino Kaila and Ludwig Wittgenstein
(von Wright 2003: 84). Both meetings occurred before the war. Kaila was
professor of theoretical philosophy (which at the time included psychology)
at the University of Helsinki when von Wright began his studies in the
autumn of 1934. Given his later success, the eighteen-year-old von Wright’s
GEORG HENRIK VON WRIGHT – A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 57

thoughts at the beginning of his studies seem very modest. For this is what
he wrote to his aunt Mary and her husband Ragnar Numelin 21 August
1934:

So, the term will soon begin, and I will take the first stumbling steps of my
academic career. If it turns out to be long or short, successful or
disappointing, interesting or depressive for me, only the future will tell.4

However, von Wright soon became inspired by the new ‘scientific’ trend of
philosophy Kaila had brought to Finland through his connections with the
Vienna circle.5 The first books Kaila recommended for von Wright to read
were Carnap’s Abriss der Logistik and Der Logische Aufbau der Welt (von
Wright 2003: 81). Von Wright’s master’s thesis ‘De empiriska satsernas
avgränsningsproblem’ (The demarcation problem of empirical propositions),
was also a work in a logical positivist vein. Kaila’s influence is explicit in
claims such as that ‘metaphysics is everyday thinking gone astray’. However,
the most lasting impression Kaila’s teachings had on von Wright came in the
form of a strong interest in modern logic and its use as a tool of philosophy
(von Wright 2003: 84). Simultaneously, von Wright also developed a sense
of philosophy as an activity that wasn’t empirical but shared the quest for a
strict methodology with the sciences. The course von Wright would have
taken could still have been different if he had not met Ludwig Wittgenstein
at Cambridge in 1939. ‘What Wittgenstein did was to completely “shake me
up” ’, von Wright would later write (von Wright 1989: 11).
Following the custom that Finnish postgraduate students should spend
some time abroad, von Wright went to Cambridge in February 1939 and
stayed until the early summer. Cambridge had not been his first option;
originally, he had wanted to go to Vienna, but the political developments in
Europe made it impossible. Still, Cambridge with ‘a living impressive
tradition in inductive logic’ was a natural choice for him (von Wright 1989:
10). At the time, von Wright had studied the TLP under the guidance of
Kaila but was unaware of the fact that Wittgenstein was teaching in
Cambridge. On many occasions, von Wright has described his unfortunate
first meeting with Wittgenstein in March 1939. He tried to join Wittgenstein’s
ongoing series of lectures on the foundations of mathematics but was rejected
by Wittgenstein who did not like ‘visitors’ appearing late in the term.
However, after von Wright had sent his apologies in a note, he was invited
for a private conversation with Wittgenstein over a cup of tea at Wittgenstein’s
home. The main themes of the conversation were architecture and Norway.
Von Wright was also invited to attend the continuation of Wittgenstein’s
lecture series during the Easter term (von Wright 1989: 10–11; 2003: 83). It
58 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

may be added that at the time, such private conversations between

Wittgenstein and his students were by no means exceptional, similar
invitations for tea have been described by Norman Malcolm and Theodore
Redpath (Malcolm 1958: 29; Redpath 1990: 33).
During the Easter term lectures, von Wright became acquainted
with Malcolm, who was later to become a close friend, but also with
Rush Rhees (von Wright 1989: 11). His first impressions of Wittgenstein’s
lectures were similar to what many others have reported: confusion. ‘It does
not really seem right to speak of the whole thing as lectures [. . .]’,6 he wrote
to Kaila on 25 April 1939, the day after the first of the Easter lectures
(Österman ed 2020: 144). ‘I am sure everything he says is excellent, but
where does he really want to go and will he arrive anywhere at all?’,7 he
exclaims in another letter to Kaila on 4 May (Österman ed 2020: 154).
However, in the summer of 1939 the young von Wright left Cambridge
believing that he had met a genius who was one of the greatest original
talents of philosophy, a conviction he would never abandon. He had also a
strong impression that Wittgenstein had given him something of vital
importance, although he needed a metaphoric language to express what it
was. ‘[W]hat I got from your lectures and my discussions with you during my
time in Cambridge has given me a certain ‘tune’ to follow into a realm of
thoughts’, von Wright wrote to Wittgenstein from the summer cottage at
Vålö on 27 August 1939, on the brink of the Second World War (McGuinness
ed. 2008: 308).
Finland’s Winter War against the Soviet Union was fought during the
three winter months of 1939–1940. Due to bronchial asthma, von Wright
had been exempted from military service during peace time, was called up
towards the end of the war, but did not participate in the battles (von Wright
2001a: 86). However, he did experience the bombings of Helsinki during
the war – ‘Away from the front our only knowledge of the enemy is derived
from his ruthless bombing, which claims many victims and destroys numerous
houses’ he wrote in a letter to C. D. Broad on 22 December 1939 (Broad ed.
1940: 200). In the Continuation War 1941–1944 Finland sided with Nazi
Germany in the campaign against the Soviet Union. During this time, von
Wright was affiliated with the State Information Department, where one of
his tasks was to write daily bulletins for foreign newspaper correspondents,
summarizing what the Finnish newspapers wrote (von Wright 1989: 12;
2001a: 86–89).
Between the two Finnish wars there were two important occasions in von
Wright’s life. The first was the public defence of his dissertation The Logical
Problem of Induction at the end of May 1941. Within the same week, he also
married Elisabeth von Troil (von Wright 2001a: 83). Together they would
GEORG HENRIK VON WRIGHT – A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 59

have two children, Anita (1943) and Benedict (1946). After the war, in 1946,
von Wright was appointed to the chair of Swedish-language philosophy at
the University of Helsinki. At this time, his dissertation had already received
a favourable review by Broad in a series of three articles for Mind.

3. PROFESSOR AT CAMBRIDGE AND BEYOND

‘You may have observed that I have become professor of philosophy at
Cambridge. It does feel rather strange, not to say a little scary’, von Wright
wrote to Ragnar Numelin at the end of May 1948,8 shortly after having been
appointed as Wittgenstein’s successor at the age of thirty-one. In the spring
of 1948 he had already withdrawn his application, but he was suddenly
offered the position by the electoral committee. He also received a personal
cable from Gilbert Ryle, one of the electors, in which Ryle assured him that
he would be ‘respected for [his] work and for [himself] in Cambridge’. Von
Wright’s decision to accept the invitation was certainly also influenced by the
fact that during von Wright’s first visit to Cambridge after the war in 1947
Wittgenstein had told him that he wanted to see him as his successor (von
Wright 1989: 15; 2001: 129, 133).
During his time as professor at Cambridge von Wright gave lectures on
subjects such as logic, causation, philosophy of science, epistemology and
Descartes.9 In his research he made seminal discoveries in modal logic and
practically invented deontic logic (von Wright 1989: 28). At the same time,
he wrote essays on Dostoevsky in Swedish. In these years, von Wright’s
friendship with Wittgenstein, who used to stay with the von Wrights during
his visits to Cambridge, also deepened. ‘The recollection of his voice and
facial expression when, seated in a chair in his sickroom, he read aloud
Goethe’s Hermann und Dorothea is for me unforgettable’, von Wright would
later write, in a style not that different from Eckermann’s remembrances of
Goethe himself in Gespräche (von Wright 1989: 15).10
However, less than three years after assuming the position, von Wright
would resign from the professorship. The decision was made in the middle
of May 1951, only a few weeks after Wittgenstein’s death, when von Wright
also had learnt that Wittgenstein had appointed him as one of his three heirs.
‘I see it as the most valuable gift I ever received’,11 he wrote to Kaila on 9
June 1951 (Österman ed 2020: 256). By the end of the year, he finally left
Cambridge. There were many reasons for his decision. In his autobiography
von Wright mentions his wish to work ‘for the future of his country’, which
was rapidly recovering after the war. However, there were personal reasons
like the prospects of his two children, the older of whom had begun her
schooling in Finland in the autumn of 1950, when von Wright was on a
60 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

sabbatical from Cambridge. In addition, there were problems with the house
Wright was building on Cranmer Road, which the family would never
eventually live in (von Wright 2001a: 150–153). Von Wright had also started
to feel that the ‘obliging weight of the great philosophical traditions of
Cambridge’ were harmful to his own philosophical development (von Wright
2003: 86). He was also facing a difficult choice between his position in
Cambridge and his chair in Helsinki, from which he had not resigned from
during the Cambridge years. ‘[B]y and large, I will be happier and more
whole as a person in Helsinki than in Cambridge’,12 he wrote in the letter to
Kaila (Österman ed 2020: 255).
In the 1950s von Wright continued his work in philosophical logic,
publishing collections of articles like Logical Studies (1957). Besides
attending his own Swedish-language chair of philosophy von Wright was
also acting professor of practical philosophy for most of the time and
lectured on ethics and the general theory of norms and values (von Wright
1989: 32). His first collection of cultural essays in Swedish, Tanke och
förkunnelse, was published in 1955. In these years he also commenced his
work as an editor of Wittgenstein’s posthumously published books, starting
with the only work in which all three of the literary executors were
involved, the RFM (1956). In 1954 he had published the first version (in
Swedish) of one of his most widely read pieces, the biographical sketch
of Wittgenstein, which appeared in English one year later in The
Philosophical Review and later as a part of Norman Malcolm’s memories of
Wittgenstein (von Wright 1954; 1955a; 1958). In 1961 von Wright
resigned from his chair at Helsinki to become a member of the Academy of
Finland, which, at the time, was an organization with twelve posts for
distinguished representatives of the sciences, the humanities and the arts.
Von Wright was the second philosopher, after Kaila who had died in 1958.
The position made it possible for him to focus on his own research. He
has described the time as the acme of his philosophical career, leading to
the publications of the works Norm and Action (1963), The Varieties of
Goodness (1963) and Explanation and Understanding (1971) (von Wright,
2001a: 199).
However, the 1960s also implied a change in how he experienced his role
as a philosopher. In 1962, the new member of the Academy of Finland had
given an interview in which he stressed that a philosopher, to his mind,
should influence society only indirectly, through his research, and should
‘mostly avoid taking a strong stand on current tangible issues’13 (Tanttu
1962: 12). However, in 1967 von Wright published a protest against the
war the USA was conducting in Vietnam in four newspapers in Finland,
Sweden and Denmark, which attracted much attention. But above all it had
GEORG HENRIK VON WRIGHT – A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 61

an impact on himself – ‘I have been living in a turmoil of events – and

emotions’, he wrote to Malcolm on 10 December 1967.14 In the autobiography
he says that his political engagement meant a ‘lasting change of state of
mind’, referred to as ‘humanism as a life-attitude’. ‘I want to define it as a
way of taking a critical stance to events, strivings and trends in one’s
time, with a view to how they affect the good of the people concerned’,15 he
wrote (von Wright 2001a: 244). During the following decade, von Wright
would continue to write op-eds on pertinent issues of his time, such as
the situation of the intellectuals in Yugoslavia, the Nobel Prize granted to
Milton Friedman and the use of nuclear power. However, he also started
to look for philosophical ways of discerning and describing the roots of
the problems of his time and turned to Marxist philosophy and the Frankfurt
School.
Von Wright saw the problems inherent in Modernity, especially the
environmental problems, as strongly connected with the technological
applications of modern science. Already in the early 1960s von Wright had
warned against what he called the hubris of the modern technological form
of life, i.e. ‘a senseless diverting of the causality of nature for human
purposes’16 (von Wright 1978c: 90). At the time, however, he saw the roots
of the problems as basically being connected with a problem of adjustment
to a rapidly transforming civilization, with short-term policies as its primary
symptom (von Wright 1978c: 89–91). However, in the 1980s he was moving
towards an intrinsic critique of the technological form of life itself. Thus, the
root of the problems was no longer seen as a mere shortcoming of a practical
rationality adapted to simpler forms of life, but as located in the very form
of rationality connected with the advance of technology. According to von
Wright, the Western culture today is dominated by technical rationality,
which is a purely instrumental form of thinking . Thus, it can only look at
problems in terms of finding means, whereas it is incapable of dealing with
ends (von Wright 1986: 17–18). During the late 1980s von Wright would
also turn to a critique of one of the central tenets of Modernity, the idea of
progress.17 Von Wright’s own conclusion was that progress may only be
pursued by unmasking the false mythologies that surrounds it, such as the
idea of progress as identified with economic growth (von Wright 1993a:
227, see also 208–209).
During his last thirty years, von Wright would continue to work with
‘traditional philosophical topics’ like causality, human freedom and
eventually, philosophy of mind. Reflecting his humanist orientation, human
agency plays a central role in his approach to these topics. He also continued
to do some formal logical work, publishing his last book in the field, Six
Essays in Philosophical Logic, as late as 1996.
62 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

4. THE PARADOXICAL VON WRIGHT

I will end my biographical sketch with a look at two paradoxical features in
von Wright’s philosophical work that may be taken as being very characteristic
of him. The first of the tensions concerns his relationship with Wittgenstein.
Almost from the beginning it seems to have been clear to him that Wittgenstein
was the philosophical genius of his time. Still, von Wright was no clear-cut
follower of Wittgenstein. In fact, he even suspected that Wittgenstein would
have disliked much of his ‘logical-philosophical writings’ (von Wright 2001a:
126). So why did he choose to do philosophical research so different from
Wittgenstein’s? The other tension was the discrepancy between his ‘narrow
philosophical work’ and his ambition to make philosophy relevant to his life,
which he also described as a ‘rift in his philosophical personality’ (von
Wright 1989: 18). If this was a problem for him, we may ask why he didn’t
simply redirect his research to questions he felt were more urgent. I will start
with the question of Wittgenstein.
How he and other philosophers should relate to Wittgenstein’s ‘forceful
personality’, was a question von Wright often returned to. In his biographical
sketch of Wittgenstein, he addressed the problem generally, as the danger
that the thoughts of disciples ‘should deteriorate into a jargon’ (von Wright
1958: 18–19). However, it is clear that he was dealing with a problem he
had been fighting himself. Just how strongly is evident from a letter he wrote
to Göran Schildt on 15 June 1947, in which he describes how his re-
encounter with Wittgenstein had made him wonder if he ‘ever would be able
to think a thought of his own again’18 (Kruskopf ed. 2007: 177–178). Still,
von Wright would be known as the perhaps most independent among
Wittgenstein’s pupils. This was also readily acknowledged by Wittgenstein,
who in a conversation with Knut Erik Tranøy, called von Wright one out of
‘two or three’ of his students he did not know he had done any harm (not
naming the others) (Tranøy 1976: 17). But how was it possible that von
Wright managed to keep his philosophical independence, despite being
subjected to Wittgenstein’s dominating philosophical personality?
Von Wright’s own explanation was that his ‘style of thought’, which he
referred to as ‘logico-analytic’, was so different from Wittgenstein’s (von
Wright 1982: 11; 2003: 84). However, it is important to note that the
difference is not just methodological. Rather, we could speak of different
levels of doing philosophy. ‘I came to lay more emphasis on the means – the
exposition of conceptual structures – than on what originally I saw as
the end: the dissolution of a puzzlement’, von Wright has explained (von
Wright 1989: 47). By ‘emphasizing the means’, von Wright could do
philosophical work which may be said to rest on a level other than
GEORG HENRIK VON WRIGHT – A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 63

Wittgenstein’s, leaving open the question of its ultimate use for the solving
or dissolving of problems.
Von Wright’s ambition of making philosophy relevant to his life found an
outlet in what he called his ‘essay-writing activities’. Given the quality and
popularity of his essays on great writers such as Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, von
Wright’s often belittling comments on his own achievements in the genre
may come as surprising. Thus, for instance, he refers to them only as attempts
to ‘clarify my own impressions’ and also speaks of their ‘nonprofessional
nature’ (von Wright 1989: 17–18). One reason behind these characterizations
was certainly that he acknowledged that he wasn’t a scholar in the fields of
literature and history. However, his insistence that he only wanted to ‘clarify
his own impressions’ is worth a comment, because it clearly suggests that he
also was dealing with the issues discussed by the writings only indirectly, in
the form of advancing comments on another’s view. (This is even clearer in
his writings on Spengler.) What would seem to be at stake is similar to what
we have already seen in connection with Wittgenstein, an incompatibility
rooted in methodology and forms of thought. Here it comes in the shape of
not being able to follow his own ‘style of thought’ in his treatment of
‘existential topics’.
During the last decades of his life, a clearly visible line of development in
von Wright’s thinking is the integration taking place both in relation with
Wittgenstein’s philosophy and regarding the ‘rift in his philosophical
personality’. The reconciliation with Wittgenstein happened in several ways.
For instance, even in The Varieties of Goodness there was the Wittgenstein-
influenced approach of the mapping of various uses of the word ‘good’ (see
also Jakola 2020: 27–31). The idea of the aim of philosophy as making the
problems vanish resurfaces in his later book, In the Shadow of Descartes
(1998). However, Wittgenstein also had a more subtle impact, as a kind of
force, or ideal, acting in the background that became more pronounced at
the later stages of von Wright’s philosophical career. Perhaps one could say
that von Wright believed himself to have found a deepened spiritual affinity
between his own work and the thoughts of Wittgenstein, with the critique of
Modernity as its common ground. As a corollary to this, von Wright also
came to reinterpret Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. His understanding of
Wittgenstein’s philosophy as a reaction against Modernity, was closely
connected with his editorial work on the Vermischte Bemerkungen (Culture
and Value) during the 1970s and found its strongest statement in the article
‘Wittgenstein in Relation to His Times’, which is based on von Wright’s
opening lecture in Kirchberg 1977 (see also my other contribution to this
volume). To the idea of a spiritual affinity may be added von Wright’s remarks
about how Wittgenstein influenced his intellectual development ‘mainly by
64 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

example’, meaning a general view of the nature of philosophy, but perhaps

above all how Wittgenstein figured as a moral example through his ‘relentless
search for truth’ (von Wright 1982: 11; 2001b: 178–179).
The gap between what von Wright saw as his professional work and his
existentially oriented writings remained a concern for von Wright during the
last few decades of his life. It seems clear that one reason von Wright saw The
Varieties of Goodness as his finest philosophical work was that it stands out
as the work in which his professional analytical ideals and existential
philosophical ambitions became united in the most harmonious way. A
crucial methodological innovation is the way in which von Wright situates
his investigation of moral notions between normative ethics and metaethics
in the shape of a self-edifying explication of conceptual intuitions. Through
its self-edifying nature, von Wright’s investigation of moral notions also
forms one of the ways in which von Wright was able to implement the
Wittgenstein ideal of philosophy as work on oneself (von Wright 1989: 51;
Österman 2019: 6–7). He seems to have had more doubts about the method
he used in his later writing on science and reason and the myth of progress,
i.e. the tracing of the historical origins of some detrimental patterns of
rationality and misleading conceptual identifications – not being sure
whether it counted as philosophy at all. ‘Were someone to say that my
activities are completely worthless, I would not know how to defend myself ’,
he wrote. Still, there can be no doubt about that he felt the work he was
doing was urgent: ‘I only know that I feel an internal compulsion to do it’
(von Wright 2003: 87–88).

NOTES
1. The way von Wright pronounced his name was /jorɪhenrɪk fon vrɪgt/, /je:orj/
also being possible for the first name in Swedish. I am grateful to Professor Jan
Lindström for help with the phonetics.
2. The best source in English to this dimension of von Wright is a collection of
essays called The Tree of Knowledge (1993e).
3. Citations from von Wright’s autobiography Mitt liv som jag minns det (von
Wright 2001a), Humanismen som livshållning (von Wright 1978c), and the
letters to Göran Schildt, Mary and Ragnar Numelin and Eino Kaila have been
translated from Swedish by the author. The citation from Tanttu’s (1962)
interview with von Wright is a translation from Finnish made by the author.
4. Von Wright to Mary and Ragnar Numelin, 21 August 1934 (ÅAL, RNC 23).
Swedish original reads ‘Så börjar småningom terminen, och jag får taga mina
första stapplande steg på den akademiska banan. Om denna för mig skall bliva
lång eller kort, framgångsrik eller snöplig, intresseväckande eller depressiv får
framtiden utvisa’.
GEORG HENRIK VON WRIGHT – A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 65

5. However, it would be wrong to say that Kaila was a typical logical positivist.
His own main interest was synthetic rather than analytic, with the aim of
creating a world view built on the results of the sciences (Niiniluoto 2012: 88).
6. Swedish original reads ‘Man kan egentligen icke kalla det hela föreläsningar
[. . .]’.
7. Swedish original reads ‘Allt vad han säger är nog utmärkt, men vart vill han
egentligen komma och kommer han någonstans alls?’.
8. Von Wright to Numelin, 27 May 1948 (ÅAL, RNC 23). Swedish original reads
‘Kanske ni observerat, att jag blivit professor i filosofi i Cambridge. Det känns
nog ganska underligt, för att inte säga lite kusligt’.
9. ‘Förteckning över tentander samt deltagare i föreläsningar och övningar
(– 1966)’ (WWA, Wri-SF-160-a).
10. ‘[Goethe] brought some manuscript poems, which he read aloud [. . .] What
variety and force in his voice! What life and expression in the noble
countenance, so full of wrinkles! And what eyes!’ (Von Goethe, Eckermann and
Soret 1850: 154).
11. Swedish original reads ‘Jag betraktar det som den dyrbaraste gåva, jag någonsin
mottagit’.
12. Swedish original reads ‘[I] stort sett kommer jag att vara en lyckligare och
helare människa i Helsingfors än i Cambridge’.
13. Finnish original reads ‘filosofin tulisi yleensä välttää jyrkkien mielipiteiden
esittämistä päivän konkreettisista kysymyksistä’.
14. Von Wright to Malcolm, 10 December 1967 (NLF, vWC 714.142-148).
15. Swedish original reads ‘Jag vill definera den som ett sätt att förhålla sig kritiskt
till händelser, strävanden och trender i samtiden, med tanke på hur de inverkar
på de berörda människornas väl’.
16. Swedish original reads ‘en vettlös dirigering av naturens kausalitet för mänskliga
ändamål’.
17. Von Wright’s writings on Spengler from the early 1950s (published in von
Wright 1955a) may already be seen as an indication of this development. He
was also influenced by the critique of progress advanced in Wittgenstein’s 1930
‘Sketch for a Foreword’ (included in CV: 6e).
18. Swedish original reads ‘om jag efter detta skall kunna tänka en egen tanke
mera’.
66
 PART TWO

Understanding How the

Editors Shaped
Wittgenstein’s
Posthumous Publications,
and Appreciating the
Philosophical
Implications of Their
Achievement

67
 CHAPTER FIVE

The Letters which

Rush Rhees,
Elizabeth Anscombe and
Georg Henrik von Wright
Sent to Each Other1
CHRISTIAN ERBACHER

1. A REFLECTION ON READING THE

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN WITTGENSTEIN’S
LITERARY HEIRS AS AN EPISTOLARY NOVEL AND
AS A KEY TO OPEN THE ‘BLACK BOX’ OF EDITING
WITTGENSTEIN
Wittgenstein entrusted three of his students with the task of publishing what
they thought fit from the manuscripts and other writings he left to posterity
– his Nachlass. In their attempt to do justice to this task, Rush Rhees,
Elizabeth Anscombe and Georg Henrik von Wright cooperated for nearly
half a century in preparing publications from Wittgenstein’s papers. While
editing their volumes, they made many choices of selection and composition
that shaped the appearance of the published writings of Wittgenstein. Hence,
scholars have been curious to find out where the posthumously printed texts
70 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

differ from the unpublished writings, how they differ, and how the deviances
may have affected the scholarly understanding of Wittgenstein’s philosophy
(e.g. Kenny 1976; Pichler and Biggs 1993; Stern 1996). This type of
investigation became possible after Wittgenstein’s extant manuscripts and
typescripts became available in their entirety – first through the Cornell
microfilm (von Wright 1969), then through the Bergen Electronic Edition
(BEE 2000), and www.wittgensteinsource.org. Today, new archives make
available the papers of Wittgenstein’s literary heirs and editors, among them
the Von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives (WWA) at the University of
Helsinki, the Rush Rhees Collection in the Richard Burton Archive (RBA) at
the University of Swansea, and The Collegium Institute Archive of G.E.M.
Anscombe (AA) at the University of Pennsylvania. These archives, all of
which contain documents that are closely connected to the decades of
editorial work on Wittgenstein’s writings, offer the promise of letting facts
replace the legendary anecdotes and suppositions that have grown around
the literary executors’ work. This is also the case for an intersecting sub-
corpus of these archives, namely the correspondence between Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright.
As of today, the correspondence between Rhees, Anscombe and von
Wright comprises at least 930 letters spanning the period 1951–1999, and it
is likely that even more letters will be found in the upcoming years. In
addition to the value of this corpus as a rich quarry to be mined for
philological details, I want to stress that it is of great historical interest in its
own right. The correspondence between Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright
opens a door to a realm of intertwined actions, reasons and motives for
publishing the books that the learned world has come to know of as the
works of Wittgenstein. This is one of the great tales that the history of
analytical philosophy can tell.
Scholars who have a strong and systematic philological-philosophical
interest typically compare Wittgenstein’s manuscripts or typescripts with the
printed volumes and try to identify where they deviate from each other and
how the deviances influence the philosophical reading, the assumption often
being that deviations in the printed works reflect unfaithfulness to
Wittgenstein’s Nachlass. The correspondence that came into being while the
editing took place, however, suggests that the editors were not ignorant – let
alone igorant – let alone manipulative - when making their decisions about
publishing Wittgenstein’s writings. What shines through the complete
correspondence is an extraordinary effort to be faithful to Wittgenstein’s
wishes, his intentions, and his work. Indeed, the desire to be faithful to their
beloved teacher and his wishes seems to be what animated the three literary
heirs throughout their collaborative attempt to accomplish the distinguished
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 71

task they had been given. This devotion and the dynamics of the resulting
struggle are interesting phenomena in their own right.
When reading Rhees’s, Anscombe’s and von Wright’s correspondence
with this focus, it becomes a literary corpus that kindles great fascination. As
a literary piece, it has a clear dramatic thread: the discussion between
Wittgenstein’s literary heirs in their attempt to fulfil Wittgenstein’s wishes
regarding the publication of his writings. Almost none of the 930 letters fail
to relate to this central theme. In fact, it seems unlikely that the three very
different characters would have enjoyed any exchange of comparable
intensity were it not for them having been made the literary executors of
their teacher’s writings; this was the basis for their fellowship. While the plot
of the correspondence thus has a beautiful and strong simplicity, the actual
text is highly divers and covers many topics. The main motif of Wittgenstein
and his work is intertwined with discussions of philosophical, academic,
political and personal topics. These occasionally surfacing themes from the
world beyond the task of editing Wittgenstein create a sense of there being
three philosophers brought together through their shared duty in the midst
of the philosophical developments that characterized much of twentieth-
century philosophy. In addition to these two features – the clear central
theme and the great variety of other lesser themes – there is a third feature
that makes reading the correspondence a thrilling literary experience: each
literary executor had a strong personality, each was a full-fledged philosopher,
and each contributed his or her own tone, colour and view to the conversation.
While reading their correspondence, it is constantly fascinating to consider
their common ground and their differences, to compare them with one
another, so that the contours of their distinct characters take shape through
seeing them in contrast to each other. The characters, emerging in the
language they use, are recurring motifs that could be adapted for a Wagnerian
opera. No static picture of their dynamic interaction can be drawn.
Similarities appear here, dissimilarities there, and idiosyncrasies come to the
fore and then recede, being displaced by what is common to us all. The three
editors – different as they were, but bound to each other through
Wittgenstein’s will and their own willingness to respond appropriately to it
– were indeed what Rhees once called them: ‘that triangle whose interior
angles will never equal 180°.’2 The story in the correspondence that results
from this can be read as an epistolary novel.
There is something that adds a great deal to the quality of a literary story,
but which is problematic when reading the correspondence with a primarily
scholarly interest: its fragmentariness and incompleteness. When reading the
correspondence, the reading mind constantly wonders, for example, what
exactly the biographical circumstances are from which the voices are
72 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

speaking, what exactly this or that editorial measure signifies for the
philosophical impression made by the resulting edited volume, or what
exactly the philosophical position is from which (academically or otherwise)
political issues are discussed. Such questions are triggered by the
correspondence, but not answered within it. The investigative reader is thus
stimulated to read related published works and further archival documents
that help in interpreting Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright’s letters. To
follow this impulse to consult further sources is to launch into scholarly
work with the correspondence. And there are manifold gaps in the
information that a scholarly reconstruction must fill in order to tell an
explicit and comprehensive story about the editing of Wittgenstein’s writings.
The chapters in this book bear witness of the amount of knowledge and
sensitivity needed to tackle the subtle interactions of philosophical editing
and reading. And this remains the case even if one focuses on a purely
historical account of the editing, leaving aside the ultimate question of how
the editorial decisions prejudiced the scholarly readings of Wittgenstein’s
writings that were presented in the published books.

1.1 Scholarly questions arising from the incompleteness

of the correspondence
The correspondence is, as stated, incomplete. First of all, this prompts the
question: To what extent are the extant letters an account of the literary
executors’ cooperation? The letters do give quite a clear picture of their
mode of cooperation; it consisted of an increasing distribution of tasks and
responsibilities as well as of discussions during fairly regular meetings.
The distribution of tasks can roughly be sketched like this: Anscombe and
Rhees edited Philosophical Investigations (PI 1953) without von Wright, who
was in the middle of moving from Cambridge to Helsinki when that editing
took place (see von Wright’s afterthoughts on this matter in PU 2001). The
next volume, Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics (RFM 1956), all
three literary executors edited together. This is in fact the only volume that
the three edited together. After publishing RFM 1956, Rhees focused on
editing Wittgenstein’s writings from the period 1929–1936 (i.e. the period
before Wittgenstein began writing his first version of the Philosophical
Investigations), while Anscombe and von Wright cooperated on editing
Wittgenstein’s writings from the periods after the conclusion of Part I of PI
1953 and from before the Tractatus. Despite this clear distribution of tasks,
the correspondence between Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright shows that
they continuously discussed details of all the edited volumes as well as many
other topics that concerned them as Wittgenstein’s literary executors. The
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 73

correspondence additionally shows that these discussions did not take place
solely in writing, but also in face-to-face discussions during their meetings or
‘conferences’ – as the literary executors themselves called them.
The literary executors’ conferences or meetings were held approximately
once a year, and mostly in Oxford, as long as Anscombe was living there, and
subsequently in Cambridge, after Anscombe and the Wittgenstein papers
had moved there. There are no agendas or minutes from these meetings, so
we lack a great deal of information concerning their decision-making and
discussions. Much of what was discussed and decided during the conferences
can only be inferred from scattered references in the correspondence, the
factual situation after the meetings, and from letters they wrote to others.
Concerning the latter point, for instance, the correspondence between von
Wright and Norman Malcolm (kept at the National Library of Finland, NLF)
and the correspondence between von Wright and Brian McGuinness (kept at
WWA) contain reports from meetings and decisions, although they are of
course limited to aspects that were relevant to the addressee. Similarly,
Rhees, in letters to his friend Maurice O’Connor Drury (kept at RBA and
Mary Immaculate College, Limerick), sometimes reported on the editing
and the literary executors’ work. Sources like these are of great value for
understanding and for a scholarly reconstruction of the literary executors’
work.
The lack of recordings of non-written interaction between Wittgenstein’s
literary executors makes it difficult to pin down the development of their
interpersonal relationships. In the letters, we see that such relationships are
repeatedly defined, adjusted and redefined, but often not made explicit. Let
me give just one example. Almost throughout the whole of the 1980s, there
was a conflict between von Wright and Anscombe. This conflict was triggered
by the shutdown of the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Tübingen.
It deepened into diverging views on how to support the subsequent editorial
work by Michael Nedo and how to continue cooperating with the publisher
Blackwell. It eventually resulted in a breakdown in any constructive
communication between Anscombe and von Wright (Erbacher forthcoming).
From the correspondence it is obvious that this conflict was resolved by
1990, that is, after Rhees’s death in 1989. But the only clue in the
correspondence that can help us understand the change in their relationship
is the mention of a dinner with Ben Richards to which Anscombe also invited
von Wright. One can only speculate over what happened at this dinner or
how it affected the participants. As stated, this is highly inspiring when
reading the correspondence as an epistolary novel, but not very satisfying
when trying to explain informational gaps. Again, the literary executors’
communication with other friends and colleagues – both in writing and in
74 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

conversation as retrieved through oral history interviews – can provide

valuable reports, observations and interpretations.
A second kind of incompleteness results from the fact that the literary
executors’ correspondence forms an intersection between three
philosophically active lifes. Understanding the letters thus requires that light
be shed on the biographical context in which they were written. To see the
relationship between Wittgenstein and each of the literary heirs is paramount
to understanding how they approached the task Wittgenstein gave them. But
in the course of accomplishing this task, the philosophical lifes of the three
also move on and interact with the editing. Rhees, for example, was occupied
with teaching during the first ten years. He then retired in order to devote
himself fully to editing Wittgenstein’s papers. By contrast, Anscombe’s
teaching, writing and editing during the first ten years closely centred on
Wittgenstein. She then concentrated on developing her own philosophical
work, in England but also on many journeys abroad, not least due to being
under pressure to find a permanent post. Finally, von Wright began his
editorial work as a professor of philosophy at Cambridge, but he resigned
soon after Wittgenstein’s death and moved back to his homeland Finland.
This allowed him to investigate Wittgenstein’s papers systematically but also
necessitated a great deal of travel. Such biographical aspects, which the
correspondence only hints at, must be made explicit when one seeks a
scholarly understanding of the literary heirs’ cooperation. But the
biographical aspects may also be helpful for explaining gaps in the
correspondence itself. Von Wright collected letters from Rhees and Anscombe
fairly systematically and filed them according to the name of the writer.
Anscombe mostly threw the letters away after having extracted the relevant
information; the few selected exceptions to this rule are of substantial
interest. Rhees saved more letters than Anscombe did, but he did not file
them in folders according to the correspondence partners; instead, he (and/
or his literary executors) scattered them throughout the folders of his
editorial projects.
A third kind of incompleteness in the correspondence between three
literary executors is simply that it does not necessarily take into account all
their other collaborative partners. Looking only at Rhees, Anscombe and
von Wright’s correspondence in the attempt to find out what happened in
the history of editing Wittgenstein’s papers can distract readers from the fact
that the three literary heirs were not working as a triumvirate in isolation.
Each of them had their own communication partners or even cooperation
partners. This extended group included Peter Geach, Georg Kreisel, Piero
Sraffa and Denis Paul for Anscombe’s work; Brian McGuinness, Anthony
Kenny, Maurice O’Connor Drury and many project-related partners (e.g.
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 75

Cora Diamond, Petra von Morstein, Father Barrett) for Rhees’s work; and
Norman Malcolm, André Maury, Heikki Nyman, Brian McGuinness and
Anthony Kenny for von Wright’s work. Documents that illuminate these
working relationships are also to be retrieved from the literary executors’
and the correspondence partners’ archives. For example, the WWA in
Helsinki holds relevant correspondence between von Wright and his partners
in editing, such as McGuinness or Alois Pichler, as well as correspondence
with publishers (see WWA webpage and Wallgren and Österman 2014); in
addition, the NLF holds von Wright’s collected correspondence with many
correspondence partners, such as Malcolm and Kenny. The Rhees Collection
at the RBA contains correspondence and other documents that are highly
relevant for understanding Rhees’s work as Wittgenstein’s literary heir,
including the letters he swapped with Kenny, McGuinness and Nedo, but
certainly much more. A comprehensive scholarly reconstruction of the
literary executor’s work or of the history of editing Wittgenstein requires
taking into account these sources beyond the immediate exchange between
Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright.
Last but not least, regarding the later years in the chronology of editing
Wittgenstein, the literary heirs’ own archives increasingly fail to account for
the development in the editing endeavour, and hence it is necessary to
consult other archives. In the 1970s the Wittgenstein Archive at the University
of Tübingen was established. While this institution has its own history, it
is highly significant for understanding not only the history of editing
Wittgenstein but also the letters the literary executors wrote in the late 1970s
and 1980s (Erbacher forthcoming). And to reconstruct the history of editing
Wittgenstein in the 1990s, it is surely necessary to consult material in the
Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen (WAB) as well as documents
kept by the secretaries of the board of trustees, which began working in a
more formalized manner after Rhees’s death in 1989. From that time
onwards, the agendas and minutes from meetings are preserved. They are
now stored in the Wren Library at Trinity College Cambridge. These files
continue to document the story of editing Wittgenstein beyond the immediate
communication between Wittgenstein’s literary heirs.
All the factors listed in Figure 5.1 – and more – enter ‘the black box of
editing Wittgenstein’, which mediates between the ‘input’ of Wittgenstein’s
papers and the ‘output’ of printed volumes that the scholarly community has
received. To be sure, the interaction between Wittgenstein’s three literary
heirs forms the centre of the editorial processes within the box. Their
correspondence is a key to understanding what happened between input and
output. But while this key opens the black box of editing Wittgenstein, it is
not in itself the full story. To explain the dynamic networks in this box is a
76 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

FIGURE 5.1: The ‘black box’ of editing Wittgenstein that mediates between the
‘input’ of Wittgenstein’s papers and the ‘output’ of printed volumes that the
scholarly community has received. The letters and other forms of communication
between Wittgenstein’s literary executors are crucial for reconstructing the making
of books from Wittgenstein’s Nachlass that the learned world has come to know as
Wittgenstein’s works. © Christian Erbacher.

complex and worthy task, and so also is the task of explaining the effects of
these networks in the scholarly reception. This is because the full explanation
would show how a scholarly formation such as ‘Wittgenstein scholarship’
comes into being and shapes the outlook of a philosophical epoch.
Many diverse archival holdings that are necessary for telling the full story
of editing Wittgenstein are indeed available, and the new methods of digital
humanities are promising aids in the attempt to bring them together. For
instance, a network of letters that are physically kept in diverse archives could
be made visible through network-analysis tools. The digital presentation of
Wittgenstein’s writings (www.wittgensteinsource.org) could be enriched by
connecting those letter exchanges that deal with editing a certain manuscript
or typescript. This would open a new dimension for research on Wittgenstein’s
Nachlass, one that invites researchers to enter into what has been called the
‘third phase’ in the history of editing Wittgenstein – namely, a historical phase
that has followed on the heels of the philosophical and critical phases (Erbacher
2019). This would make it possible to study what happens with the writings of
a philosopher after his death, and how a scholarly formation like ‘Wittgenstein
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 77

research’ comes into being. Making this visible is a great vision and requires
much work and expertise, but it does not need to remain an intellectual dream.
We are already on our way to opening the black box of editing Wittgenstein,
and what we see so far is enlightening.

2. THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN

RUSH RHEES, ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE AND
GEORG HENRIK VON WRIGHT – A CALENDAR
2.1 Use and scope
The remaining part of this chapter offers a calendar that may be of assistance
to readers of Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright’s correspondence, be it with
a more literary or more scholarly interest. The calendar provides some basic
analytics of the correspondence and an extraction of the most important
topics for each year. Thus, the calendar is neither a factual reconstruction of
what happened in the history of editing Wittgenstein in these years, nor a
discussion of these events. It is a calendar of what Wittgenstein’s literary
executors discussed in their written exchanges in a given year. This calendar,
however, does not mean that other topics were not discussed. It should
rather be read as a table of contents, indicating that something substantial
may be found in the given year concerning the listed topics. Just as the table
of contents for a novel does not substitute the thrill of reading the novel, this
calendar has been constructed in order to facilitate and enrich the actual
reading experience.
*
The calendar lists the letters which Rush Rhees, Elizabeth Anscombe and
Georg Henrik von Wright sent to each other.3 The places where the actual
documents are stored are referred to by the following abbreviations of the
archive names:

AA = The Collegium Institute Archive of G.E.M. Anscombe at the University

of Pennsylvania
NLF = National Library of Finland, Helsinki
RBA = Richard Burton Archives at the University of Swansea
WWA = Von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Helsinki
WREN = Wren Library at Trinity College Cambridge

With respect to future digital editions of the correspondence and other

archival material related to the development of the academic formation
78 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

‘Wittgenstein scholarship’, the calendar entries could be used as a starting

point for collecting metadata in addition to creating indexes of works and
names. In the calendar, the manuscripts and typescripts that Wittgenstein’s
literary executors worked on are referred to by the abbreviation of the
published volumes that resulted from the editorial work. While this is
anachronistic, it is hoped that it will help those who use the calendar. A list
of the abbreviations is added at the end of the calendar.

2.2 Total overview

A total of 929 letters have been found (see Table 5.1). Well over 800 of these
are in von Wright’s collections that are stored at NLF and WWA. The
communication to and from von Wright is thus well represented, while the
communication between Rhees and Anscombe is not. Neither Anscombe nor
Rhees archived their correspondence in the systematic way that von Wright
began using in 1952. The Rhees Collection at RBA contains about forty
letters that are not included in either of von Wright’s collections. The
Anscombe Archive contains about eight letters which Rhees wrote to
Anscombe. Anscombe did not keep everyday correspondence, but preserved
only a small collection of letters from Rhees that were of philosophical
interest to her. As stated above, many of the letters Rhees kept are not
categorized in the RBA according to the name of the letter writer, but in files
relating to Rhees’s editorial projects. From the relatively few letters between
Anscombe and Rhees, one can sense the kind of discussion they had – and
that their way of discussing was quite different from the way they discussed
with von Wright. Hence, when studying the literary executors’
correspondence, one ought to keep in mind that it is biased towards over-
representing the communication to and from von Wright.

TABLE 5.1: An overview of the correspondence between Wittgenstein’s

literary executors between 1951–1999.

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 38 AA, NLF, RBA, WREN, WWA
EA-RR 11 RBA, WWA
RR-VW 228 NLF, RBA, WWA
VW-RR 174 NLF, RBA, WREN, WWA
EA-VW 228 NLF
VW-EA 250 NLF, WREN, WWA
Total 929 AA, NLF, RBA, WREN, WWA
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 79

Taking the disproportionate number of letters to and by von Wright into

account and the bias it creates, it is clear that Wittgenstein’s literary executors
were corresponding intensely during the four decades from the early 1950s
to the late 1980s (see Figure 5.2). Strikingly fewer letters are found from the
second half 1950s and from 1990 onwards. The former scarcity may result
from an actual reduction in communication between the three, while it also
seems likely that many letters from this period simply have not been
preserved. The latter scarcity probably resulted from the new setup of the
trustees after Rhees’s death in 1989. At that time, Peter Winch and, somewhat
later, Anthony Kenny, were elected to the board of trustees that succeeded
the triumvirate of Wittgenstein’s literary heirs. With this new composition of
persons in the advisory board, the meetings were more formalized. Winch
acted as the first secretary until his own death in 1997. In 1998, Nicholas
Denyer was elected to the board. He was the last to keep the files of the
trustees and the one who turned them over to the Wren Library at Trinity
College in Cambridge.
The overall impression from studying the correspondence is that the
literary executors were constantly working on making Wittgenstein’s
writings available. Oftentimes the completion of one editorial project led to
the beginning of the next. It is possible to see some peaks in this flow of
editorial projects in the early 1950s and the late 1960s. The 1980s are
characterized by bogged down cooperation, with a hiatus in publications and

FIGURE 5.2: Year-wise distribution of the correspondence of Wittgenstein’s

literary heirs (Rush Rhees, Elizabeth Anscombe and Georg Henrik von Wright).
© Christian Erbacher.
80 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

increasing internal disagreement. This coincides with disagreements related

to the first big research project on Wittgenstein’s Nachlass beyond the realm
of the three literary heirs, namely the Wittgenstein Archive at the University
of Tübingen.

2.3 The Calendar

The 1950s
Decade Overview 163 letters found. Editing Wittgenstein’s writings begins
with great intensity and fast progress in publishing. For 1958 and 1959 (and
1960–1961), there is a striking gap in the collected correspondence between
Rhees and von Wright; it is unlikely that they stopped corresponding.
1951: Anscombe and Rhees prepare the typescript for PI 1953 – Anscombe
continues translating Part I of PI 1953 – Anscombe contacts Georg Kreisel
and Piero Sraffa concerning editing and translating PI 1953 – Cambridge
University Press, Kegan Paul, Blackwell and Bertrand Russell are contacted
in connection with printing PI 1953 – Trinity College, lawyers and George
Edward Moore are contacted concerning an earlier will from Wittgenstein
– the Rockefeller Foundation grants support for working on Wittgenstein’s
Nachlass – Rhees receives books from Wittgenstein’s library and a box of
manuscripts from Trinity College – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright publish
a note in the journal MIND – Moore hands over the ‘Moore volume’ – von
Wright resigns from his chair at Cambridge – Rhees organizes photographing
of typescripts and manuscripts.
1952: Anscombe translates Part II of PI 1953 – Anscombe and von Wright
cooperate on proofreading PI 1953 – the copyright for BBB 1958 is clarified
– Rhees studies Wittgenstein’s writings on mathematics and discusses them
with von Wright – von Wright contacts Friedrich Waismann concerning the
Wittgenstein manuscripts in his possession – von Wright appoints Norman

TABLE 5.2: Letters 1951

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 1 NLF
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 13 NLF
VW-RR – –
EA-VW 16 NLF
VW-EA – –
Total 30 NLF
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 81

TABLE 5.3: Letters 1952

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 7 NLF
VW-RR 1 NLF
EA-VW 6 NLF
VW-EA 9 NLF
Total 23 NLF

TABLE 5.4: Letters 1953

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 5 NLF
VW-RR 3 NLF
EA-VW 5 NLF
VW-EA 12 NLF
Total 25 NLF

Malcolm to act as literary executor in case he (von Wright) is unable to fulfil

his duties – von Wright reports on experiences of lecturing on Wittgenstein
in Finland – Anscombe, Rhees and von Wright discuss the publications by
Ferrater Mora and Maurice Cranston – von Wright studies the Moore
volume – Anscombe, Rhees and von Wright meet in Austria to make selections
for RFM 1956 – Anscombe and von Wright are shown NB 1961 and Ms 142
in Austria.
1953: Proofreading of PI 1953 continues – PI 1953 is printed and
published in May 1953 – Anscombe searches for errors and publishes a list
of corrigenda in MIND – Friedrich August von Hayek contacts the literary
executors concerning his plan to write a biography of Wittgenstein – Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright meet in Oxford – Russell permits the publication
of his correspondence with Wittgenstein – Anscombe and von Wright discuss
the publication of NL 1960 and NM 1961 – von Wright works on his
biographical sketch of Wittgenstein and an account of the origin of the
Tractatus – Anscombe photocopies NB 1961 for von Wright – Anscombe
tape-records her oral translation of parts of selections for RFM 1956.
82 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

1954: Anscombe reports on lecturing on PI 1953 – Anscombe writes

about the Tractatus – von Wright sojourns at Cornell and lectures on the
Tractatus – von Wright types selections for RFM 1956 – Rhees receives from
Russell letters written by Wittgenstein (NL 1960 and BBB 1958) with
corrections in Wittgenstein’s hand – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright
discuss publishing NB 1961 – plans for a meeting in Oxford.
1955: Editing and translating of RFM 1956 continues – proofreading of
RFM 1956 begins – von Wright works on an index for RFM 1956 –
Anscombe lectures on the Tractatus – Anscombe and von Wright argue about
how to interpret certain passages in the Tractatus – disagreement between
Rhees and von Wright – Rhees and Anscombe discuss ethics and religion –
meeting in Oxford in September.
1956: Trouble with proofreading and printing RFM 1956 – von Wright
elaborates his index for RFM 1956 – Rhees discusses the typesetting and
layout of RFM 1956 – Anscombe and von Wright discuss the publication of
NB 1961 – Anscombe has NB 1961 typed and translates the remarks herself
– Rhees and Anscombe discuss philosophy and religion.
1957: Anscombe publishes her own book Intention – Anscombe sends
copies of NB 1961 to von Wright – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss

TABLE 5.5: Letters 1954

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 1 NLF
VW-RR 1 NLF
EA-VW 2 NLF
VW-EA 4 NLF
Total 8 NLF

TABLE 5.6: Letters 1955

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 1 AA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 4 NLF
VW-RR 1 NLF
EA-VW 8 NLF
VW-EA 5 NLF
Total 19 AA, NLF
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 83

TABLE 5.7: Letters 1956

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 2 AA, NLF
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 3 NLF
VW-RR – –
EA-VW 5 NLF
VW-EA 6 NLF
Total 16 AA, NLF

publishing NB 1961 – disagreement with Routledge & Kegan Paul concerning

the copyright for NB 1961 – Rhees edits BBB 1958 – Rhees, Anscombe and
von Wright proofread BBB 1958 – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss a
German edition of PI 1953 – Rhees and Anscombe discuss philosophy, religion,
God and the Church – von Wright reports to Anscombe about Hintikka’s and
Stenius’s writings on the Tractatus – Anscombe and von Wright meet in Oxford.
1958: Anscombe and von Wright discuss the editing of NB 1961 and NL
1957.

TABLE 5.8: Letters 1957

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 4 AA
EA-RR 6 RBA
RR-VW 5 NLF
VW-RR 3 NLF
EA-VW 6 NLF
VW-EA 8 NLF
Total 32 AA, NLF, RBA

TABLE 5.9: Letters 1958

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW – –
VW-RR – –
EA-VW 1 NLF
VW-EA 1 NLF
Total 2 NLF
84 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

TABLE 5.10: Letters 1959

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW – –
VW-RR – –
EA-VW 4 NLF
VW-EA 1 NLF
Total 5 NLF

1959: Anscombe and von Wright proofread NB 1961 – plans for a meeting
in Oxford.

The 1960s
Decade Overview 224 letters found. Questions about philosophy and
academic careers come to the fore in the exchange between von Wright and
Anscombe. Both of them spend a great deal of time lecturing and working
abroad. By contrast, Rhees takes a leave of absence from his post as lecturer
at the University of Swansea and eventually retires early in order to devote
himself fully to his work with Wittgenstein’s writings. Anscombe’s uncertainty
concerning her teaching post is eventually resolved by the end of the decade
when she is appointed to the Wittgenstein chair at the University of
Cambridge. The striking lack of correspondence between von Wright and
Rhees continues in 1960 and 1961. Intense negotiations between the literary
executors come to a conclusion through microfilming Wittgenstein’s
Nachlass and transferring it to Trinity College Cambridge.
1960: Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright proofread NB 1961 – Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright discuss and decide against including parts of

TABLE 5.11: Letters 1960

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 3 NLF
VW-RR – –
EA-VW 2 NLF
VW-EA 2 NLF
Total 7 NLF
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 85

Wittgenstein’s published writings in an anthology – von Wright edits Z 1967

– Anscombe is supposed to translate Z 1967 – von Wright types notebooks
from which OC 1969, ROC 1977 and LW 1992 will be edited – Rhees types
his copy of the so-called Big Typescript (Wi11/BT 2005) – meeting in Oxford.
1961: Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright grant permission to publish
selections from RFM 1956 – Rhees studies Wi11 and compares it with PB 1964.
1962: Von Wright concludes his typing of notebooks from which OC 1969,
ROC 1977 and LW 1992 will be edited – Anscombe and von Wright discuss
questions of ethics – Rhees creates a copy of Wi11/BT 2005 – Rhees studies
Wi11/BT 2005 and PB 1964 – von Wright reads Wi11/BT 2005 and PB 1964
– Rhees and von Wright discuss the publication of Wi11/BT 2005 and PB 1964
– Rhees wants to make visible the philosophical development that led to PI
1953 – Rhees discusses GB 1967 – Rhees loses the original Ts a copy of which
was the basis for PB 1964 – von Wright reports that dictations from Wittgenstein
have been seen among the papers in Waismann’s estate.
1963: Rhees and von Wright continue to discuss the publication and
editing of Wi11/BT 2005 and PB 1964 – von Wright suggests that Rhees
could write a preface for GB 1967 – Rhees is in contact with Brian
McGuinness concerning the Wittgenstein material in Waismann’s estate –

TABLE 5.12: Letters 1961

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 3 NLF
VW-RR 1 NLF
EA-VW 1 NLF
VW-EA 1 NLF
Total 6 NLF

TABLE 5.13: Letters 1962

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 1 NLF
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 4 NLF
VW-RR 2 NLF, RBA
EA-VW 2 NLF
VW-EA 2 NLF
Total 11 NLF, RBA
86 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

TABLE 5.14: Letters 1963

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 3 NLF, RBA
VW-RR 4 NLF, RBA
EA-VW – –
VW-EA – –
Total 7 NLF, RBA

TABLE 5.15: Letters 1964

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 1 NLF
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 5 NLF
VW-RR 5 NLF, RBA
EA-VW 2 NLF
VW-EA 7 NLF
Total 20 NLF, RBA

TABLE 5.16: Letters 1965

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

RR-EA 1 RBA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 7 NLF
VW-RR 5 NLF
EA-VW 14 NLF
VW-EA 15 NLF
Total 42 NLF, RBA

von Wright discusses editing CCO 1973 – Rhees discusses the publication
and editing of LA 1966 – no meeting.
1964: Disagreement with Routledge & Kegan Paul concerning CCO
1973 – von Wright suggests to separate OC 1969, ROC 1977 and LW 1992
– Rhees finishes typing and editing PB 1964 – Rhees includes FWS 1964 in
PB 1964 – Rhees prepares GB 1967 – von Wright and Rhees discuss the
publication of VB 1977 – von Wright’s assistant begins decoding the coded
remarks – meeting in Oxford to discuss the publication of PB 1964, Wi11/
BT 2005, OC 1969, ROC 1977 and LW 1992.
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 87

1965: Anscombe translates Z 1967 – von Wright decodes the coded remarks
– von Wright makes first selection for VB 1977 – von Wright inspects Thomas
Stonborough’s Wittgenstein material in Vienna and finds PT 1971 as well as
Band VIII and IX – Rhees and von Wright discuss editing Wi11/BT 2005 –
Rhees disagrees with von Wright’s proposal to deposit copies of Wittgenstein’s
writings at Cornell University – Rhees edits PG 1969 – Denis Paul translates
OC 1969 – meeting in Oxford.
1966: Anscombe and von Wright proofread Z 1967 – Paul continues to
translate OC 1969 – von Wright completes deciphering the coded remarks
from all writings – von Wright and Rhees argue about von Wright’s proposal
to have the entire Nachlass microfilmed and copies deposited at Cornell
University – Rhees and Anscombe discuss ‘immortality’ in connection with
the Tractatus – von Wright discusses the publication of PT 1971 – Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright discuss George Pitcher’s proposal to write a
biography of Wittgenstein – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss a
publication of notes taken in Wittgenstein’s classes – meeting in Oxford.
1967: An agreement concerning microfilming the entire Nachlass is
signed with Cornell University – von Wright and Malcolm supervise the

TABLE 5.17: Letters 1966

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 1 AA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 8 NLF, WWA
VW-RR 4 NLF, WWA
EA-VW 6 NLF
VW-EA 8 NLF
Total 27 NLF, AA, WWA

TABLE 5.18: Letters 1967

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 4 NLF, RBA, WREN
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 13 NLF
VW-RR 9 NLF
EA-VW 4 NLF
VW-EA 5 NLF
Total 35 NLF, RBA, WREN
88 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

microfilming – negotiations with Trinity College concerning depositing the

originals and turning over the copyrights after the death of the last surviving
literary heir – negotiations concerning the copyright for CCO 1973 – Rhees
finishes editing and publishes GB 1967 – McGuinness receives material from
Thomas Stonborough – Rhees and Anscombe discuss von Wright’s essay on
the origin of the Tractatus – Drury rejects the idea of writing a Wittgenstein
biography – von Wright discusses the publication of CLF 1969 – translation
of BBB 1958 into German – meeting in Oxford.
1968: Negotiations with Trinity College continue – negotiations with
John Stonborough concerning the Austrian part of the Nachlass – transport
of Rhees’s part of the Nachlass to Cambridge – Anscombe and von Wright
work on editing OC 1969 – von Wright prepares a typescript for RPP
1980a – Cornell University sends a catalogue ‘The Wittgenstein Papers’– von
Wright begins writing his own catalogue of Wittgenstein’s papers (von
Wright 1969).
1969: Negotiations concerning CCO 1973 continue – negotiations
concerning the Austrian part of the Nachlass continue – an agreement with
Trinity College is signed – Anscombe is elected Professor of Philosophy; von
Wright is one of the electors – Anscombe and von Wright discuss philosophy

TABLE 5.19: Letters 1968

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

RR-EA 1 WWA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 7 RBA, WWA
VW-RR 8 WWA
EA-VW 2 NLF
VW-EA 6 NLF
Total 24 NLF, RBA, WWA

TABLE 5.20: Letters 1969

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

RR-EA 1 RBA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 13 WWA
VW-RR 13 RBA, WWA, WREN
EA-VW 11 NLF
VW-EA 9 NLF
Total 47 NLF, RBA, WWA, WREN
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 89

and logic – Rhees discusses von Wright’s catalogue for Wittgenstein’s papers
(von Wright 1969) – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright proofread OC 1969
– Rhees writes a preface for OC 1969 that is not printed – PG 1969 is
published – von Wright begins editing CRK 1974 – Rhees, Anscombe and von
Wright discuss ‘Diktat für Schlick’ – Rhees and von Wright meet in Cambridge.

1970s
Decade Overview 269 letters found. The last volumes are produced
according to the respective editorial styles of Rhees, Anscombe and von
Wright. They begin to revise the already-published books. Von Wright
prepares books that result from his historical interest in the origins of
Wittgenstein’s writings (e.g. PT 1971, CRK 1974, VB 1977), and his research
on Wittgenstein’s Nachlass concentrates on philological details and historical
interconnections. From outside the triumvirate, topics of computer-philology
are brought into the discussion, and the Wittgenstein Archive at the University
of Tübingen is established.
1970: Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss errors in OC 1969 –
Rhees lists corrigenda for PG 1969 – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright
discuss the editing of CRK 1974 – Rhees discusses his earlier suggestion to
incorporate LA 1965 and GB 1967/1971 in OC 1969 – Rhees and von Wright
discuss questions of probability – von Wright prepares an agenda for future
editing work, including the revision of already-published volumes and
publishing VB 1977, and sends it to Rhees and Anscombe – meeting in
Cambridge.
1971: PT 1971 is published – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright proofread
CCO 1973 – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss a volume of
Wittgenstein’s short texts for Suhrkamp – Rhees and von Wright revise RFM
1956/1978 – negotiations in connection with the Wittgenstein house in
Vienna – Anscombe focuses on the philosophical topic of causality.

TABLE 5.21: Letters 1970

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 2 RBA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 13 WWA
VW-RR 8 WWA
EA-VW 4 NLF
VW-EA 4 NLF
Total 31 NLF, RBA, WWA
90 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

TABLE 5.22: Letters 1971

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 2 WWA
VW-RR 2 WWA
EA-VW 1 NLF
VW-EA 2 NLF
Total 7 NLF, WWA

1972: Von Wright intensifies his philological investigation into the

composition of RPP 1980a/b – von Wright investigates the origins of PI 1953
– von Wright and Rhees discuss principles of editing and the revision of
RFM 1978 – Rhees is in disagreement with Suhrkamp – Anscombe is in
disagreement with Blackwell – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss
McKinnon and Kaal’s concordance – von Wright proofreads CRK 1974 –
meeting in Cambridge.

TABLE 5.23: Letters 1972

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 1 WWA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 16 WWA
VW-RR 11 RBA, WWA
EA-VW 4 NLF
VW-EA 7 NLF
Total 39 NLF, RBA, WWA

TABLE 5.24: Letters 1973

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

RR-EA 4 NLF, RBA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 16 WWA
VW-RR 16 WWA
EA-VW 3 NLF
VW-EA 5 NLF
Total 44 NLF, RBA, WWA
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 91

1973: Rhees and von Wright continue to revise RFM 1978 – Anscombe
translates new passages for the revised RFM 1978 – Rhees and von Wright
work on revising RFM 1978 – von Wright continues his philological
investigations into the composition of Wittgenstein’s works – Rhees
campaigns against William Bartley’s presentation of Wittgenstein’s
homosexuality, partly with Anscombe’s support – Ranchetti and Rosso visit
Rhees to propose a research project for a computer-based index and
transcription of the Nachlass – Anscombe visits von Wright in Helsinki.
1974: Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright proofread RFM 1978 – Rhees
and von Wright prepare an index for RFM 1978 – Rhees and von Wright
discuss the origins of PI 1953 – Rhees and Anscombe disagree about
publishing notes taken in Wittgenstein’s classes together with Wittgenstein’s
own remarks – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright support the proposal
submitted to the German Research Foundation for a big research project at
the University of Tübingen – Michael Nedo informs Rhees about the progress
of the Tübingen project application – meeting in Cambridge.
1975: Von Wright creates a new selection for VB 1977 – von Wright and
Rhees discuss the principles of selection for VB 1977 – Anscombe and von
Wright discuss the revision of Z 1967/1981

TABLE 5.25: Letters 1974

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

RR-EA 4 WWA, RBA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 15 WWA, RBA
VW-RR 11 WWA, RBA
EA-VW 3 NLF
VW-EA 3 NLF
Total 36 NLF, RBA, WWA

TABLE 5.26: Letters 1975

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 3 WWA
VW-RR 3 WWA
EA-VW – –
VW-EA 3 NLF, WWA
Total 9 NLF, WWA
92 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

1976: Anscombe translates RPP 1980b – Von Wright prepares VB 1977

and negotiates agreement with Suhrkamp – disagreements with Blackwell –
Rhees disagrees with von Wright’s suggestion to publish the chapter
‘Philosophie’ from Wi11/BT2005 – the German Research Foundation turns
down the application from the University of Tübingen – Nedo works on the
Nachlass in Cambridge – meeting in Cambridge.
1977: Von Wright continues his investigations into philological details of,
and historical interconnections between earlier versions of PI 1953 –
Anscombe discusses editing principles – honorary volume for von Wright
appears, the contributors include Anscombe, Rhees and Kenny, the latter
criticizing Rhees’s editorial principles for PG 1969 – Anscombe and von
Wright discuss editing RPP 1980a/1980b – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright
discuss publishing NPL 1993 – Rhees and von Wright attend the Wittgenstein
symposium at the University of Tübingen to discuss problems of editing and
computerizing Wittgenstein’s Nachlass, plus a new application for a research
project at the University of Tübingen.
1978: Disagreements between Anscombe and McGuinness – Translations
of VB 1977 – Peter Winch becomes the translator for the English edition
of VB 1977 – Anscombe and von Wright discuss RPP 1980a/1980b.

TABLE 5.27: Letters 1976

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 5 WWA
VW-RR 7 WWA
EA-VW 5 NLF
VW-EA 8 NLF
Total 25 NLF, WWA

TABLE 5.28: Letters 1977

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 6 RBA, WWA
VW-RR 10 WWA
EA-VW 3 NLF
VW-EA 7 NLF
Total 26 NLF, RBA, WWA
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 93

TABLE 5.29: Letters 1978

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 1 WWA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 8 WWA
VW-RR 7 WWA
EA-VW 7 NLF
VW-EA 12 NLF
Total 35 NLF, WWA

TABLE 5.30: Letters 1979

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 1 WWA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 3 WWA
VW-RR 4 WWA
EA-VW 3 NLF
VW-EA 6 NLF, WWA
Total 17 NLF, WWA

1979: Anscombe and von Wright continue to discuss RPP 1980a/1980b –

Anscombe and von Wright discuss questions of logic – the Austrian National
Library buys Wittgenstein material – Anscombe and von Wright discuss the
request for an amplified agreement with the Wittgenstein Archives at the
University of Tübingen – meeting in Cambridge.

1980s
Decade Overview 238 letters found. The correspondence is increasingly
characterized by disagreements. Younger scholars enter the work of editing
Wittgenstein’s papers.
1980: Anscombe and von Wright proofread RPP 1980a – Anscombe and
von Wright discuss the translation of the RPP 1980a/b and possible titles for
LW 1982 and LW 1992 – Anscombe and von Wright discuss the revision of
Z 1981 – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss legal advice concerning
copyright matters – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss the events at
the Wittgenstein Archive at the University of Tübingen – Rhees, Anscombe
and von Wright discuss a possible meeting.
94 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

TABLE 5.31: Letters 1980

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 1 RBA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 3 WWA
VW-RR 2 WWA
EA-VW 9 NLF
VW-EA 8 NLF
Total 23 NLF, RBA, WWA

TABLE 5.32: Letters 1981

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 4 WWA
VW-RR 3 WWA
EA-VW 7 NLF
VW-EA 8 NLF
Total 22 NLF, WWA

1981: Von Wright continues to edit LW 1982 and LW 1992 – Rhees and
Anscombe demand that the Wittgenstein Archive at the University of Tübingen
be shut down – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss and negotiate with
representatives from the University of Tübingen concerning a complete
reorganization of the Wittgenstein Archive – Rhees and Anscombe allow Nedo
to fetch all materials stored at the Wittgenstein Archive at the University of
Tübingen – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright disagree concerning measures
taken to close the Wittgenstein Archive at the University of Tübingen – Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright discuss an application to the British Academy for
funding to cover the cost of preparing a complete transcript of the Nachlass,
which would be transcribed in Cambridge – meeting in Cambridge.
1982: Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss GT 1985a/b – von Wright
suggests they prepare a revised complete edition of Wittgenstein’s writings
– Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss a new application to the Austrian
Wissenschaftsfonds (FWF), for the funding of Nedo’s work – Anscombe
disagrees with Blackwell concerning LW 1992 – Rhees discusses the
publication of the chapter ‘Philosophie’ from Wi11/BT 2005 – Rhees and
Anscombe discuss publishing notes taken in Wittgenstein’s classes together
with Wittgenstein’s own remarks – von Wright reports on the computerization
of the Nachlass in Norway – meeting in Cambridge.
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 95

TABLE 5.33: Letters 1982

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 1 RBA
EA-RR 1 RBA
RR-VW 5 WWA
VW-RR 5 WWA
EA-VW 7 NLF
VW-EA 9 NLF
Total 28 NLF, RBA, WWA

TABLE 5.34: Letters 1983

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 4 RBA, WREN, WWA
EA-RR 3 RBA, WWA
RR-VW 6 RBA, WWA
VW-RR 5 WWA
EA-VW 8 NLF
VW-EA 6 NLF
Total 32 NLF, RBA, WREN, WWA

TABLE 5.35: Letters 1984

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA 1 WWA
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 9 NLF, WWA
VW-RR 5 WWA
EA-VW 13 NLF
VW-EA 8 NLF
Total 36 NLF, WWA

1983: Anscombe continues to disagree with Blackwell concerning LW 1992

and stops all cooperation – von Wright proposes to publish LW 1992 and to
work on a revised complete edition of all the volumes they have edited – Rhees
disagrees with the notion of revision in von Wright’s proposal – Anscombe
disagrees with Rhees’s proposal to publish notes taken in Wittgenstein’s classes
together with Wittgenstein’s own remarks – Anscombe discusses principles of
her editing – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss Nedo’s work, which is
being funded by the Austrian Wissenschaftsfonds (FWF) – Rhees, Anscombe
and von Wright discuss the Norwegian Wittgenstein Project.
96 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

1984: Anscombe continues to disagree with Blackwell – Rhees, Anscombe

and von Wright discuss Nedo’s work with a view to renew the application
for funding from the FWF – von Wright reports on the Norwegian
Wittgenstein Project – Rhees and von Wright discuss Heikki Nyman’s edition
of minor writings and the chapter ‘Philosophie’ from Wi11/BT 2005 –
Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss McGuinness’s biographical
introduction to Nedo and Ranchetti’s picture biography – Rhees, Anscombe
and von Wright try to hinder Wilhelm Baum from publishing GT 1985a/b –
Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss publishing selections from
Wittgenstein writings in an anthology – meeting in Cambridge.
1985: Anscombe continues to disagree with Blackwell – Rhees, Anscombe
and von Wright discuss the progress of Nedo’s editorial work – Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright are contacted by Ray Monk – von Wright and
Anscombe discuss royalty matters relating to the hitherto published volumes
– Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss McGuinness’s biographical
introduction to Nedo and Ranchetti’s picture biography and Nedo’s lawsuit
against Suhrkamp.

TABLE 5.36: Letters 1985

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW 3 WWA
VW-RR 2 WWA
EA-VW 4 NLF
VW-EA 5 NLF
Total 14 NLF, WWA

TABLE 5.37: Letters 1986

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA –
EA-RR –
RR-VW 1 WWA
VW-RR 1 WWA
EA-VW 7 NLF
VW-EA 5 NLF
Total 14 NLF, WWA
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 97

1986: Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss Nedo’s progress and
samples of his envisaged edition – von Wright discusses scholarly criticism of
Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright’s editorial work – Rhees, Anscombe and
von Wright discuss the use of computer technology for editorial work – von
Wright reports on the Norwegian Wittgenstein Project – Anscombe disagrees
with von Wright’s suggestion to apply to the Austrian Wissenschaftsfonds
(FWF) for funding for the Norwegian Wittgenstein Project.
1987: Von Wright discusses PGL 1988 – Anscombe questions copyright
matters relating to McGuinness’s biography – Rhees, Anscombe and von
Wright discuss samples for Nedo’s edition – Rhees, Anscombe and von
Wright discuss the renewal of funding for the Norwegian Wittgenstein
Project through the Research Council of Norway (NFR) – Anscombe and
von Wright discuss the publication of LW 1992 with Suhrkamp.
1988: Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright disagree on the issue of renewing
an application to the Austrian Wissenschaftsfonds (FWF) for Nedo’s edition
– Anscombe and von Wright disagree on publishing LW 1992 with Suhrkamp
– Anscombe continues to disagree with Blackwell – Anscombe continues to
question copyright matters relating to McGuinness’s biography – Anscombe
and von Wright discuss royalty matters for VB 1977 and its translations –

TABLE 5.38: Letters 1987

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW – –
VW-RR – –
EA-VW 3 NLF
VW-EA 5 NLF
Total 8 NLF

TABLE 5.39: Letters 1988

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR 1 WWA
RR-VW 6 WWA
VW-RR 11 NLF, WWA
EA-VW 11 NLF
VW-EA 11 NLF, WWA
Total 40 NLF, WWA
98 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

TABLE 5.40: Letters 1989

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

RR-EA – –
EA-RR – –
RR-VW – –
VW-RR 1 NLF
EA-VW 12 NLF
VW-EA 8 NLF
Total 21 NLF

Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright disagree about which manuscript may be
published as a possible centenary volume consisting of a complete facsimile
– Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright disagree about further support for the
Norwegian Wittgenstein Project – Claus Huitfeldt travels to England to seek
support for a renewal of funding for the Norwegian Wittgenstein Project –
Anscombe travels to Norway – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss
who should publish the first volumes of Nedo’s edition – von Wright writes
up an extensive summary of current and future questions of editing
Wittgenstein’s Nachlass and sends it to Rhees and Anscombe – Rhees and
von Wright meet in Cambridge.
1989: Anscombe and von Wright discuss PH 1989 – Anscombe and von
Wright discuss the renewal of funding for Nedo’s work – Anscombe and von
Wright discuss a publishing contract for the first volumes of Nedo’s edition of
the Nachlass – Anscombe criticizes the final report of the Norwegian
Wittgenstein Project – Anscombe and von Wright discuss the contract with
Suhrkamp for LW 1992 – Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright discuss plans for a
complete edition of Wittgenstein’s writings – Rhees dies on 22 May 1989 – Von
Wright goes through Rhees’s papers in Swansea and takes Rhees’s Wittgenstein
material to Trinity College Cambridge – Peter Winch is elected to succeed
Rhees on the board of trustees – Anscombe and von Wright meet in Cambridge.

1990s
Decade Overview 36 letters found. After Rhees’s death, a board of trustees
is established. From now on, coordination of the editorial work is more
formalized, and the files relating to the work on Wittgenstein’s Nachlass are
kept by the board’s secretary and eventually transferred to the Wren Library
at Trinity College Cambridge.
1990: Anscombe and von Wright discuss a funding application to support
the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen – Anscombe and von
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 99

TABLE 5.41: Letters 1990

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

EA-VW 5 NLF
VW-EA 5 NLF
Total 10 NLF

TABLE 5.42: Letters 1991

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archive

EA-VW 2 NLF
VW-EA 3 NLF
Total 5 NLF

Wright disagree about the final report from the Norwegian Wittgenstein
Project – the board of trustees meets with Blackwell in Oxford – Anscombe
and von Wright discuss a publishing contract for the first volumes of Nedo’s
edition – the board of trustees meets in Cambridge.
1991: Anscombe and von Wright discuss royalties from Blackwell and a
new agreement with Blackwell – Anscombe and von Wright discuss a publishing
contract for Nedo’s work in connection with a complete edition of the
Nachlass – von Wright writes an agenda for the board of trustees – Anscombe
discusses von Wright’s critical account of the editorial decision to include Part
II to PI 1953 (von Wright 1992) – The board of trustees meets in Cambridge.
1992: Anscombe and von Wright discuss the possible publication of the
Nachlass through the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen –
The board of trustees meets in Cambridge.
1993: –
1994: Anscombe and von Wright discuss the renewal of funding for the
Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen.

TABLE 5.43: Letters 1992

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

EA-VW 1 NLF
VW-EA 2 NLF, WREN
Total 3 NLF, WREN
100 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

TABLE 5.44: Letters 1994

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

EA-VW 1 NLF
VW-EA 1 NLF
Total 2 NLF

TABLE 5.45: Letters 1995

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

EA-VW 2 NLF
VW-EA 1 NLF
Total 3 NLF

TABLE 5.46: Letters 1996

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

EA-VW – –
VW-EA 1 NLF
Total 1 NLF

1995: Anscombe and von Wright discuss questions relating to royalties

and taxation – Anscombe and von Wright discuss the revision of VB 1977
and rename it ‘Miscellaneous Remarks’ – meeting in Cambridge.
1996: Anscombe and von Wright discuss renaming VB 1977.
1997: –
1998: Anscombe and von Wright discuss royalty issues – Anscombe and
von Wright discuss Nicholas Denyer’s election to the board of trustees –
Anscombe disagrees with appointing Joachim Schulte and Peter Hacker to
the board of trustees after they have already been elected – the board of
trustees meets in Cambridge.

TABLE 5.47: Letters 1998

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

EA-VW 3 NLF
VW-EA 2 NLF
Total 5 NLF
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 101

TABLE 5.48: Letters 1999

Author-Recipient Number of letters found Archives

EA-VW 3 NLF
VW-EA 4 NLF
Total 7 NLF

1999: Anscombe and von Wright disagree about the composition of the
board of trustees – Anscombe and von Wright discuss Nedo’s edition in
connection with a contract between the Wittgenstein Archives at the
University of Bergen and Oxford University Press for publishing BEE 2000.

TABLE 5.49: List of abbreviations used in the calendar.

Band IX www.wittgensteinsource.org/BFE/Ms-113_f
Band VIII www.wittgensteinsource.org/BFE/Ms-117_f
BBB 1958 Preliminary Studies for the ‘Philosophical Investigations’, generally
known as The Blue and Brown Books, edited by R. Rhees (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1958).
BEE 2000 Wittgenstein’s Nachlass. The Bergen Electronic Edition, edited by The
Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000).
BT 2005 The Big Typescript: TS 213, edited by C. Grant Luckhardt and
M. A. E. Aue (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005).
CCO 1973 Letters to C. K. Ogden, with an appendix of letters by F. P. Ramsey,
edited by G.H. von Wright (Oxford: Basil Blackwell and London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973).
CLF 1969 Briefe an Ludwig von Ficker, edited by G.H. von Wright in
cooperation with W. Methlagl (Salzburg: Otto Müller), first
publication in English: Letters to Ludwig von Ficker, edited by
A. Janik (Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1969).
CRK 1974 Letters to Russell, Keynes and Moore, edited by G.H. von Wright,
assisted by B. F. McGuinness (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974).
FWS 1964 Aus F. Waismanns stenographischer Abschrift von Reden und
Gesprächen Wittgensteins zwischen Dezember 1929 und September
1931, in PB 1964; first publication in English: From F. Waismann’s
shorthand transcript of Wittgenstein’s talks and conversations
between December 1929 and September 1931, in PB 1975.
GB 1967 Bemerkungen über Frazers The Golden Bough, edited by R. Rhees,
Synthese, 17 (1967), 233–253.
GB 1971 Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough, The Human World, 3 (1971),
18–41.
GT 1985a Diaris Secrets / Geheime Tagebücher, Saber, 5 (1985), 24–49.
GT 1985b Diarios Secretos (y II) / Geheime Tagebücher, Saber, 6 (1985),
30–59.
102 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

LA 1966 Lectures and Conversations, edited by C. Barrett (Oxford: Basil

Blackwell, 1966).
LE 1965 A Lecture on Ethics, The Philosophical Review, 74 (1965), 3–12.
LPE 1993 Notes for Lectures on ‘Private Experience’ and ‘Sense Data’, edited
by D. G. Stern, in Ludwig Wittgenstein. Philosophical Occasions
1912–1951, edited by J. C. Klagge and A. Nordmann (Indianapolis
and Cambridge, MA: Hackett, 1993).
LW 1982 Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology / Letzte Schriften über
die Philosophie der Psychologie, Vol. 1, edited by G.H. von Wright
and H. Nyman (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982).
LW 1992 Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology / Letzte Schriften über
die Philosophie der Psychologie, Vol. 2, edited by G.H. von Wright
and H. Nyman (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1992).
Ms 142 Manuscript No. 142, www.wittgensteinsource.org/BFE/Ms-142_f (also
published in: Philosophische Untersuchungen. Kritisch-genetische
Edition, edited by J. Schulte in cooperation with H. Nyman, E. v.
Savigny and G.H. v. Wright (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2001)).
NB 1961 Notebooks 1914–1916, edited by G.H. von Wright and G.E.M.
Anscombe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961).
NL 1957 Notes on Logic, The Journal of Philosophy, 54 (1957), 230–245.
NL 1960 Aufzeichnungen über Logik, in Schriften, Bd. 1, edited by G.E.M.
Anscombe and G.H. von Wright (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp,
1960).
NM 1961 Notes dictated to G. E. Moore in Norway, in Notebooks 1914–1916,
edited by G.H. von Wright and G.E.M. Anscombe (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1961).
OC 1969 On Certainty / Über Gewißheit, edited by G.E.M. Anscombe and
G.H. von Wright (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1969).
PB 1964 Philosophische Bemerkungen, edited by R. Rhees (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1964); first publication in English: Philosophical Remarks,
edited by R. Rhees (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975).
PG 1969 Philosophische Grammatik, edited by R. Rhees (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1969); first publication in English: Philosophical
Grammar, edited by R. Rhees (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974).
PGL 1988 Wittgenstein’s Lectures on Philosophical Psychology 1946-1947,
edited by P. T. Geach (New York: Harvester)
PH 1989 Philosophie, Revue Internationale de Philosophie 43 (1989), 72–203,
edited by H. Nyman; first publication in English: Philosophy, edited
by H. Nyman, Synthese, 87 (1991), 3–22.
PI 1953 Philosophical Investigations / Philosophische Untersuchungen, edited
by G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1953).
PT 1971 Prototractatus. An Early Version of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,
edited by B. F. McGuinness, T. Nyberg and G.H. von Wright
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971).
PU 2001 Philosophische Untersuchungen. Kritisch-genetische Edition, edited by
J. Schulte in collaboration with H. Nyman, E. von Savigny and
G.H. von Wright (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2001).
LETTERS BETWEEN RHEES, ANSCOMBE AND VON WRIGHT 103

RFM 1956 Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics / Bemerkungen über die

Grundlagen der Mathematik, edited by G.H. von Wright, R. Rhees
and G.E.M. Anscombe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956).
RFM 1978 Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, edited by G.H. von
Wright, R. Rhees und G.E.M. Anscombe, third edition, revised and
reset (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978).
ROC 1977 Remarks on Colour / Bemerkungen über die Farben, edited by
G.E.M. Anscombe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977).
RPP 1980b Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology / Bemerkungen über die
Philosophie der Psychologie, Vol. 2, edited by G.H. von Wright and
H. Nyman (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980).
VB 1977 Vermischte Bemerkungen, edited by G.H. von Wright in cooperation
with H. Nyman (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1977).
WC 2012 Wittgenstein in Cambridge. Letters and Documents, 1911–1951,
edited by B. F. McGuinness (Malden, MA: Blackwell 2012).
Wi11 The Big Typescript, Wiener Ausgabe Band 11, edited by M. Nedo
(Wien: Springer, 2000).
Z 1967 Zettel, edited by G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1967).
Z 1981 Zettel, edited by G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1981).

NOTES
1. This chapter is dedicated to Brian McGuinness.
2. Letter from Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright, 2 December 1984,
(WWA, Wri-FC-006). Rhees may refer to the so-called impossible tribar, also
known as Penrose-Triangle; see L. S. Penrose and R. Penrose (1958), ‘Impossible
Objects: A Special Type of Visual Illusion’, British Journal of Psychology, 49(1),
31–33.
3. The letters were found during three research projects (between 2012 and 2020)
dealing with the history of editing Wittgenstein. The projects were funded by
the Norwegian Research Council (NFR 213980), the German Research
Foundation (DFG, SFB 1187), and the Academy of Finland (The Creation of
Wittgenstein).
104
 CHAPTER SIX

The Revision of
Wittgenstein’s Remarks
on the Foundations
of Mathematics
KIM SOLIN

1. INTRODUCTION
‘Wittgenstein’s chief contribution has been in the philosophy of mathematics.’
According to Rush Rhees, this was the sentence that Wittgenstein himself
wanted to add to the biographical note that John Wisdom had prepared in
1944. Rhees tells Monk, however, that only two months after that statement,
Wittgenstein gave up his own work on the philosophy of mathematics (Monk
1990: 466 ff). Nevertheless, this shows that the philosophy of mathematics
at one point was central to Wittgenstein. If one wants to understand the
creation of Wittgenstein, then one ought also to consider his work in the
philosophy of mathematics and the process of publishing the manuscripts on
mathematics.
Wittgenstein’s Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der Mathematik, in
translation the Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics (hereafter simply
‘the Remarks’), can be found in three editions. The first was published 1956,
in the original German parallel to the English translation. It consists of

105
106 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

selections from Wittgenstein’s writings on mathematics. The second edition,

which is identical in content to the first edition, was published in 1967. The
first edition of the Remarks was not well received (Monk 2007: 288 ff) and
the trustees were not satisfied with their work. This is why they decided to
revise it.1 The revised and expanded edition was published in 1974 in
German, and contains additional material from the Nachlass. Some of the
previously included material was rearranged. The third edition, which is a
translation into English of the German revised and expanded edition (with
some minor differences), appeared in 1978.
This essay concerns the revision of the first edition into the third. To gain
insight into the editorial process, I will discuss the correspondence between
the two main editors of the revised edition, Rush Rhees and Georg Henrik
von Wright.2 The work on the revised edition began in autumn 1970 and
went on until spring 1974. I shall identify three key phases of the
correspondence (the initial work, the main work, and the finalization) and
give a chronological synopsis of the contents with respect to the revision.3 I
will conclude the essay with a discussion of what the correspondence has
shown regarding the revision in relation to the editors’ own philosophical
views, and also discuss how one ought to understand the Remarks in light of
the correspondence.

2. INITIAL WORK: CORRESPONDENCE

OCTOBER 1970 TO SEPTEMBER 1972
The editors had met in November 1970 for one of their annual meetings,
this time in Cambridge (see Erbacher’s chapter in this book). In a letter to
Anscombe, von Wright suggests some future items of work he thinks they
ought to discuss at the meeting, and one of the main items is the following:

Reconsider the composition of the volume on the foundations of

mathematics. We worked hard on making the selections – but I suspect it
would have been better, if we had published the manuscripts in a more
integral from.4

Already in 1965 von Wright had studied anew the manuscripts from which
they had made selections and he ‘often had an uncomfortable feeling that
[they] should not have made selections’.5 When in Cambridge in November
1970, von Wright also met with Henry Schollick of Basil Blackwell, and
would certainly have informed him of their plans to revise the Remarks.
Late in August 1971, Siegfried Unseld of Suhrkamp Verlag sent Rhees an
inquiry about the Remarks. Suhrkamp wanted to publish the Remarks in
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 107

their series on Wittgenstein and wanted the volume to be as extensive and

definitive as possible. Rhees replies that the editors are making a number
of additions to the text. They are keen to see it in print as soon as possible,
but they are not yet finished with it, and do not want to set a more precise
date for delivery. After Rhees tells von Wright about his reply to Suhrkamp,
von Wright writes to Rhees that he hopes to ‘feel free to proceed with
the mathematics stuff ’ after the academic year 1971–1972. Von Wright
intends to visit England in May or September 1972 and this would be a
good opportunity for the trustees to do joint work, von Wright writes, and
adds that Rhees should nevertheless feel free to keep working on his own
before that.
In late March 1972, Rhees informs von Wright that Suhrkamp wants to
publish in autumn, and would like to have the manuscript in April. Rhees has
gone through the Remarks and found and listed a number of places where he
thinks some passages that had been left out in the first edition could be
inserted, although less often than he had expected; he has also found and
typed up some new material that he thinks should be included. Von Wright
replies that he has still not had any time to work on the revision of the
Remarks, so that already for that reason, they cannot promise Suhrkamp a
date of delivery.6 Von Wright is ‘very glad’ that Rhees has started working on
the revision, and hopes that by the time he visits England in the second half
of September, he has been able to do his part, so that they can ‘together
finish the work on the revised edition’. He asks Rhees to send him the lists
and typescripts he has prepared.
On the 6 April 1972, Rhees sends von Wright two typescripts of
manuscripts he thinks could be added to the Remarks. In von Wright’s
catalogue of the manuscripts (von Wright 1969), these are MS 162 and MS
164. He sends them to von Wright with a few comments. Regarding MS
164, which is about the problem of following a rule, he writes that he has
crossed out the last five pages, except for the ending three lines of which he
remains uncertain. He has added paragraph numbers, and feels that the
manuscript is more interesting from §21 onwards but notes that he would
still be willing to print the earlier passages as well. Rhees is of the opinion
that repetition in other parts of the Remarks need not ‘always be evil’.7
Regarding MS 162, Rhees writes that he has only typed up part of the
manuscript, but that he finds it important, more so even than MS 164, ‘if one
had to choose’. But it needs work, lacking is division into paragraphs and
numbering them. He has also considered adding some material from MS
159. According to Rhees, MS 162 is about diagonalization, proof of
provability and proof by induction, and as he understands it, these were
central to Gödel’s work. ‘I think that some of his comments are relevant to
108 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

the ways of thinking of those who found Gödel’s proofs ‘revolutionary’,

whether or not they apply to Gödel’s own wording’, Rhees concludes.8 He
refrains from sending von Wright suggestions of insertions to the now
printed text, as they are ‘still lying about in pieces on the floor’; Rhees finds
that it ‘easily drives [him] crazy’. He welcomes von Wright’s suggestion to
meet in the second half of September.
On the 10 April, von Wright thanks Rhees for the typescripts, but makes
no further comments. About a month later, 4 May 1972, Rhees sends von
Wright a new typescript with passages taken from MS 163. He feels certain
that roughly the first five pages of the typescript should be included,
much less so about the last five pages. The first five pages may be ‘less full
than we might wish’, but they contain important remarks on the notion of
‘inhaltlich gedeutet’, which according to Rhees plays a considerable role in
Wittgenstein’s ‘exposition of Gödel’s proof and of ‘formalised languages’
altogether’. ‘And these few remarks of Wittgenstein’s might help some to see
the sort of interest which such discussions had for him’, Rhees thinks. He
also writes that there are a couple of sections, one about the continuity
of functions, that were left out in the first edition, but that Rhees now
thinks should be included. Finally, he mentions that he agrees with von
Wright in what he says in a letter recently sent to Anscombe, ‘that it would
be pointless and would do more harm than good if we tried to publish ‘the
entire manuscripts books’ without any omissions’.9 This is in agreement
with what the editors state in the preface to the third edition, that ‘the time
has not yet come to print the whole of Wittgenstein’s manuscripts’
(Wittgenstein 1978: 32).
A few days before midsummer’s eve 1972, von Wright has finally read the
typescripts and replies to Rhees from his summerhouse in the archipelago
(he sends Anscombe a copy of the letter). He finds MS 164 ‘extremely
interesting’ and thinks it is unfortunate that they did not consider it for the
first edition. If they decide to publish it, it would mean a sixth part to the
Remarks. One could perhaps cut out a bit more than Rhees has done, von
Wright notes, ‘but not much’. He has not reached a definite opinion on
whether they should publish it now. ‘One of my difficulties is to see clearly,
how much this MS adds to or illuminates what W. says about Regelfolgen in
the already published stuff.’
But von Wright is not as impressed by MSS 162 and 163:

The discussion of the Diagonalverfahren [in MS 162], though in itself

interesting, does not strike me as better than what we have already
published on this topic, nor does it seem to me to add anything substantially
new. [. . .] My impression of what is being said in 163 on the Gödel-
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 109

problem is similar. I doubt whether it will make hostile critics, or readers

generally, understand any better what W. is after and why he is interested
in the situation created by Gödel’s results. As you know, what we printed
about this – mainly as Appendix I to Part I – has been universally criticized,
derided, and misunderstood. The critics have said next to nothing
about in what they think W’s “mistakes” consist. The only substance
which I have myself been able to find in the criticisms I have seen is the
charge against W. that he did not say or know that G’s proof of the
existence of undecidable truths is relative to an assumption of consistency
of a system. I think myself that W’s discussion misses something important
– but how important the missing point is to what he tries to say, I cannot
judge. And I doubt whether the new stuff on Gödel will be helpful in this
regard.10

Von Wright wants to digest his impressions, read the typescripts once more,
and try to form a definitive opinion about publication. He might also suggest
including the remarks on surprise in mathematics that were omitted from
the first edition. ‘All the above opinions are tentative and I am more than
willing to listen to different opinions. I hope we can reach a decision when
we meet in September.’ Rhees immediately replies, in passing in a letter
regarding other matters, that although he might change his mind, he thinks
that one can argue for including some of the material from MSS 162 and
163 and that he will do so in another letter. On 10 August Rhees writes,
again in passing, that he has changed his mind about MS 163, but that he
maintains his view on MS 162. Von Wright replies a few days later that
he will reconsider MS 162, but notes – and this will later become a
concern – that if the volume becomes too large one may have to split it into
two volumes; he adds that he’ll be in Cambridge in September and available
for discussion.
The initial discussions in Cambridge do not seem to have had a flying
start, judging from a letter from Rhees to the other two on 21 September.
Anscombe and von Wright have a different view than Rhees on publishing
notes from Wittgenstein’s lectures. ‘We should not get anywhere by discussing
it further and we must go our own ways’, Rhees writes, and concludes the
letter by: ‘I hope we may succeed in getting the material on the philosophy
of mathematics printed somehow.’ The correspondence is then sparse,
probably since they met in person or telephoned. But on 27 September, von
Wright’s last day in Cambridge before he travels to Cornell for a month, von
Wright sends Rhees a concluding summary of what they have agreed upon
regarding the revision, including a division of labour (see below for details).
This marks the beginning of the main work on completing the revision.
110 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

3. MAIN WORK: CORRESPONDENCE AUTUMN

1972 AND SPRING 1973
These are the changes that von Wright suggests: To Part I, he wants to add
the pages on surprise and those on negation that they omitted in the first
edition (a large number of the remarks on negation can also be found in the
PI; the editors had left them out from the first edition as they had considered
the ones in the PI to be improved versions of them). Further, he wants to
separate Appendix II from Part I, combine the Appendix with what Rhees
has typed up from MS 162 and, possibly, include a selection of remarks on
Gödel from what Rhees has typed up from MS 163. This would form a new
Part II (so, nota bene, von Wright has changed his mind regarding MSS 162
and 163). The old Parts II and III can remain unaltered, but renamed III and
IV, respectively. To Parts IV and V, Rhees has suggested additions that von
Wright does ‘not feel strongly about’. ‘I leave the decision in the matter to
you, after reconsideration, and I shall not object to your final decision’, von
Wright writes. Nevertheless, to the additions to Part V – which are about
rule following – he would like footnotes or something similar with a pointer
to each corresponding remark in the PI, and a reason stated in the preface as
to why they have decided to include them.
Von Wright then proceeds to propose the following division of labour:
von Wright will be responsible for Part I and the new Part II, Rhees for the
revision of the old Parts IV and V. Von Wright thinks he can do his part by
the end of the year; Anscombe is willing to translate immediately. In a reply
roughly a week later, Rhees agrees to the division of labour, but includes
the old Part III into his assignment, since he might want to add a few things.
Rhees will try to keep the deadline.
Rhees, however, thinks that pointers to PI in Part V would ‘interrupt and
get in the way of the reading, and it would not help the reader to understand
what is being said in the passage in question. [. . .] I do not think this helps
the reader to understand the discussion, I think it gets in his way. It would
be useful to someone who was interested chiefly in the composition of the
text, I suppose (although even on that coordinate I am not clear what the
value is).’11 Rhees did eventually add some footnotes with references to PI
and to PG and PR; I have not been able to determine if von Wright was
content with this.
In the letter of 27 September, von Wright worries that ‘the bulk of the
volume’ is becoming too large. Therefore, von Wright thinks, MS 164 cannot
be included in the current volume, even though it is worth publishing
without omissions at some other time and in some other form. For the same
reason, he doesn’t think that they can go in for a respacing of the text,
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 111

although he is in favour of spaces in general. To this Rhees protests: ‘I should

have thought the question: How illuminating is the reader going to find it?
– were more important.’ He wants to include MS 164, and suggests that if it
is only about the size of the volume, they could let Suhrkamp publish it in
the German only version. Von Wright replies from Ithaca on the 17 October,
that he might have been prejudiced against expanding the bulk of the volume
substantially and that if Blackwell chooses the paper in the right way it will
not become too thick – so von Wright now favours preparing MS 164 for
publication, ‘and see what the totality then looks like’.
Three days later, Rhees replies that he is very happy that von Wright is
open to including MS 164. But now it is Rhees who has changed his mind
about MS 163:

As I study the BGM now, my feeling is again that the MS. 163 remarks on
Gödel are not worth publishing. I could wish for some way of including
the one or two paragraphs on ‘inhaltlich gedeutet’ – not because these are
Wittgenstein at his best, but simply because I am weary of meeting the
phrase (just now I am thinking of Stegmüller’s accounts of Gödel and of
Tarski) as though it were something ganz präzise und wissenschaftlich. I
keep wishing someone would shout that it’s wobbly and woolly.12

He then lists the already published passages which he for the moment thinks
are the most important on Gödel.13
In addition to this, he would like to add explanations to the remarks
where Wittgenstein refers to Russell’s paper ‘The Limits of Empiricism’,
either in the form of a footnote or in the preface. ‘Since so many people
never read the preface, a footnote might be better.’ This comes from the fact
that Wittgenstein had written a whole set of remarks on Russell’s paper, and
Rhees feels it should be published, although not included in the revision of
the Remarks; in a reply 26 October von Wright agrees (see Wittgenstein
1974: 197, 237, 379, 387).
Then they work on their own, and there are no letters regarding the
Remarks until 12 December, when von Wright informs Rhees that he has
now finished the revision of Part I, which essentially means the addition of
two appendices on negation and surprise in mathematics, respectively. ‘The
section on Gödel [from the 1956 edition], etc. will then be Appendix III [...]
With these additions the whole of the cut-up typescript which originally
was the second half of the early version of the Untersuchungen will have
been published. And this seems to me right.’ Von Wright has had a look at
the new material for Part II (a later letter reveals that von Wright has
considered material from MSS 121 and 162; see below), regarding Cantor,
112 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

but will not be able to work on it until after Christmas.14 Rhees replies a few
days before New Year’s Eve that he has finished Part V (of the 1956 edition),
and that the new material will amount to 10–12 pages with the current
spacing. He also feels certain that MS 164 should be included (between IV
and V, or at the very end), and even proposes to replace Part V by it, if
necessary. He says he could give reasons for this, and adds cryptically, ‘but I
doubt if they would help just here’. Rhees is much less certain regarding
Parts III and IV:

I have wavered back and forth over possible inclusions in III and IV.
I think they are good as they stand – the best portions of the book. I wish
there were a fuller and clearer discussion on what he is saying of the
generality and continuity of functions in mathematics – on pages 150 to
153, for instance. But the manuscripts do not provide much. (When
Tarski speaks of transforming ‘eine Klasse von Aussagen’ into ‘eine Klasse
von Aussagefunktionen’, and when he speaks of ‘Erfüllung’, I do not
understand very well. I think Wittgenstein would have deep criticisms of
what Tarski says, but I am not intelligent enough to get clear about them.
The notion of ‘function’ seems to have been ambiguous – or differently
understood by different writers – for much of its history.) – If I finally do
include anything further in III or IV, the whole amount will not be more
than one page, I think, Und immer flüstert mir das Trägheitsgesetz, ich
soll sie so bleiben lassen, wie sie sind.15

To sum up, as they enter 1973, the editors have agreed on a division of
labour, finished the revision of Part I and the original Part V. The original
Part II is left without revision, but a footnote is added. They are working on
the original Parts III and IV, and are positive towards the inclusion of MS
164. So although they have made significant progress, the editors fail to keep
the deadline they set in September.
*
In the first letter of 1973, 4 January, von Wright informs Rhees that he is
now considering what should be done with the former Appendix II of Part I
– on Cantor – and is of the opinion that it should form a new Part II of its
own. What he is uncertain about is if he should add something more to it,
which he thinks could be good since it is only fifteen pages long, but he has
not found anything that would improve what is already there.16 He will also
divide up the text into a greater number of remarks, since he thinks the
editors did not pay enough attention to Wittgenstein’s own way of separating
the remarks when they worked on the first edition in the early 1950s.
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 113

Importantly, von Wright is now in complete agreement with Rhees that MS

164 should be included and, moreover, that it should not replace Part V.
A month later, Rhees replies that he has parts III, IV and V in the
numbering of the first edition done. He has made several additions to Part V,
two of them a few pages long. Two small additions to Part IV (the final
additions for the 1974 edition are the remarks added at the ends of § 36 and
§ 39, respectively, and the four last remarks of § 15; I have not been able to
determine which two of these Rhees refers to here). He has made no
additions to Part III. Rhees also agrees fully with von Wright’s comment
about spacing. He writes: ‘I am only afraid of making my agreement too
eager’, and continues, ‘the way the remarks are crowded together here is like
placing a dirty glass in front of what Wittgenstein is saying’. If, however, they
would add spacing to the whole volume, they might have to split it into two
volumes. Recall that von Wright hesitated splitting the volume. Nevertheless,
Rhees would prefer even that. Finally, he suggests that MS 164 be placed
either between III and IV or between IV and V.
On the 14 February, von Wright is ready with the new Part II: he has
added the omitted Ansätze from MS 117, but nothing more. In the preface
to the revised edition this is called an ‘inconsiderable expansion’; note that
von Wright in the end dropped MSS 162 and 163 altogether (for a discussion
of MS 162, see Floyd and Mühlhölzer 2020: 125 ff. and 249 ff.). He has also
divided the text into ‘sections and paragraphs in strict accordance with
Wittgenstein’s own divisions in the manuscripts’ (therefore, the revised text
has 62 sections in comparison to the 18 sections of the first edition).
Regarding the rest of the text, von Wright makes the following highly
interesting comments, which I quote in full:

I then thought that we ought perhaps to perform a similar operation also

on the sections and paragraphs of the old Teil II, and on the rest of the old
text. [...] But on reflection, I am not going to recommend this. It seems to
me that it is better that we do as originally we did – and as you yourself
did when you typed out the text of 164 – namely lump sections together
according to subject matter into bigger sections and give to these bigger
sections a number. This would leave Teil III with 90 sections, as in the old
edition, with the (important) difference however that inside the sections
paragraphs should be lumped together and separated by spaces exactly as
in Wittgenstein’s manuscript. This is done to some measure, but not
consistently, in the old text too, but the spaces are so narrow that they are
not always obvious to the eye. Therefore: the spaces must not only be
consistently marked but they must also be increased. What you did in
Phil.Bem. and Phil.Gramm. is the pattern of spacing which we ought to
114 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

follow. This will increase the bulk of the volume, but I hope it will not
compel us to split the volume in two.17

Further, von Wright suggests that MS 164 should be placed before the old
Part V; he also sends Rhees an extensive list of comments to Rhees’s typed
and edited version of MS 164, so extensive in fact, that one can claim that
von Wright played a role in the preparation of it. By the end of February, von
Wright has drafted a new preface, with parts from the old one, and asks for
adjustments from the other two editors, ‘additions, alterations, omissions’.
He also sends them Xerox copies of the parts he has revised and welcomes
comments. Regarding the new Part II, on Cantor amongst other things, von
Wright says that it is without doubt the weakest part of the book. ‘But can
we improve it?’
Rhees replies to von Wright with a long letter about the section on Cantor
and the preface. Regarding the Cantor section, Rhees says two main things.
First, the following:

I agree with you that the discussion is weak – when compared, e.g., with the
discussion of Induktionsbeweis in the Grammatik. I feel that Wittgenstein
could have done something better organized and more forceful, if he had set
himself to it. – He intended to do so at the end of 1939: to write something
about Cantor’s Beweismethoden and about Gödel’s, and make this a
conclusion to the discussion of Russell’s logic (which I think was being
developed in the manuscripts which you used for the /new/ present Part III).
So he said to me in conversation, anyway. [. . .] – I do not think the discussion
could be arranged in any better way than this now.18

Secondly, Rhees also notes that the section as a whole seems heavy, in fact,
the whole volume seems heavy, which is one reason people have had a hard
time reading it. Rhees thinks that the greater spaces between the remarks
that they have been considering will make a real difference, that they will ‘do
something to dispel the Dämmerung of this Cantor section’.
The preface is excellent, Rhees thinks, and ‘business-like’ in Wittgenstein’s
sense. Regarding the themes picked out in the preface for IV, V, VII, Rhees
would, however, like to add a few themes. For instance, he would like to add
Allgemeinheit and Begriffsbildung, and over three pages he extensively
explains what he means (a key theme is that self-evident propositions are
concept-forming propositions), only to conclude by saying that since no one
ever reads a preface, it probably doesn’t matter – a rather blunt comment,
considering von Wright’s efforts to write a good preface. A few days later,
von Wright thanks Rhees for the comments to the preface about Allgemeinheit
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 115

and Begriffsbildung, which he ‘found very helpful for [his] own understanding
of Wittgenstein’s work on mathematics’, and he will add a few lines about
those topics (see Wittgenstein 1974: 33 and Wittgenstein 1978: 32). Von
Wright is still waiting for Anscombe’s comments (I have not been able to
determine if Anscombe ever sent any).
*
In the middle of March, Rhees sends von Wright the prepared text of Parts
IV, V, and VII of the new numbering and begins by stating the following:

I am not at all satisfied, and I grow less so each time I go back over them.
My feeling now is that it is better that we should make this text available
to those who might read it – unsatisfactory though it be. If someone else
later on goes through the manuscripts and expresses astonished horror at
what we have done – this does not matter much. If he is someone who has
become interested in these particular writings of Wittgenstein because of
what is said in them, then I should welcome this interest and all its
astonished horror: it will show that he is trying to understand better what
he has read. And it will be the first time this has happened in connexion
with these writings.
It is more likely that these ‘discoveries’ will be made by someone who
has not a glimmer of an understanding of the questions Wittgenstein is
discussing here, but who wants to prove that he is a ‘scholar’ by discovering
all these passages which the editors have left out or ‘suppressed’. Nun, das
ist der Lauf der Welt.19

This sceptical attitude towards what he perceives as superficial scholarship is

something that one can find in Rhees’s philosophy as a whole; I will return
to this and related matters below. Paradoxically, Rhees is the one von Wright
turns to for details and Rhees was indeed very thorough and knowledgeable.20
*
In the same letter, Rhees informs von Wright that he would like to include
some more material into Part V (of the revised edition) that the editors had
left out in the first edition. This material is based on Wittgenstein’s margin
notes to G. H. Hardy’s book A Course of Pure Mathematics.21 Some, but not
all, remarks based on these notes were included in the first edition, and with
no mention of Hardy. Here’s what Rhees says:

Some things he says in Teil V are copied from the margins of his copy of
Hardy’s Pure Mathematics (printing of 1941) where he had written them;
116 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

others are somewhat different versions of what he had written there.

Most of these passages – which come in MS 126, page 120 ff. – were
omitted from what we printed. I think this was a mistake, because what
immediately follows, on page 148 of the 1956 volume, depends on them
for its understanding; and also because I think the passages are important
on their own account. Some of the suggestions which Wittgenstein makes
regarding ‘a different kind of variable’ are tentative. And when we decided
on the text in 1955 we were too afraid of the scorn of people like Kreisel
(and A.R. Anderson). I think this timidity was not excusable. And I should
like to include a section of these passages – perhaps even with footnote
references to Hardy’s book where they are comments on it; but I do not
have much hope that I shall be able to get it into shape. If I do, then of
course I shall send it on to you. (Some of these passages, by the way, were
copied again in the second half on 124; which showed that Wittgenstein
did not intend just to erase or discard them.)22

Rhees does not, however, want to delay the publishing process any further
and worries that working out the new suggestions might take him a
considerable amount of time. But already the next day, 21 March 1973,
Rhees sends von Wright a typescript of the passages that he wants to include,
and possibly a photocopy of the corresponding pages in Wittgenstein’s copy
of Hardy’s book.23 He writes:

I very much want to include the insertions as I have given them here. If
you think there are very strong reasons against doing so – if you were
unwilling to be party to the edition if they were included – then of
course I would draw back. – I do not think it is just a personal prejudice
of mine in favour of them. I think there are important reasons for printing
them. But I do not think I can state these reasons clearly. I will mention
only a few. And I will write them as they occur to me; because I am too
dull to put them in a proper order. – The Nacheinander of the remarks
themselves, and their positions vis-a-vis the remarks already printed – this
is the order in which they come in the manuscript: I have not changed
this.24

Rhees then lists a handful of arguments for insertions to §§ 28–34 of Part V,

the overriding argument being that some of the remarks that were already
printed can be understood better with the insertions (for example, § 29, § 32
and § 34) and that they also help one understand remarks like § 38, ‘The
generality of functions is so to speak an unordered generality. And our
mathematics is built on such an unordered generality’. Rhees comments:
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 117

Obviously the Andeutungen [. . .] are only Andeutungen. Wittgenstein

does not pretend that he has worked them out. But I do think it is
important that he put forward these Andeutungen. I think it shows
something important about the way he was thinking of continuity and
generality of functions.
This sketch does give some idea of his difficulties which we should
never guess if it were left out.
If Kreisel and some followers of Bernays (say) call it crude – well,
of course it is. But it also shows something geniales about Wittgenstein’s
way of thinking about these matters. Thinking about certain ways
of speaking about generality and about completeness in mathematics.
And I do not think that its ‘crudeness’ is any reason to be ashamed
of it.25

Von Wright is not impressed, but he does not want to stop Rhees from adding
the comments.26 Von Wright suggests footnotes indicating that they are
comments to Hardy’s book and to Gödel’s paper. Rhees replies with new
arguments for including the material:

I will repeat only that if someone like Kreisel should say that in suggestions
like these Wittgenstein is trying to do what he ought to have left to
mathematicians – then he would show he had not grasped what
Wittgenstein was up to. Wittgenstein was not pretending to do
mathematics. He was describing a general schema or form of a procedure
which could be mathematics. (In this way similar to his construction
eines Sprachspiels or of the Lebensweise eines Stammes, whose grammar
differed in important ways from ours, for whom ‘intelligibility’ and
‘understanding’ were different from the intelligibility or understanding
we seek; and so on. And this could illuminate, or separate certain
features of our speech and questions and reasonings) Wittgenstein
is not suggesting that any mathematical problems would be solved
through the development of ways of calculating within this allgemeines
Schema.
What he does suggest, I think, is that if one pays attention to the
possibility of a variable so conceived – of which he says that it is “sozusagen
eine topologische Einheit” – then one may be less prone to ‘mythological’
or ‘fantastic’ interpretations of the forms of calculation which
mathematicians do use.27

Rhees draws the conclusion, however, that since von Wright is sceptical, they
should leave them out.
118 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

But if his remarks here do not seem to you worth printing – if they do not
seem to you to open up a new understanding of what ‘die philosophischen
Probleme in der Mathematik’ are – a conception which would never even
come within the horizon of people like Tarski or Quine – then a fortiori
they will not mean anything to other readers, and this means that they
would be in the way and were better left out. Schluß damit.28

Despite von Wright’s reiterated insistence that regardless of his own doubt,
the decision remains with Rhees, and despite Rhees’s extensive argumentation
for inclusion, Rhees ends up not including the additional Hardy passages in
Part V, §§ 28–34, of the revised edition.29
*
On 23 May 1973, Rhees hands over the complete German material for
the revised edition, save the preface, to Blackwell. In a letter to Anscombe,
9 May 1973, von Wright had asked her if she was all right with that, although
she had not yet finished the revision of the translation; I have not found any
reply from Anscombe. Blackwell, in turn, will forward the material to
Suhrkamp. Apart from some minor revisions at the galley proof stage (I will
account for them below), it is this material that will be printed as the revised
edition of the Remarks.
*
The preface turns into a minor quarrel. Rhees wants von Wright to be the
only one who signs it (for the 1956 edition, Rhees had indeed suggested that
von Wright would be the sole editor).30 But von Wright wants all three of
them to sign, since otherwise it will seem like von Wright did most of the
work. Alternatively, von Wright suggests, one could consider accounting for
the division of labour in the preface, but he does not like that alternative.
What happens is that no one signs, just like for the first edition (and also this
time, it is implicit that the editors together are responsible for the preface).
Siegfried Unseld of Suhrkamp also had some comments to the preface.
Concerning what von Wright says about the remarks on Cantor, Unseld
wants to either drop the formulation ‘ist aber keine Ganzheit entstanden’ or
replace it by ‘ist nie zu Ende geführt worden’, since in his opinion von
Wright’s suggestion is not good German. Von Wright does not want to drop
it, but suggests ‘Die Auseinandersetzung mit Cantor ist jedoch nie zu Ende
geführt worden’, which is what they print (it was translated into ‘The
confrontation with Cantor was never brought to a terminus’). The original
formulation, however, shows that von Wright did not see the Cantor
paragraphs as forming a whole, which says something else than them not
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 119

being finished – von Wright seems to think that they remained rather
scattered. By mid-July, the preface is done.

4. FINALIZATION: CORRESPONDENCE AUTUMN

1973 AND SPRING 1974
Once Rhees and von Wright have handed in the final typescript to the
publishers and finished the preface, what remains is checking galley proofs.
This is what they do in autumn 1973, and the process is smooth. Only on
one occasion is there a disagreement, and that concerns the spacing. Von
Wright has complained to Suhrkamp that the spaces between the remarks are
too large. This is what Rhees thinks:

I do not agree with your judgement about the Zwischenräume. I think

these are needed more in this book than in any other. – Where a number
of single sentences are separated in this way, some readers might think it
looked awkward at first. But I would carry this for the sake of the clarity
it brings to other passages – to the bulk of the book, in fact. [/] I had
thought we were in agreement on this last February.31

And this is how von Wright responds:

I am sorry that there should have arisen this misunderstanding between us

concerning the Zwischenräume. I thought the way they appear in the
“Bemerkungen” and “Grammatik” was ideal and never considered
making them bigger still. [/] I shall not insist of shrinking them a little bit
– but I must say that as they now are they seem to me absurd, particularly
when they occur inside numbered sections.32

They nevertheless keep the three-line spacing, and later in the publishing
process, Rhees writes to von Wright that he hopes that von Wright will come
to see advantages with the larger spacing.33
*
In November, von Wright informs Rhees that he has sent back the final galley
proofs to Suhrkamp; Elizabeth Anscombe has also asked for them and, I
presume, approved. Von Wright asks Rhees if he thinks they should have an
index, like they did in the first edition, and has made notes for the revisions
to Part I–IV. Rhees has indeed already proposed this (this proposal is not in
the correspondence, and must have been done by other means than a letter).
In January 1974, Rhees makes the index for the new Part VI (MS 164). Von
120 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Wright makes the index for the new passages in Parts V and VII. Here’s
Rhees 17 January 1974:

Here is the Register I have made for Part VI. I hope it will fit in with the
existing index somehow. – There are certain headings which would be
outside the list in the index you had made anyway – simply because it is a
new discussion. I have tried to keep to your schema, but you may be
annoyed with the results. If I had taken more time and had done the thing
over again perhaps I should have had fewer deviations. – When anyone is
making an index I suppose his selection of headings and his feeling of
how they should be set out is determined (partly, at least) by his reading
of the work. And probably no two people would produce two indexes
very close one to another. This does not excuse my deviations. – It goes
without saying that you are at liberty to use an axe on what I have done.34

Later in the beginning of 1974, they make some minor changes. One of the
more interesting ones is that Rhees wants to remove the last remark of what
is Part V of the revised edition, ‘If in the midst of life we are in death, so in
sanity we are surrounded by madness.’

Wittgenstein had a number of remarks about ‘understanding’ and ‘madness’.

I do not think this is one of his best. There is something hollow in the sound
of it: perhaps it comes too near to being something theatrical (which means
that I do not think it said what he wanted to say when he wrote it). – I think
it is incongruous in this context. People will look for some way in which it
bears on the sentence before it; and it does not do so.35

Indeed, in the underlying MS 127, the sentences are separated by other

remarks. Von Wright agrees, but it creates a problem for him since the
preface states that the whole of the first edition is included in the revised
edition. They solve it by adding a footnote containing the whole remark,
which can be found in Suhrkamp’s edition, but that has been removed in the
third edition published by Blackwell.
Surprisingly, Rhees asks von Wright the following:

Do you think the ‘punctuation’ – i.e., the use of dots – in the ‘material
implications’ written on pages 427 and 428 should be as Wittgenstein had
it in the manuscript? and if so, will you please change it to this? – I suppose
that when I was preparing the 1956 text I thought the way Wittgenstein
had written the expressions was ambiguous. But now the way I ‘corrected’
them seems crazy.36
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 121

Von Wright checks this, and is of the opinion that it should be left as
Wittgenstein had it, so they change it to exactly match the manuscript.
Although Rhees takes the blame, I have not been able to determine if this is
a mistake made by Rhees or by the publisher (there were similar mistakes for
the 1974 edition; for an example, see Floyd and Mühlhölzer 2020: 120).
*
On 29 March 1974 von Wright sends Rhees something that one could call a
final self-appraisal of the editing process:

Dear Rhees,
I have asked for an additional, final proof of the Index for the BGM
volume and shall check that the indenting is properly done. Then
Suhrkamp can go ahead with the printing, as far as I am concerned. Let us
hope that also the public will be satisfied with what we have done: We
have certainly done our best, but –37

Rhees replies 9 April 1974 with his own final appraisal:

Dear von Wright,

Like you, I have some misgivings about the BGM volume. I cannot make
them articulate even to myself. I have a feeling that in some way it ought
to have been done differently – and I stop there. The philosophy of
mathematics was /had/ such an important part in Wittgenstein’s
investigations for a great deal of his life. And it has gone almost unnoticed
since his death.
I do not believe – and I imagine you do not believe – that we can hope
that “at a later time” people will come to appreciate it, come to understand
it better. Wittgenstein has been Mode for the past half dozen years. As
nearly as I can guess, this has not gone with a better understanding of his
methods and of the difficulties he was raising. Probably the ‘modish’
interest in him has hindered serious study, and we can welcome its
passing. – But I fear that any later interest in his writing about mathematics
will be – at best – an archaeological interest in it as a curiosity. Those who
dig it up and turn it over will not do so because the discussions mean
much to them.38

In October 1974, von Wright personally handed over Anscombe’s translation,

comprising her translation of the new and revised parts as well as some
adjustments to her earlier translation, to Blackwell.39 It took until 1978,
however, until the English translation, the third edition, actually appeared.40
122 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

*
In sum, the main topics of the revision were: (1) the question of a complete
or at least more integral edition, (2) the division of labour, (3) the inclusion
of additional manuscripts and selections, (4) the inclusion of footnotes and
other scholarly apparatus, (5) the spacing of the remarks and the bulk of the
volume, and (6) the preface and the index. Both editors felt uncertain with
the end result and were dissatisfied with it.

5. DISCUSSION
As Lars Hertzberg writes in his portrait of Rhees in this book, a major
concern for Rhees was separating the genuine from the deceitful. This
concern is also visible in the revision of the Remarks, for instance when
Rhees argues for inclusion of the additional Hardy passages on the ground
that they might help one rid oneself of mythological or fantastic interpretations
of certain mathematical methods and concepts, or when he discusses the use
of the phrase ‘inhaltlich gedeutet’. The mythological interpretations deceive
us and Wittgenstein’s aim was to clarify what mathematicians actually do, in
connection to and sometimes in contrast to what they might themselves say
that they are doing.
Another thing typical of Rhees is to try to point out the unique and
particular characters of different discourses (Cockburn 2009: 18). Also this
is evident in the correspondence on the revision of the Remarks. For instance,
again in relation to the Hardy notes, when Rhees points out that Wittgenstein
is writing about certain ways of speaking about generality and about
completeness in mathematics. Or when he wants to include the passages on
Gödel, since he thinks they are relevant to the ways of thinking of those who
find Gödel’s results revolutionary, whether they apply to Gödel’s exact
wording or not. Moreover, Rhees is constantly concerned with Wittgenstein’s
way of speaking, with pointing out the particular character of Wittgenstein’s
remarks in contrast to, say, a mathematical logician’s way of speaking about
the matters.
Hertzberg also points out Rhees’s quest for understanding the unity of
language, in a sense which is not a formal unity.41 This concern, too, can be
seen in the correspondence. One example is when Rhees argues for including
the additional Hardy remarks since they make one better understand what
Wittgenstein meant by ‘The generality of functions is so to speak an
unordered generality. And our mathematics is built up on such an unordered
generality’ (Wittgenstein 1978: V § 38; see Floyd and Mühlhölzer 2020:
113–116 for a related discussion).
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 123

Cockburn has pointed out that for Rhees ‘one’s sense of what needs to be
said in philosophy, and the sense of what one says, cannot be divorced from
the fact that one is addressing someone stuck at a particular point, or is in
the grip of a particular confusion, or who is puzzled in the same way as
oneself, and so on. To the extent that publication involves no sense of those
to whom one’s words are addressed, it’s character as language is, one might
say, compromised’ (Cockburn 2009: 17). Cockburn refers to an earlier paper
by Hertzberg (Hertzberg 2001: 432), in which Hertzberg writes that ‘what
counted for Rhees was conversation in the full sense, an exchange in which
there was no doubt about who you were talking to.’ During the course of the
revision, Rhees addressed von Wright on points where he thought von
Wright was stuck. Von Wright indeed acknowledges this and thanks Rhees
for helping him understand Wittgenstein’s ideas better. As I will argue below,
von Wright saw the Remarks more as a work in formal logic, whereas Rhees
saw them in the broader context of Wittgenstein’s whole philosophy.
Therefore, von Wright perhaps primarily addressed logicians like Kreisel,
Bernays, Tarski and Quine, while Rhees – as quoted above – did not think
that they were able to appreciate the contents of the Remarks.
But who did Rhees address in his editing, if we think of publishing these
books as having something to say to someone? Certainly not logicians or
mathematicians interested in advancing their field. My impression is that, in
a sense, he addressed Wittgenstein himself. For Rhees, the editing was a way
of continuing his dialogue with Wittgenstein, furthering Wittgenstein’s
thought faithfully but critically.42 Von Wright on the other hand seems to
have seen the editing as neutrally delivering the material to the public
domain, which is evident in his more philological attitude to the Nachlass,
and which is related to the fact that Wittgenstein’s philosophical style was so
different from that of the author of An Essay in Modal Logic (von Wright
1951a). In a letter to Georg Kreisel, von Wright writes that there might be
more important reasons for publishing to consider than only thinking of
what Wittgenstein himself would have wanted.43 In stark contrast to this,
Rhees has written that he never had any editorial policy except for repeatedly
asking himself what Wittgenstein would have wanted.44
Von Wright was an accomplished logician. His correspondence with, for
instance, Georg Kreisel shows that he was deeply involved with central
questions of formal logic. So von Wright was certainly in the logical tradition
in a way that one cannot say that Rhees was.45 Although topics of philosophical
logic were central to Rhees (Rhees 2006: 269, 273), he never published a
paper of his own in formal, symbolic logic and there are to the best of my
knowledge no manuscripts of that kind. Anyway, I think that it is in this
tradition, from this perspective, that von Wright edited the Remarks. Indeed,
124 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

in a letter to Kreisel, von Wright writes: ‘I also believe that Wittgenstein’s

overall attitude to mathematical logic was an unfair one, and that his bias can
to some extent be attributed to the effects of ignorance.’46 In this tradition,
philosophy of Wittgenstein’s kind is usually not perceived as as interesting or
as deep as proving formal theorems.47 Moreover, von Wright still saw himself
as a working and innovative logician in 1979, with a paper that is certainly
quite far from the kind of philosophy done in the Remarks; in 2001 he still
thinks that the formal ideas of the 1979 paper would be worth developing
(von Wright 2001a: 169).
One needs, of course, to have some mathematical interest and sensibility
to approach Wittgenstein’s writings on mathematics. Rhees, too, had enough
mathematical sensibility to understand Wittgenstein’s ideas, but he did not
have the formal logician’s view on them. In 1947 (and reprinted in 1969),
Rhees writes that

[t]he alternative logics may be important in showing that you can calculate
according to various rules and you would still call it calculation.48 Also
perhaps that what you would call contradiction in one system you would
not call a contradiction in another. They may have made clearer what
‘being logical’ or ‘being a calculus’ consists in, and shown that certain
things are not essential. But the alternative logics are all supposed, I think,
to be deductive systems, and in that sense they are all supposed to be
logical. They do not question the distinction between logical and illogical
procedure. And as far as I can see they do not touch the question ‘whether
there could be an illogical world’, or the question of the truth of logic in
the sense of the ‘truth’ of standards distinguishing between logical and
illogical. I do not think, either, that you can settle many important
philosophical questions about the nature of logical necessity or the nature
of proof by reference to them.
—Rhees 1969: 47–48

This is completely in line with what Rhees says in the letter of 4 April 1973
to von Wright, quoted above, when arguing for including the additional
Hardy remarks. But starting in 1947, von Wright was, in his own words,
‘obsessed’ with formal logic for two to three years (von Wright 2001a: 131).
Von Wright began his work in modal logic in 1949 and two years later, in
1951, he published his seminal paper on deontic logic and An Essay in Modal
Logic (von Wright 1951a and 1951b). In the letter to Kreisel mentioned
above, von Wright furthermore writes that he thinks that the weakest part of
the Remarks is ‘Wittgenstein’s treatment of the consistency problem and the
paradoxes’; this von Wright thinks is truly weak, ‘not merely unfinished and
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 125

unsatisfactory’. This is in marked contrast to Rhees, who is likely to be

influenced by Wittgenstein in what he says in the above quote. It is unclear
to me if von Wright later changed his view on Wittgenstein’s treatment of
consistency and paradoxes, and it would be interesting to compare his late
formal work (von Wright 1987) on paraconsistent logic with that of
Wittgenstein on the same topic. At a major conference in 1991, von Wright
at least said that he hopes that formal paraconsistent logic could reduce ‘to
its right proportions what Wittgenstein called ‘the superstitious dread and
veneration by mathematicians in face of contradiction” (von Wright 1994b:
22). The quote from Wittgenstein is taken from the Remarks (Wittgenstein
1956: 53; Wittgenstein 1978: 122) and quoting that remark must reasonably
mean that von Wright appreciated it. But I do not think that understanding
the philosophy of the Remarks in the Rheesean sense would allow one to
think that formal paraconsistent logic could achieve that. If taken as an
object of comparison, paraconsistent logic might help us to see more clearly
what contradictions are. Objects of comparison were, however, not what
von Wright had in mind, since he also calls paraconsistent logic a new sub-
structure upon which further developments could be made. Ten years later,
in 2001, he nevertheless says that his work in logic does ‘not claim to be
systems of “philosophical truths”, but rather to be “objects of linguistic
comparison”, which may help us avoid the pitfalls which informal use of
language easily leads to’, which is closer to Rhees’s view (von Wright 2001b:
179). Even so, I think it is clear that Rhees’s and von Wright’s views,
respectively, on formal systems differed from the start, were still different
during the revision of the Remarks, and to a significant degree remained
different throughout their lives.
But perhaps precisely because von Wright was a part of the formal tradition,
he comes to be the main editor of the Remarks. This is true of the first edition
(where his name was placed first in the list of editors and it was even proposed
that he be the sole editor), and it is true of the revised edition in the sense that
von Wright seems to have had a higher authority than Rhees to decide what
goes in and what is left out. He was, perhaps, also more inclined to consider
the opinions and feelings of logicians like Georg Kreisel and Alan Ross
Anderson (both mentioned explicitly by Rhees), since they were his colleagues
in a sense that they were not Rhees’s.49 That Rhees saw von Wright as the
main editor is clear from the decision about the additional Hardy remarks.
Rhees argues extensively for their inclusion, but von Wright’s hesitation – no
real arguments – makes Rhees drop the whole thing. A similar situation arose
regarding the inclusion of material from MSS 162 and 163. It has been said,
however, that in depressed moods Rhees often deferred in argument; if
someone would argue against him, he would immediately defer.50
126 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Related to this is their view on scholarship. Von Wright is keen in his

autobiography to point out that he, not Jaakko Hintikka, was the first to
conceive of distributive normal forms and that he was the inventor of deontic
logic before Becker and Kalinowski (von Wright 2001a: 131 and 173).
Understandable though this is, I think these kinds of considerations would
have been foreign to Rhees. Indeed, there is nothing in Rhees’s thinking that
he could have been the first to do, he was not engaged in that kind of activity,
and in his own philosophical work he emphasised that it would work against
philosophical insight if the philosopher strived to some kind of fame and
glory (see, for example, Rhees 1994: 577; cf. Hertzberg’s chapter in this
book). However that may be, it is certainly not easy to defend the contents
of the Remarks if one simultaneously wants recognition for one’s own work
in formal logic.
Mühlhölzer has argued that the editors conceal Wittgenstein’s uncertainty
and self-doubt, which could perhaps be called his humility, in Part III (in the
numbering of the revised edition), making Wittgenstein sound dogmatic in
comparison to the underlying manuscripts 117 and 122 (Mühlhölzer 2012:
26–28). Part III is the only part the editors agreed to leave unrevised. Why
was it that they played down Wittgenstein’s uncertainty in the first edition?
Perhaps the answer is to be found in a description that Mary Midgley gave
of British philosophy in the 1950s: philosophers back then ‘were much more
afraid of looking weak than they were of missing something unexpected and
important’ (see Lipscomb 2021: 217–218). But, oddly, in the same period,
Anscombe, influenced by Wittgenstein, encouraged Philippa Foot to express
tentative, unfinished ideas (Lipscomb 2021: 183). Perhaps for publication,
the editors wanted to include only finished ideas that were up to and in tune
with the British standards of the day. But one is still left wondering why the
editors kept Part III in this state also in the revised edition. Taking
Mühlhölzer’s critique into consideration, it is surprising that the editors did
not seize the opportunity to revise it, in particular as Rhees thought that
they, for the first edition, had been too worried about what others would say.
Mühlhölzer also argues that in comparison to the underlying manuscripts
there are many significant gaps in Part III which, in addition to making
Wittgenstein look dogmatic, even make him difficult to understand
(Mühlhölzer 2012; see further Mühlhölzer 2010). This makes the editors’
decision to leave this part unrevised rather difficult to comprehend.
For Rhees, it was not important to be able to do the kind of scholarly
tracing that would help readers determine how the editors had worked,
rather the point of the volumes was the treatment of philosophical problems.
These two aims need not stand in contradiction to each other, of course, but
as we saw Rhees was of the opinion that a scholarly apparatus would clutter
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 127

the view of the actual philosophy and would be distracting for maintaining
the philosophical focus (see Stern 1994: 443 for a critical discussion of this).
Erbacher points out that while ‘von Wright would increasingly question the
attempt to create a unified whole from selections of Wittgenstein’s remarks;
Rhees maintained precisely this ambition’ (Erbacher 2015: 176).
Nevertheless, as we saw above, von Wright was initially of the opinion that
they should publish the unaltered manuscripts, but after reviewing their
choices from 1956 he changed his mind and thought that it could not be
done much better than that. Unfortunately, the correspondence does not
reveal von Wright’s reasons for his judgement (see endnote 9). Whatever
they may be, it still remained the case that during the revision there was a
tension between von Wright’s more philological approach and Rhees’s more
philosophical approach.
When it comes to the final appraisal of the revision, I think that von
Wright was worried about the reaction of the formal logicians, whereas my
impression is that Rhees worried that they had given the book a form that
conceals the actual philosophical content, and that what remains is pseudo-
scholarly interest, which has nothing to do with genuine philosophical
thought. They are both dissatisfied, but, I think, on different grounds. Von
Wright was not worried about scholarship taking over, on the contrary he
endorsed such efforts and perhaps he was worried that the revision was not
scholarly enough.
Let us now before concluding consider two important things in the
editorial process, the spacing of the remarks and the preface. First, the
spacing of the remarks. Already for the first edition, Rhees had been
dissatisfied with the spacing of the remarks (see endnote 33). They remedied
this for the revised edition, but now von Wright found that there was too
much space between the remarks. Rhees was not bothered by the spacing
that both forces and enables one to do a slower reading of book, which
Wittgenstein famously wanted and expressed by saying that he must be read
slowly (Wittgenstein 1998: 63). ‘In slow reading we move beyond calculation
to thought’, as Michelle Boulous Walker expresses it (Boulous Walker 2017:
16). The larger spaces not only make it easier to focus on a remark, but also
to return to it, which is the way Rhees himself worked (Rhees 2006: xxi–
xxiii). This is another aspect of a slow reading, that ‘the practice of returning
to what we read – of rereading and being willing to reread [. . .] – is
fundamental to any ethical engagement with complexity’ (Boulous Walker
2017: 31). But von Wright’s main reason for the increased spacing is
philological: it is how Wittgenstein had it. He presents no reason for having
slightly smaller spaces other than stating that they now look absurd. I think
this is related to what von Wright means when he says that ‘keine Ganzheit
128 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

ist entstanden’ about the Cantor remarks. He is reading the text differently
from Rhees, and wants a form of unity which is similar to a paper in formal
logic. From that perspective there is no ‘Ganzheit’, but what if that way of
reading it does not do it justice? Maybe the kind of unity that it is aiming at
was the kind of unity that Rhees sought and perhaps that unity – which is not
easy to describe – becomes easier to see with larger spacing and slower
reading. Although Rhees agreed that Wittgenstein could have written
something more forceful and organised regarding Cantor, he nevertheless
thought the spacing would alleviate some of the difficulties of that section.
At any rate, I think the disagreement about spacing shows that they were
reading the book in different ways.51 It is odd, though, that there was no
discussion of altogether removing or substantially revising the paragraph
numbering introduced by the editors for the first edition (cf. Wittgenstein
1956: vii; Wittgenstein 1974: 34).
Already for the first edition, Rhees and von Wright had had different
ideas about what the preface should contain.52 Regarding the revised edition,
Rhees writes that he liked von Wright’s new preface and that it was
businesslike in Wittgenstein’s sense. But he is also at pains to elaborate on
some of the things that he thinks should go into the preface. One gets the
impression that Rhees would have wanted a preface that explains what was
going on in the Remarks along the lines he drew up in the letters to von
Wright. But von Wright’s preface remained a kind of catalogue with a
philological flavour. It is possible that a preface of the more explanatory kind
Rhees wrote for the BBB would have made for a better reception of the
Remarks. Indeed, in his review of the English revised edition, Michael
Dummett asked for illuminations of that kind (Dummett 1979: 241–242).

6. CONCLUSION
How ought we to approach and understand the published Remarks, both the
original edition and the revised one, after this? Von Wright and Rhees edited
from different perspectives. Von Wright’s logician’s perspective is the
principal point of view. In 1991, von Wright argued that ‘logic has been the
distinctive hallmark of philosophy in our era’ (von Wright 1994b: 16), and
it seems to me that it was against that background that he himself worked, at
least at the time when the Remarks were revised. Nevertheless, I think
that what we have seen from Rhees’s letters gives us a more uncommon, yet
more clarifying, perspective on the book as a whole. It is not certain that
we would have this perspective, for instance that certain remarks are meant
as objects of comparison and not as actual mathematics, if we had only read
the finished product. Not even reading the original manuscripts and
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 129

typescripts would necessarily have opened up this perspective.53 But the

correspondence gives us this. It is an important antidote to readings of
the Remarks as if they were formal work in the same sense as, say, a paper
in the Journal of Symbolic Logic. So the correspondence on the revision
has shown, I believe, Rhees’s mature and developed, hermeneutical
understanding of Wittgenstein’s philosophy and of the Remarks. Rhees’s
perspective is more congenial with Wittgenstein’s thought as a whole than
the perspective of the working logician. Von Wright’s perspective nevertheless
prevailed.
Was the revision an improvement to the original edition? Von Wright was
happy that the whole of the second half of the early version of the PI was
published. Rhees was happy that they increased the spacing, something
which he had wished for already for the first edition. MS 164 had not been
published before and both editors found it worthy of publication. The
smaller additions and modifications were improvements enough, and an
evaluation of how much they enriched the Remarks would require a more
detailed analysis than I can provide here, but they certainly sharpened some
parts. Problematic aspects of the first edition remained, for instance in the
unrevised Part III. But although the editors themselves were not satisfied
with the end result, I think it is fair to say that they did improve their original
edition.54

NOTES
1. For the history of the first edition, see (Erbacher 2015: 172–176); for a
background to Wittgenstein’s manuscripts and typescripts, see (Floyd and
Mühlhölzer 2020: 3–23).
2. In G.H. von Wright’s autobiography, Mitt liv som jag minns det, von Wright
describes how the editors usually worked in pairs. He is, however, not explicit
about who the main editors of the Remarks were, whereas he is detailed about
this for the other volumes they edited (von Wright 2001a: 161). All three
editors initially worked on the first edition, but von Wright’s name is first in the
printed list of editors. Rhees had suggested that von Wright should appear as
the sole editor of the first edition (von Wright to Rhees, 1 July 1955, NLF,
vWC 714.200-201). The revision was done by Rhees and von Wright.
3. The synopsis is complete in the sense that it accounts for the most relevant
material regarding the revision of the Remarks. It can nevertheless not replace
reading the correspondence in its entirety for getting the full-fledged picture of
the process.
4. Von Wright to Anscombe, 28 October 1970, NLF, vWC 714.11-12.
5. Von Wright to Anscombe, 28 June 1965, NLF, vWC 714.11-12. Indeed, already
for the first edition, at least Anscombe and von Wright had concerns. Anscombe
wrote to von Wright: ‘I have just finished translating the MS [. . .] written at the
130 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

turn of 1939–40 & feel rather dubious about it – both in our not having cut it
down more, it is so repetitive and dreadfully boring; and in respect of one or
two of our very few cuts in it, which seem to me to have been of things essential
to some that we have left in’ (Anscombe to von Wright, 4 July 1954, NLF, vWC
714.11-12). And von Wright had been ‘tormented by the question: Do we do
the right thing, or not?’ (von Wright to Anscombe, 2 January 1955, NLF, vWC
714.11-12).
6. The correspondence with Suhrkamp becomes quite sour and culminates in von
Wright writing to Rhees (10 April 1972) that Suhrkamp must ‘obey orders’ or
the trustees will have to consider changing publisher in Germany. The conflict
concerns not only the Remarks, but also – and more urgently – Suhrkamp’s
handling of the Philosophical Investigations. But this is outside the scope of the
current essay.
7. Anscombe had complained about repetitions in the first edition (see Erbacher
2015: 175 and endnote 5).
8. Cf. also endnote 22.
9. Actually, in the letter to Anscombe 27 April 1972, von Wright does not say that
it ‘would do more harm than good’. This is the exact wording: ‘I have been
looking at the manuscripts from which we selected the Remarks on the
Foundations of Mathematics and comparing the manuscripts with the printed
text. We omitted a great deal, perhaps sometimes somewhat arbitrarily, and we
took some liberties with the arrangement which I would hesitate to take now.
But on the whole I think we did a surprisingly good job – if I may say so in
praise of ourselves – and I doubt whether it is possible to produce a
substantially different and decidedly better selection. [. . .] Before I started
looking at these things again, I was inclined to think that we ought to publish
the manuscripts practically as they are, without any omissions. I dare say this
will one day happen – and it is worth it. But I doubt whether we should think
of this now. I am therefore at present more inclined to favour the idea of a
revised but not substantially changed, new edition of the Remarks. [...] It may
well happen that I shall have changed many of my present opinions on these
matters before we meet!’ In comparison to von Wright’s reaction in 1965, see
above, he has now changed his mind about the aptness of the selections the
editors made for the first edition. Already in this letter, von Wright worries
about the size of the revised volume (more about this below).
10. Von Wright to Rhees, 20 June 1972, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
11. Rhees to von Wright, 8 October 1972, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
12. Rhees to von Wright, 20 October 1972, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
13. These are pages 176–177 of the 1956 edition (Part V, §§ 18–19) with a
reference to the bottom of page 153 of the 1956 edition (Part IV, § 42).
14. This material was sent to Elizabeth Anscombe as well, for translation and
comments. She suggested that von Wright ought to include one passage that
Wittgenstein had crossed out in the manuscript in order to avoid future
pseudo-scholarly discoveries (I have not been able to determine which passage
it is). After some hesitation, von Wright followed Anscombe’s suggestion.
Moreover, von Wright asked her if she thinks they should also include what
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 131

Rhees had left out from MS 164. Von Wright is of the opinion that the ‘writing
is stronger ’ with the omissions. Anscombe never replied to this, and Rhees’s
omissions remained (as stated on the first page of the preface to the revised
edition). See von Wright to Anscombe, 12 December 1972 and 20 February
1973, and Anscombe to von Wright, undated 1972, NLF, vWC 714.11-12.
15. Rhees to von Wright, 28 December 1972, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
16. He has considered some of the earlier omitted ‘Ansätze’ from MS 117, and
material from MS 121 and its continuation in MS 162. But not MS 163,
probably for the reasons he stated earlier. See below for his final decision.
17. Von Wright to Rhees, 14 February 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005. It is noteworthy
that Rhees went ahead and added more numbers when adding material to the
last part of the Remarks (Part VII of the revised edition).
18. Rhees to von Wright, 16 March 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
19. Rhees to von Wright, 20 March 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
20. Rhees makes the following remark about von Wright’s catalogue in-line with
this scepticism about a certain kind of scholarship: ‘In your catalogue you give
the last date of ‘der ersten Hälfte’ of 124 as ‘3 July, 1941’. It should be 4 July.
Macht nichts. Such matters are the stuff of pseudo-scholarship. Of which we
shall have plenty – have already, in fact.’
21. For a recent discussion of these notes, see (Floyd and Mühlhölzer 2020); the
book contains complete images, transcripts and translations of Wittgenstein’s
annotations (Floyd and Mühlhölzer 2020: 261–295). Floyd and Mühlhölzer
write that it is especially noteworthy that the comments are done in connection
to an established mathematician and to a widely read work (Floyd and
Mühlhölzer 2020: vii).
22. Rhees to von Wright, 20 March 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005. The original
selections for the 1956 edition were made by the three editors. The manuscripts
were discussed with Georg Kreisel (Georg Kreisel to von Wright, 29 January
1952, NLF, vWC 714.117-118; all letters referred to below in this Collection).
In a letter to von Wright, Kreisel comments on Wittgenstein’s remarks on Gödel
(from memory since he did not have the manuscript at hand, but the discussion
relates to some earlier comments he had made in direct connection to
Wittgenstein’s manuscript). Kreisel starts that section with ‘Wittgenstein on
Gödel: (‘Suppose someone asks my advice. . .’)’, and continues by saying that he
does not think that Wittgenstein had read more than the introduction of
Gödel’s paper and that therefore Wittgenstein did not see that the prose of
Gödel’s introduction allows for interpretations that the technical work of the
rest of the paper does not (letter from Kreisel to von Wright, 27 October 1951).
Wittgenstein’s critique, according to Kreisel, is therefore misinformed. Kreisel
was invited to the meeting in Austria in the summer of 1952, 24 June to 10
July, where the editors first worked on the manuscripts for the Remarks (letter
from von Wright to Kreisel, 10 March 1952). Kreisel accepted the invitation,
but as far as I have been able to determine, he ended up not participating for
personal and for other reasons (Kreisel to von Wright, 29 January 1952, 25
April 1952, 19 May 1952 and 27 June 1952; letter to Kreisel from von Wright,
10 March 1952; cf. also Kruskopf 2008: 302–303). He did, however, send the
132 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

trustees some comments via mail to Austria (Kreisel to von Wright, 27 June
1952). Kreisel’s infamous 1958 review of the Remarks (Kreisel 1958) was sent
to von Wright before it was published, to which von Wright replied; see
Discussion below. In light of this, it is somewhat remarkable that Kreisel has
said that he was unaware at the time of writing the review that the trustees had
made selections from the manuscripts (Kanamori 2020). Kreisel’s review of the
revised edition twenty years later is more moderate, yet dismissive, and with no
mention of any differences between the first and the revised edition (Kreisel
1979). – Regarding A. R. Andersson, see endnote 49.
23. This photocopy has not been found in The von Wright and Wittgenstein
Archives. It is unclear if Rhees ever sent it to von Wright, although he mentions
that he might do so in the letter. The selection of passages that Rhees wanted to
include have also not been found in the archives. It is possible that this is the
photocopy stored at Trinity College (see further Floyd and Mühlhölzer 2020:
23–24). Wittgenstein’s copy of Hardy’s book has been lost.
24. Rhees to von Wright, 20 March 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
25. Rhees to von Wright, 20 March 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005. Paul Bernays had
written a critical review of the Remarks (Bernays 1959). See also endnote 22.
26. Von Wright to Rhees, 29 March 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
27. Rhees to von Wright, 4 April 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005. For a note on this in
relation to other Wittgenstein interpretations, phenomenology and logic, see
(Solin 2018).
28. Rhees to von Wright, 4 April 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
29. Von Wright to Rhees, 12 April 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
30. The letter from Rhees to von Wright where Rhees suggests this is lost. That he
did suggest this, however, is evident from a letter from von Wright to Rhees
(von Wright to Rhees, 1 July 1955, NLF, vWC 714.200-201).
31. Rhees to von Wright, 12 October 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
32. Von Wright to Rhees, 15 October 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
33. Rhees to von Wright, 2 January 1974, WWA, Wri-FC-005. Indeed, already for
the first edition, the publishers had made the spaces too small in Rhees’s
opinion, and he hoped this would corrected in the future (Rhees to von Wright,
11 January 1956, NLF, vWC 714.200-201).
34. Rhees to von Wright, 17 January 1974, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
35. Rhees to von Wright, 25 January 1974, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
36. Rhees to von Wright, 25 January 1974, WWA, Wri-FC-005. In the revised
edition, this is § 64 of Part VII; in the first edition § 43 of Part V.
37. Von Wright to Rhees, 29 March 1974, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
38. Rhees to von Wright, 9 April 1974, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
39. Von Wright to Anscombe, 23 October 1974, NLF, vWC 714.11-12. For
adjustments of earlier translations, compare, for example, Part V, § 16 and § 25,
of the third edition with the corresponding paragraphs in the two earlier
editions. Anscombe’s translation is sometimes misleading, see (Floyd and
Mühlhölzer 2020); von Wright might have been aware of this, since he – in
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 133

addition to frequently asking Anscombe about her progress – politely suggested

that Anscombe let herself be assisted by Linda McAlister, then a graduate
student at Cornell University with ‘a good knowledge of Wittgenstein’s
philosophy’ (von Wright to Anscombe, 2 April 1974, NLF, vWC 714.11-12).
See also Joel Backström’s chapter in this book.
40. Blackwell wanted to sell all remaining copies of the second edition before
publishing the new one. This is probably a reason for the delay, in addition to
the time that the actual editing and typesetting took. Cf. Rhees to von Wright,
20 March 1973 and 3 June 1973, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
41. Compare PI §108.
42. In the Rhees Nachlass in Swansea, there are fragments of a fictional dialogue
between Rhees and Wittgenstein, which Rhees has typed up. It is dated 29 April
1978. The dialogue concerns society and changing ones of ways of thinking
and living. It is unclear to me if what Wittgenstein says is quoted from
manuscripts, recalled by Rhees, or made up by Rhees. But I believe that that
this fragment is at least an indication that Rhees in a sense continued his
dialogue with Wittgenstein, and saw himself as furthering Wittgenstein’s
thinking, rather than having an emphasis on neutrally delivering his Nachlass to
the world. Erbacher has described Rhees’s editorial style as ‘co-creational’
(Erbacher 2020: 23–24).
43. Von Wright to Georg Kreisel, 10 March 1952, NLF, vWC 714.117-118.
44. Rhees to Anthony Kenny, 2 March 1977, WWA, Wri-FC-005.
45. Von Wright himself has described himself as ‘a philosopher who, over a period
of almost sixty years, has at close quarters been watching and also, to some
extent, participated in the development of logic’ (von Wright 1994b: 9).
Formal, symbolic logic is what von Wright means by ‘logic’, and it was in that
‘spirit of modernity’ that he had been trained in logic. For a discussion
illuminating this, see Bernt Österman’s chapter in this book.
46. Von Wright to Georg Kreisel, 16 January 1958, NLF, vWC 714.117-118.
47. Kreisel says the following in a letter to von Wright, 20 January 1958: ‘But with
all proper respect I must say this: I find the first impression of Wittgenstein’s
writing very stimulating and exciting, but on most topics on which I have
thought myself, I find his thought disappointingly dull, dead and weak. This is
in marked contrast to my experience with, say, Bernays or Gödel, whose
thoughts I appreciate all the more if I have thought about the same topics
myself ’. It is the same attitude, but from the other side, that Errett Bishop
reported: ‘People tell me in so many words that when I was proving theorems I
was doing something worthwhile; but when I started to think about
philosophical questions, I could not possibly be doing anything deep’ (Bishop
1975: 514–515).
48. Compare also what Rhees says in a letter to Drury (19 November 1967, quoted
in Citron 2015: 39): ‘In writing on mathematics, he [Wittgenstein] would
invent different number systems, different ways of counting, and point to
circumstances in which it would be more natural to use some such system of
counting rather than our system of natural numbers. When you see the cardinal
numbers in the setting of — or surrounded by — these other possibilities, then
134 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

you may cease to feel that our system of cardinal numbers is fundamental in
some way.’
49. In his autobiography, von Wright writes that during his years as professor in
Cambridge (1948–1951), Kreisel was often a guest at their house. Although
Kreisel was ‘intelligent and entertaining in conversation’, von Wright later
became distant to him because of his love-hate attitude towards Wittgenstein,
their former teacher (von Wright 2001a: 129). A. R. Anderson was von
Wright’s student at Cambridge University 1950–1952, and later became a
famous modal logician. Von Wright writes that while he was professor in
Cambridge, Kreisel and Anderson were two of his four most important
discussion partners (von Wright 2001a: 149). It is likely that Wittgenstein’s
manuscripts were discussed with Anderson, too. Like Kreisel, Anderson wrote a
critical review of the Remarks (Kreisel 1958 and Anderson 1958). In his review,
Anderson criticized Wittgenstein’s remarks on contradiction, including the
remark that von Wright quoted in 1991 (see above). Rhees’s comments about
Kreisel’s and Anderson’s inability to understand Wittgenstein’s ideas must have
come very close to home for von Wright.
50. From conversation with Raimond Gaita, Turku, Finland, autumn 2018. Gaita
recalled Rhees’s behaviour in seminars at King’s College, London, and how the
other senior participants (including Peter Winch) would let Rhees speak without
arguing against him, since otherwise he would simply defer and go quiet; the
others were interested in what Rhees had to say.
51. There may be another significant aspect of the spacing. Alois Pichler has
suggested to me (private correspondence, August 2022) that when Wittgenstein
wrote remarks of philosophical clarification he usually separated them by one
or more blank lines, whereas when he was working towards composition of
philosophical works he often reduces or even omits them. The editors do not,
as far as I know, discuss this, and I have not been able to determine if they were
aware of it. How this relates to the Remarks would deserve further study.
52. Rhees was not satisfied with von Wright’s preface for the 1956 edition and
wanted to comment on it, but he was unable to meet the deadline (Rhees to von
Wright, 14 November 1955, NLF, vWC 714.200-201). If Rhees had been able
to get his act together, the preface would perhaps have had a similar character
to the preface he wrote to The Blue and Brown Books, a preface that von Wright
and others very much appreciated (see letter from von Wright to Rhees, 31
January 1963, in the collection mentioned above). In the preface to The Blue
and Brown Books, Rhees describes and reflects upon Wittgenstein’s questions
and methods, which is very illuminating indeed. Strangely enough, Rhees cut
down the preface to the German edition of The Blue and Brown Books
(Suhrkamp 1970) to something more similar to von Wright’s preface to the
Remarks. I have not been able to determine if the initiative to the cut came from
Rhees himself or from Suhrkamp.
53. David Stern notes already in 1994 (so before the Bergen Electronic Edition)
that the published volumes have left out much that is ‘extremely valuable’
(Stern 1994: 436). He also notes that in the Remarks a ‘large number of
passages have been omitted’ (Stern 1994: 443). Stern’s idea is that the
publication of the Nachlass ‘will have a substantial impact on our understanding
THE REVISION OF WITTGENSTEIN’S REMARKS 135

of Wittgenstein’. In a sense, this is true and has been the case, of course. But as
Rhees points out in a letter to von Wright (Rhees to von Wright, 22 January
1976, WWA, Wri-FC-005) it is nevertheless the case that ‘it is impossible to tell
anyone what Wittgenstein’s conception of philosophy is, if [she] has made no
long or serious study of what Wittgenstein has written. It would have been
impossible for Wittgenstein himself to do this. [Wittgenstein’s remarks] can
have force or sense only against the Hintergrund of the philosophizing which
Wittgenstein does, or has done. Wittgenstein used to say something in this sense
to people who wanted to come to his lectures. It is why he used (for example)
to speak of the work of philosophy as the work of changing one’s way of
looking at things, durch lange Übung.’
54. I am grateful to Juliet Floyd and Felix Mühlhölzer for comments on this essay.
136
 CHAPTER SEVEN

Naked, Please! Elizabeth

Anscombe as Translator
and Editor of
Wittgenstein
JOEL BACKSTR Ö M

1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses Elizabeth Anscombe’s work as translator and editor of
Wittgenstein’s writings. I provide information about what she did and what
she said about it – a central source for this is her unpublished correspondence
with fellow literary executor G.H. von Wright – and discuss the possible
philosophical significance of her translating and editorial choices.1 Sections
2–3 are devoted to Anscombe’s role as translator. Section 4 characterizes
her general approach to editing Wittgenstein, with her ideal of ‘naked
editions’ and ‘minimum editing’. Sections 5–6 briefly look at two case
studies, the controversial ‘Part II’ of Philosophical Investigations and
the editing of Wittgenstein’s last writings from 1949–1951. Sections 7–8
discuss the suppression of the coded entries in Wittgenstein’s Notebooks
1914-1916.

137
138 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

2. QUESTIONS OF STYLE
Wittgenstein wrote primarily in German. Anscombe’s single most significant
contribution to the Wittgenstein-reception in the English-speaking world
may well be her translations of his texts, starting with the Philosophical
Investigations in 1953.2 She gave Wittgenstein his English writer’s voice,
which he himself, in his exile, had never found, for ‘fluent and idiomatic
as Wittgenstein’s spoken English was, he found his thoughts cramped by
writing in English’ (Geach 1988, xv).3 This achievement is often overlooked,
however. The first and some later editions of the Investigations were
bilingual, but most English-language readers know the Philosophische
Untersuchungen only in translation, and because its sound is so natural,
yet forcefully its own, people take Anscombe’s rendering of his words to
be Wittgenstein himself speaking.4 This, in a way, is the ultimate
achievement of translation: giving the text a life and place of its own in the
new language and culture so strong that people forget it originated
elsewhere.5 This very success can create problems, however, disposing
readers to overlook the translator and uncritically accept the translation.
Generally speaking, texts don’t have a single correct translation, but as
Lawrence Venuti points out, in philosophy, ‘widespread dependence on
translated texts coincides with neglect of their translated status’, where
‘the differences introduced by the fact of translation’ are overlooked
(1998, 106). The response to the publication of the Investigations in 1953 is
a case in point:

Very few of the fifteen or so reviews that greeted it even mentioned the
quality of [Anscombe’s] translating, and in these instances the comments
were extremely brief, restricted to vague honorifics like “excellent,” “well
done,” “on the whole very successful and reliable,” “adequate and honest”
(Nakhnikian 1954:353; Workman 1955:293; Hampshire 1953:682;
Findlay 1955:179). [. . .] Because of the negligible attention paid to
Anscombe’s translation, criticisms were very slow in coming. [. . .W]hen
they finally appeared, they continued to assume correspondence as the
criterion of accuracy, an assumption that proved to be rather disingenuous
because it concealed competing domestic interpretations of the German
text.
—Venuti 1998, 107

We will return to the question of competing domestic, i.e. philosophical,

interpretations in the next section. As for honorifics, Anscombe herself
confessed, when she had just finished translating the Investigations in 1953,
NAKED, PLEASE! 139

that it was ‘horribly difficult to translate’, and doubted ‘whether much of a

reflection of its style would be possible in English at all’; ‘at any rate’, she
said, ‘it was not possible for me to achieve it. [. . .] All I could do, therefore,
was to produce as careful a crib as possible’ (Erbacher, dos Santos Reis and
Jung 2019, 238–239).6 The style of the Investigations has, she says, ‘a special
daylight character: tough, lucid, crisp, lively and serious’, akin to that of
‘Lessing, Lichtenberg, Frege’ (Erbacher, dos Santos Reis and Jung 2019,
233). In addition to the conciseness of the text – ‘I bent over backwards to
write in a spare and compressed English, since the German is spare and
compressed’ (Erbacher, dos Santos Reis and Jung 2019, 239) – she thought
the main difficulty in rendering Wittgenstein’s style into English was that,

In general, German has possibilities of a homeliness – the very epithet

sounds horrid in connexion with English – that is not in the [slightest]
in conflict with the highest literary style. [. . .] Wittgenstein’s German is
at once highly literary and highly colloquial. Good English, in modern
times, goes in good clothes; to introduce colloquialism, or slang, is
deliberately to adopt a low style. Any English style that I can imagine
would be a misrepresentation of this German.
—Erbacher, dos Santos Reis and Jung 2019, 238–239

A writer’s style may indeed be more or less untranslatable, as different

languages are no more simply convertible than the lives in which they belong
and which they help form. Here, one should consider both the cultural and
the personal dimension of style – and a text transcends the category of mere
genre-product precisely to the extent that the writer is personally present in
it, so that one hears his voice in it. About the style of the Investigations,
Anscombe further notes that, while the ‘constant characteristics of
Wittgenstein’s writing are close reasoning and strong imagination’,

[T]he book has also the character of great variety of tone: this is a rare
character, and particularly rare in philosophical writing. (The only other
examples I can think of are some of Plato’s dialogues). You get long
passages of very sober, straightforward enquiry and argument; then a
burst of breathless dialogue (always, of course, between himself and
himself); sudden turn of humour, passages full of passionate feeling;
pronouncements reached after perplexed enquiry, which have the air of
being written with that feeling: And that settles everything; pieces of
delicate, accurate characterisation of some particular temptation; remarks
that are like a grasp [sic!] or cry of realisation. And you get certain themes,
certain moods recurring [. . .] with different variations. I have long been
140 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

tempted to compare this book with a musical composition; but hesitated

to do so, until I found it elicited this reaction independently from someone
who read it de novo.
—Erbacher, dos Santos Reis and Jung 2019, 2397

Now, a certain, quite typical sort of analytical philosopher might respond to

all this: ‘Alright, so Wittgenstein was a writer of great skill and style, but
what counts philosophically is whether the problems discussed are interesting,
and the arguments presented in dealing with them valid.’8 Anscombe’s
characterizations, however, are not of Wittgenstein’s style or writing as
opposed to his thinking, but of the thinking itself, of how it lives and moves.
Thinking is no mere anonymous play of signs; it happens when someone
asks a question or engages with an argument, brings an issue alive by bringing
himself into his struggle with it. It is in that struggle for clarity that one
grasps the sense and import of the issues, what it really is in them that
concerns one, tempts and bewilders one; how one has put one’s life, and
perhaps one’s fear of life, into them. Formulating arguments and objections
is of no avail in itself, for even if formally valid, these might still be shallow
and misleading, failing, as Wittgenstein says, to grasp the difficulty ‘at the
root, where the life is’ [‘an ihrer Wurzel, wo das Leben ist’] (MS 107, 81).
The point is not to express some ‘personal view’, if that is meant to contrast
with simply saying something true and important. On the contrary, one will be
speaking personally in the relevant sense insofar as one manages to say
something true. As Wittgenstein said, ‘Someone who does not lie is original
enough’ (CV, 68). If a philosopher’s own voice cannot be heard in the text, this
is because it is overtaken by a collective, depersonalized voice of one kind or
other: jargon, the ‘spirit of the times’, the gestures of affectation and
thoughtlessness, perhaps very ‘academic’ or ‘deep’ gestures, masquerading as
‘thinking’. As Wittgenstein says, a philosopher must fight against the temptation
to become ‘a citizen of any community of ideas’ (Z §455; cf. Backström 2011,
739 ff.). When Wittgenstein worries about the style of his writing – Anscombe
quotes him saying, ‘I spend more time than you perhaps could ever understand,
thinking about questions of style’ (Erbacher, dos Santos Reis and Jung 2019,
237) – I believe he is thinking about problems of this kind, about the difficulty
of speaking, thinking, for and as oneself, and to the extent that this is so,
‘rendering his style’ in translation is a central philosophical task.9
While readers generally have taken Anscombe’s translation to heart, there
have been dissenting voices – starting, as we saw, with Anscombe herself in
1953. Marjorie Perloff says that ‘for those of us who are native Austrian
German-speakers’, Wittgenstein in English translation ‘often seems to distort
what are in the original colloquial speech patterns and conversational
NAKED, PLEASE! 141

rhythms’ (2011, 714). In her view, Anscombe’s translation ‘frequently’ turns

‘Wittgenstein’s commonsense discussion of the way “ordinary” language
works [. . .] with some inaccuracy [. . .] into a curiously stilted English’ (2012,
75). There is a German and an English side to this criticism. Anscombe’s not
being a native German-speaker seems indeed to have caused her to sometimes
miss rhythms, but also more mundane nuances of meaning, and she was
herself aware of the problem.10 Regarding the quality of her English
renderings, as distinct from their accuracy as translations of the German, I
would note two things. First, Anscombe knew first-hand a particular idiolect
of English unknown to most readers of Wittgenstein’s works: Wittgenstein’s
spoken English. To be sure, she couldn’t simply turn his spoken into written
English any more than he himself could, but might not some words and turns
of speech Perloff finds stilted have come naturally from Wittgenstein’s lips, or
pen?11 Anscombe also, of course, knew Wittgenstein’s philosophizing first-
hand, from lectures and conversations, and she had discussed details of the
translation of the Investigations with him, even if this seems to have been
before she undertook the translation of the whole text for publication:

In 1946 I decided to learn German [. . .] I told Wittgenstein, and he said

‘Oh, I am very glad, for if you learn German, then I can give you my book
to read’. This had been my hope, and it spurred me on. [. . .] We eventually
read the early part of the Investigations [. . .] As we read it we discussed
translating it – he would explain the import of words, and I would suggest
an English rendering, about which he would be very enthusiastic. (I don’t
know if I remembered any of these when I came to translate the book for
its publication in 1953.)
—Anscombe, Anecdotes, 46–4712

Translation is an art of its own and each text a challenge of its own, and even
the closest association with Wittgenstein wouldn’t ensure ability to translate
him well; thus, the first attempt at translating the Investigations, by Rush
Rhees, was aborted by a dissatisfied Wittgenstein in 1938 (cf. Pichler 2019).
Nonetheless, Anscombe’s sense of Wittgenstein’s way of expressing himself
doubtless had dimensions that would not be there in a translator, however
good otherwise, who had not known Wittgenstein personally.
To conclude this section, let’s return once more to the question of personal
style, and how this affects judgements of quality in writing and translating.
Anthony Kenny says of Anscombe as a philosophical writer in her own right
that her husband Peter Geach was ‘much the better writer’ (2019a, 20), as
though there was a self-evident criterion for this. John Haldane, for his part,
speaks of ‘the common experience of [Geach’s] work as being a delight to
142 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

read and of [Anscombe’s] as inducing the sense of being dragged through a

dense forest by a powerful solitary animal as it simultaneously avoids
predators and pursues prey’ (2019b, 86). I find the image apt, but if someone
thinks and writes like that, what sense does it make to fault the writing for
not being ‘good’; the writing fits the thinking, fits the writing animal’s
movements, so why should it, and how could it, be different?13 And might
one not view Anscombe’s achievement as a translator of Wittgenstein not
just as a sensitive rendering of the author’s style by the translator, but also as
one forceful style, one powerful animal, meeting another?

3. THE SOUL OF A WORD

In 2009, Peter Hacker and Joachim Schulte brought out a revised, bilingual
edition of the Philosophical Investigations. In their Editorial Preface, they
say that because of ‘the excellence of the Anscombe translation’, the book
presents not a new, but ‘a modified translation, rectifying any errors or
misjudgements we discerned in hers’ (2009a, viii). One criticism they make
of Anscombe’s translation concerns her rendering of Seele in Wittgenstein’s
text. I want to briefly discuss this, to illustrate how apparent details of
translation can both have important implications with regard to, and be
influenced by, how one approaches the philosophical questions at issue.
Hacker and Schulte note that the word Seele ‘cannot always be correctly
rendered by “soul” ’; they say that Anscombe was ‘clearly aware of the
problem, and in many remarks rightly opted for “mind” as a correct
translation’ but criticize her because ‘in some remarks she questionably
opted for “soul” ’ (2009a, xiv). The prime exhibit for their case is PI §283,
which Anscombe rendered:

And can one say of the stone that it has a soul and that is what has the
pain? What has a soul, or pain, to do with a stone? Only of what behaves
like a human being can one say that it has pains. For one has to say it of a
body, or, if you like of a soul which some body has. And how can a body
have a soul?

Hacker and Schulte regard this rendering as obviously mistaken. In their

view, ‘it is clear that the discussion concerns mind and body’; ‘what is at issue
is mind, not soul, and the problems of mind and body, not of the soul and
the body’ (2009a, xiv–xv). Hence, they render the passage: ‘And can one
say of the stone that it has a mind, and that is what has the pain . . .’, etc.
By contrast, in the oft-quoted string of remarks starting with ‘My attitude
towards him is an attitude towards a soul’ (PI, II:iv, 178 / Wittgenstein 2009,
NAKED, PLEASE! 143

Philosophy of Psychology – A Fragment, §22), Hacker and Schulte retain

Anscombe’s ‘soul’. They say that this is because in the next remark
Wittgenstein writes, ‘Religion teaches that the soul can exist when the body
has disintegrated’, which they think shows that here it is ‘primarily the soul
that is under discussion’ (2009a, xv). In the remark following on that, which
Anscombe rendered ‘If the picture of thought in the head can force itself
upon us, then why not much more that of thought in the soul?’, Hacker and
Schulte change the ending to ‘. . .that of thoughts in the mind or soul’, but
in the last occurrence of Seele in these remarks, they revert to only ‘soul’
again: ‘The human body is the best picture of the human soul’ (PI, II:iv, 178
/ Wittgenstein 2009, Philosophy of Psychology – A Fragment, §25).
Now, I wonder: why this last choice? And why, indeed, the first one?
Suppose Wittgenstein hadn’t said anything about religion in this context;
would it then have been alright, as Hacker and Schulte seem to imply, to
have: ‘My attitude towards him is an attitude towards a mind’ and ‘The
human body is the best picture of the human mind’? Hardly. It wouldn’t just
have ‘ruined the rhetorical effect’, but made nonsense of the whole thing,
insofar as ‘mind’ has connotations of things to do with the intellect, while
the connotations of ‘soul’ are different and wider, as comes out, e.g. in
Wittgenstein’s remark: ‘Anyone with a soul [Seele] must be capable of pain,
joy, grief, etc. etc. And if he is also to be capable of memory, of making
decisions, of making a plan for something, with this he needs linguistic
expression’ (LW2, 67). The soul, this remark seems to suggest, ‘comes before’
(and remains after the advent of) the mind, insofar as ‘the mind’ is used to
name our conceptually mediated intelligence. And, importantly in our
context, the ‘life of the mind’ doesn’t have a physiognomy, isn’t
characteristically expressed in the face, pose, gestures, tone of voice, etc., in
the way the movements of the soul (joy, grief, etc.) are. It is no coincidence
that people often imagine the mind as a kind of computer; while that analogy
quickly breaks down when one actually tries to apply it, the point is that
nobody would even try comparing the soul to a computer, a machine
(whereas many have of course said that we have no soul at all, we’re simply
biological machines). When Wittgenstein asks himself what ‘a human who
had no soul [Seele]’ would be like, he says he can only picture a human-like
body that ‘acts like an automaton [. . .] like a machine’; in whose features
one could not, for instance, see ‘a suffering look’ (LW2, 66–67).
Hacker and Schulte don’t really think, of course, that in the famous ‘My
attitude towards him . . .’-remark Wittgenstein has suddenly inserted a brief
discussion of ‘philosophy of religion’, quite unrelated to his discussions of
the so-called ‘mind-body problem’ in the rest of the Investigations. But how,
then, are they so certain that in the passage about the stone feeling pain, and
144 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

others like it, they were right to exchange ‘soul’ for ‘mind’ on the strength
of the claim that those passages are about ‘the problems of mind and body,
not of the soul and the body’ (2009a, xiv–xv)? For the passages we have just
considered (‘The human body is the best picture of the human soul’, etc.)
evidently discuss the same problem. Or rather, I would suggest, they tend to
unsettle the whole notion that we know what the problems and disquietudes
that go into making that supposed ‘problem’, really are. Expressing essentially
the same view of the matter as Hacker and Schulte, Saul Kripke said that
‘ “mind” might be a less misleading translation of “Seele” ’ in the ‘My attitude
towards him . . .’-remark, ‘since for the contemporary English speaking
philosophical reader it is somewhat less loaded with special philosophical
and religious connotations’ (1982, 49 [text to footnote 31]). But speaking of
the mind doesn’t have fewer connotations, just different ones; specifically,
‘mind’ suggests to philosophers that we are not talking about anything
‘spiritual’ or otherwise challenging to the so-called ‘scientific world-view’,
while also hiding from view the fact that any special suggestion has been
made. This creates a false assurance that ‘Wittgenstein is writing about the
problem contemporary English speaking philosophers call “the problem of
other minds” ’ (Kripke 1982, 127 [text to footnote 11]) – that is, writing
about it in a way that doesn’t dissolve or transfigure the supposed problem
into something quite different.14
Translating is akin to philosophizing insofar as, wittingly or unwittingly,
the choice of words, along with tone and style, connects a passage with other
passages, thoughts and situations, not just in the translated work but in
others and in our life-experience, while severing connections with yet others,
or making them harder to detect. What is the philosophical importance of
the countless connections and contrasts between different uses of words
such as ‘soul’, ‘mind’, ‘spirit’, ‘intellect’ and their derivatives? What is the
contrast between ‘soulfulness’ and ‘mindfulness’, say, or between ‘losing
one’s mind’ and ‘losing one’s soul’, and what does our marking such contrasts
reveal about our life? Again, what would be the differences between our
language and one ‘in whose use the “soul” of the words played no part’, in
which, e.g. ‘we had no objection to replacing one word by another arbitrary
one’ (PI §530)? How is this connected to the way that, for us, words can be
‘charged with [. . .] desire’, ‘hard to say’, or ‘wrung from us, – like a cry’ (PI
§546)? And how is ‘soul’ related to ‘life’? Is it mere theoretical posit, or again
mere metaphor, to speak of ‘the soul of a daffodil’, as Anscombe does in one
of her own papers, meaning thereby, like Aristotle, the principle or form of
the daffodil’s particular life (1985, 20)? When we say that sunflowers ‘turn
their faces to the sun’ (Anscombe 1985, 22), are we then simply speaking in
metaphor? They don’t turn their faces exactly as we do, for example not in
NAKED, PLEASE! 145

anticipation of an imagined event (Anscombe 1985, 22), but does that mean
that what they do is ‘simply causal’ or, on the other hand, that when we turn
our faces to the warm sun, we do something completely different?
The answers to such questions are not clear but need investigating – not
because details and nuances of language-use would be important in
themselves, but because what can superficially appear mere details may
reveal central grammatical distinctions and connections that give our life its
shape and find their sense in that shape. As Wittgenstein says, philosophy is
‘not a description of language usage, and yet one can learn it by constantly
attending to all the expressions of life in the language’ (LW1, §121; cf. PI
§254). In light of this, the confidence Hacker and Schulte display about the
‘correct’ translation of Seele appears to reveal not only a problematic
understanding of translation but an attitude at odds with the spirit of
Wittgenstein’s work in philosophy. The underlying, really problematic
‘translation’ is rewriting Wittgenstein in the ‘language’ of standard academic
philosophy, in terms of its preconceptions of what belongs with what, how
questions are to be framed and answered. In M. O’C Drury words, this
assimilates Wittgenstein’s writings ‘into the very intellectual milieu they
were largely a warning against’ (Drury to Rhees, Spring 1966; quoted in
Erbacher 2019b, 135). What academic philosopher would say, as Wittgenstein
did (Wittgenstein 2003, 147 [MS 183, 139]): ‘My soul [Seele] is more naked
than that of most people & in that consists so to speak my genius’.15

4. NAKED EDITIONS
Let’s now move to a discussion of Anscombe work as editor, rather than
translator, of Wittgenstein’s Nachlass. She sums up her basic attitude in her
paradoxical declaration to fellow-editor von Wright: ‘I don’t believe in
editing!’(Anscombe to von Wright, undated 1976, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12).
This is in reference to the work the two were then doing on publishing the
Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology [RPP]. In a later letter, she explains:
‘I don’t [. . .] want to make any groupings of the material, as in RFM [Remarks
on the Foundations of Mathematics]. As you know, I favour minimum
editing’ (Anscombe to von Wright, 26 June 1976, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12).
The experience with the RFM, first published 1956, had left both of them
wary of producing books containing selections from various manuscripts
and typescripts. With the exception of ‘Part I’ of RFM, which contains a
selection of remarks made and worked over by Wittgenstein himself, that
book is, in Anscombe’s words, ‘really [. . .] “only remarks” [. . .] a mere
selection [made by the editors], preserving chronological order, from
Wittgenstein’s first-draft notebooks’ ([1969] 2011, 191). Already as she was
146 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

translating the selected passages for RFM, Anscombe had doubts about the
rightness of their editorial decisions: ‘I have just finished translating the MS
[. . .] written at the turn of 1939-40 & feel rather dubious about it – both in
our not having cut it down more, it is so repetitive and dreadfully boring;
and in respect of one or two of our very few cuts in it, which seem to me to
have been of things essential to some that we have left in’ (Anscombe to von
Wright, 4 July 1954, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12). Von Wright had similar
doubts, and they didn’t want to make the same mistake again.16
The Zettel, edited by Anscombe and von Wright jointly and published in
1967, contained a selection of remarks, but Wittgenstein himself had made
the selection; as the editors surmised, because he regarded those remarks as
‘particularly useful and intended to weave [them] into finished work if places
for them should appear’ (Z, Preface).17 von Wright, of course, did bring out a
selection of ‘general’ remarks from across the Nachlass specially made by
him, not Wittgenstein, Vermischte Bemerkungen/Culture and Value, in
1977/1980, but the other books von Wright and Anscombe co-edited – the
Notebooks 1914-1916 (1961), On Certainty (1969) and RPP I & II (1980)
– and the one volume Anscombe edited alone, Remarks on Colour (1977),
reproduced manuscripts or typescripts in whole, or in large parts, according
to the ‘minimum editing’-policy Anscombe favoured. As we shall see,
however, to speak of ‘minimum editing’ here may be quite misleading, as
significant and controversial omissions of material and decisions about what
to put together into a particular book were involved.
Nonetheless, the fact that Anscombe speaks of ‘minimum editing’ does
indicate an important difference between her editorial approach and that of
the third of the original literary executors, Rush Rhees.18 Rhees denied having
an ‘editorial policy’ – ‘Unless this be one: In any editing I have done I have
asked myself again and again what Wittgenstein would have wanted. This has
guided me in what I have decided to leave out and in what I have decided to
include’ (quoted in Erbacher 2019b, 116; cf. Rhees 1996, 56). Rhees thought
that, thanks to his long familiarity with Wittgenstein and his ways of working
(Erbacher 2019b, 117; cf. Rhees 1996, 57), he could make – of course not
infallibly – the judgements necessary to reconstruct, out of Wittgenstein’s
MS-materials from the 1930s, editions that would make the development of
his thinking perspicuous. This ‘genetic’ or ‘co-creative’ editing approach
(Erbacher, Jung & Seibel 2017, 109; Erbacher 2019b, 127), resulted in
editions – particularly Philosophical Grammar (1969) – that were controversial,
and were criticized for what appeared an arbitrary and opaque editing-style
(see Erbacher 2019b). Rhees thought, however, that people would not
properly ‘begin to appreciate the Untersuchungen until they see the discussion
from which it has come. It would not be enough, just to print it together with
NAKED, PLEASE! 147

the Tractatus. This would suggest that the relation between them is much
simpler than in fact it is. People would still not guess the magnitude of the
development which there has been. They would not see – as they do not see
– what has happened: they would not see what the Untersuchungen are
saying’ (Rhees to von Wright, 5 Sept. 1962, NLF, COLL.714.200-201).
I will not discuss Rhees’s editing work further here; I simply want to mark
the contrast with Anscombe’s approach. She underlined that, far from having
any deep insight into Wittgenstein’s way of thinking, she didn’t really
understand him, and her experience was that ‘[p]redictions of “what
Wittgenstein would say” about some question one thought of were never
correct’ (1995, 169). In a letter to Paul Engelmann, in 1958, she wrote:

I must confess that I feel deeply suspicious of anyone’s claim to have

understood Wittgenstein. That is perhaps because, although I had a very
strong and deep affection for him, and, I suppose, knew him well, I am
very sure that I did not understand him. It is difficult, I think, not to give
a version of his attitudes, for example, which one can enter into oneself,
and then the account is really of oneself: is for example infected with
one’s own mediocrity or ordinariness or lack of complexity. . .
—Quoted in Engelmann 1968, xiv

This sense of incomprehension didn’t just concern Wittgenstein the man,

but, insofar as these can be separated at all, his philosophy, and particularly
his later thought; an incomprehension confessed to despite of, or rather as a
result of Anscombe’s long and intense engagement with, and deep knowledge
of, that thought.19 Given this self-confessed lack of clear understanding of
the ultimate aim or sense of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, adopting a
‘minimum editing’-policy seems sensible. What else could one do but publish
the texts as they stand?
However, it is by no means self-evident what ‘publishing the texts as they
stand’ amounts to, exactly. Anscombe didn’t consider the idea of simply
publishing all of the Nachlass, an idea first broached by von Wright in 1965.20
Furthermore, she didn’t want to produce scholarly, text-critical editions; her
ideal, instead, was what she called naked editions; ‘I regard the nakedness of
our editions of Wittgenstein as an advantage’, she wrote to von Wright
(Anscombe to von Wright, undated 1977, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12). By that,
she seems to have meant books presenting Wittgenstein’s manuscripts or
typescripts unburdened by an apparatus of editorial notes, commentaries,
etc.21 Such an editorial approach certainly has its attractions. The kind of
detailed scrutiny to which scholars subject texts, which text-critical editions
with their apparatus serve, has its special importance, but it is only because
148 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

people read texts for other reasons – primarily philosophical reasons, in this
case – that anyone has any interest in also finding out the kinds of things
scholars can tell us about them. The ‘naked’ editions of Wittgenstein that
Anscombe and her fellow editors produced are slender and so manageable
volumes, relatively cheap to buy, easy to bring along on trips, etc. In short,
they are books to live and think with; books of the kind that make a
philosopher easily available to the public, not just to scholars. However, just
as with successful translations, the apparent ‘naturalness’ of the texts thus
produced may itself come to hamper and skew understanding if readers
uncritically accept as ‘Wittgenstein’s writings’ texts that actually, unavoidably,
result from contestable editorial decisions about what to present together
within the covers of one book, and how. There are questions to ask about
how ‘naked’ the editions Anscombe produced really were, and how ‘minimal’
the editing that went into making them. I will discuss one case, that of the
Notebooks, in depth, after considering two others more briefly: Wittgenstein’s
last writings from 1949–1951, published as OC, ROC and LW2, and the
case of ‘Part II’ of the Investigations.

5. THE CONTROVERSY OVER PI, ‘PART II’

The Philosophical Investigations, as edited by Anscombe and Rhees in 1953,
consisted of two parts: 693 numbered remarks in ‘Part I’ and close to 60
pages of unnumbered remarks in ‘Part II’. In their Note, the editors say that,
had Wittgenstein ‘published his work himself, he would have suppressed a
good deal of what is in the last thirty pages or so of “Part I” and worked what
is in “Part II”, with further material, into its place’. It has been claimed,
however, most influentially by Hacker and Schulte in their 2009 revised
edition of the Investigations, that including ‘Part II’ (that is, MS 144/the now
lost TS 234) in the book was an unjustifiable editorial sleight of hand. In their
revised edition, the same material (with minor revisions) is still included for
historical reasons, but only as a kind of appendix under the title ‘Philosophy
of Psychology – A Fragment’. ‘Whatever Wittgenstein’s final intentions were’,
Hacker and Schulte write, ‘the fact is that the closest he ever came to
completing the Philosophical Investigations is the current text consisting of
§§1–693’, and ‘[r]eaders of Philosophy of Psychology – A Fragment will be
well advised to bear in mind that what we have there, unlike the Investigations,
is work in progress’ (2009b, xxiii; x). As far as I can see, however, Hacker and
Schulte provide no decisive arguments against regarding ‘Part II’ as a legitimate
part of the Investigations, even if they raise an important question.22
‘Part I’ clearly has – at least in part; we will return to this qualification – a
very different character from ‘Part II’, insofar as the earlier parts of the book
NAKED, PLEASE! 149

have been worked over, arranged and rearranged much more extensively by
Wittgenstein than the material in ‘Part II’. Anscombe and Rhees never denied
this; their claim was not that the material in ‘Part II’ was a finished piece of
writing, but that Wittgenstein would have worked it into a partly rewritten
‘Part I’. What their Editorial Note underlines is thus the fact that, contrary to
Hacker and Schulte’s claim, even ‘Part I’ was still ‘work in progress’. Anscombe,
like many other commentators, emphasizes that Wittgenstein attached extreme
importance to the right arrangement of his material. While the Investigations,
she says, ‘does not finish with a topic’ but rather ‘zigzags back to old themes in
the context of new subject matter’, it is arranged in a ‘coherent and intelligible
order’, with ‘natural’ transitions from one large discussion to the next; ‘One is
much more likely to be jolted and puzzled by the transition from one
Bemerkung to the next, both being on the very same point, than by the
transition to a different subject matter – and in such cases, puzzlement can
usually be resolved by philosophical reflection’ ([1969] 2011, 189–190). She
reports that Wittgenstein ‘expressed a particular dissatisfaction to [her] in
Dublin in 1949’ with regard to the last 150 remarks or so of ‘Part I’, adding “I
would like my whole book, if it could be, to be only so thick!’ [. . .] holding his
finger and thumb about a quarter of an inch apart’ ([1969] 2011, 189–190).
Anscombe thought one can see why in the text; ‘It is only in the last 150
Bemerkungen that I find some jerky transitions of topic: for example, the
introduction at §547 of “negation as mental activity” [. . .] In these last 150
Bemerkungen one has the impression that the author had sought the best
arrangement he could make of these materials rather than that he was traversing
zigzag paths [as he says in the Preface] because this was the journey through
the “wide field of thought” that he wanted to lead us on’ ([1969] 2011, 189).23
Now, insofar as ‘Part I’, too, and especially its later parts, is work in
progress, why not publish it with a sample of the kind of further material
that would likely have been worked into it? We need to understand both the
very carefully crafted arrangement of this unfinished book’s more finished
parts, with its ‘dialogic’ or ‘polyphonic’, many-voiced form of philosophic
writing, which seems constantly to unsettle any philosophical ‘positions’ the
text itself tries out, and its nonetheless, or perhaps precisely therefore, still
unfinished character.24 What does Wittgenstein think philosophical
difficulties are like, if this curious kind of book is best suited – or was the best
thing he could try to produce – to clarify them? Was it just lack of time or
some other external factors that prevented him from finishing it, or is the
very idea of finishing a book – or ‘album’, as he says in the Preface – such as
this one somehow inherently problematic?25 Reflecting on various
possibilities, trying to see what speaks for and against them, may be important
and illuminating, but I don’t see how it could be said with any confidence, or
150 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

perhaps even with much sense, that reading ‘Part I’ by itself gives a better
idea of Wittgenstein’s conception of what his book would or might have
become, had he been able to finish it, than reading it and ‘Part II’, with the
instruction provided in Anscombe’s and Rhees’s original Note.
A further question, however, is why just MS 144/TS 234, rather than
some other material from Wittgenstein’s later years, was elevated to the
special status of ‘Part II’ of the Investigations. While Anscombe’s and Rhees’s
decision to do so doesn’t appear unreasonable, I’m not aware that they
provided any decisive argument for it either. In a letter to von Wright, who
was at that time writing a paper on the ‘troubled history’, as he called it, of
‘Part II’ (von Wright 1992), Anscombe explains:

My contribution to the belief that Wittgenstein ‘would have inserted this,

with further material, into the alas considerably expurgated last 30 pages
or so of the Investigations[’], was based purely on what he said to me
when I visited him in Dublin [in 1949]: what he pointed to was not indeed
the MS or TS of Part II (which as you remark didn’t exist at that time) but
those big – or that big – MS volume which contained, as I realized later,
the material in the MS of Part II. I realized this because of what Wittgenstein
was discussing with me, which was the context of his pointing to that big
MS volume (I think in fact he was pointing to only one volume, and
thought of ‘those volumes’ because they go together[)].
—Anscombe to von Wright, 15 April 1991, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12

MS 144/TS 234 was a selection made by Wittgenstein from this mss-material

on ‘philosophical psychology’ that he had been working on 1946–1949 (cf.
Editor’s Preface to LW1), and Anscombe and Rhees clearly thought the MS/
TS was of exceptional philosophical quality, even if Wittgenstein hadn’t
worked it into the same kind of intricate arrangement that characterizes the
earlier parts of ‘Part I’. Already in 1953, long before any criticisms of the
inclusion of ‘Part II’ had been made, Anscombe spoke of ‘the new degree of
compactness to which Wittgenstein rose in his last period’ and said, referring
to the material in ‘Part II’ in the PI, that ‘for compression, together with rich
and sharp expressiveness; for wealth of incontestable observations and hard
investigation; this transcends everything he ever wrote’ (Erbacher, dos
Santos Reis and Jung 2019, 239).

6. ‘SINGLE TREATISES ON SINGLE TOPICS’

If, in the case of ‘Part II’ of the Investigations, Anscombe’s editing of
Wittgenstein has been criticized for putting together what should have been
NAKED, PLEASE! 151

kept apart, in the case of Wittgenstein’s last writings, published as On

Certainty (1969), Remarks on Colour (1978) and Last Writings on the
Philosophy of Psychology II (1992), the criticism is instead that she sundered
what should have been kept together.26 In their Editor’s Preface to LW2, von
Wright and Heikki Nyman write (p. vi):

Thematically, Wittgenstein’s philosophical writings from the last two

years of his life (1949-51) can be divided into three parts. The largest of
these three parts deals with the concepts of certainty, knowing, doubting,
and other topics in epistemology. A second part deals with the philosophy
of colour concepts; a third, with psychological concepts and in particular
with the problem of the relationship between “the inner” and “the outer”,
between the so-called mental states and bodily behaviour.

As we will see, this tripartite thematic division of the material is less obvious
than it may appear, and publishing the texts as three separate books was by
no means the only possibility. Wittgenstein’s discussions of the various
themes are not neatly separated into different notebooks and deciding which
of the three themes particular remarks or longer swathes of text belong to is
often difficult or impossible.27
While Anscombe and von Wright agreed on the ‘three themes’-division of
the material, they initially had different ideas for how to publish it. Von
Wright suggested an extensive selection of the last writings containing
discussions of all three themes in a single volume (von Wright to Anscombe,
28 August 1967, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12; cf. a similar earlier suggestion in
his letter from 11 June 1964). Anscombe wanted to publish the remarks we
now know as OC separately and told von Wright she was ‘against a scrappy
publication’ when ‘we have a single treatise on a single topic to put before
the public’ (Anscombe to von Wright, 13 September 1967, NLF, COLL.
714.11-12). Von Wright didn’t insist on his plan, and a year later, Anscombe
informed him, ‘I went ahead with the certainty thing as a monograph on its
own, as I always wanted it to be. I hope you will agree that this was right’
(Anscombe to von Wright, 16 September 1968, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12).
Von Wright was initially doubtful (von Wright to Anscombe, 21 September
1968, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12), but after reading the OC-proofs, told
Anscombe he was now ‘completely convinced that you were right (against
me) that the writings on certainty should be published as a book on its own.
The impression it makes is strong and wonderful’ (von Wright to Anscombe,
10 March 1969, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12). Rhees, whose later (1971)
proposal to publish the German edition of Über Gewißheit together with ‘A
Lecture on Ethics’ and ‘Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough’ was also vetoed
152 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

by Anscombe, was more sceptical. He thought Anscombe ‘look[s] on those

remarks [OC] as much more abgeschlossen [self-contained] than (I believe)
they are’ (Rhees to von Wright, 19 March 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004). In line
with his general concern that the editions should reveal the historical
continuities and developments in Wittgenstein’s thinking, he worried that
especially Anscombe’s Preface (also signed by von Wright) might ‘prevent
people from recognizing the constant connections between these remarks
[OC] and his [Wittgenstein’s] earlier discussions’ (Rhees to von Wright, 18
June 1969, WWA, Wri-FC-004).28
In the Preface to OC, Anscombe wrote: ‘It seemed appropriate to publish
this work by itself. It is not a selection; Wittgenstein marked it off in his
notebooks as a separate topic, which he apparently took up at four separate
periods during this eighteen months [Nov. 1949 to April 1951]. It constitutes
a single sustained treatment of the topic’. Here, we see how Anscombe
preferred not to make selections within what she considered a sustained
treatment of a topic. She seems to have thought it clear what was one topic,
however. But is it? On a philological level, neither Wittgenstein’s marks in
the notebooks nor Anscombe’s interpretation of them are quite as
unambiguous as her formulations here and in the Preface to ROC, where she
says that the material she excluded was ‘marked as discontinuous with the
text’, suggest.29 On a philosophical level, the idea that one can distinguish
clearly between ‘the topics’ of OC, ROC and LW2 becomes blurrier the
closer one looks.
How, for example, should one characterize the ‘single topic’ of OC? Is it
‘certainty’? Why not, equally, ‘the nature of a world picture’, ‘cultural
differences’, ‘sanity and madness’, ‘the limits of argument’, ‘faith’, or ‘the
relation between logic and experience’, say? Anscombe herself later
underlined the variety of questions addressed in OC, warning that ‘we
should not regard [its] struggling investigations [. . .] as all saying the same
thing’; for example, ‘a world-picture is not the same thing as a religious
belief, even though to believe is not in either case to surmise’, and we ‘cannot
get [Wittgenstein] right, but only commit frightful confusions, by making
assimilations’ (1976, 130). And, on the other hand, however one might
characterize the OC-discussions, wouldn’t the characterization also be
applicable to ROC and LW2, even if not in precisely the same way?
Thus, a central question running through the material in all three books
is the conceivability of concepts, ‘grammars’ of experience, forms of life,
radically different from our own. For instance, ‘Can one imagine people
who don’t know pretence and to whom one cannot explain it?’ (LW2, 56;
cf. 20); ‘Can’t we imagine people having colour concepts other than our
own?’ (ROC, I §66; cf. ROC, III §§86–88); ‘At any rate it is important to
NAKED, PLEASE! 153

imagine a language in which our concept “knowledge” does not exist’; ‘Now,
how do we imagine this?’ (OC, §562; 609). The problem here is to see how
things hang together in our life: what would it mean if pretence, say, were
absent, what would still stay in place (cf. ROC, III §296; 304; LW2, 71–73)?
The question, then, is how far we can describe (conceive) even our own
grammar, as opposed to willy-nilly manifesting it in the way we talk, think
and act (cf. ROC, III, §123–124; OC §501). In other words, the difficulties
in understanding others are inseparable from our difficulties in understanding
ourselves.
Reading the materials of Wittgenstein’s last writings that his editors
separated into different books together may just as well, and just as
importantly, bring out differences as similarities between the discussions.
Take ‘certainty’ itself; a central question recurring in the material published
in LW2 is what certainty, uncertainty and doubt come to in one’s
understanding of another person. And now the focus of the investigation
starts shifting away from what ‘I’ am, or again ‘we’ as a community, are
certain of, towards the relationship between individual people. Here, one’s
certainty, or again doubt and distrust, regarding what another feels or means
depends – not only, but crucially – on whether, or how well, one knows
them, in a sense lacking agreed criteria and irreducible to what one knows
about them (cf. LW2, 86–90). How is this interpersonal dimension related
to the communal certainties within which all our inquiries are situated?
Insofar as we learn the latter, ‘practices’, ‘world pictures’, etc., from other
people, believing someone in some sense appears more basic than believing
something – and yet, as Anscombe once remarked, despite its ‘huge
importance for the theory of knowledge’, ‘Believing someone is not merely
a neglected topic in philosophical discussion; it seems to be unknown’ (1979,
3; 1). Ironically, Anscombe’s editorial decision to separate the discussions in
OC from those in LW2 can itself be seen as symptomatic of this neglect, and
may have made it harder to see the philosophical significance of both
discussions properly.
Of course, if everything is in this way ‘connected with everything else’ in
Wittgenstein’s approach to philosophy, as von Wright once put it,30 and as
the Preface of the Investigations famously suggests, this should be evident
from his last writings even when published chopped up to ‘separate topics’.
And so it is; after all, one can read all three books together. Couldn’t one
then say that Anscombe’s ‘single topics’ approach did no harm? In a way,
yes. But insofar as that approach is hegemonic in academic philosophy –
making philosophy academic indeed presupposes its division into specialized
areas allowing narrow ‘expert’-knowledge – editorial policies that present
Wittgenstein as conforming to these hegemonic assumptions may encourage
154 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

rather than forestall the radical misunderstandings of his philosophy that are
likely in any case.

7. THE SUPPRESSION OF THE CODED ENTRIES IN

NOTEBOOKS 1914-1916
In 1961, a work titled Wittgenstein’s Notebooks 1914-1916, edited by
Anscombe and von Wright, with Wittgenstein’s German text and en face
English translation by Anscombe, appeared. The book presented material
from three wartime notebooks, from the period when Wittgenstein was
working on what would become the Tractatus. In their Preface, the editors
claimed to have ‘left out very little that is in the notebooks: the omissions
almost always were of sketches of [logical] symbolism, which could not be
interpreted or were otherwise uninteresting’ (NB [1961a], vi). They made
no mention of the fact that on the left-hand pages of his notebooks,
Wittgenstein had written entries in code31 that were all omitted from the
published Notebooks, which contained only the right-hand pages with
entries in plain script. In the second edition of the Notebooks from 1979,
whose text had been, as the Preface says, ‘completely revised for this edition,
and a number of misreadings [. . .] corrected’ (NB [1979c], 1), there was
again no mention of the omitted parts of the actual notebooks’ contents. The
editors, then, made two different decisions with regard to the coded entries:
not to include them in their edition of the Notebooks, and not to make the
first decision public. Taken together, these decisions justify speaking of a
suppression of the existence of the coded entries (a strange anomaly about
this suppression will be noted below). The fact of the suppression became
widely known, and caused a minor scandal, only in 1985, when Wilhelm
Baum published the coded entries transcribed under the title Geheime
Tagebücher (The Secret Diaries, GT).32
The plain script material in the wartime notebooks is generally clearly
philosophical and/or logical in character, while the coded entries are rather
private or personal – but as we’ll see, the relation between the ‘philosophical’
and the ‘personal’ is itself a controversial and philosophically significant
issue, and one also shouldn’t equate ‘personal’ with ‘private’.33 As far as I
know, neither Anscombe nor von Wright ever publicly explained their
decision to suppress the coded entries, nor is that decision discussed by them
in what survives of their correspondence. In this section, I will discuss the
circumstances surrounding the suppression and the possible motives for it.
Then, in section 8, I explain what I see as the philosophical significance of
the coded entries, and therefore, as the philosophical cost of their suppression
from the published Notebooks.
NAKED, PLEASE! 155

If the editors never explained their motives for the suppression of the
coded entries, it is, surprisingly, also unclear to what extent they knew the
actual contents of these entries. The Notebooks 1914-1916 were published
in 1961, but it was only in 1964–1966 that the editors undertook the
‘exhausting and time-consuming job’ of systematically transcribing the coded
passages strewn throughout Wittgenstein’s Nachlass, including the wartime
notebooks.34 In his ‘Biographical Sketch’ of Wittgenstein, published in
Swedish in 1954, and in English translation a year later, von Wright had
actually announced to the world the existence of the wartime coded entries
that he and Anscombe suppressed six years later; this is the anomaly alluded
to above. There he wrote: ‘In the earliest notebooks part of the content is
written in a code, which Wittgenstein continued to use throughout his life.
Only a part of the notes in code have been deciphered. They appear to be of
a personal nature. It is too early to pronounce on their interest for a larger
public’ (1955a, 534).35 Apparently, then, the editors had transcribed, or seen
transcriptions of some parts of the coded entries and decided on the strength
of what these contained that the coded material as a whole wasn’t to be
published. They could not have acted on any direct instruction from
Wittgenstein not to publish the coded parts of the wartime notebooks, for he
evidently thought the notebooks themselves, plain and coded pages, had
been destroyed; the three physical notebooks on which Notebooks 1914-
1916 was based survived only by the ‘accident’ of having been left at a house
in Gmunden, rather than in Vienna with the rest of Wittgenstein’s early
notebooks, which were indeed ‘destroyed by his orders in 1950’ along with
‘most’ of his notebooks from ‘all his periods of writing’ (NB [1961a], v). The
fact that Wittgenstein had intended to destroy the notebooks might have led
the editors to wonder whether it was right to publish even the plain text
entries in them, but I have found no indication of their raising this question.
Perhaps they thought that the coded entries were the reason Wittgenstein
wanted the notebooks destroyed, and so publishing just the plain script
portions would not go against his wishes.36 However, Wittgenstein could
hardly have instructed his literary executors not to publish any remarks of
his written in code, which are found across his later notebooks, too, since
von Wright, with Anscombe’s and Rhees’s consent, later published Culture
and Value, a collection of remarks by Wittgenstein relating to ‘subjects of a
general sort, such as questions about art or about religion’ (CV, Preface),
many of which had been written in code. Incidentally, the very first one
of these – but that alone, of all the remarks von Wright included in his
selection – comes from the wartime coded diaries.37
Why, then, might Anscombe and von Wright have decided to suppress
the entries? However little they had seen of their contents, they clearly
156 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

thought they contained private or personal material, which shouldn’t be

published.38 Had ‘private’ merely meant ‘too trivially particular or subjective
to be of any general interest’ (and many of the entries do fall into this
category), the editors could simply have noted, in the Preface to NB, their
existence and that publishing them would have been pointless. But their
attitude was quite different. The correspondence of all three literary heirs
shows them anxious to ensure that the passages not be made public –
although why, exactly, is never articulated, but rather taken as ‘understood’
by them. When a microfilm of the entire Nachlass was produced in 1967, to
be deposited at Cornell, all coded entries were censored (covered over), and
von Wright assured Anscombe that he and Norman Malcolm would
‘personally supervise the “purging” of the [. . .] passages in code’ (von Wright
to Anscombe, 28 April 1966, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12; cf. his letter to her
from 30 December 1966). This policy of censorship seems at one point in
the early 1980s to have been questioned by Anscombe, who apparently
suggested publishing the coded material, ‘so as to put an end to further fuss
about it’, but she soon moved back to the censorship-line.39 The coded
entries were finally ‘officially’ published in 2000, as part of the Bergen
Electronic Edition.
What, then, might have been the perceived problem with publishing the
coded entries? The fact that they sometimes bear on Wittgenstein’s sexual
life may have played some part. In the wartime entries Wittgenstein often
records, without further comment, either that he feels (or sometimes
doesn’t feel) ‘sensuous’ (sinnlich), or that he has masturbated – an
occurrence apparently special and charged enough in his mind to be
noteworthy – while other entries relate to his love-life; specifically, he
expresses his longing for David Pinsent. These entries contain no explicit
references to, although possibly allusions to, sexual feelings (see the GT-
entries for 18.3.15 and 16.4.15), but the tone is unmistakably different
from how one speaks of even good friends who are just friends; at one
point, Wittgenstein kisses the long-awaited letter from David (GT, 21.12.14).
The coded material also contains – and this is a much more prominent
feature – many entries where Wittgenstein records, in strong language, his
great difficulties with and contemptuous dislike for his fellow soldiers.
I will argue in the next section that these entries are, strange as this may
sound, the philosophically most interesting part of the coded material. But
given how famously difficult, deeply unhappy and harshly judgemental a
person Wittgenstein could be – as both Anscombe and von Wright had
acknowledged in print already by 1961 – one wonders whether they would
have thought the content or tone of those entries warranted censoring
the coded parts of the notebooks. On the other hand, one might acknowledge
NAKED, PLEASE! 157

that one’s friend could be difficult or unhappy and still not want
private, painfully detailed, records of that difficulty and unhappiness
published.40
Supposing that at least part of the reason for suppressing the coded entries
was the wish to prevent Wittgenstein’s records of his sexual life and/or
specifically his homosexuality41 from becoming public knowledge, or a
focus of public interest, we should note that this wish, in turn, could be very
differently motivated. One might be concerned with protecting a dead
friend from the kind of prurient, salacious interest evoked by the sex-life of
others, especially of famous people; an interest no less ‘foul’ – a word
Rhees used in this context – when satisfied in the guise of scholarship.42 A
quite different motive, but which may, by the person so motivated and
others, be mistaken for the first one, would be a concern to protect oneself
from becoming publicly associated with, and thus also being actively
reminded of and having to think about, aspects of one’s friend’s life one
found unpalatable. I know of no evidence to suggest that the literary
executors were motivated by such self-serving motives; I mention the
distinction between motives rather to warn against the automatic assumption
that their motives could only have been of the self-serving kind; conventional
prudery, homophobia, etc.43
A further possible motivation for the suppression of the coded entries
relates not to the particular facts of a private or personal nature they might
reveal, but to the mere fact of their being private/personal. One might find
the prospect of people making someone’s personal life a topic of public
discussion disquieting, not primarily because there were embarrassing or
shameful aspects of that life, but because the outrageousness in the very idea
of people discussing someone’s personal life in public, making conjectures
about what their relationship to friends and loved ones was really like, etc.
When ‘the object’ is still alive the outrage of treating them as an ‘object’ of
discussion – insofar as that is the spirit in which they are talked about –
should be obvious, but when someone is dead, we easily forget it.44 In the
context of our discussion, the point is that Anscombe’s and von Wright’s
decision to suppress the coded entries – like Anscombe’s famous quip that
‘If by pressing a button it could have been secured that people would
not concern themselves with [Wittgenstein’s] personal life, I should have
pressed the button’ (Engelmann 1968, xiv)45 – may have had motives
other than a wish to conceal things regarded as shameful, or just a will to
censor and control Wittgenstein’s public image according to their own
predilections. Obviously, this doesn’t tell us what motives Anscombe and her
fellow-trustees actually had, and I’m not aware of any evidence to settle the
matter.46
158 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

8. BRINGING WORDS BACK FROM THEIR

METAPHYSICAL TO THEIR EVERYDAY USE
Let’s now consider what relevance, if any, the wartime coded entries may
have for understanding Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Anscombe and von
Wright seem to have assumed they had none, at least not enough to offset the
drawbacks they saw in publication; if they were right, the whole suppression-
business would be philosophically uninteresting. In their Preface to the first
edition of the Notebooks, the editors say they ‘publish this material [sc. the
plain script entries] as an aid to students of the Tractatus’; the entries ‘shew
clearly [. . .] what problems formed the context of Wittgenstein’s remarks in
the Tractatus’ (NB [1961a], v). Now, in my view, the coded entries, too,
throw new light on a crucial aspect of the philosophy of the Tractatus.
This is not because the coded entries contain some ‘secret doctrine’, or
because philosophical thought could be explained in terms of the private life
or psychology of its author. Baum’s view that their importance lies in causing
‘the plan of the literary executors to turn Wittgenstein into an atheist and a
positivist’ to crumble (1991, 175, my trans.) is also clearly untenable. That
the positivists misread the Tractatus should have been obvious from the start,
and was made, if possible, even clearer by the extensive reflections on
explicitly ethical and religious questions contained in the plain script entries
in Notebooks 1914-1916. Furthermore, a main purpose of Anscombe’s early
writings on the Tractatus was precisely to criticize the positivist misreading
of it.47 To view the coded entries as some kind of esoteric writing appears
equally misguided. Ilse Somavilla, for example, claims that

The frequency of Wittgenstein’s coded entries involving his ethical and

religious reflections suggest that he wanted to create a special type of text
for these matters, a type clearly distinguishable from his philosophical
discourse, and which by the very method of concealment should hint at
the aspect of the hidden or invisible. [. . . I]f such matters were expressed
in everyday language, then it would prove their nonsensicality. Their
encoding is thus a means to emphasize the distinction between meaningful
and nonsensical propositions, that is between the sayable and the
unsayable, accentuated by a specific kind of script.
—2010, 36

In my mind, this interpretation makes no sense for the wartime notebooks.

As noted, the plain script entries in them also contain a mass of specifically
ethical and religious reflections, so why is their nonsensicality not disguised
by the use of code? And the ethically and religiously charged entries in code
NAKED, PLEASE! 159

are generally expressed, pace Somavilla, precisely in the simplest ‘everyday

language’, they are just written in code. This suggests a very down-to-earth
reason for Wittgenstein’s use of code, namely that the passages he encoded
were easily understandable, but partly embarrassing, and often contained far
from flattering comments about the very people around him who might have
happened to catch a glimpse of them (cf. McGuinness [1988] 1990, 212).
One of the first things Wittgenstein wrote down in code was his first
impression of the crew on the river patrol boat where he served at the start
of the war. It reads: ‘the crew are a bunch of swine! No enthusiasm, incredible
brutality, stupidity & malice!’ (GT, 15.8.14).48 As we’ll see, he goes on in this
vein throughout the notebooks.
There is generally a clear difference between Wittgenstein’s religious
remarks in code and in plain script. The latter speak about God, as in: ‘The
meaning of life, i.e. the meaning of the world, we can call God. [. . .] To pray
is to think about the meaning of life’ (NB, 11.6.16). In the coded entries, by
contrast, Wittgenstein doesn’t speak about God, but either directly to God,
in prayer – or when not that, he is telling himself to trust in God, or hoping
that God will be with him through the tribulations at the front. For example:
‘Perhaps the closeness to death will bring me the light of life! May God
enlighten me! I am a worm but God will make me into a human being. May
God be with me. Amen’ (GT, 4.5.16).49 The plain script entries on explicitly
religious and ethical themes start with the question ‘What do I know
about God and the purpose of life?’, followed by a short list of such
propositions, including ‘I cannot bend the happenings of the world to my
will: I am completely powerless. I can only make myself independent of
the world – and so in a certain sense master it – by renouncing any influence
on happenings’ (NB, 11.6.16). In my view, the philosophically most
consequential contribution the coded entries make to our understanding of
the plain script entries, and of the Tractatus, lies precisely in the light they
throw on the thought ‘The world is independent of my will’ (NB, 5.7.16,
included in the Tractatus at 6.373).50
That thought is directly related to the Tractarian distinction between the
world of facts describable by meaningful propositions and the ‘sense’ or
‘value’ of the world that must ‘lie outside the world’ (TLP 6.41); a distinction
whose corollary is that ‘ethics’ and everything ‘higher’ is inexpressible,
incapable of being ‘put into words’ (TLP 6.42–421). The will ‘in so far as it
is the subject of ethical attributes’ is also independent of the world, and of it,
too, it is thus ‘impossible to speak’ (TLP 6.423). The coded entries afford, I
suggest, not only a biographical background to this thought of the
independence of world and will, but help one understand the thought itself,
making its sense – and the nonsense, the moral confusion in it – concrete.
160 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

The formula itself is familiar from both stoicism and Christianity, the latter
being more central for Wittgenstein, who carried Tolstoy’s The Gospel in
Brief with him ‘like a Talisman’ during the war (GT, 11.10.14). ‘Again and
again’, he writes in code, ‘I repeat Tolstoy’s words to myself: “Man is
powerless in the flesh but through the spirit he is free” ’ (GT, 12.9.14).51
What, however, is the formula’s concrete meaning? Where does the idea of
‘powerlessness’ come from, and what does it signify?
Note, first, that framing it in terms of one’s relation to ‘the world’ is
abstract in a misleading way, insofar as what is actually at stake is one’s
relations to other people. That this is what is at stake is precisely what the
coded entries make very clear. From the swine-remark quoted above (GT,
15.8.14) to the last entry in code (GT, 19.8.16), the left-hand pages of
Wittgenstein’s notebooks are filled with constant complaints about the
character of the people he is surrounded with; ‘These are wicked, heartless
people. It’s all but impossible for me to find a trace of humanity in them.
God help me to live’ (GT, 27.4.16).52 Being immediately convinced that
there was ‘not a single decent man in the whole crew’, the question for
Wittgenstein was how he should ‘relate to all of this in future’ (GT, 25.8.14),
and he soon decided ‘not to resist at all. To make myself quite light outwardly,
as it were, so as to leave my inner being undisturbed’ (GT, 26.8.14), ‘for I’m
after all quite powerless against all these people. I wear myself out uselessly
if I defend myself ’ (GT, 6.9.14).53 Yet, as his constant complaints attest,
Wittgenstein found non-resistance, indifference, impossibly difficult:

How hard it is not to be annoyed with people! How hard it is to tolerate

them. [. . .] Whenever I come into contact with these people at work I
find their meanness so terrible that rage threatens to overcome me &
break out. Again and again I resolve to tolerate it calmly & again and
again I break my resolution. And how this happens I don’t really know
myself. It is so enormously hard to work with people & yet not to have
anything to do with them.
—GT, 17.11.1454

The idea of the world’s independence of one’s will tempted Wittgenstein, I

suggest, because these interpersonal difficulties plagued him. He struggled
to actually make himself independent from his fellow soldiers, that is, to
kill or make himself indifferent to his own responses to them, and presented
this struggle as concerned with realising that this independence, this
‘powerlessness’ in relation to others, is already there. I’m not saying that his
interpersonal difficulties caused Wittgenstein to be tempted by the idea of
the will’s essential independence from the world, in the sense of an ‘external’
NAKED, PLEASE! 161

psychological explanation. The point is rather that in the coded entries we

may see what the metaphysical notion, or fantasy, of the world’s independence
of my will comes to.
In a certain sense the world of others is indeed ‘independent of one’s will’,
insofar as one cannot make others – or for that matter oneself – be what one
would wish them (or oneself) to be. This doesn’t mean, however, that there’s
no essential relationship between oneself and others, that they would
somehow be part of ‘the world’ within which there’s no value or sense, and
that one, as ‘the ethical subject’, stands ‘outside’. The ethical sense of life, for
good or ill, is played out in one’s life with others. But the difficulties of that
life may tempt one to fantasize finding the sense elsewhere, away from others
– which actually also means, away from oneself, although one fantasizes an
escape from them to oneself, in splendid isolation. The wish to entertain such
fantasies is itself a wish to misrepresent to oneself the actual moral-existential
difficulty that spawns them. According to Wittgenstein’s own (later)
conception, ‘metaphysical’ notions are characterized precisely by a wish to
present one’s thinking – and this means: one’s life – as other than it actually
is, which results in conflicts between the misrepresentation and one’s actual
thought/life, in ambivalent, self-undermining claims, evasive vagueness, and a
general failure of one’s words to make lucid sense.55 I suggest that the young
Wittgenstein’s own ethico-philosophical pronouncements are ‘metaphysical’
in that very sense, and that this becomes clear when, following his famous
injunction, we bring his early words ‘back from their metaphysical to their
everyday use’ (PI §116) by reading the plain script pronouncements in the
Notebooks and the Tractatus against the entries in code.
I know nothing about what the other soldiers were actually like, how they
treated Wittgenstein, or he them, and he himself gives no concrete details.
Judging simply from what and how Wittgenstein writes in the coded entries,
however, it seems clear that he was quite unaware that anything could be
seriously amiss with his own response to the others – a response, basically, of
disgusted disdain; ‘I don’t hate them, but they disgust me’ (GT, 28.5.16).56
He realizes that this response makes him unhappy, and berates himself for
finding it impossible to put himself above it – that is, above the others – but
he never considers whether his response might be unjust to them. At one
point he avers that perhaps they aren’t vicious, just ‘enormously narrow’
(GT, 8.5.16)57, but viewing them in this light – a view his later entries (e.g.
28.5.16) show he didn’t keep to in any case – is merely a change in the mode
of disdain, from disgust to condescending pity. If that is someone’s attitude
to others, this is itself a primary ethical-existential problem. The difficulty, in
this case, is not to realize that ‘the world is independent of one’s will’, but to
see how one’s own will, one’s own attitude, fills the world with disgustedly
162 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

fantasized, wicked others. It may be that the others are indeed treating
one meanly, but one won’t even see the evil in their treatment of oneself
clearly until one rids oneself of the evil, the disgust, in one’s own attitude to
them.
Disgust presents (feels) itself as affirming one’s difference from the
disgusting other, but is actually a feeling of unwished for but undeniable
intimacy and even identification with them; an attempt to deny and ward off
the unwanted closeness to the other it announces. One feels the disgusting
other has come ‘too close’, has got ‘under one’s skin’, and one feels dirtied,
sickened, infected by further contact with them; that is, one feels that, unless
one gets away, one will somehow turn into them, one’s intimate kinship with
them now fully revealed. To fantasize independence from them, ‘from the
world’, is, so it seems to me, a metaphysically ‘sublimated’ variation on the
common strategy – of course not a lucidly conscious one – of trying to
repress and defend oneself against one’s own disgust by transforming it into
an apparently more distanced, ‘objectifying’, contempt for others.
Contemptuously, or with condescending pity, one looks down at them from
a presumed safe position ‘far above’; it now seems as though they inhabited
a different world from oneself and were not one’s concern. Similarly, the
metaphysical fantasy of ‘independence from the world’ promises isolation
from the shock of encountering the other person, from the challenge in their
face, into which one cannot bear to look and from which one turns away in
intimately disquieting disgust or cold contempt. But this very turning away
has the same conflicted ambivalence as the metaphysical fantasy, for disgust
and contempt are not indifference, lack of concerned connection, but
desperate pretences at indifference. They are, one could say, modes of feeling
(and both are strong feelings) one’s connection with and openness to the
other – of feeling their humanity, which is also one’s own – when one also
feels threatened by it and wants to escape; escape from the defenceless
‘nakedness of the soul’.58
The aim of these brief remarks has not been to convince anyone that this
is the right view of disgust, contempt and their relation to certain metaphysical
notions, but to raise a question about possible connections.59 This might
seem to have taken us far afield from understanding and assessing Anscombe’s
work as editor of Wittgenstein, into substantive philosophical discussion of
particular issues. What I hoped to have illustrated, however, is precisely that
discussions of the work of editing cannot ultimately be isolated from
discussions of that second kind. What belongs to philosophy, and to the
philosophical work of Wittgenstein in particular, and how various things
belong there, what is and is not ‘personal’ here, is itself a substantive
philosophical – which also means: a moral-existential – question. How one
NAKED, PLEASE! 163

looks at editorial choices regarding inclusion and exclusion, separation and

bringing together of materials, depends on how one sees that question, or
that tangle of questions.

NOTES
1. I will also make use of the unpublished typescript Anecdotes about Wittgenstein
[abbreviated Anecdotes] made by Luke Gormally of two Anscombe-notebooks
deposited at AA (The Collegium Institute Archive of G.E.M. Anscombe,
Philadelphia). Permission to quote from Elizabeth Anscombe’s letters and
Anecdotes was kindly provided by Mary Geach, © M. C. Gormally. Permission
to quote from Georg Henrik von Wright’s letters was kindly provided by Anita
Grönberg-von Wright and Benedict von Wright. Permission to quote from Rush
Rhees’s letters was kindly provided by Volker Munz.
2. Anscombe also translated RFM, NB, Z, RPP1 and (together with Denis Paul)
OC, and worked hard on the translations of ROC by Linda McAlister and
Margarete Schättle, and of RPP2 by C. G. Luckhardt and Maximilian Aue. She
writes to von Wright: ‘I had a great deal more trouble with the Remarks on
Colour than if I had translated it by myself; and I spent [. . .] a fortnight or
three weeks working over the text [of RPP2] that Luckhardt translated with
him’ (Anscombe to von Wright, 4 August 1978, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12). In
addition to her translations of Wittgenstein, Anscombe and Peter Geach also
published a selection of Descartes’ philosophical writings translated by them
jointly (Descartes 1954). When she quotes ancient Greek and Medieval Latin
philosophers in her own writings, the translations generally seem to be her
own.
3. After his return to Cambridge in 1929, Wittgenstein wrote of ‘the conflict in me of
the English and German modes of expression’: ‘I can really work only when I can
continuously converse with myself in German. But for my lectures I must now
arrange things in English & so I am disturbed in my German thought; at least until
a peaceful accord has formed between the two & that takes some time, perhaps
very long’ (MS 183, 16.10.1930, translated in Wittgenstein 2003, 57). Apparently,
no permanent peace-accords between the languages were ever signed.
4. Anscombe’s translation of PI, Anthony Kenny writes, ‘has been universally
accepted as if it contained the ipsissima verba of Wittgenstein: I can think of no
other English translation of a philosopher – not Jowett’s Plato, nor Kemp
Smith’s Kant – that has achieved such canonical status’ (2006: 383).
5. This isn’t the only way of thinking of excellence in translation, or of what it
means for a translated text to find a home in the new language. One might
think, for example, that a good translation should in a certain sense make its
strangeness felt, and by its strange presence enlarge the target language’s
expressive range. Thus, Walter Benjamin approvingly quotes Rudolf Pannwitz’
claim that German translators mistakenly try to ‘turn Hindi, Greek, English into
German instead of turning German into Hindi, Greek, English’; the translator
should rather strive to ‘expand and deepen his language by means of the foreign
language’ (Benjamin 1996: 262).
164 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

6. Much later, in a letter to von Wright written while she was working on her last
translation of Wittgenstein, RPP1, Anscombe says: ‘Now I don’t think of myself
as an awfully good translator, I mostly understand the text pretty well [. . .]. But
what I don’t like about my translation is that it is rather flat’ (Anscombe to von
Wright, 4 August 1978, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12). ‘My translation’ would seem
to refer only to the RPP-text she was then working on, however.
7. Wittgenstein often discussed the musicality of language and music as a kind of
language (e.g. Z §161; 172; cf. PI §§527–546, and further Appelqvist, this
volume) and compared doing philosophy to literary composition; ‘Philosophie
dürfte man eigentlich nur dichten’ (CV, 28; on the difficulty of translating
‘dichten’, cf. Perloff 2011: 716, fn 3). He also wrote, in 1930: ‘I often think
that the highest I wish to achieve would be to compose a melody. [. . .] But then
I must tell myself that it’s quite impossible [. . .] because for that I am missing
something essential or the essential. That is why I am thinking of it as such a
high ideal because I could then in a way sum up my life; and set it down
crystallized. And even if it were but a small, shabby crystal, yet a crystal’
(Wittgenstein 2003: 17–19 [MS 183, 9–10]).
8. For some discussion of how the standard conception of ‘style’ as ‘external’ in
philosophy has been applied to Wittgenstein, and of ‘internalist’ critiques of this
approach, see Kahane, Kanterian & Kuusela 2007: 19–25.
9. Wittgenstein remarks that, in contrast to Le style c’est l’homme, a slogan at
home in ads for men’s fashion insofar as it takes ‘style’ simply as a collectively
sanctioned category, Buffon’s actual Le style c’est l’homme même ‘opens up a
quite different perspective. It says that style is the picture of the man’ (CV, 89)
– in somewhat the same sense, I take it, as ‘The human body is the best picture
of the human soul’ (PI, II:iv: 178/ Wittgenstein 2009, Philosophy of Psychology
– A Fragment, §25). As we’ll see in the next section, however, it isn’t quite clear
how a writer’s ‘style’ may be related to his ‘soul’.
10. Anscombe started studying German in 1946. After they had agreed she should
translate the Investigations, Wittgenstein arranged for her to spend nine months
in Vienna in 1950 to get a better ear for the Austrian German in which he
wrote (Erbacher 2016: 29), but that obviously didn’t give her a perfect sense of
the language. In a letter to von Wright in 1969, she mentions her colleague
Anselm Müller’s (a native German speaker) assistance with the OC-translation,
which, she says, was ‘greatly improved as a result of his help’; he not only
spotted ‘a number of errors which I was ashamed not to have noticed [. . .] but
was able to talk to me instructively about the force of “doch” and “denn” in
various places; this is something very difficult for a foreigner to know’
(Anscombe to von Wright, undated 1969, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12). Cf. the
three ‘recurrent errors [that] run through Anscombe’s translation [of PI]’ noted
in Hacker & Schulte 2009a: xvi.
11. Anscombe’s knowledge of Wittgenstein included a sense of how he would not
have expressed himself. Thus, she tells von Wright that although Linda
McAlister, one of the translators of ROC, was otherwise able, ‘she let’s her
politics (Women’s lib) affect her translation. A translation with “person” in
every other line doesn’t read much like Wittgenstein. But “man” [. . .] is
anathema to her’ (Anscombe to von Wright, 3 March 1976, NLF, COLL.
NAKED, PLEASE! 165

714.11-12). As far as I know, there are no audio recordings of Wittgenstein

speaking, in English or German, but one can get some sense of his way of
expressing himself in English from his many letters and some philosophical
manuscripts written in English – and, of course, from the Blue and Brown Books
that he dictated in English.
12. This seems to contradict the statement by Jenny Teichman, a friend of the
Anscombe-Geach family, that ‘the English version of Part I [of PI] was produced
under [Wittgenstein’s] guidance’ (2001: 38). Erbacher (2016: 29; 2020: 5)
takes Geach (1988, xiii) to make the same claim as Teichman, but Geach’s ‘Part
I of the Investigations was complete when Wittgenstein died’ seems to refer to
the German text, not the translation.
13. Mary Geach offers another apt image to characterize her mother’s writing;
‘[Anscombe] does not carry the reader along, as some authors do [. . .] Yet some
people prefer her sort of writing, like the confection pannforte, all fruit and
nuts, and no dough, very chewy and tough’ (Geach 2005: xiii).
14. For one articulation of what such a transformation might look like, see
Toivakainen (2020); cf. the chapters in Backström, Nykänen, Toivakainen &
Wallgren (2019).
15. It isn’t quite clear to me how this should be related to Wittgenstein’s concern
with the style of his writing, discussed in the previous section. Surely, a naked
soul has no ‘style’, any more than a naked face, although both have
expressiveness (in joy or sorrow, say) and individuality, or singularity (no two
faces are alike). The face addresses you in this very singularity. Perhaps a writer’s
‘style’ is, in the best case, the way in which they allow this naked address to
come through their writing, in a certain sense breaking up any characterization
one might give of it (of the style, or the address).
16. Already while they were selecting the material for RFM von Wright was
‘constantly tormented by the question: Do we do the right thing, or not?’ (von
Wright to Anscombe, 2 January 1955, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12). A decade later
he wrote, ‘Last Winter I [. . .] studied the writings on the philosophy of
mathematics, from which we made selections, and I often had an uncomfortable
feeling that we should not have made selections’ (von Wright to Anscombe, 28
June 1965, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12; cf. his letter to her from 28 October
1970). Nonetheless, a revised and substantially expanded edition of RFM – still
a selection, rather than a publication of whole mss – appeared in German in
1974, and in English translation in 1978. Solin, this volume, discusses the
editorial history of the revised edition in detail.
17. The Zettel remarks were stored in a separate box, partly clipped together in
bundles. The editors, or rather Anscombe’s husband Peter Geach, on their behest,
arranged the material for the book, ‘keeping together what were in single bundles,
and otherwise fitting the pieces as well as he could according to subject matter’, in a
way the editors thought made ‘a very instructive and readable compilation’, even if
the arrangement was not, they cautioned, ‘the kind of arrangement that
Wittgenstein made of his “remarks”’ (Z, Preface). Arthur Gibson relates the
following incident from 1967: ‘One day, he [Peter Geach] sat me down with some
original Wittgenstein manuscripts. These comprised what would become the book
edited by him entitled Zettel [. . .] As I sat looking at the sheets, with Geach
166 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

opposite me, he began to remove the rusted pins that grouped the paper into
batches, and rearranging the order of the sheets. I asked if the order they were in
should be retained. “No”, came the reply; “They are in the wrong order.” Pins that
were inserted well before Wittgenstein’s death in 1951, now look quite similar to
those inserted, for example, by Rhees in the 1950s. I wondered if Geach was
“correcting” the editing by previous “editors” by assuming, as Rhees sometimes
seemed to do, that he knew how Wittgenstein thought, and so revised positions the
manuscripts were in as if they were mental themes that could at will be changed to
reveal more of the “original” intention. Nevertheless, this did not seem – then or
now – to concur with all other aspects of Geach’s careful scholarship. Since he was
explaining the archive’s contents, I let go of the matter’ (Gibson 2015: 31).
18. For further discussion of the topics brought up in this and the next two
paragraphs see Solin, ch. 6. Österman, ch. 8., Westergaard, ch. 9, Jakola ch. 10
and Wallgren ch. 12, and ch. 1 all in this volume.
19. Consider, for instance, PI §108, where Wittgenstein discusses the central
difference between the Tractatus-conception and his new understanding of
language and philosophy and says there can be no question of ‘bargaining any of
its rigour out of [logic]’; rather there must be a ‘turning our whole examination
round [. . .] about the fixed point of our real need’. Anscombe asks: ‘But what in
§108 did he mean by “the fixed point of our real need”?’, and answers, ‘I do not
know, and I suspect that without understanding this we shall at best have a poor
understanding of that book’ (1989, 211). – Anscombe wrote voluminously about
Wittgenstein’s philosophy (e.g. Anscombe 1959; 1976; and the many essays
collected in 2011 [Geach and Gormally 2011]), and the rest of her own
philosophical work shows Wittgenstein’s decisive influence on every page. She
told a friend, ‘I don’t have a single idea in my head that wasn’t put there by
Wittgenstein’ (Kenny 2019a, 19). On this, see further Backström (2022).
20. In 1998 Anscombe wrote to her fellow-trustees, ‘When Wittgenstein left his
work to us, we always accepted – despite the vagueness in Wittgenstein’s will
– that one day his manuscripts should be published in full and truthfully, but
free of learned commentary’ (Anscombe to von Wright, 20 November 1998,
NLF, COLL. 714.11-12), but if ‘in full’ is taken in an extensive sense, this
doesn’t in fact seem to have been clear to them from the start. In a letter from
1965, von Wright writes of this possibility as a new idea: ‘I have this Winter
been working very intensely with the Wittgenstein Nachlass. A new idea is
gradually maturing within me: We ought to publish everything which there is
(with the exception of writings in code and some obviously worthless things).
This is not yet a suggestion – but I believe it will mature into one’ (von Wright
to Anscombe, 2 April 1965, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12).
21. Another principle Anscombe followed in her endeavour to give Wittgenstein
‘naked’ to the world is expressed in a letter to von Wright from 1984, in
response to a request for permission (von Wright to Anscombe and Rhees
7 March 1984, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12) to publish a collection of Wittgenstein’s
writings together with the lecture notes originally published as Lectures and
Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief (Wittgenstein 1966),
all in Finnish translation: ‘I am always opposed to the publication of writings by
Wittgenstein together with anything else; when the question has arisen before, it
NAKED, PLEASE! 167

has also been lecture notes. [. . .] Even the separate publication of what is
declared to be notes by other people doesn’t stop people from quoting them as
Wittgenstein [. . .] when they are together with Wittgenstein’s writing in one
volume [this] will incite people still more to take that stuff as echt’ (Anscombe to
von Wright, 14 March 1984, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12). In the same letter,
Anscombe is very critical of the Lectures and Conversations, edited by Cyril
Barrett, speaking of his ‘conflation of three sets of lecture notes in that horrid
little book. How far they are from giving us a text of any lecture you can tell by
seeing how long it takes you to read one of them, quite slowly, out loud.’
22. Hugh Knott argues in two essays (2017; 2020) against Hacker’s and Schulte’s
demotion of ‘Part II’. As far as I know, Hacker and Schulte have not responded
to his arguments.
23. David Stern, similarly, says that the specific ‘character and methods of the
Philosophical Investigations’ are best understood by studying ‘the most carefully
composed part of Philosophical Investigations I, which certainly does not
include §§ 425–693, and perhaps really only covers §§ 1–310 or so’ (2006,
228). Of the last third of Part I, he says: ‘The dialogue toward the end is not as
evenly balanced, and has a rather less Pyrrhonian tenor than the first two thirds
[. . .] It is based on material that for the most part predates 1936, and so most
of it actually predates the material in §§ 1–425. It was incorporated rather
rapidly around the time of the end of the second world war, and was not as
carefully arranged as the preceding part’ (2006: 228).
24. Cf. Pichler (2004), Stern (2004), Wallgren (2013) and Wallgren ch. 12 (this
volume).
25. On ‘the truly unfinished nature of the Investigations’, see Venturinha 2010:
149, and to the end.
26. LW2 was edited by von Wright and Heikki Nyman, Anscombe edited ROC
alone, and she and von Wright are credited as co-editors of OC, but the editing
was in practice done by Anscombe alone, as he acknowledges in a letter to her:
‘You have done the main job. If you think it right that I should appear as
co-editor, I have no objection’ (Anscombe to von Wright, 10 March 1969, NLF,
COLL. 714.11-12). OC was the first of the three books to be published, and
Anscombe’s editorial approach to it, described below, in effect decided the
shape of the other two books, too.
27. For a detailed account of the relation between the mss and the last writings as
published, as well as of the editorial history involved, see Jakola, ch. 10 in this
volume.
28. Rhees’s plan is discussed in Westergaard, ch. 9, this volume.
29. See, again, Jakola, this volume.
30. In a 1970 paper on ‘Wittgenstein on Certainty’ never published in this form in
print; see the longer quote and discussion in Jakola, this volume.
31. The code is simple, consisting in inverting the order of the alphabet, ‘a’
corresponding to ‘z’, etc., but to the untrained eye, it looks like gibberish.
32. The first publication of GT was in a Spanish periodical in 1985; a German book
appeared in 1991 (Wittgenstein 1991; cf. Baum 1991: 172–174). Facsimiles of
168 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

the three notebooks (MSS 101–103), including the verso-pages in code,

together with a transcription into plain text, is available through The
Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen at wittgensteinsource.org. I
use this transcription, but will refer to the coded entries as GT, followed by date
of remark. The first English translation of the coded entries, by Marjorie
Perloff, was published only in 2022 (Wittgenstein 2022), and I couldn’t consult
it in preparing this chapter. Hence, the translations of quotations from the
coded entries are my own, with the German original given in footnotes.
33. Roughly speaking: whereas calling something ‘private’ focuses on the fact that
(for whatever reason) one does not want to share it with a broader ‘public’,
calling it ‘personal’ focuses on the positive quality of one’s relation to the thing
or (and centrally) to another person, to whom one has a personal relation. To
equate ‘personal’ with ‘private’ amounts to adopting a negative and quite
depersonalized view of the personal.
34. In a letter from Helsinki in December 1964, von Wright informs Anscombe: ‘My
assistant, Mr [Tauno] Nyberg, and I are now decoding the passages in code. It is an
exhausting and time-consuming job. But I hope we can do it and that it will not take
us more than a year’ (von Wright to Anscombe, 3 December 1964, NLF, COLL.
714.11-12). This decoding included the wartime notebooks; two months later, von
Wright suggests, in response to news that Anscombe is also having some decoding
done at Oxford, ‘that the code in the second and third of the 1914–1916 notebooks
be deciphered at Oxford. My assistant has done about half of the first notebook, and
it is convenient to let him finish it’ (von Wright to Anscombe, 3 February 1965, NLF,
COLL. 714.11-12). Anscombe had an assistant write the code into a form that could
then be turned into ordinary text by computer (Anscombe to von Wright, undated
1965, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12), while von Wright and Nyberg were training
themselves to ‘read the code “directly” from the manuscript’ (letter quoted above,
3 February 1965). In the end, all the decoding was done in Helsinki (cf. von Wright
to Anscombe, 20 February 1965 and 10 March 1965; Anscombe to von Wright,
undated 1965, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12), and in July 1966, von Wright announced:
‘I have completed the decoding job’ (von Wright to Anscombe, 3 July 1966, NLF,
COLL. 714.11-12).
35. A decade later, some way into the decoding process, von Wright told Anscombe:
‘Although often depressing and sometimes futile, the code-text is also of great
interest and I do not regret the amount of time spent on decoding it’ (von Wright
to Anscombe, 20 April 1965, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12). In later reprints of the
‘Biographical Sketch’, the passage quoted above runs: ‘In the earliest notebooks a
considerable part of the content is written in a code. Wittgenstein continued to
use this code throughout his life. The notes in code are for the most part of a
personal nature’ (von Wright 1982b: 22, also in Malcolm 1984, 9).
36. In 1957, after first studying the plain script part of the wartime notebooks
seriously, von Wright wrote to Anscombe: ‘I think the notebooks should be
published more or less as they are – with some minor omissions and a slight
amount of “editing” only’ (von Wright to Anscombe, 29 April 1957, NLF,
COLL. 714.11-12). In this private setting, then, just as in the Preface to the
Notebooks, he takes it for granted that the coded entries won’t be published,
but also expresses no reservations about publishing material Wittgenstein
thought he had destroyed.
NAKED, PLEASE! 169

37. In the second, revised edition of CV (Wittgenstein 1998), the entries originally
in code are marked in the text and indexed as ‘c’.
38. Already in a letter to von Wright from 1953 (Anscombe to von Wright, undated
1953, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12) Anscombe says, referring to F. A. Hayek’s
projected biographical writing on Wittgenstein, that she doesn’t ‘feel in the least
inclined to put personal documents – W’s code diaries, letters etc. in his
[Hayek’s] hands’. What exactly ‘code diaries’ refers to here isn’t clear, but the
literary executors had studied the 1914–1916 notebooks already in 1952 (von
Wright 1982c: 38).
39. In 1982, when it transpired that, while studying the Wittgenstein-material held
in Tübingen, Baum had ‘copied [. . .] the war time diaries written in code’ and
wanted to publish them, a matter von Wright found ‘a little alarming’, he wrote
to Anscombe: ‘I recall that at our last meeting you mentioned the possibility
that we should publish the coded material so as to put an end to further fuss
about it. I feel unsure. If we decided to publish, I could do the editing since I
decoded the stuff, but “officially” the three of us must appear as editors’ (von
Wright to Anscombe, 6 Feb. 1982, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12). Anscombe’s
apparent suggestion was never carried into effect (Baum also never got the
literary executors’ permission to publish the coded entries, but went ahead
regardless), and later that same year (1982), Anscombe’s preference seems to
have shifted back to strict censorship (on removing all references to the code
script in the ‘Picture Biography’ of Wittgenstein written by Michael Nedo, cf.
Anscombe to von Wright, 13 August 1982, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12, and on von
Wright’s agreement with this, von Wright to Anscombe, 2 Sept. 1982, NLF,
COLL. 714.11-12). In 1988, when production of a complete transcription of
Wittgenstein’s Nachlass, and eventually a Gesamtausgabe of his writings was
discussed, Anscombe wrote: ‘We need to make some decisions – for example,
I incline to think that the code passages should be left in code. The code is so
childishly easy to make out that printing it removes the journalistic vulgarities
that have gone on about the “Geheimschrift” [. . .]’ (Anscombe to von Wright,
18 July 1988, NLF, COLL. 714.11-12). The length to which Anscombe could
go in censoring the Nachlass is illustrated by the incident recorded by Denis
Paul (2007, 13), quoted, in part, by Richter, this volume.
40. In his ‘Biographical Sketch’ von Wright wrote of Wittgenstein: ‘It is probably true
that he lived on the border of mental illness. A fear of being driven across it
followed him throughout his life’; of his friendship: ‘I believe that most of those
who loved him [. . .] also feared him’, and of his time as schoolteacher in rural
Austria in the 1920s: ‘It appears that he was in constant friction with the people
around him’ (1955a: 528; 540; 535). In her brief biographical remarks about
Wittgenstein at the beginning of An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus
(1959), Anscombe says that he was ‘brought up in an atmosphere of extreme
contempt for most kinds of low standard’, and quotes him as saying of himself, ‘I
had an unhappy childhood and a most miserable youth’ (1959: 11). Rhees, for
his part, explained to von Wright his unease about the Cornell microfilm drawing
attention to Wittgenstein’s coded entries, even if they were censored (covered
over): ‘I wis/h/ed (and do) that W. had not written those passages [JB: it’s unclear
which of the coded entries Rhees refers to, exactly]. I do not know why he
wanted to; but I think I do understand in a way, and I understand then also why
170 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

he chose this ambiguous medium [i.e. code]. I fear especially that if they are
published they will be published by themselves – not in the contexts (repeat:
contexts) in which they were written; so that what was a minor and occasional
undertone to Wittgenstein’s life and thinking, will appear as a dominant
obsession’ (Rhees to von Wright, 17 December 1966, WWA, Wri-FC-004).
41. In speaking of Wittgenstein’s homosexuality, I don’t mean to prejudge any
questions as to what exactly this meant for him or for the men, among them
David Pinsent, he loved.
42. During the controversy over the allegations of promiscuous homosexual activity
on the young Wittgenstein’s part presented in W. W. Bartley III’s ([1973] 1977)
book, Rhees wrote in a long, reflective essay that ‘there are certain stories which
it would be foul to relate or tell about somebody even if they were true. The
word is foul’, adding that ‘this is not the same as saying that it would have been
wrong for the person in question to have done what those stories relate of him.
[. . .] What is foul in telling them is not, primarily, that they ascribe some
depravity to the person they’re told of. What is foul is the telling. What is foul is
to treat the phrase “private life” as though it were a misnomer’ (1974: 71).
Anscombe, too, was engaged in the Bartley-controversy, as it unfolded in the
pages of the Times Literary Supplement. In response to a favourable review of
Bartley’s book (TLS, 17.8.73), she wrote a letter to the editor 16.11.73, adding
brief notes in 4.1.74 and 18.1.74 (I thank Rickard Nylund for locating the
letters in the TLS). Anscombe’s main objection to Bartley (16.11.73) was that
the reader could not judge the veracity or plausibility of his account, because he
provided no evidence to support his claims, or even any characterization of ‘the
nature of the evidence’ he supposedly had, either regarding the alleged facts or
their interpretation – other than his assurance that they were ‘based on
conversations and other communications with friends of Wittgenstein’ (Bartley
[1973] 1977, 12, fn 2). Bartley responded (TLS, 11.1.74): ‘The information in
my book [. . .] is based on communications from persons who I am morally
certain knew Wittgenstein and were intimately familiar with his sexual activities
in the period immediately following the First World War. I checked details of
information and cross-examined thoroughly. It is hardly my fault that at the
time I did most of my research homosexual activity was still illegal in Austria
[. . .] or that it is still regarded as reprehensible by many persons. Professor
Anscombe herself indicates that to imply that a person is homosexual is
libellous. How then can she expect me either to identify my informants or to
facilitate their recognition in any way?’ Rhees’s response to this kind of
argument was: ‘What sort of delicacy keeps Bartley from revealing [his sources’]
names and does not keep him from writing [what he writes about Wittgenstein’s
homosexuality]? [. . .] What sort of “friends” would they have been, whom (if
we take the story) Wittgenstein trusted especially, and who are now ready to tell
it and let it be printed – if only their names are not mentioned?’ (1974: 67) On
the Bartley-controversy, see further, Monk (1991): 581–586.
43. Anscombe, who staunchly and publicly defended traditional Catholic teaching
on sexuality, insisting that the essential tie between sex and procreation be
preserved, regarded homosexual acts – as also heterosexual contraceptive
intercourse – as unnatural and sinful (Anscombe 1975). Nothing necessarily
follows from this fact, however, regarding her attitude to the suppression of the
NAKED, PLEASE! 171

coded entries even insofar as they contained allusions to homosexuality. She

would hardly have allowed her view of Wittgenstein’s sexuality to affect her
appreciation of his philosophy, any more than the ‘evident [. . .] homosexuality’
in Plato’s writings (Anscombe & Geach 1961: 3) affected her appreciation of
his, or was a subject she felt a need to avoid because of her appreciation. In
contrast to many people with modern, permissive views on sex, Anscombe also
wasn’t in the least prude. Once, after she gave a talk during which she
mentioned adultery as a sin, a sophisticated student asked her, ‘But anyway,
what is adultery?’ Anscombe replied: ‘Oh, don’t you know? It’s fucking
someone else’s wife.’ (I have this anecdote from Roger Teichmann, personal
communication.) That Anscombe was aware of Wittgenstein’s being
homosexual, or at any rate not a ‘practising heterosexual’, is clear from an
anecdote she recorded: ‘He once remarked that he’d never gone in for wine
much, as some people did; Goethe, for example, drank a great deal of wine. He
wondered whether there was anything that went with that. I said “Well, you
don’t go in for women either”. He said “I did once – for one woman. But she
wouldn’t have me; and she was quite right” ’ (‘Anecdotes’, 28). Von Wright, for
his part, wrote in 2001: ‘Wittgenstein [. . .] was homosexual. [. . .] At the time
of my first stay there [1939], the academic life in Cambridge was still clearly
marked by the university’s monastic origins. Although there were two female
colleges, Girton and Newham, the male dominance was total. A female don
could invite a male guest for dinner at her college, but not the other way
around! Under such circumstances, it is understandable that homoeroticism
should appear completely natural and normal. I didn’t find it disagreeable,
albeit it was alien to me. It also was not anything one had to speak of only in
whispers – in contrast to the absurd laws which were still in force in England
and which could brand for life anyone caught performing homosexual acts in
public’ (2001a: 74, my trans.).
44. Reflecting on this outrage is a central theme in Hollingworth’s (2018)
interesting, programmatically anti-biographical biography of Wittgenstein. In
his ‘Biographical Sketch’, von Wright reveals a paradoxical sense of the outrage
when he writes: ‘The biographical information which I acquired from
conversations with Wittgenstein I did not record on paper until after his death.
I felt very strongly that it would have been improper to write them down
following our conversations. He did not often talk about his past and only
rarely of his youth, which was to him a painful recollection. The idea that
someone was collecting data for a biography would certainly have been deeply
distasteful to him’ (1955a: 530, fn 4). Rhees, responding to the idea that it
doesn’t matter whether Wittgenstein’s coded entries are published, since ‘there
will be attacks on him and stupid smears [. . .] whatever happens’, wrote to von
Wright, ‘Yes, I know there will. And of course he knew this. When these are
attacks /are based/ on what he said and did in public, then I agree it does not
matter’, but private writings are different, and ‘[t]he fact that W. is dead weighs
nothing when I am trying to consider what he would have wanted. Or rather: it
makes me less ready to go contrary to what he would have wished. And if it is
true that “the inevitable publication of the material” will come after we are
dead – I find no comfort in this’ (Rhees to von Wright, 17 December 1966,
WWA, Wri-FC-004).
172 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

45. This is in a letter to Paul Engelmann, who at the time (1958) was contemplating
publishing some reminiscences of Wittgenstein. Anscombe went on to say,
however: ‘. . . but since that [i.e. pressing the button] has not been possible and
it is certain that much that is foolish will keep on being said, it seems to me
reasonable that anyone who can write a truthful account of him [Wittgenstein]
should do so. On the other hand to write a satisfactory account would seem to
need extraordinary talent . . .’ (Engelmann 1968, xiv) – after which she records
her suspicions about claims by anyone to have really understood Wittgenstein,
quoted above. Engelmann took her letter to be ‘on the whole encouraging’ and
cites it as ‘one of the reasons which eventually induced [him] to compile [his
Memoir]’ (ibid.).
46. Clearly, neither Rhees nor von Wright objected to publishing things relating to
Wittgenstein as a person and his personal life as such: both published substantial
material of this kind, written by themselves and others, (e.g. Rhees 1981, ed.; von
Wright 1990). By contrast, Anscombe’s personal recollections of Wittgenstein,
written as a series of anecdotes, have so far remained unpublished (I quote some
of these Anecdotes in the text, and others in Backstrom (2022)).
47. Already in 1954, Anscombe wrote that calling early Wittgenstein an atheist
positivist was like calling Plato ‘a materialist with a contempt for mathematics’
(1954: 373), and her 1959 Tractatus-book argues that the logical positivists’
epistemological concerns, shared by modern philosophers generally, are ‘a
thorough impediment to the understanding’ of the Tractatus (1959: 12–13;
cf. p. 150ff.). Returning to Baum, it is symptomatic that, in defending his own
reading of Wittgenstein’s early philosophy as ‘a modern version of “negative
theology” ’, he doesn’t quote from the coded entries he published, but
overwhelmingly from the plain script Notebooks and from the Tractatus itself
(1991: 172; cf. 176–181).
48. ‘. . . die Bemannung ist eine Saubande! Keine Begeisterung, unglaubliche
Rohheit, Dummheit & Bosheit!’
49. ‘Vielleicht bringt mir die Nähe des Todes das Licht des Lebens! Möchte Gott
mich erleuchten! Ich bin ein Wurm aber durch Gott werde ich zum Menschen.
Gott stehe mir bei. Amen’. – As Wittgenstein noted twenty years later: ‘It is one
thing to talk to God & another to talk of God to others’ (Wittgenstein 2003:
183 [MS 183, 16.2.1937]).
50. Incidentally, Anscombe says that this is the ‘part of the Tractatus that seems [. . .]
most obviously wrong’, although she adds that she doesn’t herself know – this is
after she had written Intention – the ‘true philosophical account’ of the relation
between willing and the world (1959: 171–172).
51. ‘wie einen Talisman’ . . . ‘Immer wieder sage ich mir im Geiste die Worte Tolstois
vor: “Der Mensch ist ohnmächtig im Fleische aber frei durch den Geist”.’
52. ‘Hier sind aber böse, herzlose Menschen. Es ist mir fast unmöglich eine Spur
von Menschlichkeit in ihnen zu finden. Gott helfe mir zu leben.’ – The only
remark from the coded entries that made it into von Wright’s selection in CV (it
is the remark that opens that collection) expresses precisely Wittgenstein’s sense
of utter alienation from the human beings he lived with. The ‘Chinese’ in this
remark are proxy for his fellow soldiers, whose ‘humanity’ he says he ‘cannot
NAKED, PLEASE! 173

recognise’; ‘So kann ich oft nicht den Menschen im Menschen erkennen’ (GT,
21.8.14; cf. CV: 3). Compare also the closely related passage in PI, ending in
the famous line ‘If a lion could talk, we could not understand him’ (PI, II,
p. 223; cf. Perloff 2012: 74–76). We’ll return to the question of ‘recognising
another’s humanity’.
53. . . .’nicht ein einziger anständiger Kerl in der ganzen Mannschaft’. . . ‘Wie aber
soll ich mich in Zukunft zu dem Allen stellen’ . . . ‘keinen Widerstand zu leisten.
Mein Äußeres sozusagen ganz leicht zu machen um mein Inneres ungestört zu
lassen’ . . . ‘denn ich bin ja gegen alle diese Menschen ohnmächtig. Ich reibe
mich nutzlos auf wenn ich mich wehre’.
54. ‘Wie schwer es ist sich nicht mit den Leuten zu ärgern! Wie schwer es ist zu
dulden. [. . .] Wenn immer ich bei der Arbeit mit den Leuten hier in Berührung
komme wird mir ihre Gemeinheit so fürchterlich daß die Wut droht in mir zu
siegen & auszubrechen. Immer wieder nehme ich mir vor ruhig zu dulden &
immer wieder breche ich meinen Vorsatz. Und wie dies kommt weiß ich
eigentlich selber nicht. Es ist so riesig schwer mit Leuten zu arbeiten & dabei
doch nichts mit ihnen zu tun zu haben.’
55. As Wittgenstein says, ‘philosophical conflict’ arises not from mere failures of
one’s words to ‘accord with established usage’ – that is not what ‘metaphysical
use’ means – but because what someone describes themselves as thinking/
meaning ‘does not accord with the [actual] practice of the person giving the
description’ (RPP1, §548). Wittgenstein’s discussion of the fantasy of a ‘private
language’ (PI §§ 244–315) is an outstanding analysis of the sort of confusions
attending such conflicts.
56. ‘Ich hasse sie nicht, aber sie ekeln mich an.’
57. ‘ungeheuer beschränkt’
58. We might say that while another’s humanity can be denied, it is always-already
‘recognized’, which means that the denial will be ambivalent and says more
about the denier than about the ones whose humanity is denied. Thus, another
isolated man on another river boat, Marlowe in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness,
looks in horrified fascination, in total moral confusion, at the African ‘natives’;
‘[T]he men were –– No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the
worst of it – this suspicion of their not being inhuman [. . .] They howled and
leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the
thought of their humanity – like yours – the thought of your remote kinship
with this wild and passionate uproar [. . .] a dim suspicion of there being a
meaning in it which you [. . .] could comprehend’ (Conrad 1996: 51–52). Cf.
the critique in Achebe ([1977] 2016), and Wittgenstein’s Remarks on Frazer, in
which our common humanity is not ‘suspected’, but taken as a reality to be
explored, in its sinister as well as joyful aspects.
59. Nykänen (2021) analyses a closely related problematic in Nietzsche. For more
on the connections between moral difficulties and ‘metaphysics’ in Wittgenstein,
see Backström 2011 and 2013.
174
 CHAPTER EIGHT

From a Collection of
Aphorisms to the
Setting of Wittgenstein’s
Later Philosophy.
G.H. von Wright’s
Work on Wittgenstein’s
General Remarks
BERNT Ö STERMAN

1. INTRODUCTION
Georg Henrik von Wright’s first meeting with Ludwig Wittgenstein took
place in 1939 at Cambridge, where he had gone as a young doctoral student.
His initial impressions of Wittgenstein have been described in the letters he
sent to his professor and supervisor Eino Kaila in Finland. From these we
learn that among other things, von Wright was greatly impressed by
Wittgenstein’s figurative speech. After a private conversation with
Wittgenstein at the beginning of June, in which Wittgenstein had expressed

175
176 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

his reservations about the value of consistency proofs in mathematics, von

Wright writes to Kaila (Österman ed. 2020: 166–167):

[Wittgenstein] compared the situation with the following drastic picture:

a potato in a dark cellar sprouts, as you know, long and confused sprouts
in every direction in a mess. But if you bring them up in the light each of
the sprouts shrink to a small green spot! I have a strong feeling that he is
right.1

What Wittgenstein had said bears an obvious similarity to a well-known

aphoristic remark about the effect of philosophical clarity on mathematics,2
which also was among the general remarks von Wright later came to select
from Wittgenstein’s Nachlass.
The question about Wittgenstein’s general remarks would surface in 1954
in a letter von Wright wrote to Elizabeth Anscombe. At the time, the three
literary executors were working on the RFM, which was to appear two years
later. Von Wright had been going through some of the relevant manuscripts
and found a lot of aphoristic remarks he wanted to omit from the book. Still,
he suggested they could be published:

Among the omitted stuff, there are many good remarks of a general
nature. I have omitted them in order to avoid – as I think we should –
creating the impression that the book, which we publish, is a collection of
aphorisms. Perhaps some of the omitted remarks can be published on
some other occasion.3

We immediately notice that von Wright talks both about ‘remarks of a

general nature’ and about ‘aphorisms’, which raises questions about the
relation between these two expressions. I will return to the question in
sections 3 and 4.
The actual work on the collection of Wittgenstein’s general remarks
envisaged by von Wright started ten years later, after a meeting of the literary
executors in England 1964 (Erbacher 2017: 89). From the beginning it
seems clear that von Wright was the one who would be doing the principal
work. There came to be two stages in it. At the first stage von Wright
compiled a collection of general remarks, which included selections both
from the Nachlass and from already published books. The compilation,
called ‘A Collection of Remarks’, had two volumes and was described as a
selection made 1965–1966.4 Since the second volume is simply called a
‘continuation’ and the pages are numbered in sequence, I have chosen to
use the same abbreviation for both volumes, CoR. The collection, which
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 177

also included the remark about the sprouting potatoes, was distributed
among the literary executors and some other scholars, but it was never
published as such.
After completing the CoR, von Wright laid the work aside until 1974,
when the second stage of the work commenced, now with the help of von
Wright’s assistant Heikki Nyman.5 It resulted in the publication of the
German edition Vermischte Bemerkungen: Eine Auswahl aus them Nachlass
in 1977, followed by a slightly extended edition of it in 1978 and a German–
English parallel edition called Culture and Value\\Vermischte Bemerkungen in
1980 with translations made by Peter Winch, which conforms to the 1978
German edition. One remark was added to the edition of Vermischte
Bemerkungen that was included in Band 8 of Suhrkamp’s Ludwig Wittgenstein
Werkausgabe 1984. A revised edition of the German edition was prepared by
Alois Pichler 1994. In this edition the manuscript sources of the remarks are
indicated and variants are described in footnotes. The remarks included
were the same as in the 1984 German edition. However, in some cases they
have been extended to meet the original section divisions made by
Wittgenstein. In 1998, a revised bilingual edition based on the 1994 edition
was published (CV 1998: xive). For this edition, Peter Winch also made
numerous changes to his original translations of the remarks. I will use the
abbreviation CV for the 1980 edition, when not otherwise indicated.
Similarly, VB means the original edition in German from 1977. Much of the
focus will be on CV, since this is the edition available in English that is the
closest representation of von Wright’s own vision of the work.6
By calling the work that started in 1974 a second stage I do not only want
to indicate that the work was restarted. As I want to show in my article, the
restart also involved a new conception of the purpose of the publication.
From the original aim of simply collecting several ‘good remarks of a general
nature’ in order to present them to the public, the project turned into the
providing of the background for nothing less than a reinterpretation of
Wittgenstein’s philosophy and its cultural significance. Consequently,
understanding von Wright’s motives in his work on Wittgenstein’s general
remarks is a rather complex task. To begin with, we have to understand von
Wright’s original interest in Wittgenstein’s general remarks, written in a style
so different from his own logical-analytical way of doing philosophy. I will
suggest that it should be understood as emanating from von Wright’s more
general philosophical interest in literature and art. However, we must also
clarify the nature of his later understanding of Wittgenstein’s philosophy.
What made him understand Wittgenstein differently than he had done and
why did he think the remarks he had collected for CV would be helpful in
promoting his new vision? I will attempt to show that the changes in von
178 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Wright’s understanding of Wittgenstein were connected with the social re-

orientation that took place in his own thinking towards the late 1960s.7
What remains to be shown is why his initial interest in Wittgenstein’s
aphorisms did not lead to a publication in the mid-1960s. I will suggest that
the reasons were connected with a fear of misrepresenting Wittgenstein and
that the turn the project took in the mid-1970s offered a kind of solution to
the problem.

2. VON WRIGHT’S TWO INTERESTS

That there were at least two interests connected with von Wright’s project of
bringing attention to Wittgenstein’s general remarks is indicated by a careful
reading of the Preface to CV. At the beginning of it we get the impression
that we are dealing with remarks that merit publication for their own sake.
Thus, after an introductory paragraph on the kind of remarks he had
included there follows an assessment of their quality, strongly suggesting that
they also have an intrinsic value:

Some of these notes are ephemeral: others on the other hand – the
majority – are of great interest. Sometimes they are strikingly beautiful
and profound. It was evident to the literary executors that a number of
these notes would have to be published.
—CV: ie

A few lines later, he also talks about the remarks, or at least some of the
remarks, as ‘Wittgenstein’s aphorisms’, also mentioning the ‘powerful effect’
they may have as such.
Thus, it seems evident, that one of the interests behind von Wright’s
project was simply to publish a set of general remarks by Wittgenstein worth
publishing in their own right. However, at the end of the Preface a more
instrumental perspective on the general remarks emerges. The relevant
passage is the following:

I am all the same convinced that these notes can be properly understood
and appreciated only against the background of Wittgenstein’s philosophy
and, furthermore, that they make a contribution to our understanding of
that philosophy.
—CV: iie, author’s emphasis

The quotation describes the ways in which the general remarks of CV, despite
‘not belonging directly’ to Wittgenstein’s philosophy, still are related to it.
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 179

The first claim is that the remarks may only properly be understood in the
context of Wittgenstein’s philosophy. This introduces the problem of
detachability (see Section 5). However, at the very end of the passage von
Wright reverses the perspective of the relation between the general
remarks and Wittgenstein’s philosophy, which brings us to the second
interest von Wright had in publishing Wittgenstein’s general remarks. For
now the focus is not on the significance the ‘surrounding philosophy’ has
for how we understand the remarks, but on the claim that the remarks of
CV may contribute to our understanding of Wittgenstein’s philosophy. How
should this be understood? One possibility is that the remarks simply widen
the scope of Wittgenstein’s philosophy, for instance, by presenting vital
elements of what we may take as his philosophy of music or philosophy
of religion. However, this does not seem to be what von Wright had in
mind. What he means is the significance these remarks may have for
how we take what already had been understood as Wittgenstein’s
philosophy. As will be further explained in Section 6, he is thinking of
some core features of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy as they are presented
in the PI.
The Preface of CV is not the only location in which von Wright advanced
the idea that CV could be helpful for the understanding of Wittgenstein’s
philosophy. Another important source is von Wright’s 1982 book
Wittgenstein. In the Introduction, von Wright offers the following general
description of the aims of his publication of Wittgenstein’s general remarks,
using the German title of the work; ‘The publication of the Vermischte
Bemerkungen (1977) will, I hope, contribute to a better understanding both
of Wittgenstein’s roots in European culture and of his significance for our
times’ (von Wright 1982a: 3).
One way in which CV certainly is helpful for the understanding of
Wittgenstein’s roots is by revealing some of his direct influences. Thus, it
includes an often-quoted passage from 1931 in which Wittgenstein lists
his main influences, such as Boltzmann, Hertz, Schopenhauer, Frege, Russell,
Kraus, Loos, Weininger, Spengler and Sraffa (CV: 19e). However, the
perspective which interested von Wright even more was how CV could be
used to illuminate the way in which Wittgenstein’s philosophy could be seen
as a counter-reaction to problems inherent in his times. The thought of
Wittgenstein’s philosophy as being rooted in a sense of alienation from his
culture is also the main theme in von Wright’s article ‘Wittgenstein in
Relation to His Times’ (von Wright 1982g; henceforth referred to as WRT),
which had its origin in an Opening Address to the 2nd Wittgenstein
symposium in Kirchberg 1977, the year VB was published. In this article von
Wright uses many passages from CV in support of his interpretation of
180 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Wittgenstein. ‘[CV] tells us more than any other source about Wittgenstein’s
intellectual character and view of life, and also about how he regarded his
relationship with his times’, he writes (WRT: 203).
To understand how von Wright in the mid-1970s had come to view
Wittgenstein’s philosophy and its cultural embeddedness, a close reading of
WRT is required. This will be a central theme of Section 6. However, I will
start with an examination of von Wright’s original interest in ‘aphorisms’ by
Wittgenstein meriting publication for their own sake.

3. GENERAL REMARKS AND PHILOSOPHY

Von Wright often speaks about ‘general remarks’ and ‘aphorisms’, as if the
terms were interchangeable. Clearly, however, the characterization of a
remark as ‘general’ would seem to mark a certain range of topics. But an
aphorism is a literary genre, introducing the question of the form. I will start
with the question what a general remark (by Wittgenstein) is for von Wright
and how it figures in his account of Wittgenstein’s philosophy, and turn to
the question of the aphoristic form in the next section.
Von Wright often writes as there would be an easily identifiable category
of ‘general topics’, which the remarks concern. Thus, for instance, the full
title of the CoR reads as follows:

A collection of remarks by Ludwig Wittgenstein on questions connected

with his Life and Work; the Nature of Philosophical Inquiry, Art, Religion
and the ‘Philosophy of Life’; the I, the Will, and the World; and various
other General Topics.

The list at the beginning of the Preface to CV is similar, but shorter:

Some of these notes are autobiographical, some are about the nature of
philosophical activity, and some concern subjects of a general sort, such as
questions about art or about religion.
—CV: ie

So, we have plenty of examples, but what is it that makes these subjects
‘general’? In this connection, I want to suggest that it is better to think of
generality as having many aspects, rather than to try to look for something
the examples have in common. First, there is the idea of a ‘subject of a
general sort’. The opposite of this would seem to be a subject of a specific
sort. This relates to the distinction between what is of general interest,
concerning any human being, as opposed to what is only of interest to
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 181

specialists. How to draw the line between the general and the specific interest
may not be something we can always agree on, but it seems clear that this is
a distinction we often make. Second, there is the question of the nature of
things, as when von Wright, in the citations, talks about ‘the nature of
philosophical inquiry’ or ‘the nature philosophical activity’. Here, the
opposition to the general is the particular or the instance.
Von Wright often makes a difference between Wittgenstein’s general
remarks and Wittgenstein’s philosophy. This has already been seen in the
passage from the 1954 letter to Anscombe, in which he apparently did not
see any problems with ‘omitting the general remarks’ from the ‘philosophical
work’ at hand (RFM). Similarly, at the beginning of the Preface to CV, von
Wright talks about the remarks as ‘numerous notes which do not belong
directly with his philosophical works although they are scattered amongst
the philosophical texts’ (CV: ie). At first sight, this may seem surprising,
because if we look at the characterization of general remarks offered in
the CoR, it would seem that they certainly included remarks on topics
that traditionally would count as philosophical – such as ‘the I’ and ‘the
Will’. The remarks on subjects like music and religion that were published
in CV have also often been taken as contributions to Wittgenstein’s
philosophy of music and philosophy of religion. To complicate matters,
von Wright also wants to say that some of Wittgenstein’s general remarks
were inseparable from Wittgenstein’s philosophical work, or at least
‘not possible to separate sharply’ (CV: ie). In this section I will only try
to clarify the sense in which von Wright may have thought that a general
remark could belong, or not belong, with the philosophical work of
Wittgenstein.
How can a general remark belong with the philosophy in a work by
Wittgenstein? The question surfaces in an overview of modern philosophy
called Logik, filosofi och språk (Logic, philosophy and language), which von
Wright first published in 1957. There, von Wright says the following about
Wittgenstein’s later writings, of which only the PI (1953) and the RFM
(1956) had been published at the time:

And it would be possible to describe [Wittgenstein’s] later philosophical

writings as an extensive collection of careful investigations of concrete
examples along with, scattered here and there, often aphoristic marginal
notes of a more general nature on the very activity he is conducting.
—von Wright 1971b: 2048

Thus, von Wright appears to be reading the later Wittgenstein in the following
way. He distinguishes between what he sees as ‘careful investigations of
182 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

concrete examples’ and ‘aphoristic marginal notes’. The former involves

elements such as Wittgenstein’s analysis of various language-games by means
of tangible examples, as The Builders introduced in §2 of the PI. Most
importantly, it seems clear that these also are the parts of the PI that are
closest to the logical-analytical work von Wright had been doing up to the
mid-1950s, representing what he saw as ‘professional philosophical work’
– principally meaning that there is a systematic approach using a well-
identifiable methodology. The latter, again, are reflections on the philosophical
activity that is manifested by the PI. Some of these were also selected for the
CoR, as, for instance, Ԥ127. The work of a philosopher consists in
marshalling recollections for a particular purpose’ (CoR: 81–82).9
Similar ‘general remarks’ on philosophy, and occasionally also on
mathematics and logic, can be found among the selections von Wright made
from the RFM.10 Calling the aphoristic notes ‘marginal’ may sound
derogatory, but I don’t think this is how it should be taken. What von Wright
had in mind was a distinction between different levels of the text, in which
one had a reflective function in relation to the other.
If the distinction between a systematic level and a commentary level in
terms of general remarks accounts for how a general remark could belong
with the philosophical work, what is a general remark that does not
belong with it? The following remark, included both in the CoR and CV,
may perhaps serve as an example of what von Wright was inclined to think
of as a general remark that was distinct from Wittgenstein’s philosophical
work:

To treat somebody well when he does not like you, you need to be not
only good natured, but very tactful too.
—CoR: 244; CV: 11e

It is noteworthy that it also belongs to the remarks that have been marked by
Wittgenstein by using brackets, perhaps indicating that also he thought of it
as separable or ‘different’.11

4. THE FORM OF THE APHORISM

As we have seen, von Wright often speaks of Wittgenstein’s general remarks
as aphorisms. What does he mean by this and what significance does it have?
Some general characteristics seem easy to identify. Thus, an aphorism is
meaningful in itself. Accordingly, it is an expression that may be understood
in isolation from other textual contexts. Closely connected with this, is the
idea of the aphorism as having value for its own sake, not excluding that it
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 183

also may be instrumentally valuable for some given purpose. Aphorisms also
purport to express general truths. Traditionally these often concern human
relations, such as friendship or love. However, in von Wright’s terminology,
an aphorism is a rather broad notion in respect of its subjects. Thus, as we
have seen, he also seems to think of some of Wittgenstein’s remarks about
the nature of philosophy as aphorisms, or ‘aphoristic’.
Von Wright’s interest in aphorisms started from an early date. We have
already seen that Wittgenstein’s aphoristic way of expressing himself had
already caught von Wright’s attention in the early summer of 1939. He also
shared Wittgenstein’s admiration for another German philosopher known
for his aphorisms, C. G. Lichtenberg. In an essay from 1942, von Wright
paid attention to the similarity between Lichtenberg’s way of expressing his
thoughts and the aphorisms of Wittgenstein, in this case referring to the TLP
(von Wright 1942: 243). In Lichtenberg, von Wright especially admired his
skill of ‘transmitting to other subjects truths of a universal and timeless
value’, which have their origin in an internal monologue (von Wright 1942:
244).12 The similarity between Lichtenberg and Wittgenstein is also reflected
in the choice of the German title of von Wright’s publication of Wittgensteinian
aphorisms, Vermischte Bemerkungen, which seems to have been influenced
by the Vermischte Schriften of Lichtenberg, an early selection made out of
Lichtenberg’s Sudelbücher (Waste books).13
But what was the nature of von Wright’s early documented interest in
aphorisms? It is noteworthy that the aphorism is a literary form. Hence, it
may be illuminating to look at what von Wright has said about literature and,
specifically, its relation to philosophy. We may begin by noting that von
Wright was always strongly aware of the limitations of the logical-analytical
tradition of philosophy that was near to himself, occasionally lamenting the
‘narrowly restricted relevance and scope’ of his own professional work. This
should be understood against his ambition to make philosophy relevant to
his life and his understanding of the world (von Wright 1989: 18; see also
Österman 2019). However, neither did he think that modern philosophical
movements like existentialism were doing any better in tackling ‘existential
matters’. Von Wright’s rejection of the existential relevance of philosophy
was strongly connected with the idea that these kinds of questions had their
proper place in arts and literature (von Wright 1955b: 125). But what is it
that literature, but not philosophy, can achieve?
We find von Wright’s most elaborated views on literature in his essays
on Dostoevsky, in which he stresses the great Russian writer’s capacity to
depict human reality in all its complexity. The following passage, in which
von Wright also addresses the shortcomings of analytical thought, captures
the main idea:
184 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

The spiritual reality of Man is much too complex to be captured

unequivocally by the networks of distinctions and deductions of abstract
thought [. . .] It is not a weakness, but a strength in [Dostoevsky] that his
philosophical ideas are of a complex nature, approaching the contradictory,
and the paradox.
—von Wright 1955c: 7414

From this we also see that von Wright was no stranger to the thought that a
great writer like Dostoevsky also could, or even should, be counted among
the great philosophers. One of the leading ideas of his essays on Dostoevsky,
precisely, is to speak about the Russian writer as a philosopher. However, it
is noteworthy that von Wright does not speak of Dostoyevsky as a philosopher
in a wide sense of the term, as perhaps might be expected, but as a philosopher
in the deep sense of it. This is the sense of philosophy ‘which covers all
serious attempts to determine the place of man in the order of things,
independently of whether they use scientific or artistic ways of expression’
(von Wright 1955c: 71–72, translation by author).15
If a writer like Dostoyevsky, who wrote novels, could be one of the deep
philosophers, it is hardly surprising that von Wright would associate literary
artistry with someone he saw as a philosophical genius, as in the case of
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Thus, in his ‘Biographical Sketch’ of Wittgenstein, von
Wright predicted that one day, Wittgenstein would be ‘ranked among the
classic writers of German prose’ (von Wright 1958: 51). Interestingly,
aphorisms were explicitly mentioned in this connection. For this is what von
Wright writes about the literary merits of the PI:

The style is simple and perspicuous, the construction of sentences firm

and free, the rhythm flows easily. The form is sometimes that of a dialogue,
with questions and replies; sometimes, as in the Tractatus, it condenses to
aphorisms
—von Wright 1958: 21, author’s emphasis

It may be suggested that there is something similar in what von Wright found
deeply philosophical in Dostoevsky’s novels and what he could appreciate as
‘deep’ in Wittgenstein’s aphorisms. What I have in mind are features such as
a complexity and openness that cannot be reformulated without a loss of
meaning. This may also explain his initial reaction to what Wittgenstein had
said about mathematics in June 1939. For this is what he wrote to Kaila in
June 1939, possibly referring also to Wittgenstein’s figurative speech: ‘[I]
think that many vital things have become clear to me, although I have
difficulties in saying what’ (Österman ed. 2020: 166).16
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 185

5. ‘IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE SHOULD NOT

HURRY WITH THIS’
The CoR, which had been compiled using a ‘maximum principle’,17 was never
intended to be published as such. However, in an explanatory Note at the
beginning of it, von Wright suggests that a publication could be obtained from
it ‘through a process of sieving’. So why did the project not immediately take
this direction, rather than laying idle for almost ten years? I will suggest that
this had to do with difficulties relating to the process of selection, but also with
conflicting aims of the project. Most importantly, the publication of
Wittgenstein’s general remarks could also be seen as running counter to a basic
goal of the literary executors, the promoting of Wittgenstein’s philosophy.
A hint of the selection criterion, and the problems involved, is offered by
the two-page explanatory Note at the beginning of the CoR. Here, von
Wright writes:

– Question: Could a collection be published consisting of only “detachable”

remarks? Or would such a collection be too far removed from the rest of
the Wittgenstein’s work to be of interest?
—CoR: 3

From this we learn that one selection principle he certainly had in mind was
‘detachability’ of the remarks in relation to Wittgenstein’s philosophical
work. As we have already seen in Section 3, von Wright believed that there
was a clear sense in which an aphoristic remark by Wittgenstein could
belong to his philosophical work, namely as a ‘marginal note’ performing a
commentary function. Accordingly, a detachable general remark may be seen
as a general remark that figures in a philosophical work but is not associated
with it in this particular way. This also seems to have been among the
selection criteria von Wright wanted to apply. The problem was only that he
found it difficult to do, or as he writes in the Note

But no sharp division can be made. It is, for example, often difficult to tell
whether a remark should be classified as a comment on Wittgenstein’s
own work – its difficulties, methods, progress – or as a comment on
philosophy in general.
—CoR: 3

However, it should also be noted that there was a tension between the criterion
of detachability and what I have taken as von Wright’s original aim with
preparing a publication of Wittgenstein’s general remarks, namely, to offer a
186 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

collection of aphoristic remarks worth publishing in their own right. There can
be no question about the fact that von Wright highly valued precisely the
aphoristic remarks he found in the PI and the TLP. As we have seen, the
aphorisms of the TLP had already been praised in von Wright’s biographical
sketch of Wittgenstein. Many general remarks from the TLP and the PI were
also selected for the CoR. In the Preface to CV, von Wright even stated that
‘many of Wittgenstein’s most impressive “aphorisms” are to be found in his
philosophical works’, explicitly naming the PI and the TLP. However, von
Wright’s growing awareness of how things were interconnected in Wittgenstein’s
philosophical works also made him exclude the remarks he most valued – or, as
he writes, ‘it did not seem to me right to tear them from their surroundings’.
Eventually all remarks from published works were omitted (CV: ie).
Thus, one problem was the question of finding high-quality remarks that
truly were detachable from what von Wright took as the philosophical works
– or remarks that could be ‘separated sharply’ as von Wright says in the
Preface to CV (ie). However, as we have seen, von Wright was also worried
that a compilation of detachable remarks would be too far removed from
Wittgenstein’s philosophical work ‘to be of interest’. Why did he think so?
Should we not rather suppose that von Wright would have considered any
good general remark written by Wittgenstein as highly interesting in its own
right? However, the primary question here is not von Wright’s private
preferences. It rather concerns what he felt he was committed to as
Wittgenstein’s heir and literary executor, i.e. the promoting of Wittgenstein’s
philosophy. For this reason, he could also see a problem in publishing
something that he feared was not of ‘philosophical interest’, nor connected
with what he saw as the philosophical core of Wittgenstein’s thinking.
Ultimately, he must have felt he might be misrepresenting the Wittgenstein
he was obliged to promote.18
Given von Wright’s concerns relating to detachability and the fear of
misrepresenting Wittgenstein, it is hardly surprising that he started to have
second thoughts about publishing the general remarks – ‘I doubt whether my
present view of the matter is definite: but it is against, rather than for,
publishing anything at all’, he wrote to Anscombe in June 1965. In any case
he wanted to postpone the matter:

Perhaps some of us will some day have a really good idea of how to make
a selection which can justifiably be published. But it is important that we
should not hurry with this.19

However, it is not that difficult to see what the project craved. It became
important to show that the general remarks of Wittgenstein, in one way or
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 187

another, had a philosophical importance. Von Wright’s crucial insight was

that the remarks provided a clue to a proper understanding of Wittgenstein’s
philosophy.

6. RELATING WITTGENSTEIN TO HIS TIMES

What von Wright came to see was that Wittgenstein’s general remarks gave
a picture of Wittgenstein’s place in his culture, and the way he experienced
it. Furthermore, it was possible to see Wittgenstein’s philosophy as a reaction
to this culture, i.e. as an expression of his alienation from it.20 In this
sense, the general remarks of Wittgenstein, or at least some subsection of
them, were important in providing what I have called a setting for his
later philosophy. If this is right, making them public would not contribute
to a misrepresentation of Wittgenstein, as von Wright had feared. On the
contrary, a collection of Wittgenstein’s general remarks would help us
to get his philosophy right. But what exactly was it we were to understand
about Wittgenstein’s philosophy, and what brought about the changes
in von Wright’s thinking about Wittgenstein? I will start with the first
question.
As the main source of von Wright’s early understanding of Wittgenstein’s
later philosophy I take his overview of modern philosophy from 1957. This
I will compare with what von Wright says about Wittgenstein’s later
philosophy in WRT, the article that was based on his Opening Address
in Kirchberg 1977. As we will see, many of the elements that von Wright
saw as crucial for the understanding of Wittgenstein in WRT, were already
present in von Wright’s understanding of Wittgenstein in the 1950s.
However, the connections he draws between them are new. In this
sense, it seems right to speak of a reinterpretation of Wittgenstein’s
philosophy.
According to von Wright’s early conception, Wittgenstein saw philosophy
as an activity aimed at the dissolving of philosophical problems. This he
wanted to achieve by means of a perspicuous presentation of a conceptual
bundle (‘begreppshärva’ in the original Swedish), intended to show what
went wrong when a philosopher started to look for the essences of things,
in the form of the question what something really is? (art, language and
so on). What we are supposed to realize is that there may be no unity behind
our various uses of a concept. In this sense, philosophy may be seen as a kind
of psychotherapy, with the aim of liberating us from our intellectual
obsessions. Interestingly, in von Wright’s overview of modern philosophy
from 1957 it is also suggested that there is a relation between philosophical
problems and cultural circumstances, or as von Wright writes:
188 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Not all philosophical problems are eternal. New are being born and old
die out. However, the changes are not as much dependent on the internal
nature of the philosophical discussion, as on changes in the cultural
milieu, where the discussion is conducted.
—von Wright 1971b: 213–21421

However, there is no attempt to clarify what it precisely is that gives birth to

a philosophical question in a culture, and definitely no indication that von
Wright, at the time, saw philosophical questions as a symptom of a disease
entrenched in a culture. If anything was to be seen as a ‘disease’, it was the
obsessions of the philosophical mind itself.
Before proceeding to WRT, it should be mentioned that von Wright, in
the 1950s, certainly knew Wittgenstein had a difficult relation with his times.
However, when the subject was brought up in von Wright’s ‘Biographical
Sketch’, the focus was only on Wittgenstein’s worries about how his
philosophy would be received (he thought he was writing for people of a
different culture than present-day men). In this context, von Wright did
not raise the question how Wittgenstein’s alienation from his times possibly
was manifested in his philosophy. He only added that ‘[m]odern times were
to him a dark age’, with a footnote to the Preface of the PI (von Wright
1958: 20).
Twenty years later, in WRT, von Wright had found a way of connecting
his view of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy with Wittgenstein’s sombre vision
of his times. Roughly, modern times is, or is the bearer of, the disease of
which philosophical problems and obsessions are the symptom. Wittgenstein’s
own philosophy is seen as a cure, albeit a modest one that only may alleviate
the symptoms. Still, the idea of a therapy continues to be strongly present.
Von Wright’s novel view of Wittgenstein’s philosophy is basically supported
by numerous citations from VB (twelve remarks are used in all), illustrating
von Wright’s new vision of the value of the compilation.
Let us now take a more detailed look at the vision of Wittgenstein’s
philosophy von Wright advances in WRT. The basic idea is that philosophical
problems are symptoms of something that is wrong in the way people live in
a modern civilization, marked by a belief in progress ‘above all thanks to the
technological applications of science’ (WRT: 207). Von Wright explains it as
follows:

Wittgenstein [. . .] thought that the problems with which he was struggling

were somehow connected with the ‘Lebensweise’ or the way people live,
that is, with features of the culture or civilization to which he and his
pupils belonged. His attitude to this culture was [. . .] one of censure and
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 189

even disgust. He therefore wished these ways of life changed – but he had
no faith that he or his teaching would change them.
—WRT: 206

Furthermore, it is clear that the connection between philosophical problems

and the way people live runs through a malfunctioning language:

The problems of philosophy have their roots in a distortion or

malfunctioning of the language-games which in its turn signalizes that
something is wrong with the ways in which men live.
—WRT: 207

As we have seen, according to von Wright, Wittgenstein did not believe he

could change the way people lived. The only thing he was able to do was to
address the symptoms, i.e. the philosophical problems, by providing an
‘intellectual cure’. Von Wright’s description of Wittgenstein’s intellectual
cure in WRT, to ‘expose the disorder in the language-games, describe it, and
thereby rid his mind of the torments produced by the unrecognized illness’,
is very similar to his exposition of Wittgenstein’s philosophical method in
the 1950s, except for the concluding reference to the unknown malady. It is
noteworthy that the idea of a relation between philosophical questions and
cultural circumstances, which was only mentioned in passing in von Wright’s
1957 overview of modern philosophy, found a much stronger expression in
WRT. Not only did he advance the idea of philosophical problems as rooted
in a sickness of the times, he also suggested that Wittgenstein had a deeply
historical sense also of his own philosophy as representing what it had to be
in his particular times (WRT: 216).
I now turn to my second question, what it was that brought about the change
in von Wright’s vision of Wittgenstein and consequently, also the change in his
view of the significance of the general remarks. I will suggest that von Wright’s
reinterpretation of Wittgenstein was greatly inspired by his discussions with
Kristóf Nyíri from 1974 onwards, but also by his acquaintance with Allan
Janik’s and Stephen Toulmin’s book Wittgenstein’s Vienna in 1973. Roughly,
Nyíri seems to have influenced von Wright’s view of Wittgenstein’s philosophy
as a reaction against Modernity, whereas Janik’s and Toulmin’s work may have
contributed to the idea of Wittgenstein’s thought as embodied in a culture.
However, von Wright was never a mere copyist of the ideas of other thinkers.
The influences he got fell onto fertile ground. In the early 1970s, when the
transformations in his thinking about Wittgenstein started to occur, he was
already preoccupied with his own concerns related to the state of the Western
culture. This had made him turn to philosophical movements like Marxism and
190 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

critical theory. As we shall see, especially Marxism played an important part in

his new reading of Wittgenstein – not, precisely, as the idea that Wittgenstein’s
thinking was Marxist in its spirit, but rather in the form of a system of thought
that von Wright was mapping Wittgenstein onto during the mid-1970s. Finally,
it should also be mentioned that, in the early 1970s, the interpretation of
Wittgenstein’s later philosophy had become a current issue for von Wright,
through the literary executors’ work on the second, revised and expanded,
edition of the RFM (published in 1974).22
I will start with the question of Kristóf Nyíri’s influence on von Wright’s
work on Wittgenstein’s general remarks. To my knowledge, Nyíri’s visit to
von Wright’s research seminar on 7 November 1974 is the only event that
von Wright has explicitly mentioned as a cause of his renewed interest in
Wittgenstein’s general remarks. This is what he writes to Norman Malcolm
on 12 December of the same year:23

In November a Hungarian scholar by the name Nyíri visited us and read

a paper to our research seminar on Wittgenstein in the “perspective” of
Marx, Freud, and Musil. [. . .] A consequence of N’s visit was that I
resumed the work which I [. . .] started years ago on editing a collection
of Wittgenstein’s “general remarks”. I re-read the material and was deeply
impressed. I must now set myself to do the work.

From this we certainly get the impression that it was only after Nyíri’s visit
that von Wright resumed the work that had been idle since the mid-1960s.
However, this cannot be completely right. That von Wright had already
started to work on a publication at the time of Nyíri’s visit is shown by an
early draft of the Preface to VB that has been inserted at the beginning of the
CoR. The date of the draft is 20 August 1974. Furthermore, in a letter to
Nyíri written in July of the same year, von Wright had mentioned
Wittgenstein’s remarks of a ‘general nature’, saying that they should be
published.24 Thus, it rather seems that Nyíri’s talk gave von Wright the final
impetus he needed to complete the work with his assistant Heikki Nyman
(see also Erbacher 2017: 99). I want to suggest that the thought of the
general remarks as a setting of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy had already
begun to form under the influence of Janik’s and Toulmin’s book when Nyíri
arrived in Helsinki in November 1974. However, the interaction with Nyíri
was important in developing the details of the relation between Wittgenstein’s
later philosophy and his times. This may perhaps also explain a peculiar
feature of the early draft of the Preface to VB. It almost exactly corresponds
with the published Preface, except for the passage that mentions the
contribution the general remarks make to the understanding of Wittgenstein’s
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 191

philosophy. This part is lacking in the draft, suggesting that the idea was
properly developed only after August 1974, possibly after Nyíri’s visit.25
Nyíri’s talk in Helsinki has not been preserved. We only know its title,
‘Wittgenstein’s philosophical anthropology as seen from the perspective of
Marx’s theory of history’26 and what was said about the talk in the letter to
Malcolm. However, Nyíri’s visit was followed by correspondence that sheds
some light on the topics of their intellectual interaction. Of particular interest
is a letter Nyíri sent to von Wright on 29 April 1975 and von Wright’s reply
from 8 May.
In his letter, Nyíri had enclosed a draft of his article ‘Wittgenstein’s New
Traditionalism’, which was later to be printed 1976 in a Festschrift to the
honour of von Wright on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. In the final
article, Nyíri’s explains his central claim as follows:

My purpose in the present paper is to suggest that Wittgenstein’s so-called

later philosophy is the embodiment of a conservative-traditionalist view
of history . . .
—Nyíri 1976: 503

It is easy to see that Nyíri’s description of his aims, precisely, involves the
kind of approach that was added to the final version of the Preface to CV, i.e.
that Wittgenstein’s cultural stance gives us important clues to the nature of
his philosophy. However, von Wright by no means whole-heartedly accepted
the suggestion that Wittgenstein’s world view could be described as
conservative-traditionalist. Thus, in his reply, written in German from
Karlsruhe, he underlined the complexity of Wittgenstein’s position, using
similar arguments that would be used in his criticism of Nyíri’s position in a
later article on Wittgenstein’s relation to his times, ‘Wittgenstein and the
Twentieth Century’ (von Wright 1993g; first published 1990, henceforth
referred to as WTC) – like the fact that Wittgenstein had many friends with
a ‘pronouncedly marxist orientation’ (WTC: 89). However, clearly, some of
the features Nyíri included among Wittgenstein’s conservatist traits are of
interest. Most strikingly, Nyíri strongly stressed Wittgenstein’s alienation
from Modernity, summarized as the belief

[. . .] that man’s so-called historical progress, and especially the positive

role reason is supposed to play in it, is an illusion.
—Nyíri 1976: 503

Obviously, this is very much in line with the view of Wittgenstein that is so
central to WRT. Moreover, the impression of a fertile interaction between
192 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

von Wright and Nyíri is underlined by the fact that Nyíri supports his claim
by referring to the ‘Sketch for a Foreword’ from 1930, which von Wright has
called ‘the best and fullest articulation of [Wittgenstein’s] attitude to
Modernity’ (WTC: 87–88). Another noteworthy feature of von Wright’s
discussion with Nyíri is Wittgenstein’s relationship with Marx. However, it
should be stressed that von Wright’s interest in Marxism had already been
there for some time.
Thus, Marx already played a role in von Wright’s 1971 book Explanation
and Understanding. In this connection, the theoretical framework of
Marxism was used quite loosely for the purpose of understanding the roots
and mechanisms of historical and societal changes by connecting Marxian
ideas of societal change by means of dialectical processes with von Wright’s
own model of explanation for the human sciences, the practical syllogism
(von Wright 1971b, 144; 158–160). However, Marx also became of interest
when von Wright started to look for ways to understand and challenge the
presuppositions inherent in his own Western world view in the wake of his
engagement against the Vietnam war,27 or what he called a ‘critical concern
for the condition of man’. Marx and ‘some writers in an undogmatic and
unorthodox Marxist tradition’,28 were mentioned as thinkers he thought he
could learn from in his ‘Intellectual Autobiography’ (von Wright 1989: 21).
The final version of the writing was published 1989, but drafts of the parts
in which Marx was mentioned had been ready in 1973.29 Here, we can also
see some first signs of von Wright’s efforts to compare Wittgenstein with
Marx. Thus, he describes his own, unspecified, ‘neo-Wittgensteinianism’ as
related to ‘my awakening interest in Hegel and Marx’ and ‘my questioning
of the political and social Weltbild with which I had been brought up and
lived’ (von Wright 1989: 41). However, in the letter to Nyíri from May
1975, von Wright’s thoughts about Wittgenstein’s relation to Marx also
started to involve important differences.30 Now, von Wright wanted to
suggest that Wittgenstein could be seen as an ‘umgekehrten Marx’, a reversed
Marx. But what did he mean by this? In the letter we only get the hint that it
had something to do with the question about the extent, and how, society
could be reformed by a ‘Vermenschlichung des Menschen’ (humanizing of
human beings). However, what he had in mind can be clarified by going back
to WRT.
At first sight, the suggestion that WRT had something to do with
Wittgenstein’s relation with Marx may seem surprising, for Marx is not
mentioned at all in the article. However, if we investigate the genesis of
WRT, things start to look different. WRT was based on von Wright’s Opening
Address in Kirchberg 1977, and for this some drafts have been preserved. In
one of these, Marx figures in a crucial way, although he was omitted from
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 193

the final presentation.31 Of particular interest are the passages in section 4 of

WRT, in which von Wright explains how he understands the connection
between philosophical problems and forms of life in Wittgenstein, and why
he thinks Wittgenstein did not believe his teaching could trigger a change in
the way people lived. In WRT it reads as follows:

. . . it was [Wittgenstein’s] philosophical conviction that the life of the

human individual and therefore also all individual manifestations of
culture are deeply entrenched in basic structures of a social nature. The
structures in question are what Wittgenstein called ‘Lebensformen’, forms
of life, and their embodiment in what he called ‘Sprachspiele’, language-
games.
—WRT: 207

However, in the corresponding passage in the draft, there is an explicit

comparison between Wittgenstein and Marx:

. . . it was [Wittgenstein’s] philosophic[al] conviction that the life of the

human individual and therefore also all individual manifestations of
culture are deeply entrenched in basic structures of a social nature. /In this
regard one can make illuminating and by no means superficial comparisons
between Wittgenstein and Marx./ These structures are the “[L]
ebensformen”, forms of life and their embodiments in the language
games./ Marx would have said: in the productive relations./32

WRT continues:

They are ‘what has to be accepted, the given’, the unquestioned basis of
our judging and thinking. This basis, to be sure, is not eternal and
immutable. It is a product of human history and changes with history. It
is something man made, and he changes. But how this happens is,
according to Wittgenstein, not to be accounted for by a theory, or foreseen.
‘Wer kennt die Gesetze, nach denen die Gesellschaft sich ändert?’, he
asks, and adds: ‘Ich bin überzeugt, dass auch der Gescheiteste keine
Ahnung hat’.
—WRT: 20733

The corresponding passage in the draft is very similar. However, it ends with
a passage which has been omitted from the published version, which, finally,
also gives content to the idea of Wittgenstein as the reversed Marx:
194 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

This surely is the very opposite to the view Marx held. Wittgenstein did
not “believe” in any revolution, i.e. a calculated and predictable means of
changing the ways of life. He is, in some deep sense, an anti-revolutionary.34

In the draft there is also a reference to Marx in connection with the claim
that Wittgenstein thought philosophy, or his philosophy, was determined by
his times. Thus, in the draft, but not in WRT, the claim that Wittgenstein was
much more ‘history-conscious’ than has been recognized, is followed by the
comment ‘[h]ere is another affinity with Marx’.35
Hence, the reason von Wright described Wittgenstein as a reversed Marx,
had to do with their differing views on the prospects of effectuating a change
in the prevailing forms of life. Whereas Marx certainly was ‘a revolutionary’,
Wittgenstein was not. But why did the mapping of Wittgenstein onto Marx
become so important to von Wright? Partly, the comparison with Marx may
have acted as a heuristic device for understanding aspects of Wittgenstein
that had been difficult to see for von Wright (Spengler is sometimes used in
a similar way). However, it is also clearly of some interest that von Wright
had been engaging with the thoughts of Marx before he recommenced his
work on the general remarks. It may be suggested that in Wittgenstein, von
Wright saw an alternative to Marx, who provided grounds for understanding
the problems von Wright felt were inherent in Western culture, but also
avoided some of the problems he thought were connected with Marx.
Accordingly, when von Wright describes Wittgenstein as an ‘anti-
revolutionary’, we should perhaps also think of it as an attitude that was
congenial to von Wright himself. There is another notable difference between
Wittgenstein and Marx, concerning which von Wright clearly sided with the
former. This concerns the attitudes they had towards one of the central
characteristics of Modernity, the idea of progress through science and
technology, introducing a second sense to the idea of Wittgenstein as an
‘umgekehrten Marx’. Although the modernist aspect of Marxism was not
mentioned in the draft of the talk in Kirchberg 1977, von Wright dealt with
the issue in another context at approximately the same time. Thus, in the
essay ‘Eine zerreissfeste Weltanschaung’ (A tear-proof worldview), written in
Swedish despite its German title, von Wright stressed how Marxism is allied
with the belief in progress, in contradistinction to ‘deeply time-critical non-
marxist thinkers like Nietzsche, Spengler or Wittgenstein’ (von Wright
1978a: 137)36. There remains the question of why Marx was not mentioned
in the final version of the Opening address, and in WRT. This we cannot tell
for sure. Perhaps it only had to do with the uneasy political connections any
discussion of Marx was likely to suggest during the Cold War, with the
possible connotations it might have had for a philosopher who came from
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 195

the country that served as the model of ‘Finlandization’. Even if von Wright
did not accept Nyíri’s description of Wittgenstein as conservative, he was
certainly not prepared to place Wittgenstein too far on the leftist side, either.
It is also noteworthy that the description of Wittgenstein as ‘an anti-
revolutionary’ was present only in the draft that Marx was named in, as if
von Wright was fighting a possible misunderstanding.
Only a little over a year before Nyíri’s visit to Helsinki, Allan Janik and
Stephen Toulmin had published the book Wittgenstein’s Vienna. It seems
possible that it had an even decisive part in the restart of the project, in
drawing von Wright’s attention to the cultural background of Wittgenstein’s
philosophy. However, whereas Wittgenstein’s Vienna was focused on the
cultural roots of the TLP, von Wright main interest was on the PI. So, in a
way, one could perhaps say that WRT is to the PI, what Wittgenstein’s Vienna
was to the TLP.
It may be shown that von Wright had already read Wittgenstein’s Vienna
in July 1973 and that he was very impressed by the work.37 Thus, in a joint
letter to the authors on 15 July 1973,38 von Wright wrote that he thinks ‘the
perspective in which the book places Wittgenstein the philosopher is
essentially right’.39 From the letter we also learn that von Wright thought
that Janik’s and Toulmin’s way of relating Wittgenstein’s philosophical focus
on language to his cultural background was on the right track:

I agree in the essentials with the way in which you “derive” Wittgenstein’s
concern with language from a specific Austrian tradition and in the last
resort from the curious spiritual situation in “Kakanien”,

von Wright wrote to the authors, using Robert Musil’s nickname for the last
stage of the Habsburg empire. What von Wright meant was their attempt to
present the Tractarian view of language as a reaction against the milieu of
pre-war Austria-Hungary, with its ‘meaningless decoration and superfluity’
in music, arts and literature (Janik and Toulmin 1973: 205). Although the
cultural context Janik and Toulmin provided for Wittgenstein’s philosophy
belongs to a time earlier than most of the remarks in CV, there is obviously
a connection between their hypotheses and the general remarks. CV is one
of the primary sources of what Wittgenstein actually thought about music,
literature and art throughout his life, providing important data that often
confirm the assumptions made by Janik and Toulmin.
As such, the new interest in the cultural setting of Wittgenstein’s work
might have inspired von Wright to recommence his work on the general
remarks that had been idle for some years. However, the connection between
Janik’s and Toulmin’s book and the motivation for the publication of CV
196 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

may have been even stronger. One thing Wittgenstein’s Vienna and WRT has
in common, is the idea of Wittgenstein’s ‘fighting attitude to language’
(WRT: 209; CV: 12e). In Wittgenstein’s Vienna, the main idea is that the
purpose of the TLP was to provide a ‘critique of language’ with the aim of
an ‘intellectual liberation’ (Janik and Toulmin 1973: 256). According to this,
the crucial philosophical move of the TLP was to delimit ‘the legitimate
sphere of rational speculation from that of fantasy’, or to set the border
between description (the sayable) and poetry (what can only be shown), or
between fact and value (Janik and Toulmin 1973: 195, 200). This Janik and
Toulmin see as similar in spirit to a set of counter-reactions to the late-
Habsburgian way of life, such as Adolf Loos’s war against ornamentation in
architecture and, most notably, Karl Kraus’s ‘crusade to restore the honesty
of social debate’, which expressly was to be carried out through a critique of
language (Janik and Toulmin 1973: 30).
As we have seen, the thought of Wittgenstein as fighting a distortion of
language caused by a deteriorating culture is also essential to von Wright’s
view of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy in WRT. However, the solution is no
longer a novel theoretical framework of language, as in the case of the
Tractatus, but a therapeutic approach. Still, von Wright’s view of the
ultimate aim of Wittgenstein’s philosophy is similar to the view of
Wittgenstein’s Vienna, in presenting the cure in the form of an intellectual
liberation (WRT: 209).
The most notable difference between Janik’s and Toulmin’s view of
Wittgenstein and von Wright’s view, concerns Wittgenstein’s relation to
Modernity. In a way, Janik and Toulmin would even seem to place
Wittgenstein on the side of modern times. For they see Wittgenstein as the
philosophical crown of an early twentieth century modernist movement
characterized by the attempt to break free from what Stefan Zweig famously
called ‘Die Welt von Gestern’. However, Janik and Toulmin also present
Wittgenstein as a part of the counter-reaction to the development of the
modern movement that started between the wars in the arts, but also in
philosophy – which they also refer to as ‘the suicide of the modern movement’
(Janik and Toulmin 1973: 239). Roughly, the idea is that that the reformation
in arts and letters turned against its ideals by becoming ‘the basis of a new
orthodoxy’. In architecture, for instance, the ‘truly functional architecture’
of Loos gradually turned into the ‘exclusively structural’ operative principles
of typical Bauhaus building whereas something similar happened in the
development of new technical rules of musical composition after Schönberg.
A counterpart in philosophy is the impact the ideas of the TLP had on
philosophy. The formalism that Wittgenstein had employed for an ethical
purpose, was turned into technicalities ‘that could be put to constructive
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 197

use’. At the same time, philosophy developed into ‘an autonomous

subprofession, with a specialized set of problems, methods and techniques’,
a transformation Wittgenstein wanted to distance himself from (Janik and
Toulmin 1973: 250–253, 258–259). Even though this development in ‘the
modern movement’ certainly has some relation to the idea of progress, von
Wright’s view of Wittgenstein’s relation to Modernity would seem to be
closer to Nyíri’s, in which progress and the role of reason in culture, is
explicitly stated as Wittgenstein’s main concern. However, there is still
another feature of von Wright’s understanding of Wittgenstein, in which a
trace of Wittgenstein’s Vienna perhaps may be seen.
Perhaps the most controversial part of the picture von Wright advances of
Wittgenstein in connection with the publication of VB and CV is the thought
of language-games as something that can malfunction. For what would
the relation be between the Wittgensteinian idea of the mistake of using
words detached from the language-games they belong to, and the idea of a
malfunctioning language-game?40 It is also noteworthy that von Wright
talked about malfunctioning language-games only in WRT. In WTC it has
been replaced by the idea of ‘corrupted language-games’. Still, the idea seems
to be that we may have language-games that somehow are faulty as means
of communication. This also happens to be an idea that has some mutual
ground with Wittgenstein’s Vienna. For it would seem that the idea of
malfunctioning, or corrupted, language-games presupposes the idea of
authentic vs inauthentic communication, i.e. precisely, the Krausian
distinction that lies at the core of Janik’s and Toulmin’s book. Moreover, in
describing the late-Habsburgian deterioration of language, they use
terminology similar to von Wright’s in speaking of ‘bogus language-games’,
which they specify as ‘based on the pretense that the existing forms of life
were other than they really were’ (Janik and Toulmin 1973: 273). Incidentally,
this is still another occasion when the ideas of Karl Marx are strongly present,
since the authors of Wittgenstein’s Vienna suggest that ‘bogus language-
games’ might be seen as a ‘linguistic aspect of the Marxian concept of a
“false consciousness” ’ (Janik and Toulmin: 274).

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS
I have presented von Wright’s work on Wittgenstein’s general remarks as
going through two stages, the first being the selecting of aphorisms worth
publishing for their own sake, the second the providing of a selection of
general remarks as the grounds for a reinterpretation of Wittgenstein’s
philosophy. My principal method has been to understand von Wright’s work
on Wittgenstein’s general remarks against the background of certain
198 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

developments in his own philosophical thinking. Basically, the idea is that

von Wright’s thoughts about ‘philosophical literature’ provides the context
for his original interest in Wittgenstein’s aphorisms, whereas his own
growing awareness of the problems inherent in modern Western culture was
crucial for his reinterpretation of Wittgenstein’s philosophy as being in a
fight with Modernity. Whereas the latter point remains close to what has
earlier been said by Erbacher (2017), my treatment of the first stage of the
work also offers an answer to a question that, to my knowledge, has not
been thoroughly acknowledged before: what, in the first place, made von
Wright think that Wittgenstein’s aphorisms should be published? The key to
this question, I believe, is in the connection between ‘deep’ aphoristic literary
expressions in the writings of Wittgenstein and von Wright’s ideas of great
writers as ‘philosophers in the deep sense’.
To understand the transition between the stages in von Wright’s work
some threads remain to be connected between sections 5 and 6 of my article.
Precisely how were the problems that stood in the way of the publication of
the general remarks solved, or overcome? As the most pertinent problem of
the first stage, we may see the conflict between wanting to provide a collection
of the most impressive aphorisms and the objective not to misrepresent
Wittgenstein, which led von Wright to dispose of remarks from the TLP and
the PI he saw as among the best. The idea that the remarks could provide a
key to the understanding of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy gave the
publication of the remarks a second purpose, which was not dependent on
the literary quality of the remarks. Furthermore, CV could now be seen as a
publication needed to get Wittgenstein right. It also seems possible to
understand how von Wright came to think that the book might ‘not
necessarily be harmful or useless’ even when read by people who had no
knowledge of Wittgenstein’s philosophy – as providing an example of a man
who was living the decline of the West (WRT: 212).

NOTES
1. Author’s translation. Swedish original reads ‘[Wittgenstein] förliknade
situationen vid följande drastiska bild: en potatis i en mörk källare skjuter skott,
som du vet, långa och förvirrade skott i alla riktningar om varandra. Men tar
man upp den i ljuset krymper vart och ett av skotten samman till en liten grön
fläck! Jag har en stark känsla av att han har rätt.’
2. ‘Philosophical clarity will have the same effect on the growth of mathematics as
sunlight has on the growth of potato shoots. (In a dark cellar they grow several
meters long)’ (Wittgenstein 2005: 433e).
3. Von Wright to Anscombe, 1 December 1954 (NLF, vWC 714.11-12). See also
Erbacher 2017: 88.
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 199

4. ‘A Collection of Remarks by Ludwig Wittgenstein [...] selected by GHvW in

1965–1966 from the then published works and existing typescripts and
manuscripts’ (WWA, Witt-AM-G1).
5. According to the Preface to CV: iie, where Heikki Nyman is also mentioned. 1974
was also the year when Nyman began his work as von Wright’s assistant (information
mediated by André Maury in an email to the author 27 February 2020).
6. That the revision to the 1994 and 1998 editions were suggested by Alois
Pichler is evident from von Wright’s ‘Foreword to New Edition 1994’,
CV 1998: xiie.
7. In this I agree with Christian Erbacher in Erbacher 2017. My ambition,
however, is to provide a more elaborated contextualization of the question.
8. Author’s emphasis and translation. The original Swedish reads: ‘Och man
kunde beskriva hans senare filosofiska skrifter som en omfattande samling
noggranna undersökningar av konkreta exempel jämte här och där inströdda,
ofta aforistiska marginalanteckningar av mera allmän art om själva den
verksamhet, som han bedriver’.
9. The translation is from PI 2009, §127: 55e. Other examples are §127 and §128.
10. Here is one example from the RFM: ‘In philosophy it is always good to put a
question instead of an answer to a question. For an answer to the philosophical
question may easily be unfair; disposing of it by means of another question is
not’ (CoR: 94, using the translation from RFM II, §5: 68e). Such remarks
should not be confused with the general remarks mentioned in the 1954 letter
to Anscombe. These we are likely to find among the remarks selected from the
manuscripts used for the RFM (such as MS 117 and MS 122), which were
included in the CoR, but not in the RFM.
11. For Wittgenstein’s ‘hints’ at a possible separation, for instance, by the use of
brackets, see also CV: ie. See also Rothhaupt 2017, 112–130.
12. The Swedish original reads ‘att bära vidare till andra subject sanningar av
universellt och tidlöst värde’.
13. The title Vermischte Bemerkungen was suggested by the director of Suhrkamp,
Siegfried Unseld (Erbacher 2017: 102).
14. Author’s translation. The Swedish original reads ‘Människans andliga verklighet
är mycket för sammansatt för att låta sig entydigt inrutas i den abstrakta
tankens nätverk av distinktioner och slutledningar [...] Det är en styrka mer än
en svaget hos [Dostojevskij], att hans filosofiska idéer har en komplex natur,
som närmar sig det motsägelsefulla, paradoxen’.
15. The Swedish original reads ‘som täcker alla allvarliga försök att bestämma
människans plats i tillvaron, oberoende av om de nyttja den vetenskapliga eller
den konstnärliga formen som uttrycksmedel’.
16. Author’s translation. Swedish original reads: ‘[J]ag tror att många mycket
väsentliga saker klarnat för mig, ehuru jag har svårt att säga vad’.
17. ‘I have proceeded on a “maximum principle”: selecting generously and with a
view to then sieving the selected material’, von Wright to Anscombe, 28 June
1965 (NLF, vWC 714.11-12).
200 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

18. See also the Preface to CV, in which von Wright discusses the possibility that ‘a
book of this sort will reach the hands of readers to whom otherwise
Wittgenstein’s philosophical work is, and will remain, unknown’ (CV: iie). Von
Wright’s worries about publishing material that appeared to be external to
Wittgenstein’s philosophical work seems to have been shared by the two other
literary executors (Erbacher 2017: 94).
19. Von Wright to Anscombe, 28 June 1965 (NLF, vWC 714.11-12).
20. The term ‘alienation’ is used also by von Wright when he speaks about
Wittgenstein’s ‘all too obvious alienation from his times’ (WRT: 205). This, I
think, should be connected with Wittgenstein’s experience of the surrounding
civilization as ‘fremd’ (‘alien’) to him (see also WRT: 210).
21. Author’s translation: Swedish original reads: ‘Inte alla filosofiska problem äro
eviga. Nya uppstår och gamla dör bort. Men växlingarna bero inte så mycket på
den filosofisk diskussionens inre natur som på förändringar i den kulturmiljö,
där diskussionen förs’.
22. For an account of the editing process, see Kim Solin’s contribution to this
volume.
23. Von Wright to Malcolm, 12 December 1974 (NLF, vWC 714.142-148).
24. Von Wright to Nyíri, 24 July 1974 (NLF, vWC 714.182).
25. In the draft the passage reads ‘I am all the same convinced that these notes can
be properly understood and appreciated only against the background of
Wittgenstein’s philosophy’, whereas the published Preface continues ‘and,
furthermore, that they make a contribution to the understanding of that
philosophy’ (using Peter Winch’s translation in CV).
26. ‘Research seminar, Autumn 1974’ (WWA, Wri-SF-145-a).
27. For von Wright and Vietnam, see my other contribution to this volume.
28. This is likely to refer to writers associated with the Frankfurt school , such as
Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Jürgen Habermas, and the Yugoslavian
Praxis-group (e.g. Mihailo Marković ), see also von Wright 1978c: 147.
29. Drafts of G.H. von Wright’s ‘Intellectual Autobiography’, Section I: 33 and
Section II: 69 (WWA,Wri-SF-105-a).
30. Von Wright to Nyíri, 8 May 1975 (NLF, vWC 714.182).
31. Confirmed by Allan Janik, who attended von Wright’s talk in 1977, in an email
to the author 3 December 2019.
32. Draft of G.H. von Wright’s opening speech in Kirchberg 1977 (WWA,Wri-SF-
065-b), quoted from page 3a (page numbering not consistent). Emphasis in the
quotation added by author.
33. The part in German translates as ‘Who knows the laws according to which
society develops? I am quite sure they are a closed book even to the cleverest of
men’ (CV: 60e).
34. Draft of G.H. von Wright’s opening speech in Kirchberg 1977 (WWA,Wri-SF-
065-b), quoted from page 3a.
35. Draft of G.H. von Wright’s opening speech in Kirchberg 1977 (WWA,Wri-SF-
065-b), quoted from page 14.
VON WRIGHT’S WORK 201

36. Author’s translation and emphasis. The original Swedish reads ‘djupt
tidskritiska icke-marxistiska tänkare såsom Nietzsche, Spengler eller
Wittgenstein’.
37. This is also noted by Erbacher (2017, 98). However, in Section 7 of Erbacher’s
article one easily gets the impression that it was von Wright who, through his
Opening Address in Kirchberg 1977, initiated the thought of reading
Wittgenstein’s writings against his cultural background.
38. Von Wright to Janik and Toulmin, 15 July 1973 (FIBA, AJC 154).
39. In a letter to Walter Methlagl the following day, von Wright wrote that he
found the book ‘sehr anregend und grundsätzlich richtig’ (very inspiring and
basically right), von Wright to Methlagl, 16 July 1973 (WWA, Wri-FC-003).
40. Von Wright’s unusual use of ‘language-game’ in WRT has also been noted by
Lars Hertzberg (2016a: 128).
202
 CHAPTER NINE

‘. . . finding and inventing

intermediate links’: On
Rhees and the
Preparation and
Publication of
Bemerkungen über
Frazers ‘The Golden
Bough’
PETER K. WESTERGAARD

It has also been said that as Wittgenstein is no longer here to decide on

what should or should not be published, then there is only one appropriate
attitude towards editing his Nachlass. If someone had learned from
Wittgenstein I don’t think he’d speak so.
—Rush Rhees to Antony Kenny, 2 March 1977.
Rhees 1996: 57

203
204 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

1. INTRODUCTION: A SKETCH OF A LANDSCAPE

Rush Rhees was never entirely satisfied with his editions of Wittgenstein’s
Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’. From the time when the
notes were discovered in 1962 (MS 110,177–299), 1964 (MS 143) and
1966 (TS 211, 313–322), Rhees sought to clarify their content and where
they belonged in Wittgenstein’s oeuvre. Shortly after their first publication
in Synthese in 1967, Rhees began an in-depth study of the material. Just a
few years later, he was contemplating a new edition of the remarks. But he
was forced to abandon the plan because of disagreement with Georg von
Wright and Elizabeth Anscombe. The executors of Wittgenstein’s Nachlass
were not always of the same opinion. In the following, I shall take a closer
look at this disagreement, but only after I have outlined the story behind
Rhees’s first release of the Bemerkungen. The disagreement among the
executors becomes apparent in the years 1969–1970 in connection with the
publication of the German edition of Über Gewißheit with Suhrkamp Verlag.
The differences are exposed by Rhees’s proposal to publish Bemerkungen
über Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’ together with Über Gewißheit and A Lecture
on Ethics. Von Wright and Anscombe reject the idea, after which Rhees
abandons the idea of publishing the Bemerkungen along with other texts. But
following the disagreement, Rhees continues to study the remarks. In 1971,
he publishes an abridged version of the English translation in The Human
World. Rhees’s third and final publication of the remarks is known as the
Brynmill edition, a bilingual version from 1979.
Rhees’s enduring interest in Wittgenstein’s remarks on Frazer is exemplary
for his work with the Nachlass. Here as elsewhere, Rhees seeks to reconstruct
and capture Wittgenstein’s Denkbewegungen. In Rhees’s view, the remarks
should not be published ‘by themselves – since this would give rise to queer
kinds of misunderstandings’.1 Von Wright and Maurice O’Connor Drury are
crucial interlocutors in his work.
In what follows, I will attempt to sketch aspects of Rhees’s work as one of
the three executors. First, by outlining the discoveries and work that led to
Rhees’s Synthese edition of the Bemerkungen; in other words, by telling the
story of the origins and preparation of the Synthese edition. In this context,
I shall also highlight the principles Rhees adopted when editing the remarks.
What this attempt to reconstruct the origins of the edition makes clear, is
that the text of the Synthese edition is based on two manuscripts compiled
by Rhees himself, namely his own selection from and transcription of
Wittgenstein’s remarks on Frazer from MS 110 (a selection I shall refer to in
the following as the MS 110 Frazer transcript), and his own transcription of
the so-called thirteen loose sheets, MS 143 (referred to henceforth as the MS
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 205

143 Frazer transcript). Both transcriptions act as bridges or intermediate

links between Wittgenstein’s manuscripts (MS 110, TS 211, MS 143) and
the final text of the Synthese edition. As for the two transcriptions that Rhees
made, these are now in the von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives and the
Wren Library. Thus the foundation for Rhees’s editorial work on the Synthese
text is a selection and transcription of remarks from MS 110 and a
transcription of MS 143 that he himself had made, together with additional
material from TS 211, 313–322. This ‘archaeological’ account of the origin
of the Synthese edition is therefore also a story of how Bemerkungen über
Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’ came into being. It is an account that illustrates
the editorial ‘filtering’ of text and remarks in preparation for publication.
The account is based on an exchange of letters between Rhees and von
Wright, letters that are now in the keeping of the National Library of Finland
(NLF) and the von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives (WWA).2
Following that, I will take a closer look at Rhees’s suggestion to publish
Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’ together with Über Gewißheit
and A Lecture on Ethics. This suggestion is made while planning the first
German edition of Über Gewißheit in 1970. Next, I will briefly consider the
‘connections’ or ‘links’ that Rhees identifies between the three texts and
which he points out to von Wright and Anscombe. The story of Rhees’s
suggestion is an occasion to explore a number of interesting narratives, about
Rhees’s reflections on the content of the remarks, about the nature of his
plans for their presentation, about how the executors handle and clarify
suggestions relating to the form and content of a publication, and, finally,
about the fundamental disagreement that arises between Rhees on the one
side and von Wright and Anscombe on the other – a dispute that highlights
the editorial approach adopted by von Wright and Anscombe and their aims
with regard to the publication of On Certainty in 1969. The account of the
origins of the Synthese edition is based primarily on the correspondence
between Rhees, von Wright and Anscombe, today in the keeping of the NLF,
the von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives, and the Richard Burton Archives.
I conclude with a description of Rhees’s reaction to this disagreement and
the ambivalence that creeps into his further work on the Bemerkungen as a
result.

1.1 Rhees’s MS 110 Frazer transcription

Following the publication of The Blue and Brown Books in 1958, Rhees
turns his attention to Wittgenstein’s work of the early 1930s. A recurrent
topic in the correspondence between Rhees and von Wright, in this respect,
is the question of a possible publication of the so-called Moore-Volume (TS
206 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

209) and the Big Typescript (TS 213). Rhees’s work in these years eventually
culminates in the 1964 publication of Philosophische Bemerkungen. It is in
the course of preparing this publication and the associated efforts to map the
development in Wittgenstein’s descriptions of the sentence, of language and
of ‘the relation between Sprache and Wirklichkeit’ post Tractatus that Rhees
discovers Wittgenstein’s scattered remarks on Frazer in MS 110. Today,
these remarks are known to us as Part I of Rhees’s Synthese edition. They
appear alongside and interspersed with the various philosophical discussions
that make up the latter third of the manuscript (MS 110, 177–299). Even
before he came across this material, Rhees had been aware of Wittgenstein’s
interest in Frazer thanks to a discussion with Drury on the topic in 1959.
What prompted that discussion was Drury’s account of his own conversations
with Wittgenstein. Rhees begins a letter from January 1959, with the words:
‘Dear Con, I have been thinking (though vaguely) about the remark of
Wittgenstein’s you quote about Frazer’.3 Participating in a symposium about
Wittgenstein broadcast on the BBC Third Programme on 12 January 1960,
Drury reported that Wittgenstein sometimes ‘liked me to read out loud to
him, and he would comment on what we were reading: Frazer’s Golden
Bough, Prescott’s Conquest of Mexico’ (Drury 2019: 89).
Having become aware of the existence of the remarks in mid-1962, Rhees
makes a selection of Wittgenstein’s remarks on Frazer, and of others relating
to these, which he then prepares as a typescript. This comprises sixteen
pages and has the heading ‘Wittgenstein 19.6.31’ (RRTS 110, 1, WWA).
Rhees’s selection of remarks differs in several respects from the selection
that Wittgenstein himself put together in TS 211, which Rhees only became
aware of three years later. For Rhees, the selection criterion is the extent to
which the remarks are motivated by issues to do with the philosophy of
language. According to Rhees, it is certainly not the case that Wittgenstein
and Frazer share the same field of interest. Rhees stresses that Wittgenstein’s
remarks should be regarded as ‘drafts of what he was writing on philosophy’.

Why should Wittgenstein discuss Frazer’s account of the rituals and magic
of primitive peoples? Not because it throws light on religion. Wittgenstein
mentions religion in his introductory remarks, but as part of his general
discussion. [. . .] – And clearly he is not discussing history or anthropology.
We could say he wrote partly from an interest in the “mythology in our
language”. He wanted to show that certain familiar expressions belong to
mythology, just as certain transitions or moves we make in speaking do.
He does this by showing their kinship with moves and expressions in
magical practices or ritual.
—Rhees 1971:18
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 207

Rhees’s selection and understanding of the remarks are based on the

assumption that Wittgenstein’s interest in Frazer can be explained in terms
of the examples of language use and modes of action described in The Golden
Bough, which it is assumed Wittgenstein found potentially useful for
clarifying aspects of his main philosophical objective, namely to map the use
of language and concepts. ‘When Wittgenstein’s says that all the shifts from
one use of a symbol in a ritual to another or “figurative” use of it are familiar
or “natural” in our own ways of speaking, he would assume they were
natural in the speech of those people outside ritual’ (Rhees 1982, 72). On
the basis of this assumption, Rhees makes his selection of the remarks on
Frazer and links them to several of Wittgenstein’s philosophical reflections
that either directly precede or follow them. As a kind of guiding principle for
his selection, Rhees applies Wittgenstein’s remark that in ‘our language is a
whole mythology deposited [unserer Sprache ist eine ganze Mythologie
niedergelegt]’ (GB 242). For the same reason, Rhees’s transcription includes
several of the remarks from MS 110 that touch on language and its forms,
among them these two: ‘The primitive forms of our language: substantive,
adjective and verb show the simple picture, to whose form language tends to
bring everything [Die primitiven Formen unserer Sprache: Substantiv,
Eigenschaftswort und Tätigkeitswort zeigen das einfache Bild auf deren
Form sie alles zu bringen sucht]’ (RRTS 110, 11 (MS 110, 206), WWA).
‘Our language is an embodiment of ancient myths. And the ritual of the
ancient myths was a language [Unsere Sprache ist eine Verkörperung alter
Mythen. Und der Ritus der alten Mythen war eine Sprache]’ (RRTS 110, 13
(MS 110, 256), WWA).
In September 1962, Rhees sends the MS 110 Frazer transcript to von
Wright. Rhees asserts its importance and the relevance of the remarks for an
understanding of Wittgenstein’s ‘language-game method’: in order to clarify
the grammar of a certain use of language (a language-game), it is beneficial
to compare it with other uses of language (other language-games). In his
letter to von Wright, Rhees writes: ‘With regard to the genesis of the Brown
Book and of the Untersuchungen: I am enclosing a copy I have typed (badly)
of some remarks Wittgenstein makes in the course of the last 123 pages of
Manuscript Volume VI [MS 110], during June and July 1931.’ He goes on:

If we are looking for the origin of the use of ‘language games’ as a

philosophical method, then I think that one source or one influence was
this reflexion on the analogy of metaphysics and magic, and on Frazer’s
misunderstanding of the magic about which he was writing. (A great
deal of Band VI is included in the Big Typescript. But none of these
remarks is.)
208 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

I think this discussion of magic shows something very important about

the use of language games. [. . .] (I do not suggest, of course, that these
remarks about Frazer are as important as the logical discussions.)4

So according to Rhees, Wittgenstein’s interest in Frazer is motivated first

and foremost by a desire to elucidate one or more features of our language
use, and in particular those that tend to entangle us in ways that typically
lead to metaphysical problems and statements. In such cases, clarification is
achieved by means of a comparative methodological approach. Rhees
reminds us that for Wittgenstein there is a relationship between metaphysics
and magic. The evidence for this, Rhees claims, is that Wittgenstein
equates metaphysics with magic in the remarks in MS 110, from July 1931,
which immediately precede the notes on Frazer. Rhees begins his
MS 110 Frazer transcript with the following entry: ‘I now believe that it
would be right to begin my book with remarks about metaphysics as a
kind of magic [Ich glaube jetzt, dass es richtig wäre, mein Buch mit
Bemerkungen über die Metaphysik als eine Art von Magie zu beginnen]’
(RRTS 110, 1 (MS 110, 177, GB 233), WWA). This juxtaposition serves
to throw light on the impressions that we associate with various forms
of metaphysics. Rhees agrees with Drury that for Wittgenstein the ‘myths
and rites’ discussed by Frazer are ‘closer to metaphysical errors than to
scientific errors’.5
After reading Rhees’s MS 110 Frazer transcript ‘with great interest’,6 von
Wright suggests that it could be included in the current publication plans.
Rhees agrees, believing that the remarks shed light on why Wittgenstein
distanced himself from the Tractatus, and that accordingly they should be
drawn into the multifaceted discussion about the origins of the Philosophical
Investigations. Rhees writes: ‘I do not think people will begin to appreciate
the Untersuchungen until they see the discussion from which it has come’.7
Rhees and von Wright discuss how they might approach the publication of
the remarks on Frazer. Von Wright suggests that they could either be
incorporated into a preface or that they could ‘form another Appendix
to the book [PB]’.8 But Rhees is sceptical. In February 1963, i.e. some six
months after sending the MS 110 Frazer transcript to von Wright, he writes:
‘I am uncertain what should be done with the remarks about magic and
Frazer. I think they ought to be published, and I do not think they should be
published by themselves – since this would give rise to queer sorts of
misunderstandings.’9 The two fail to reach agreement. As a result of his
doubts about incorporating the remarks in the publication that was then
being planned, Rhees preferred to shelve the idea. Nevertheless, by that
time, he had already given copies of his MS 110 Frazer transcript to a number
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 209

of colleagues, a circumstance he had begun to regret. In February 1965

Rhees writes to Peter Winch:

Lionel Walker mentioned that you had given copies of Wittgenstein’s

notes on Frazer, which I had lent you, “to three of us”. He has had the
German text translated into English; and he did not have it with him at
the moment, since he had “loaned it out to someone”. I wish there were
no objection to this. But when once these unpublished things start being
duplicated and “loaned out”, they seem to spread far and wide. Norman
Malcolm lent some lecture notes to someone, and these have been printed
and published in California as “Wittgenstein’s notes on Mathematics” –
to Malcolm’s surprise and annoyance. If the notes on Frazer have gone to
America they will probably have the same treatment.10

Winch refers to the transcription in his well-known 1964 article

‘Understanding a Primitive Society’, in which he writes: ‘In what follows I
have been helped indirectly, but greatly, by some unpublished notes made by
Wittgenstein on Frazer, which Mr. Rush Rhees was kind enough to show me’
(Winch 1964: 320n31).
About a year later, in the spring of 1964, Rhees reconsiders the situation.
His suggestion this time is to publish the remarks in ‘a smallish volume’ that
will also include A Lecture on Ethics, along with remarks on a number of
other related topics. In other words, he believes there may be a link to A
Lecture on Ethics, and that Wittgenstein’s interest in Frazer could perhaps be
regarded as a natural outcome of his recent reflections on ethics and religion
in that text. In the lecture, Wittgenstein aligns himself with Moore’s
definition of the concept of ethics, albeit ‘in a slightly wider sense’, whereby
ethics is approached as a close relation to ‘what is generally called Aesthetics’
and from the angle of broad questions such as ‘what is good’, ‘what is
valuable’, ‘what is really important’, ‘what is the meaning of life’, ‘what
makes life worth living’, and ‘what is the right way of living’ (LE 38). One
central distinction that Wittgenstein draws in the lecture is that between
scientific or theoretical statements on the one hand, and ethical or religious
ones on the other. ‘A religious symbol does not rest on any opinion [Einem
religiösen Symbol liegt keine Meinung zu Grunde]’ (GB 236). Further, the
account that Wittgenstein gives in the lecture of the crucial experiences that
underlie ethical statements has a parallel in the remarks that highlight the
crucial experiences or impressions underlying the types of action we associate
with magic and the use of religious language. While preparing his MS 110
Frazer transcript, Rhees writes to Drury – in conclusion to a discussion about
the Lecture on Ethics:
210 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

In the year following the ethics lecture he wrote twice about the feeling of
wonder – or of reverence – which people have had for the things round
about them, among which they live, and for happenings such as birth,
illness, death madness, sleep, dreams. The longest was in a series of notes
on Frazer towards the end of in the summer of 1931. Three or four
sentences may help what I am trying to say – although I mutilate them by
leaving their context. ‘Frazer begins, telling the story of the King of the
Wood at Nemi, and in a tone which shows that he feels and wants us to
feel that something strange and terrible is happening here. But the
question ‘Why does this happen?’ has really had its answer, then: Because
it is terrible. In other words, whatever in these happenings strikes us as
terrible, impressive, ghastly, tragic, etc., least of all as trivial and
insignificant, that is what brought them forth.’ ‘If you place together with
that story of the priest-king of Nemi the phrase “the majesty of death”,
you see that they are both the same. The life of the priest-king enacts what
that phrase means.’11

In April 1964, Rhees writes to von Wright: ‘I had been thinking of a

smallish volume which might include this [A Lecture on Ethics] together with
the remarks on Frazer, for instance (which were written about a year later),
and some related remarks of about this same time (there are at least two
longish ones beside the remarks on Frazer). And it might include some of the
later scattered remarks upon religion and upon “value” (Lebensweisheit, or
call it how you will).’12 Von Wright mentions the suggestion to Anscombe
two months later,13 but it is not pursued any further. Here, the stories about
the origins of Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’ and of the
Vermischte Bemerkungen from 1977 coincide. In effect, von Wright includes
most of the remarks from Rhees’s MS 110 transcription in his A Collection
of Remarks from 1965–1966. Von Wright describes this material as a
collection of Wittgenstein’s remarks ‘on Questions Connected with his Life
and Work; the Nature of Philosophical Inquiry; Art; Religion and the
“Philosophy of Life”; the I, the Will, and the World; and Various Other
General Topics’. Although not intended for publication, the collection forms
the basis for what would later become known as Vermischte Bemerkungen.
The following year, in January 1965, A Lecture on Ethics is published
together with excerpts from Wittgenstein’s 1929 and 1930 conversations
with Moritz Schlick, and an essay by Rhees, ‘Some Developments in
Wittgenstein’s View of Ethics’. Rhees is responsible for ‘the preparation of
the [. . .] materials’ (LE, 3). It is an exemplary publication, for it illustrates an
essential aspect of Rhees’s editorial approach: ‘. . . finding and inventing
intermediate links’ to produce ‘that kind of understanding which consists in
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 211

“seeing connexions” ’. What this publication allows us to infer, however, is

that once again Rhees has been unable to realize his hopes of publishing the
remarks on Frazer – two years after he discovered them.

1.2 Rhees’s MS 143 Frazer transcription

After the publication of Philosophische Bemerkungen in 1964, Rhees begins
to work with the Big Typescript, with a view to possible publication. His
efforts culminate in the publication of Philosophische Grammatik in 1969.
In other words, in the years after 1964 Rhees continues to focus on the many
manuscripts that Wittgenstein wrote in the early 1930s, the material of his
‘middle period’. It is well known that in Rhees’s view, TS 213 was never
intended for publication, despite its book-like structure, but rather as an
ordered collection of material for a further stage of elaboration. In the
summer of 1964, Rhees receives a letter from Anscombe, which includes
Wittgenstein’s so-called thirteen loose sheets on Frazer. Known today as
MS 143, these remarks form Part II of Rhees’s Synthese edition. In early
November 1964, Rhees writes to von Wright: ‘I am sending you a copy of
the early letter to Ramsey, and also of the later notes on Frazer, which I have
typed from the pencilled pages which Elizabeth sent me. At least I believe
they are later than the 1931 lot. And Elizabeth seemed to think they belonged
to notes he made while he was living in her house.’14
Having received the loose sheets, Rhees devotes his attention to them and
prepares a transcript. The loose sheets are of variable size. Rhees orders
them according to the page numbers in Frazer that Wittgenstein references.
He completes his eight-page transcription of MS 143 in the summer of
1964. It is this manuscript that Rhees sends to von Wright in November
of that year. It begins with a heading and a short ‘preface’:

Wittgenstein: pencilled notes on Frazer, on loose sheets. The numbers on

these sheets evidently refer to pages in the abridged edition of The Golden
Bough. Wittgenstein’s copy of this was given him by Raymond Townsend
in July, 1936. The earlier notes on Frazer were entered in Manuskriptband
VI [MS 110], in June, 1931. I doubt if Wittgenstein had a copy of the
Golden Bough at that time. Drury has told me that he used to read aloud
from Frazer to Wittgenstein. For this reason, I imagine that these pencilled
notes are later – after July, and very likely later still. Rush Rhees.
—RRTS 143, 1, WL

Von Wright does not comment on the transcript. Neither does he include
the material in the ‘Collection of Remarks’ that he produces in 1965–1966.
212 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Rhees does not revive his earlier plan to publish his MS 110 Frazer transcript,
even though the newly discovered material would seem to justify the move.
Instead, in 1964 he puts both transcriptions aside in order to concentrate on
the massive task of editing Philosophische Grammatik. Perhaps he had even
given up on the idea of publishing the notes.
Two years later, Rhees is still working on Philosophische Grammatik, the
aim of which is to elucidate a phase in the development of Wittgenstein’s
philosophy somewhere between Philosophische Bemerkungen and
Philosophische Untersuchungen. In the course of this work, while reading
through TS 211 in the latter half of 1966, Rhees is surprised to discover that
Wittgenstein had made his own selection from the remarks on Frazer
contained in MS 110. This sequence of remarks constitutes a discrete section
of ten pages (TS 211, 313–322), located roughly in the middle of the 771-
page TS 211, dating from 1932. Wittgenstein’s selection is significantly
shorter than Rhees’s MS 110 Frazer transcript. The former runs to ten
pages, the latter to sixteen. At many points the two transcriptions coincide,
although at others they differ. Both arrange the material chronologically,
with a few exceptions. Whereas Rhees transcribes all the remarks of Frazer
dating from 19 June through to 6 July 1931 (MS 110, 177–299), Wittgenstein
is more selective, including only those dated 19–23 June (MS 110, 177–
205), 25 June (MS 110, 225), and July 2 (MS 110, 256–257). His selection
brings together the principal themes, summarized thus: ‘Frazer’s account of
the magical and religious notions of men is unsatisfactory: it makes these
notions appear as m i s t a k e s [Frazers Darstellung der magischen und
religiösen Anschauungen der Menschen ist unbefriedigend: sie lässt diese
Anschauungen als I r r t ü m e r ercheinen]’ (TS 211, 313). What Wittgenstein
does not include are the preliminary remarks from 19 June, which Rhees
treats as a contextual prelude to the Frazer themes. Instead, Wittgenstein
introduces the section with three early methodological remarks from
10 and 11 February (MS 110, 58, 63). His selection starts with the words:
‘We must begin with the mistake and transform it into what is true
[Man muss beim Irrtum ansetzen und ihn in die Wahrheit überführen]’
(TS 211, 313, MS 110, 58). This is followed by: ‘I must plunge again and
again in the water of doubt [Ich muss immer wieder im Wasser des Zweifels
untertauchen]’ (TS 211, 313, MS 110, 63). Wittgenstein does not include
any of the remarks that explore possible parallels between metaphysics,
philosophical problems and magic. Instead, these comments are saved for
TS 213.
With the discovery of Wittgenstein’s own selection and transcription,
Rhees returns to the possibility of publication. Since it is now obvious that
Wittgenstein himself worked on the remarks and treated them as a discrete
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 213

entity, Rhees decides to publish them on their own, and without further
delay. It will always be possible to include them ‘in a volume’ with other
material later on. Rhees informs von Wright of his discovery and his
intentions. In a letter from March 1967, Rhees writes:

There were other things I wanted to say, but I had better send this on pain
of sending nothing at all.
I will ask one question, though – because I have had in mind to ask it
for so long. Do you think that Synthese or maybe Inquiry would publish
The Notes on Frazer (in German) as an article? As I say, I have had this in
mind for six months. I was interested just now to see that the notes are
included in (what I am calling here) the First Typescript [TS 211], separated
in a definite way from the rest of the text, but within the general paging.
There are two changes in the order of paragraphs, and a few paragraphs
are omitted. These are the original notes, from Band VI [MS 110]. If it
were an article, then I think the later notes [MS 143], which Wittgenstein
wrote when he was staying at Elizabeth’s, should be printed together with
them. Together these would be about the length of an article. – If neither
Synthese nor Inquiry wanted it, we could try one of the German periodicals.
But I think it might be better if we could have it appear in one of the
multilingual ones. I should like to have these notes published soon, if
possible. They could be included in a volume later, of course.
Yours,
Rush Rhees
When I said Synthese I believe I should have said Theoria. But I am
confused, and I do not want to wait until I have been to the library to
check.15

Rhees now decides to ignore the earlier ideas that he and von Wright had
considered, such as including the remarks in a foreword, as an appendix, or
in an independent book that ‘might include some of the later scattered
remarks upon religion and upon “value” ’. He also overrules his earlier
reservation about publishing the remarks on their own. The fact that
Wittgenstein himself had extracted the material from MS 110 in order to
treat it as an independent section of TS 211, taken together with the scope
of the material (when supplemented by MS 143), were sufficient grounds to
warrant publication as an article in a journal. This does not mean that Rhees
now doubted his basic assumption that the remarks should rightfully be
regarded as a synopsis or as examples of the philosophical reflections that
led to ‘the genesis of the Brown Book and of the Untersuchungen’. For
Rhees, the remarks have to be viewed and understood in the context of
214 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Wittgenstein’s language-philosophical investigations and his later ‘use of

“language games” as a philosophical method’. However, this contextualization
would now be articulated in a more indirect manner, insofar as the ongoing
work of preparing Philosophische Grammatik for publication made it
desirable to have the notes published soon and as an independent item. For
Rhees, Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’ illustrates one of the
many Denkbewegungen that foreshadow the insights of Philosophische
Grammatik. Accordingly, it made sense to release them prior to the
publication of Philosophische Grammatik, a text which Rhees regarded as a
condensation of Wittgenstein’s central thoughts post Tractatus, and as a
direct prelude to The Blue and Brown Books. The Frazer remarks are one of
the many ‘meandering journeys’ that give Wittgenstein’s investigations and
pursuits their momentum.

1.3 The Synthese edition

Von Wright’s reaction to Rhees’s discovery and enquiry are found in a letter
from early April 1967. Von Wright is enthusiastic and supports the plan
for publication. He writes: ‘Thank you very much for your letter of
21 March with the detailed and interesting description of the newly found
Wittgenstein typescripts. I wrote immediately to Hintikka, who is Editor of
Synthèse, about Wittgenstein’s notes on Frazer. Today I received his reply.
He is delighted at the thought of publishing the notes (in German). He is
looking forward to receiving the article from you, in due course.’16 In the
meantime, and perhaps as early as late March, Rhees had begun editing
Wittgenstein’s remarks with a view to publishing them as planned. In
mid-April 1967, a week after receiving the letter from von Wright, Rhees
replies: ‘Thank you very much for writing to Hintikka and for sending me
his address. I have started putting the text together, in the light of
Wittgenstein’s own typed version [TS 211, 313–322], and I hope to be able
to send it to Hintikka before too long.’17 By May, or possibly June, he had
completed the work.
Rhees speedily prepares the manuscript for publication in Synthese. In
doing so, he relies in part on his own MS 110 and MS 143 Frazer transcripts,
from 1962 and 1964 respectively, and in part on the selection that
Wittgenstein himself had made in 1932 from his remarks on Frazer (TS 211,
313–322). The transcriptions constitute the intermediate links between
Wittgenstein’s manuscripts and the final text of the Synthese edition.
Consequently, Rhees’s editing of Wittgenstein’s remarks on Frazer for the
Synthese edition can only be elucidated and understood by looking closely at
where the transcriptions agree and are compatible with one another, and
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 215

where they diverge. In the Synthese edition, Rhees includes all the remarks
from TS 211 (with one single exception; he omits: ‘Nothing is so difficult as
//like// doing justice to the facts [Nichts ist so schwierig, als //wie//
Gerechtigkeit gegen die Tatsachen]’ (TS 211, 319)) while also complying
with Wittgenstein’s own terse editorial instruction (‘zwei Bemerkungen’ (TS
211, 322)) to include two remarks from MS 110, 257 – remarks that are
later included in Philosophische Untersuchungen as §122. For the
‘Introductory Note’, Rhees expands the short preface (‘Wittgenstein:
pencilled notes on Frazer, on loose sheets’) that he had already written for
his MS 143 Frazer transcript. This he does by adding an excerpt from the
letter he had received from Drury in late April, describing the circumstances
that led to the remarks:

Now about the Frazer edition, I don’t think my memory deceives me. I
think it would have been in 1930 that Wittgenstein said to me that he had
always wanted to read Frazer but hadn’t done so, and would I get hold of
a copy and read some of it out loud to him. I borrowed from the Union
Library the first volume of the multi-volume edition and we only got a
little way through this because he talked at considerable length about it,
and the next term we didn’t start it again.18

In his ‘Introductory Note’, Rhees also includes the opening remarks

from his own transcription, which are absent in Wittgenstein’s selection in
TS 211.
In Part I of the Synthese edition, Rhees reproduces the entire selection
that Wittgenstein had made in TS 211. As closing material, he adds several
remarks from his own MS 110 Frazer transcript, which Wittgenstein had
omitted. Rhees introduces these latter remarks with the heading ‘[The
following remarks are found in the typescript but not together with the
above:] [[Die folgenden Bemerkungen stehen im Maschineskript nicht mit
den obigen zusammen:]]’ (GB 242). For Rhees, these remarks supplement
and expand on Wittgenstein’s own selection. It should be noted, however,
that Rhees does not include all the additional remarks from his own
transcription. He leaves out those that Wittgenstein would later include in
TS 213 and also the remarks that relate to the description and identification
of misleading terms associated with understanding and acting in accordance
with a command (MS 110, 244–246 (RRTS 110, 13–15, WWA)). Part II of
the Synthese edition consists essentially of Rhees’s MS 143 Frazer transcript.
Accordingly, the publication retains the order of the remarks from Rhees’s
MS 143 Frazer transcript, but also its misreadings. In addition, Rhees
includes in Part II several quotes from Frazer’s The Golden Bough.
216 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

From a letter that Rhees wrote to von Wright some six months later we
learn that Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’ was published in
late summer 1967. In a handwritten postscript, Rhees writes: ‘I will send you
further offprints of the Notes on Frazer in a separate packet. I am very sorry
that I left out a word on page 242.’19 A few days later, von Wright sends his
thanks: ‘I read with interest the printed remarks on Frazer. They made a
forceful impression on me. I am glad they were published in this form. (I had
been a little bit sceptical.)’20 Henceforth, von Wright now leaves out the
Frazer material in his further work on A Collection of Remarks. As far as he
is concerned, the Synthese edition is a success. Rhees, on the other hand, is
not entirely satisfied. For he still holds out the hope that the comments
‘could be included in a volume later’.

2. THE SUGGESTIONS
In summer 1969, as preparations for the publication of Philosophische
Grammatik are nearing conclusion, Siegfried Unseld, the director of
Suhrkamp, the German publisher of Wittgenstein’s work, suggests a German-
only edition of On Certainty. This work had been released early that same
year in the now well-known Basil Blackwell bilingual edition. It was envisaged
that the new German edition should contain a brief preface of around five or
six pages. Unseld also considered the possibility of including Bemerkungen
über die Grundlagen der Mathematik in the same publication. Rhees advises
against this idea. In June, Rhees asks von Wright whether he would be willing
to write the foreword. Suhrkamp wants a ‘small and comparatively
inexpensive’ book that gives an impression of Wittgenstein’s late thinking.
Rhees writes to von Wright that Unseld ‘wanted to know whether this was a
work [OC] from which people who bought the volume would get something,
even if they had not studied the other writings of Wittgenstein’. And he
adds: ‘I was more hesitant here, but I said I thought very many would
(assuming that they had some interest in philosophy). [. . .] It seemed to me
that people could get something out of it who would not have the equipment
or the patience to tackle the Tractatus or the Untersuchungen.’21
At the same time, Rhees mentions to von Wright that he has some
reservations about the wording of von Wright and Anscombe’s ‘Preface’ in
the recently published edition of On Certainty. For Rhees, parts of the
foreword are ‘very misleading’. He feels that the preface for the German-
only edition should be entirely new. Rhees writes: ‘You say in the first
paragraph: “In the middle of 1949 . . . Malcolm aroused his interest in
Moore’s ‘Defence of Common Sense” ’ . . . This book [OC] contains the
whole of what Wittgenstein wrote on this topic from that time until his
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 217

death.’ Rhees finds this doubtful and feels the wording could even ‘prevent
people from recognizing the constant connexions between these remarks
and his earlier discussions’. In his view, Wittgenstein’s earlier writings already
touch on and discuss several of the key issues in On Certainty. Rhees briefly
outlines the links between the discussions in On Certainty and various
remarks from the early 1930s, ‘when he began to be dissatisfied with the
ways in which people spoke of “logische Möglichkeit” and “logische
Unmöglichkeit”.’ Even before 1946, Wittgenstein had told Rhees about his
work on Moore’s Defence of Common Sense, and about his conversations
with Moore himself. Relevant topics are touched on as early as in the
‘Untersuchungen, page 221’. Rhees does not deny that Wittgenstein’s
discussions with Malcolm were an essential prelude to On Certainty, but he
emphasizes: ‘My point is rather that his conversations with Malcolm
stimulated Wittgenstein to take up thoughts which were not new to him, and
to develop them further. It is in this regard that I think your preface is
misleading.’22
Von Wright agrees with Rhees that On Certainty should be published as
an independent German edition. They decide in favour of the project. In a
letter written in late June, von Wright admits that the wording of his
foreword is incomplete. But he does not find it ‘misleading’23 and he does
not mention that while working on the publication he himself had doubts
about publishing the remarks on their own. In September 1968, von Wright
had written to Anscombe that it was ‘perhaps’ at that point the right thing to
do ‘to publish the notes on certainty as a monograph of their own’.24 Von
Wright declines Rhees’s invitation to write the new preface, but suggests an
alternative. He writes:

I should not like to write an introduction to the German edition. The best
candidate for the task I can think of is you. Then would follow Elizabeth
Anscombe and Norman Malcolm. But I hope you will write it. You could
do what nobody else could accomplish quite satisfactorily, namely place
these last writings of L.W. in their proper setting in relation to the rest of
his work. It would be valuable, if this happened, – not the least in view of
what you say in the second part of your letter.25

Von Wright repeats the suggestion just a week later.26 But Rhees is similarly
reluctant to take on the task, saying that Anscombe has promised to supply
a text. He writes: ‘I do not think I can write a preface for Über Gewißheit. I
wish I could. I have been trying to write prefaces for Philosophische
Grammatik and the German Blue and Brown Book. I cannot write three
coherent sentences. It is no use telling Unseld that I will write the other
218 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

preface.’ And he adds: ‘I did have a promise from Elizabeth that she would
write one.’27 A decision is taken the following month. After a brief meeting
in Cambridge on November 7 between Rhees and von Wright, Rhees
reluctantly accepts the task. He will try to prepare a ‘Vorwort’. During the
meeting, von Wright reads some of Rhees’s notes on On Certainty, which
von Wright keeps. Shortly afterwards, Rhees writes to von Wright: ‘I was
grateful but surprised by your remarks on the stuff I had jotted down for
Unseld on Über Gewißheit. I will try to make it into some sort of Einleitung;
but I almost invariably fail: and when people depend on me I let them down.
I was very glad to see you again, even though it had to be so short.’28
In the new year, Unseld suggests publishing A Lecture on Ethics together
with Über Gewißheit. Following a meeting with Unseld in March, Rhees
writes to von Wright and Anscombe: ‘Unseld suggested printing this [LE (‘in
Franz Wurm’s German translation’)] in the same volume with Über
Gewißheit. At first I thought it incongruous. On second thought, I was
inclined to think it as a good idea.’ What Unseld wants, Rhees continues, is
‘the volume to be one that may introduce Wittgenstein to a wider circle of
readers than the volumes printed so far can. And the Lecture on Ethics is
more “gemeinverständlich” than anything else Wittgenstein has written’.29
With no objections to the suggestion, Rhees cites Wittgenstein’s ‘letter to
Ficker which speaks of the Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung, and says
“the content will be strange to you. In reality, it isn’t strange to you, for the
point of the book is ethical [der Stoff wird Ihnen ganz fremd erscheinen. In
Wirklichkeit ist er Ihnen nicht fremd, denn der Sinn des Buches ist einer
Ethischer]” ’. Perhaps one could highlight a similar parallel in connection
with Wittgenstein’s late thought. In his letter to von Wright, Rhees says:

That letter cannot be applied like that to the remarks of Über Gewißheit.
But I had thought that if I could add to the sogenannte Vorwort which I
have written, and which I have sent you, – if I could add to this a sketch
of changes in his way of discussing ethics between the time of the Lecture
and the time of these last remarks, using perhaps some of the material
which I did include as an appendix to the Lecture, and if possible bringing
it up more closely to 1951 – then the volume containing the Lecture and
the remarks on Gewißheit would be a better introduction to Wittgenstein’s
ways of thinking than either of them alone could be. In particular, I should
welcome a corrective to the idea that his views on ethics can be understood
without seeing them in relation to his views on logic or philosophy.30

Unseld’s suggestion to include the Lecture on Ethics thus becomes an

opportunity to trace a line of development and connections in Wittgenstein’s
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 219

thought, an exercise that could function in part to clarify Wittgenstein’s

‘views on ethics’, and in part to introduce his late philosophy and the main
themes of Über Gewißheit. Rhees is intrigued by Unseld’s suggestion, but
also a little hesitant. In his letter to von Wright, he writes: ‘So I am now, on
the whole, in favour of the idea. Maybe you think it is haywire.’31 Rhees
continues to consider the matter and, in the meantime, is obliged to reject an
entirely new proposal from Unseld. Unseld’s latest idea is to publish ‘Auszüge
aus den Gesprächen mit Waismann’ together with Über Gewißheit. In early
March, Rhees writes to Unseld: ‘In my opinion, one should only publish
Wittgenstein’s Vortrag über Ethik alongside the remarks on Über Gewi heit
[Es sollte, meine ich, nur Wittgensteins Vortrag über Ethik neben den
Bemerkungen Über Gewißheit gedruckt werden].’ On the other hand, he
finds the link between ‘the Vortrag and the last remarks [ÜG], not only
interesting but also important [dem Vortrag und den letzten Bemerkungen
[ÜG], nicht nur interessant sondern auch wichtig]’.32 Rhees intends to
elaborate on this connection in his introduction.
Although von Wright has reservations about Unseld’s proposal, he
concedes, ‘I have no strong feelings about this’. He does, however, point out
that a joint publication of A Lecture on Ethics and Über Gewißheit could be
detrimental to the later publication of ‘a collected volume of some of the
minor writings of Wittgenstein which have now been published separately,
in the Philosophical Review, in Synthese, and in the Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society. It has also occurred to me that the “essay” on colour-
concepts could be included in that collection’. For, as von Wright continues:
‘If we decide to publish such a volume we should probably want Suhrkamp
to publish it too – in which case it may be awkward to have published the
ethics lecture with the volume on certainty.’ Von Wright’s reservation is
essentially concerned with publishing strategy, whereas Rhees’s primary
consideration is the ‘interesting’ and ‘important’ links that he has identified
between the lecture and the late remarks. Von Wright concludes by saying:
‘So, perhaps, I am more against than for Unseld’s proposal. But if Elizabeth
is more for than against, by all means go ahead.’33

2.1 The replies

Rhees pursues the matter further. In consequence of his ongoing seminars on
Certainty in Swansea and his efforts to ‘see connexions’ and ‘find intermediate
links’ in Wittgenstein’s late work, Rhees discovers an early anticipation of
the themes in Über Gewißheit in a context that is entirely new. He promptly
contacts Anscombe and von Wright. In the early evening of 10 March 1970,
he sends telegrams to both. Von Wright’s reads as follows:
220 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

London 36 10 1550 northern

elt
von Wright 4 skepparegatan
helsingforsfinland

propose including between ethics Lecture and certainty

notes on frazer pages 234 to 242 and 247 to 252 many
reasons for this if you object please signal otherwise
proceeding
rhees34

The proposal to include a shortened version of Bemerkungen über Frazer in

the publication of Über Gewißheit is Rhees’s own idea. He now sees a way in
which to combine the remarks with other manuscripts, which is what he has
wanted to do from the very outset. There are several reasons for the proposal.
In Rhees’s view, the Bemerkungen and Über Gewißheit are connected in a
number of ways. At the same time, a publication that combines the two
would also highlight the link between Bemerkungen and the Lecture on
Ethics. This was something to which Rhees had already drawn attention in
his correspondence with Drury in June 1964, shortly after coming across the
MS 110 remarks on Frazer. The point Rhees had made back then was that
Wittgenstein’s account, in the Lecture on Ethics, of the experiences that
underlie ethical statements is echoed in the emphasis that Wittgenstein
places, in the Frazer remarks, on the crucial experiences or feelings (‘of
wonder – or of reverence’) that underlie the grammar of religious language.35
With his proposal, Rhees seeks to compare the connections that he has
identified between these three texts.
Following the release of the Synthese edition of the Bemerkungen in 1967,
Rhees begins a new and detailed study of their content. He pursues this work
with particular intensity in the years 1971–1975, in parallel with a series of
seminars that he holds on Über Gewißheit. In this context he argues that the
questions Wittgenstein discusses can be traced back as far as 1930. In the
notes he makes during this study of the Bemerkungen, Rhees points to
‘certain connections’ between these and the very late writings. For example,
Rhees notes: ‘ad Frazer [. . .] Connexion between (certain of the ideas in)
Über Gewissheit. [. . .] Weltbild: Das Characteristische des primitiven
Menschen ist dass er nicht aus Meinungen handelt’ (7–9 January 1971,
RRRF, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/5/1). And:

ad Frazer // In certain contexts, perhaps, we can say Darstellung – portrayal

// p. 239 // A man’s shadow, his image or reflection (e.g. in water) . . . . /
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 221

(cf. the words “ghost” and “shade”) / “. . . in short /that/ everything that
a human being observes round and about him year in, year out . . . should
play a role in his thinking (his philosophy) and his customs (practices),
goes without saying – this is what we really know (contra Frazer) and
what is interesting.” // cf.: “Die eigentlichen Grundlagen seines Forschens
fallen dem Menschen gar nicht auf . . .” // “Grundlagen seines Forschens”:
cf Weltbild in Über Gewißheit.
—11 February 1971, RRRF, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/5/1

Returning to Rhees’s telegram, Anscombe’s response is prompt and direct.

She calls Rhees and rejects the proposal he made in his telegram. Über
Gewißheit must be published alone, without either A Lecture on Ethics or the
remarks on Frazer. Rhees is dismayed by this categorical rejection. He writes
to von Wright: ‘In any case, there was no opportunity to discuss the proposal
for the volume. Probably discussion would not have achieved anything.’36
Alluding to the reservations that von Wright had expressed, with an eye to
publishing strategy, Rhees adds: ‘Elizabeth was more emphatic in her veto of
the suggestion that the Ethik Vortrag be printed with Über Gewißheit remarks.
And I telegraphed Unseld to drop the idea. I am sorry to have put you to extra
trouble.’37 But Rhees is annoyed. He feels his proposal has not been heard
and that Anscombe and von Wright have been unwilling to consider the
reasons behind, on the one hand, his openness to Unseld’s suggestion, and on
the other, his own proposal to include the Bemerkungen. One of the reasons
for this reluctance, Rhees feels, is that Anscombe and von Wright have
assumed that the remarks in Über Gewißheit constitute a fairly discrete and
coherent treatment of one cluster of themes. Rhees is sceptical about this
assumption. And, as noted above, he has already criticized it, describing their
‘Preface’ to On Certainty as ‘misleading’ in that it is likely to entrench this
assumption and ‘prevent people from recognizing the constant connections
between these remarks and his [Wittgenstein’s] earlier discussions’.38
Rhees tells von Wright about the impression Anscombe’s response to his
telegram has made on him, and he tactfully reiterates his reservations about
von Wright and Anscombe’s assumption and decisions. He writes:

I did have the impression that she had not seen the case there could be for
including the Ethik Vortrag and the Bemerkungen über Frazer. But this
‘impression’ may be quite wrong. She feels strongly that the remarks ‘on
certainty’ (I am not altogether happy about the title, but I cannot think of
another) – that these remarks should appear by themselves.
Sometimes I have wondered if she does not look on those remarks as
much more abgeschlossen than (I believe) they are.39
222 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

2.2 The reasons

But what are Rhees’s reasons for wanting to publish the Bemerkungen
together with Über Gewißheit? What does he have in mind? We find an
answer to this question in his ‘Vorwort’ to the German-only edition of Über
Gewißheit and in a letter to von Wright from March 1970. At the beginning
of his ‘Vorwort’, Rhees makes the point that Wittgenstein’s references to
Moore in Über Gewißheit do not warrant the conclusion that the work is ‘a
piece of polemic’. Wittgenstein addresses Moore’s so-called ‘Erfahrungssätze’
because he believes ‘they all play a strange role in our speaking and thinking
[sie spielen alle eine eigentümliche Rolle in unserem Sprechen und Denken]’
and that close scrutiny of the role they play ‘leads to a better understanding
of human language, of thinking and language games [führt zu einem besseren
Verständnis der menschlichen Sprache, des Denkens und des Sprachspiels]’
(RVÜG, 1, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/7/3). This is followed by a discussion of
Wittgenstein’s famous grammatical critique of Moore’s mistaken use of the
phrase ‘I know . . .’ in connection with specific ‘empirical propositions which
we affirm without special testing; propositions, that is, which have a peculiar
logical role in the system of our empirical propositions’ (OC 136). It is these
so-called ‘hinge propositions’, things that ‘stand fast for me’ without being
linked to confirmation or refutation, that provide the ‘scaffolding’ for our
thought. They are the ‘hinges’ on which our acting and language turn.
Collectively, these propositions form a system or a whole, which the child
‘swallows [. . .], so to speak, together with what it learns’ (OC 143). Rhees
emphasizes that the empirical propositions we ‘swallow’ form a system of
sentences that we take for granted. ‘They do not form a hypothesis [Sie
bilden nicht eine Hypotese]’ (RVÜG, 4, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/7/3). This
system reflects a ‘Weltbild’, in other words, a horizon of self-evident
propositions which we simply assume to be the case and which form the
basis and background for our language. They constitute a world-picture that
we inherit rather than develop for ourselves. ‘I say world-picture and not
hypothesis, because it is the matter-of-course foundation [die
selbstverständliche Grundlage] for’ our acting, thinking etc. (OC 167). For
the same reason, we are unable to see behind this world-picture in order to
confirm or justify it: ‘it is not based on grounds. It is not reasonable (or
unreasonable). It is there – like our life’ (OC 559). It would be meaningless
to attempt to justify a world-picture. A world-picture ‘is the inherited
background against which I distinguish between true and false’ (OC 94).
Moreover, Rhees reminds us that in Über Gewißheit Wittgenstein is also
interested in, and seeks to describe, ‘what it would be like, if two cultures
with radically different world-pictures came into contact [wie es wäre, wenn
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 223

zwei Völkern mit radikal verschiedenen Weltbildern in Berührung kämen]’

(RVÜG, 5, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/7/3). Rhees quotes:

Supposing we met people who did not regard that [being guided in my
actions by the propositions of physics] as a telling reason. Now, how do
we imagine this? Instead of the physicist, they consult an oracle. (And for
that we consider them primitive.) Is it wrong for them to consult an oracle
and be guided by it? – If we call this “wrong” aren’t we using our language-
game as a base from which to combat theirs?
—OC 609

Rhees ends the foreword by pointing out that the empirical propositions we
‘swallow’, the ‘hinge propositions’, do not constitute ‘a certain class of
propositions or facts [eine bestimmte Klasse von Sätzen oder Tatsachen]’
(RVÜG, 7, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/7/3). They do not have the role of logical
principles in a formal system. It is necessary to distinguish between different
‘Erfahrungssätze’ depending on the language-game we happen to be playing.
In other words, these empirical propositions vary from one language-game
to another. Within a language-game, certainty depends on the nature of that
language-game. In Rhees’s words: ‘It is not always the same propositions
which determine the language-game’s certainty. We could not give a list of
sentences and say, “These are the foundations without which no language-
game would be possible” [Doch sind es nicht immer die gleiche Sätze, die die
Sicherheit des Sprachspiels bestimmen. Wir könnten nicht eine Liste von
Sätzen geben, und sagen, “Diese sind die Grundlagen, ohne welche kein
Sprachspiel möglich wäre”].’ And he adds in conclusion: ‘We could not look
for “the principles of the possibility of language-games (or of the practice of
language)” [Wir könnten nicht einmal nach den “Prinzipien der Möglichkeit
des Sprachspiels (oder der Praxis der Sprache)” suchen]’ (RVÜG, 6, RBA,
UNI/SU/PC/1/2/7/3).
Although Rhees makes no mention of Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The
Golden Bough’ in his foreword, his line of argument can be related to the
earlier of those remarks. In the Bemerkungen, Wittgenstein is similarly at
pains to reach ‘a better understanding of human language, of thinking’. He
is also interested in the ‘inherited background’ of indubitable assumptions in
the magician’s or in religious language. Accordingly, he seeks to identify
the statements and conceptions that occupy and serve the role of
‘Erfahrungssätze’. As we saw above, Wittgenstein makes the point also in
these early remarks that the magician’s actions and world-picture are not
founded on reasoning. ‘Weltbild: “Das Charakteristische des primitive
Menschen ist dass er nicht aus Meinungen handelt” ’ (7–9 January 1971,
224 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

RRRF, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/5/1). And finally, Frazer’s analysis of magical

and religious acts comes across as a clear illustration of a situation
where ‘two principles [world-pictures] really do meet which cannot be
reconciled’, where ‘each man declares the other a fool and heretic’ (OC
611). In the Bemerkungen we read: ‘What narrowness of spiritual life we
find in Frazer! And as a result: how impossible for him to understand a
different way of life from the English one of his time!’ (RF 31). Moreover,
in the course of this enquiry, he cites several examples of the kind of
‘Erfahrungssätze’ associated with the certainty of the magician. In short,
Über Gewißheit is a response to questions that already interested Wittgenstein
in the early 1930s.
Very soon after receiving Anscombe and von Wright’s rejection of his
suggestion, Rhees writes again to von Wright. In this he lists some of his
‘many reasons’ for wanting to include the Lecture on Ethics and Bemerkungen
in an edition of Über Gewißheit. These are the reasons alluded to in the
telegram. Rhees writes that the remarks in Über Gewißheit point ‘to
discussions outside these remarks’, and he questions whether Über Gewißheit
can be properly understood if read in isolation. Rhees highlights the
commonalities between Über Gewißheit and Philosophische Untersuchungen.
In the latter, Wittgenstein draws attention to ‘the variety in what might be
called Erfahrungssätze’. He multiplies the few examples listed by Moore,
having already realized that ‘[o]ur “empirical propositions” do not form a
homogeneous mass [[u]nsere “Erfahrungssätze” bilden nicht eine homogene
Masse]’, as he would later put it in Über Gewißheit (OC 213). Rhees draws
attention to ‘the discussion of Aspekte-sehen and “Aspekt-blindheit” ’,
‘Menschenkenntnis’ and ‘What has to be accepted, the given, is – so one
could say – forms of life’ in Part IIxi. With all this in mind, he writes:

The Bemerkungen über Frazer are a discussion of the Bildhaftigkeit der

Sprache or of Sprache als Darstellung. They show that the question “Why
do people perform this and that form of ritual?” is one form of asking:
“Why do people speak?” Such a question springs from einer Beunruhigung:
it is the confused expression of einer Beunruhigung, and misleads some
(like Frazer) to look for an explanation. What is important is: that when
something deeply disturbing happens; or when people are alive to what is
constantly there and constantly crucial in their lives – birth, death, illness,
madness, the change of the seasons . . . ; then people do speak, or do
carry out some sort of Darstellung. – To ask “Why?” is to weaken the
impression of what happens. Compare: Someone’s friend is killed, and he
sings a lament. “Why?” Die Sprache muss für sich selbst sprechen. Die
Ritus muss für sich selbst sprechen.
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 225

Rhees adds that the distinction Wittgenstein draws in A Lecture on Ethics

between ‘a relative and an absolute sense’ of a word, his allusion to ‘the
experience of seeing the world as a miracle’, and even ‘the experience of
feeling absolutely safe’ no matter what happens, are all examples of that
which can stand alone and which constitutes the ‘background against which
I distinguish between true and false’ (OC 94). Rhees concludes the letter:
‘Elizabeth’s point was: that if the Lecture on Ethics were in the same volume,
it could only be something “tacked on” to Über Gewißheit. I wonder.’40
Two months later, in mid-May, i.e. three months after Anscombe’s
categorical rejection of Rhees’s proposal, Rhees sends a copy of this letter to
Anscombe – a letter that also gives ‘a very sketchy outline of what I had in
mind with the suggestion’.41

2.3 The foreword

Anscombe and von Wright reject Rhees’s suggestion to publish the
Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’ in the German edition of
Über Gewißheit in March 1970. They also reject Unseld’s suggestion to
include A Lecture on Ethics. Anscombe does so categorically, while Von
Wright seeks a compromise. In his response to Rhees, he writes:

Thank you for your letter with the very interesting comments “round”
the Über Gewissheit. Maybe Elizabeth and I had somewhat different
grounds for our attitudes; I was chiefly thinking of the “external”
consideration that it could be desirable to publish a separate volume of
“minor writings” of Wittgenstein’s such as e.g. the Notes on Frazer and
the Ethics Lecture.

Von Wright suggests that in the foreword to Über Gewißheit, Rhees could
include ‘references to the Untersuchungen and to the Ethics Lecture and the
Notes on Frazer of the kind you make in your last letter to me. Such an essay
may after all do more good than merely including in the same volume other
stuff beside Über Gewissheit’. And he goes on: ‘It would make the reader aware
of connexions which he could then study in closer detail in the sources, and
whether these are in one or several books would not matter so much.’42 But by
this time, Rhees has already prepared his foreword for Über Gewißheit – and in
May it is rejected by Unseld. In June Rhees writes to von Wright that Unseld
‘thinks this Einleitung sich “doch zu sehr an einen ausgesuchten Fachkreis
richtet”, and he does not want to print it with this volume which is appearing
in a series not directed to any Fachkreis.’ Rhees adds: ‘I suppose he is right. I
fear that Wittgenstein’s own remarks in the book will not be as intelligible to
226 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

the general reader as Unseld wants them to be. But I hope I am wrong about
this.’43 Later in the year, Über Gewißheit is released, with the familiar short
‘Vorwort’ by Anscombe and von Wright from the bilingual edition, without any
concessions to Rhees’s criticism of its wording. Rhees’s attempts to have the
Bemerkungen published alongside other texts have come to nothing.
Rhees’s reservations about the wording of the foreword to the previous
bilingual version of On Certainty are thereby rebuffed. And so too are the links
that might justify a joint publication of A Lecture on Ethics and Bemerkungen.
Shortly after Unseld’s rejection of Rhees’s ‘Vorwort’, von Wright announces
that he is working on an article about Über Gewißheit. In a letter to Rhees, he
writes: ‘Whether it [the article] will be any good, I do not know – but the task
is immensely interesting. I still find your notes for Suhrkamp, i.e. the one which
you gave me in England last autumn very helpful. I am therefore surprised, not
to say annoyed, to hear that Unseld is not going to print your Einleitung.’44 In
response, Rhees sends a copy of the rejected text to von Wright, ‘since you
asked about this. But it is less likely that this will be any use to you’.45
In November, Rhees and von Wright meet in Cambridge, where the latter
is making a brief visit. They talk about all that has happened over the past year.
They discuss Über Gewißheit, Unseld’s proposal and Rhees’s idea of including
the Bemerkungen. Von Wright updates Rhees on his article. Rhees has now
concluded his seminars on Certainty in Swansea. In August, von Wright
presents his article ‘Wittgenstein on Certainty’ in Helsinki (von Wright 1972:
47–60). For Rhees, the meeting is disheartening compared to the one that had
been so uplifting the year before. In his seminars, Rhees had insisted that
Wittgenstein’s interests differ from those of Moore, and can be traced as far
back as 1930. He had argued that On Certainty is not merely a polemic against
Moore and discussed the links between On Certainty and the remarks on
Frazer. By contrast, von Wright in his article maintains and elaborates the
views about On Certainty, its contents and what motivated it, that he and
Anscombe had outlined in their own foreword. Von Wright describes the
treatise as one in which Wittgenstein is concerned ‘exclusively’ with the themes
of ‘knowledge and certainty, commenting on some of G.E. Moore’s views’. He
asserts that the remarks ‘possess a thematic unity which makes them almost
unique in Wittgenstein’s entire literary output’ (von Wright 1972: 47). The
differences between their approaches to and understanding of this text are
striking. Shortly after their meeting, Rhees writes to von Wright:

It was a good thing that we could meet. The meeting left me feeling
depressed and gloomy, and probably it was the same for you. We meet so
rarely – and this cannot be helped – and we look on the work in such
different ways, that no one of us can understand the conceptions and
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 227

reactions of the others. Still, it is important that we should meet at least

as often as we do now.46

In his article on ‘On Certainty’, von Wright mentions the links that Rhees
has identified between Über Gewißheit and Bemerkungen in a note to his
concluding discussion of a world-picture (von Wright 1972: 59n14).

3. AN ARDENT BUT IRRESOLUTE EDITOR

Rhees’s reaction to these rebuffs is admirable. He refrains from any further
criticism of von Wright and Anscombe. For him, the matter is closed despite
their disagreement. In 1989, the Bemerkungen is published by Suhrkamp
Verlag, for the first time together with other manuscripts. With the title
Vortrag über Ethik und andere kleine Schriften, this volume owes its existence
largely to the efforts of Joachim Schulte. Following his disagreement with
von Wright and Anscombe, Rhees continues to work on the Bemerkungen,
extending and deepening his analysis of the material. His work now takes
the form of a detailed exegetic commentary on the Synthese edition, and he
repeatedly touches on the parallels between the Bemerkungen and Über
Gewißheit. On 17 October 1971, he notes: ‘Return to the Frazer notes, and
to the notion of “die Grundlagen seiner Forschung” but also the “Grundlagen
seines Denkens und Sprechens” / The connexion of this with the remarks
Über Gewißheit’ (17 October 1971, RRRF, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/5/1). He
continued with this research until 1975, by which time it filled some 350
handwritten and typed pages. This material is now in the keeping of the
Richard Burton Archives at Swansea University. Rhees’s lecture on ‘Religious
Belief. Ritual and Myth’ at King’s College in March 1974, his well-known
article ‘Wittgenstein on Language and Ritual’ from 1976, and his Tübingen
lecture from April 1977 are all outcomes of this immense work.
Rhees’s work with the Bemerkungen also reveals various points of
ambivalence following his disagreement with Anscombe and von Wright. He
does not abandon the idea he first mentioned in 1967, that the Frazer material
‘could be included in a volume later’ on,47 but at the same time he becomes
increasingly dissatisfied with the Synthese edition. On the other hand, he
contributes his energies to an English translation of the Bemerkungen which is
published on its own. For this, he makes a few cuts to the text of Part II and
writes a more comprehensive ‘Introductory Note’, in which he also discusses
the position of the notes in Wittgenstein’s work as a whole. For this text, he
draws directly on his rejected ‘Vorwort’ to Über Gewißheit, emphasizing that
in the Bemerkungen Wittgenstein is already focusing his attention on what
‘belongs to the foundations’, namely ‘everything a man perceives year in, year
228 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

out around him’. And he adds: ‘Wittgenstein was writing about this 20 years
later in his remarks On Certainty. His conception there of the “world picture”
(Weltbild) in which we live and think and act contains developments not
thought of in the remarks on Frazer’ (RF 21–22). Remarks on Frazer’s ‘Golden
Bough’ is published in the summer of 1971 in The Human World. Drury is
pleased with the translation and writes to Rhees: ‘It is good that these
[Wittgenstein’s Remarks on Frazer] have now been translated and I am able to
read them in detail, instead of trying to puzzle out fragments.’48
Rhees’s dissatisfaction with the Synthese edition and the publication in
The Human World isn’t the only sign of his ambivalence. In addition, he is
dismissive of an enquiry concerning the possibility of a new publication with
a reorganization of the remarks. Even though he himself has been unclear
about how to present the remarks, in April 1973, Rhees rejects a proposal he
receives from Kenneth L. Ketner’s and James Eigsti49 for a text-critical
bilingual edition in either a professional journal or in small book format with
the title Remarks on Frazer’s Philosophical Anthropology. But despite his
rejection of this version, known today as the ‘Ketner and Eigsti edition’,
Rhees responds positively to a request to publish an Italian translation of the
Synthese edition. In other words, Rhees gives his approval to the publication
of an edition he has reservations about. In July 1973, Rhees writes to Luciano
Foà: ‘We are glad to sanction your translation and publication of
Wittgenstein’s Bermerkungen über Frazers “The Golden Bough”.’50 The
translation Note sul “Ramo d’oro” di Frazer is published two years later
along with Rhees’s ‘Introductory Note’. A French translation of the Synthese
edition, Remarques sur “Le Rameau d’or” de Frazer, follows in 1977.
In addition, Rhees’s in-depth study of the Synthese edition did not leave
him feeling significantly clearer about its contents. In February 1972, he
noted: ‘Whether Wittgenstein thought that the second group of remarks
would illuminate or illustrate the sort of confusions that there are in
philosophy, is not clear’ (17 February 1972, RRRF, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/
2/5/1). Three years later he writes: ‘The first set of notes on Frazer – probably
one of the least well-thought out and most confused of Wittgenstein’s
writing. [. . .] His suggestions seem to have been tentative and they do not
complement one another: and they often conflict’ (16 February 1975, RRRF,
RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/5/1). Post 1975, Rhees’s reading of Bemerkungen is
therefore characterized by ambivalence. Having received a request to include
a German translation of his abovementioned article ‘Wittgenstein on
Language and Ritual’ in Wittgenstein Schriften, Beitrag 3, three years after its
original publication in 1976, Rhees begins to have serious doubts about the
latter half of his text. In this section of the article, Rhees had tackled what he
described as the ‘longest and most interesting of Wittgenstein’s later set of
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 229

comments’ (Rhees 1976: 476). Writing to Joachim Schulte, who has been
busy translating the article, Rhees repeats a decision he has already shared
with Brian McGuinness: ‘All that which [is] marked as “Part II” – i.e. the
typescript-pages 36 to 47 included must be removed and burned. Not one
sentence must be printed. [. . .] I should have said from the beginning, that
“Part II” was supposed to be deleted. Then you would not have wasted your
time and energy on this part. I was encircled by a fog [All das, was als “Teil
II” bezeichnet [ist] – d.h. Typoskriptseiten 36 bis 47 einschließlich muß
herausgenommen und verbrannt werden. Kein Satz davon gedruckt. [. . .]
Ich hätte vom Anfang an gesagt haben sollen, daß der “Teil II” gestrichen
werden sollte. Dann hätten Sie Ihre Zeit und Energie nicht auf diesen Teil
verschwenden müssen. Ich war im Nebel].’51 His instructions are followed.
A few months later, the article appears in truncated form in the anthology
Wittgensteins geistige Erscheinung (Rhees 1979: 35–66). Just three years
later, in 1982, it is published again, this time in its original, full-length form
in the anthology Wittgenstein and his Times (Rhees 1982: 69–107).
In the meantime, Rhees has agreed to a new – and this time bilingual –
edition of Bemerkungen. Based on the shortened text of The Human World
edition and released in 1979, this independent publication is now known as
the Brynmill edition. It coincides with the publication of a new English
translation of the entire Synthese edition in the anthology Wittgenstein.
Sources and Perspectives. The latter omits Rhees’s ‘Introductory Note’. Rhees
is far from pleased with John Beversluis’ English translation, parts of which
he finds ‘atrocious’.52 The Brynmill edition is the last version of the
Bemerkungen that Rhees is involved with, the third in fourteen years.
Over the following years, Rhees receives many enquiries about the
content, principles of selection and editing of the various editions. Rhees
answers these letters and questions, justifying his decisions, analysing and
clarifying misunderstandings relating to the versions that he himself was not
entirely happy with. In February 1976, some fifteen years after first
discovering the remarks about Frazer, by which time the first two editions of
Bemerkungen had already been released, Rhees received a letter from Frank
Cioffi. At that point, Rhees is living in London, where he had moved four
years after his early retirement in 1966 from the University College of
Swansea. Cioffi has noticed the discrepancies between the Synthese and
Human World editions, and the fact that several remarks from the earlier
publication are omitted from the English translation of 1971. Having begun
his letter with the salutation ‘Dear Professor Rhees’, Cioffi asks why the two
editions are not identical. Is this the result of an oversight? Or is it deliberate?
‘[D]id you have any special reasons for leaving them out?’53 Rhees replies to
this letter as well. He writes:
230 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

225a, Greville Place,

London NW6 5JP.
February 26th, 1976.
Dear Professor Cioffi,
Thank you for your letter of February 17th; (there was some delay
before it reached me).
When I was preparing the English translation of Wittgenstein’s
comments on The Golden Bough, I left out some that I had included in
the Synthese publication.
You ask whether this was inadvertent or whether I left them out
deliberately. And I wonder if I understand your question. If I had left
them out inadvertently, the Editor of The Human World would have
called my attention to it.
Some of the remarks I included in the Synthese article are more
important than others. Some hang together much more closely than
others. When I read the Synthese publication some months or years
afterwards, parts of it gave the impression of scattered jottings (as some
of them were); and others, although they were more finished and were
perceptive, did not belong clearly to them (or themes) of his comments
on the Golden Bough: or the connexion would not be plain at first
reading. – Wittgenstein’s writings have often been called sets of
rambling remarks. ([Jonathan Francis] Bennett, when he was still in
Cambridge, would say ‘Wittgenstein rambles on and on . . .’ And this
sort of criticism goes on and on.) I wanted to keep those comments
which are more centred on a theme or question he is discussing in
them, and to remove the distraction of others, even when these are
interesting in themselves.
I was not leaving out parts of an article which Wittgenstein had
prepared for publication. I was trying to correct what I think was a
fault in the text I prepared for Synthese.
I think now that I should have included (and note bene, this is my
judgement, not Wittgenstein’s) – I think I should have included the
remark in the middle of page 244 of Synthese, and also the remark
about two thirds down page 251 – although I think this should not go
in that place.
Your questions are very general. And I do not know what you want.
Yours sincerely
Rush Rhees

I have never been a Professor.54

‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 231

ARCHIVES AND ABBREVIATIONS

Rhees’s transcription of Wittgenstein’s remarks on Frazer from TS 110 and
of MS 143 (in copy) is kept at the von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives
(WWA), Helsinki, Finland. Wittgenstein’s MS 110, TS 211 and MS 143 and
Rhees’s transcription of MS 143 are in the keeping of the Wren Library
(WL), Trinity College, Cambridge, England. Part of Rhees’s correspondence
with Drury and Rhees’s Nachlass in general are kept at the Richard Burton
Archives (RBA), University of Swansea, Wales, under the catalogue signatures
UNI/SU/PC/1/1/3/4.
RRRF Rhees’s Nachlass on Wittgenstein’s remarks on Frazer (RBA)
RRTS 110 Rhees’s transcription of remarks on Frazer from MS 110
(WWA)
RRTS 143 Rhees’s transcription of MS 143 (WL)
RVÜG Rhees’s ‘Vorwort’ to Über Gewißheit (RBA)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the project The Creation of Wittgenstein (Academy of Finland) for a
bursary that allowed me to complete the work on this article. Thanks to the von
Wright and Wittgenstein Archives (University of Helsinki) and the Richard
Burton Archives (Swansea University) for their help and hospitality on various
study trips. And thanks to Peter Cripps for translating the article, to Hywel
Davies for references to relevant material, and to Thomas Wallgren (University
of Helsinki) for the invitation to contribute to the anthology. The copyright to
the letters of Rush Rhees is held by Volker Munz, who has given permission for
their publication. The letters by Georg von Wright are reproduced with
permission of Benedict von Wright and Anita Grönberg von Wright.

NOTES
1. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 10 February 1963, Coll. 714.200, NLF.
2. For my use of references and abbreviations see the section ‘Archives and
abbreviations’ at the end of this chapter, the list of abbreviations and the
bibliography to this volume.
3. Rush Rhees to Maurice O’Connor Drury 7–8 January 1959, RBA, UNI/SU/
PC/1/1/3/4.
4. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 25 October 1962, Coll. 714.200, NLF.
5. Maurice O’Connor Drury to Rush Rhees 22 April 1967, RBA, UNI/SU/
PC/1/1/3/4, Swansea University (and Drury 2019: 240).
232 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

6. Georg Henrik von Wright to Rush Rhees 31 January 1963, Coll. 714.200, NLF.
7. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 25 September 1962, Coll. 714.200, NLF.
8. Georg Henrik von Wright to Rush Rhees 31 January 1963, Coll. 714,200, NLF.
9. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 10 February 1963, Coll. 714.200, NLF.
10. Rush Rhees to Peter Winch 17 February 1965, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/1/3/1.
11. Rush Rhees to Maurice O’Connor Drury15 June 1964, RBA, UNI/SU/
PC/1/1/3/4.
12. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 22 April 1964, Coll. 714.200, NLF.
13. Georg Henrik von Wright to Elizabeth Anscombe 11 June 1964, Coll. 714.11,
NLF.
14. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 1 November 1964, Coll. 714.200, NLF.
15. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 21 March 1967, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
16. Georg Henrik von Wright to Rush Rhees 5 April 1967, Coll. 714.201, NLF.
17. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 13 April 1967, Coll. 714.201, NLF.
18. Maurice O’Connor Drury to Rush Rhees 22 April 1967, Drury 2019: 240.
19. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 16 September 1967, WWA,
Wri-FC-004.
20. Georg Henrik von Wright to Rush Rhees 22 September 1967, WWA,
Wri-FC-004.
21. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 18 June 1969, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
22. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 18 June 1969, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
23. Georg Henrik von Wright to Rush Rhees 29 June 1969, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
24. Georg Henrik von Wright to Elizabeth Anscombe 21 September, Coll. 714.11,
NLF.
25. Georg Henrik von Wright to Rush Rhees 29 June 1969, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
26. Georg Henrik von Wright to Rush Rhees 4 August 1969, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
27. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 10 August 1969, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
28. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 12 November 1969, WWA,
Wri-FC-004.
29. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright and Elizabeth Anscombe 5 March
1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
30. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 5 March 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
31. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 5 March 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
32. Rush Rhees to Siegfried Unseld 8 March 1970, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/7/2.
33. Georg Henrik von Wright to Rush Rhees 9 March 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
34. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 10 March 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
35. Rush Rhees to Maurice O’Connor Drury 15 June 1964, RBA, UNI/SU/
PC/1/1/3/4.
36. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 19 March 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
‘. . . FINDING AND INVENTING INTERMEDIATE LINKS’ 233

37. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 19 March 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
38. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 18 June 1969, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
39. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 19 March 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
40. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 19 March 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
41. Rush Rhees to Elizabeth Anscombe 10 May 1970, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/2.
42. Georg Henrik von Wright to Rush Rhees 24 March 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
43. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 1 June 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
44. Georg Henrik von Wright to Rush Rhees 8 June 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
45. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 29 June 1970, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
46. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 13 November 1970, WWA,
Wri-FC-004.
47. Rush Rhees to Georg Henrik von Wright 21 March 1967, WWA, Wri-FC-004.
48. Maurice O’Connor Drury to Rush Rhees 15 June 1971, Drury 2019: 247.
49. Rush Rhees to Kenneth L. Ketner 10 April 1973, WWA, Witt-100-053.
50. Rush Rhees to Luciano Foà 24 July 1973, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/5/4.
51. Rush Rhees to Joachim Schulte 17 February 1979, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/10/9.
52. Rush Rhees to Ian Robinson 29 January 1979, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/5/4.
53. Frank Cioffi to Rush Rhees 17 February 1976, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/5/4.
54. Rush Rhees to Frank Cioffi 26 February 1976, RBA, UNI/SU/PC/1/2/5/4.
234
 CHAPTER TEN

Editorial Approaches to
Wittgenstein’s ‘Last
Writings’ (1949–1951):
Elizabeth Anscombe,
G.H. von Wright and
Rush Rhees in Dialogue
LASSI JAKOLA

1. ‘LAST WRITINGS’: A SPECIAL CASE IN

WITTGENSTEIN’S NACHLASS?
Ludwig Wittgenstein’s writings stemming from 1949 to April 1951 – i.e.
from roughly the last two years of his life – have been made available in three
major posthumous publications: On Certainty (1969), Remarks on Colour
(1977a), and, finally, Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 2:
The Inner and the Outer (1992). In addition, twenty-five remarks from this
period have been included in Vermischte Bemerkungen (1977c).1 The
underlying manuscripts for these publications are the items MS 169–177 in
von Wright’s catalogue (1969). In the following, I use the term ‘last writings’
to signify this group of manuscripts.2
235
236 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

‘Last writings’ constitute a special case in Wittgenstein’s Nachlass in

various respects. From a text-genetical point of view, they comprise of first-
draft material.3 With the exception of MS 172, written on loose sheets of
paper, and MS 171, which is a writing block, the material comprises of seven
mid-size notebooks, which are variously filled with Wittgenstein’s
philosophical remarks: some of them have writing on few pages only,
whereas others have been written till the very last page. With the exception
of the first half of MS 176 (= RoC I), which is a revised and reorganized
selection of Wittgenstein’s earlier remarks from MS 173 (= RoC III),
Wittgenstein did not have an occasion to revise these remarks at a later stage.
No selection from these notebooks was ever dictated to a typist to form a
fair copy for further work. While the exact dating of some of these notebooks
is a disputed issue, one may say that – with the exception of parts of the
earliest notebook MS 169 – they were probably written after Wittgenstein’s
journey to the United States in summer–autumn 1949. Most of the material
was written after Wittgenstein had been diagnosed with prostate cancer in
November 1949.4
Besides such historical observations, some readers have suggested that
Wittgenstein’s last philosophical writings are, after all, more finalized and
self-contained than his first-draft materials typically tend to be. This
philosophico-evaluative observation constitutes another respect in which
‘last writings’ have been viewed as a special case in Wittgenstein’s Nachlass.
Thus G.H. von Wright – one of the main editors of these writings – pointed
out in 1972 that Wittgenstein’s late remarks concerning knowledge and
certainty ‘possess a thematic unity which makes them almost unique in
Wittgenstein’s whole literary output’. He also added that the writings ‘can be
said to summarize some of the essential novelties in his thinking’.5 Such
tentative observations have later been developed further by the proponents
of the so-called ‘third Wittgenstein’, who have seen in Wittgenstein’s last
writings a new philosophical opening, pointing away from the therapeutically
oriented Philosophical Investigations (Part I) and suggesting a more systematic
philosophical enterprise.6 Accordingly, Daniele Moyal-Sharrock and Michael
Brenner have even come to designate On Certainty as the third major
philosophical masterpiece in Wittgenstein’s literary oeuvre, on par with the
Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus and the Philosophical Investigations.7 With
such suggestions, a posthumous publication edited from Wittgenstein’s late
first-draft notebooks has, surprisingly, been given a status of a thematically
self-contained philosophical work of the highest quality.
In this article, I shall not engage directly with the thorny topic of the
‘third Wittgenstein’. My focus is on the four posthumous editions and on the
editorial history of Wittgenstein’s last writings. On the basis of my historical
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 237

and textual observations I do, however, argue that Wittgenstein’s remarks on

knowledge and certainty are not as self-contained that they are often taken
to be, and that the editorial and philological issues bear heavily on the
discussions concerning the third Wittgenstein. And I will definitely show that
G.H. von Wright’s position concerning Wittgenstein’s late writings turns out
to be more ambivalent than the passage, quoted above, implies.
This article commences, in Section 2, with an overview of the relations
between the four posthumous publications and their underlying manuscript
material. By means of visual ‘source-graphs’, I illustrate the editorial process
of thematic selection and reorganization, which is the characteristic trait of
these editions. In Section 3, I show that Elizabeth Anscombe, Rush Rhees
and G.H. von Wright were by no means unanimous as to how they should
make Wittgenstein’s last writings available to the philosophical public. The
publication programme that was realized corresponds mainly to Anscombe’s
vision, but both von Wright and Rhees made substantial proposals. While
von Wright’s 1967–1968 unpublished – and hitherto practically unknown –
edition highlighted the synchronic thematic connections within these
notebooks by including thematically organized selections in one single
volume under the title Last Writings, Rush Rhees proposed, in 1970, an
approach which highlights diachronic thematic continuities in Wittgenstein’s
thought. The editorial history of Wittgenstein’s last writings is a revealing
case study, which exhibits clearly some characteristic differences in
Anscombe’s, von Wright’s and Rhees’s respective editorial approaches to
Wittgenstein in the late 1960s.
Finally, in Section 4, I conclude with a proposal that von Wright’s and
Rhees’s views may be used as rectifying devices, helping us to understand the
philosophical achievement of Wittgenstein’s last years in new light, and
pointing beyond the thematically (and temporally) ‘compartmentalizing’
approach which inform the posthumous publications as we know them.

2. POSTHUMOUS PUBLICATIONS FROM MS 169–177

2.1. Thematic division as an editorial guideline
Since, for most readers, Wittgenstein last writings are known through the
posthumous publications, it is advisable to begin with an overview of these
four volumes. If we take the four publications together, the contents of MSS
169–177 have been practically published in toto. Almost all philosophical
remarks contained in these notebooks have been published in (at least) one
of the four volumes.8 However, the perspective changes if we view each of
the four volumes alone and consider the fact that a period of twenty-three
238 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

years elapsed between the publication of the first volume (OC) and the final
one (LW2). Each of the individual books is best characterized as a selection
of longer stretches of remarks from Wittgenstein’s manuscripts,9 where each
of the stretches has been allocated in one (or, in one special case, two) of the
four thematic groups: epistemology, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of
colours or (the more elusive) general remarks. These thematic groups, then,
organized in a probable chronological order,10 constitute the publications as
we know them. Indeed, the thematic division is clearly the governing
editorial idea behind the four publications. This guiding principle is also
clearly visible in the respective names of the volumes.11
In the 1969 Editors’ Preface to On Certainty, Anscombe and von Wright
give the reader an impression that the thematic division stems from
Wittgenstein’s own marginal and editorial marks in the manuscripts:

It seemed appropriate to publish this work by itself. It is not a selection;

Wittgenstein marked it off in his notebooks as a separate topic [. . .]. It
constitutes a single sustained treatment of the topic.

A similar claim is made in Anscombe’s 1977 Preface to Remarks on Colour.

She claims that Wittgenstein had marked (in MS 173) the remarks on ‘inner-
outer’, Shakespeare and on other general topics ‘as discontinuous with the
text’ on colours, which is published as Part III of RoC.12 These editorial
remarks suggest the following picture: in his late period, Wittgenstein was
simultaneously working on separate philosophical topics and, accordingly,
on thematically separate philosophical writings. While thematically distinct
chains of philosophical remarks are sometimes jotted down in one and the
same notebook, Wittgenstein indicated thematic transitions clearly in his
notebooks. The editors, on the other hand, have simply followed
Wittgenstein’s indications in bringing the material together. And, so the
story goes, at least in the case of his remarks on knowledge and certainty,
Wittgenstein succeeded in producing a ‘sustained treatment of the topic’,
which both warrants the publication and the designation of the whole as
‘work’. From this perspective, the editorial task may appear to have been
simply that of identifying the work, naming it and presenting it to the
philosophical public.13
This picture, I’m afraid, is misleading and in many ways plainly wrong.
Indeed, the view that the thematic demarcation is based on Wittgenstein’s
own editorial marks, has been criticized by some scholars in recent years.14
One perceptive critic is Kim van Gennip (2003). Basing her criticism on text-
critical considerations, she has pointed out that Wittgenstein’s alleged ‘own’
editorial marks in the notebooks are by no means unambiguous. While the
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 239

occasional horizontal lines in the manuscripts may sometimes be interpreted

as indicating thematic shifts, identical marks also occur in context where a
topical change is not evident. I believe that anybody who has carefully
compared the posthumous publications with the underlying manuscripts will
agree with van Gennip’s observation that, unlike the Prefaces to the published
editions suggest, Wittgenstein simply ‘did not unmistakably mark off these
sections in his notebooks’. I am in agreement with her conclusion that the
editors have evidently also ‘applied their own, alternately thematically or
chronologically orientated, demarcation marks’ while parsing Wittgenstein’s
remarks into thematically organized books.15

2.2. Posthumous publications and their MS sources

Let us now examine the four editions in relation to their source manuscripts.
There already are many accurate source-catalogues for Wittgenstein’s last
writings.16 This notwithstanding, it is useful to revisit the relations between
the published books and MS 169–177 again, in a slightly different graphical
form, which makes the editorial process of thematic identification and
selection more perspicuous. In the following ‘source-graphs’, the lowest row
‘Date’ gives information concerning the probable date of the MS. Above the
dates, on the row entitled ‘The Manuscripts’, MS 169–177 are represented
by horizontal bars, organized according to von Wright numbers in their
rough chronological order.17 The relative length of each manuscript is
represented (approximately) by the length of the bar, and the editorial
division into thematic ‘sections’ within the manuscripts is marked with a
vertical line within the bar. Finally, on the top row ‘Posthumous publications’,
the horizontal bars represent the posthumous publications. Editors’ division
of the publications into several parts or chapters is indicated by a white space
between the sections. More detailed information concerning the edition’s
MS sources is given in a table.
Since each of the publications (with the exception of VB) is a result of
juxtaposition of thematic sections from various manuscripts, this form of
representation enables us to mark each of the sections identified and
separated by the editors in the manuscripts and to present, by means of
arrows, how such sections make up the final posthumous editions. The
chosen graphical form also enables us to easily see to what extent the editors
have followed the probable chronology of the manuscripts and reorganized
the sections within the publications. Furthermore, by marking each section
in the MSS with a raster pattern corresponding to the edition in which the
section has been published, the graph will also make plain how the editors
spliced the contents of the notebooks into three main complexes, thus
240 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

breaking up the original flow of the remarks in the manuscripts. Because the
publication format of VB is different, OC, RoC and LW2 will be discussed
first, in chronological order of publication.

2.2.1. On Certainty (1969)

On Certainty, published in 1969, was edited by Elizbeth Anscombe and
G.H. von Wright together. It was the first publication from Wittgenstein’s
last writings. The book contains remarks from five manuscripts, i.e. from
MSS 172, 174, 175, 176 and 177. The editors have given the book’s remarks
a continuous numbering from §1 to §679. The MS divisions are not indicated
in the published book, but the remarks do follow the probable chronological
order of the underlying notebooks. Indeed, the editors have indicated a
division of the material into four temporally distinct sets by discreet
horizontal lines occurring after §65, §192 and §299.18 This division and the
added numbering is explained in the Editors’ Preface – however, with no
clear statement concerning how the division is related to the MS notebooks
and without stating explicit grounds for the dating of each set. It thus seems
that the primary editorial principle being that of thematic division, the
secondary editorial principle behind the composition of On Certainty was
based heavily on chronological considerations.19 Concerning the chronology
of MSS 169–177, one may also observe that a large part of On Certainty
stems from Wittgenstein’s very last writings from 1951.

FIGURE 10.1: Source-graph: On Certainty (1969). © Lassi Jakola.

EDITORIAL APPROACHES 241

2.2.2. Remarks on Colour (1977)

Remarks on Colour was published in 1977, eight years after On Certainty.
The volume, edited by Anscombe alone, contains four sections from three
manuscripts: MSS 172, 173 and 176. In RoC, the manuscript divisions are
respected as the material is divided into parts I (MS 176), II (MS 172) and
III (MS 173). Each of the parts has a separate running numbering, given by
the editor. While the collection shares On Certainty’s thematic orientation
as the main editorial guideline, the three parts of RoC have not been ordered
chronologically. Instead, Anscombe has clearly given precedence to the
material that had been edited and revised by Wittgenstein himself – namely
pp. 1–22r of MS 176, which is reproduced as Part I.20 In text-genetical
respect, this section has a unique position among Wittgenstein’s last writings.
Unlike practically all the other material in the late manuscripts, this stretch
of remarks is an example of Wittgenstein’s own manuscript revision of
earlier first-draft remarks. This first-draft material, i.e. two longer sections of
remarks from MS 173, in turn, is reproduced in the edition as Part III –
however, without indicating where the first section ends and second begins.21
The remarks from MS 172 constitute the temporarily earliest set of remarks,
having most likely been written in Vienna in early 1950. Roughly speaking,
the remarks published in RoC are earlier than those published in OC.
In Editor’s Preface, Anscombe (1977) states that the chosen policy of
publishing together both first-draft and revised material ‘gives a clear sample
of first-draft writing and subsequent selection’, adding that the approach
‘involves the least possible editorial intervention’. It should perhaps be

FIGURE 10.2: Source-graph: Remarks on Colour (1977). © Lassi Jakola.

242 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

stressed that RoC is, among the editions produced by Wittgenstein’s three
literary executors, the one which best allows the reader to follow Wittgenstein
‘at work’, drafting and then revising and reorganizing his philosophical
remarks.22 While this aspect has been noticed by some textually oriented
scholars, it has been less appreciated in the volume’s general reception.23

2.2.3. Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 2: The Inner and
the Outer (1992)
Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 2: The Inner and the
Outer finishes the series of three major and thematically organized
publications from Wittgenstein’s last writings. The book, edited by G.H. von
Wright and his assistant Heikki Nyman, was published in 1992, fifteen years
after Remarks on Colour and twenty-three years after On Certainty.24 The
German-only edition, with a slightly revised text, appeared in 1993.25 In this
edition, the MS-division is clearly followed: the book is divided into seven
chapters, and it is the first in which the chapters are named according to the
source MS-books. Furthermore, these chapters are organized in the probable
chronological order of the manuscripts. Unlike the previous two editions,
the editors have not added any running numbering system to the book’s
remarks. And unlike the previous editions, this volume has a scholarly
apparatus, albeit a limited one: some alternative readings, cross-references
to other editions from Wittgenstein’s Nachlass, and textual explanations are
given in footnotes. This apparatus, however, is far from complete. Such
features do, however, point to a more scholarly and philologically oriented

FIGURE 10.3: Source-graph: Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 2

(1992).
© Lassi Jakola.
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 243

approach to Wittgenstein-editing, which von Wright and his assistants had

pursued in Helsinki starting from the 1970s.
The editorial principles behind this volume call for some comment. The
name of the edition implies that the collection includes those of Wittgenstein’s
remarks from 1949–1951, which concern philosophy of psychology, or
more exactly, the distinction between ‘the inner and the outer’. While this
designation is not entirely misleading, it has two consequences. First, it sets
the edition firmly in the series of three earlier volumes containing
Wittgenstein’s remarks on philosophy of psychology (RPP 1 and 2; LW1) –
rather than in the context of OC and RoC.26 And second, the name easily
conceals the fact the main editorial approach behind the edition seems to
have been a mixture of thematic selection and aspirations for completeness.
The latter approach is evident in the fact that LW2 simply makes available all
the philosophical content of MS 169–177, which had not already appeared
in one of the three previous publications. A major editorial guideline has
thus been a via negativa of a kind: followed by the positive selection of
remarks on epistemology (OC), philosophy of colours (RoC), and ‘general
remarks’ (VB), this book simply contains all that was left out. But that this
aspiration for completeness is still occasionally secondary to thematic
selection is evident from how the editors dealt with MS 173. As we have
seen, two longer sections from that notebook had already been published as
Part III of RoC. The section falling between these sections, MS 173,
pp. 31v–47v, is printed in LW2.27 But the issue is complicated by the fact that
pp. 87r–100r from the same notebook – a section that had already been
published as RoC III §296–350 – is reproduced again in LW2.28 Interestingly,
this section is not marked as separate by any means in the manuscript: its
inclusion seems to have been motivated by the editors’ own thematic
considerations.29 And indeed, given the main thematic editorial principle, the
editors have correctly included these remarks in both collections: the remarks
in question concern themes such as the phenomenon of seeing, colour
blindness and the peculiar character of sentences such as ‘There are people
who see’, which indeed seem to be relevant for philosophy of psychology
and philosophy of colours. Interestingly, the thematic division as the major
editorial guideline, systematically applied, thus leads into acknowledgement
that remarks from Wittgenstein’s latest period cannot straightforwardly be
allocated into one – and only one – thematic pigeonhole.

2.2.4. Vermischte Bemerkungen (1977)

Vermischte Bemerkungen: Eine Auswahl aus dem Nachlaß was published in
1977 – the same year as Remarks on Colour – and was edited by G.H. von
Wright in collaboration with Heikki Nyman. An English translation Culture
244 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

FIGURE 10.4: Source-graph: Vermischte Bemerkungen (1977). © Lassi Jakola.

and Value (by Peter Winch) came out in 1980. The book is not part of the
same publication programme as OC, RoC and LW2, the source material of
which is taken from MS 169–177 only: VB is G.H. von Wright’s selection
from Wittgenstein’s whole Nachlass and consists of remarks on music, art,
literature, religion and other similar cultural topics of general interest.30 The
collection contains twenty-five singular remarks taken from Wittgenstein’s
last writings (see Figure 10.4 and a more detailed overview in Appendix).
While some of these remarks occur as short chains in the sources, this edition
(unlike OC, RoC and LW2) does not reproduce longer sections from
Wittgenstein’s notebooks.31
The guiding editorial principle of this edition revolves around the
distinction between a ‘philosophical remark’ and a ‘general remark’, where
the latter is taken to be (semi-)detachable from its immediate textual context
in the manuscripts.32 von Wright’s selection from the last writings is mostly
based on following the vertical-line siglum |[remark]| by means of which
Wittgenstein himself marked some of his remarks in the notebooks. von
Wright evidently interpreted this siglum as Wittgenstein’s own device of
indicating that the remark does not directly belong to the context where it
occurs.33 But not all remarks selected for publication in VB are thus marked
and not all such marked remarks are reproduced in VB.34 Beside this textual
criterion, von Wright has thus evidently used thematic and contextual criteria
in identifying some of the remarks as belonging in the category of ‘general’
remarks.35 With two interesting exceptions, the remarks classified as ‘general’
by von Wright and published in VB do not appear in OC, RoC or LW2 (see
Note i in Figure 10.4 and Appendix). The exclusion of the general remarks
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 245

from the three editions thus signifies a clear editorial intervention into the
flow of Wittgenstein’s remarks as they appear in the source manuscripts. The
relative philosophical significance of this intervention, however, is best
evaluated case by case.36

2.3. The publication programme in retrospect: similarities and differences

As has been shown, the main editorial guideline for the publication
programme of Wittgenstein’s last writings has been thematic selection. In
some other respects, one may identify both similarities and differences in the
editorial policies followed in the edited volumes. The editions as we know
them
(i) present the reader with a smooth text with no or very limited
scholarly and critical apparatus in the footnotes. The editors have
made choices between Wittgenstein’s textual variants. This policy
is in line with the literary executors’ consciously chosen
publication policy for the first round of publications from
Wittgenstein’s Nachlass (see von Wright 1982: 5);37
(ii) introduce the printed text with a short editorial Preface, which gives
some information concerning editorial principles and underlying
source materials. From text-critical point of view, this information
may today be considered insufficient, and is occasionally misleading;
(iii) divide the published material into several parts on the basis of
varying criteria;
(iv) typically follow Wittgenstein’s division of remarks, but have
introduced numbering systems of various kinds, for which no basis
is available in the MSS;
(v) do not indicate possible omissions of singular remarks, e.g.
remarks that have been extracted from the text and published in
VB or have been totally suppressed;
(vi) do not indicate places, where a longer stretch of remarks has been
skipped, e.g. because it has been published elsewhere or reserved
for publication in a planned edition;
(vii) variously follow (but do not indicate or explain in detail) the
editorial marks used by Wittgenstein in the MSS, e.g. horizontal
lines, vertical-lines around remarks, crossings, slashes etc.;
(viii) differ as to whether the contents are represented in the temporal
order in which they were written, and
(ix) differ as to whether the MS divisions are indicated.
246 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Finally, one may add that the publication schedule and the order in which
the volumes were made available have had a considerable influence on the
reception of Wittgenstein’s last philosophical remarks. As a period of twenty-
three years elapsed between the first and the final publication, On Certainty
has definitely become the publication that has mostly shaped the philosophical
community’s views of Wittgenstein’s late work.

3. THREE LITERARY HEIRS, THREE PERSPECTIVES

TO WITTGENSTEIN’S LAST WRITINGS
Archival materials and the preserved correspondence between Wittgenstein’s
literary executors open some fairly illuminating vistas on the publication
policy behind the four volumes in which Wittgenstein’s last writings have
been made available. On the basis of these materials, we may pinpoint when,
how, why and by whom the crucial editorial decisions concerning the
publication policy were made. Indeed, the publication history of these
writings reaches back to mid-1950s, and goes through many phases before
the publication of the first volume in 1969.38 This contribution is not the right
forum for a detailed historical overview of the editorial history. Instead, in
this section, I shall highlight some particularly characteristic discussions and
documents, which reveal that Wittgenstein’s literary executors were by no
means unanimous concerning the right format of publication of these
notebooks. I sketch a critical reconstruction of their positions on the basis of
preserved archival materials and correspondence. Let us begin with Anscombe.

3.1. Anscombe: Single treatises on single subjects

The editions as we know them are, to a large degree, an outcome of Elizabeth
Anscombe’s editorial vision. By this I mean that it was demonstrably her,
who insisted that the first of the volumes, On Certainty, should be published
as a thematically organized monograph of its own. This decision, made in
late 1968, was crucial for the later publication history of the last writings, as
it determined the format for further publications: a major part of the material
having been made available as a thematically organized book, it seemed
natural to follow the same principle in the following editions. As we have
seen, Anscombe edited the second volume, RoC, alone. And taken together,
OC and RoC did not leave much room for the final publication, LW2, which,
though edited by von Wright and Nyman, simply made available everything
that had not already been published in OC, RoC and VB.
The correspondence between von Wright and Anscombe reveals that
Anscombe had formulated her editorial preference by autumn 1967. On 13
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 247

September she informs von Wright – who had by then drafted a detailed plan
for an edition of the last writings (see Section 3.2, below) – that she is ‘against
a scrappy publication when we have a single treatise on a single topic to put
before the public’.39 And she added that she will return with an ‘alternative
proposal for a second volume’ at a later phase – meaning clearly a volume
besides the ‘treatise’ on certainty. Judging from von Wright’s answer to this
letter, Anscombe had not made a proposal of this kind at an earlier phase.40
Finally, on 16 September 1968, Anscombe reports her views to von
Wright in a letter, which contains some important clues concerning her
editorial policy. The following passage concerns Wittgenstein’s remarks on
knowledge and certainty:

This writing is so clearly a first draft – it is like the long colour notebook
[MS 173, L.J], with many repetitions and no doubt Wittgenstein would
have made an extract from it like the short colour essay [MS 176, 1–22r,
L.J] if he had lived longer – that I thought it right to preserve the
notebooklike character, keeping in the dates; and also (though without
numbering them) the one or two personal remarks which directly relate
to the writing. I hope you agree about that.

I shall be here in October and hope I shall have the other volume of last
writings sketched out. It was so clear that there was a good deal of stuff
to publish, that I went ahead with the certainty thing as a monograph on
its own, as I always wanted it to be.41 I hope you will agree that this was
right.

On Certainty as ‘a monograph on its own’ – or, as she had put it a year

earlier, ‘a single treatise on a single topic’: this was clearly Anscombe’s vision
for Wittgenstein’s last writings. The fact that she simply ‘went ahead’ with
the idea, clearly without having asked von Wright’s approval in advance,
shows that she was quite adamant with her vision. Indeed, this vision soon
led into publication of On Certainty. It thus seems that it was Anscombe
who pushed through two crucial editorial decisions: first, to separate the
publication of the last writings into several volumes, and, second, to edit On
Certainty for publication first – independent of any definite plans for further
publications from the late notebooks.
Interestingly, the correspondence reveals that Anscombe also wrote the
final Preface for OC. The Preface was first written in English, and then
translated into German by Anselm Müller. Von Wright made some minor
suggestions and then agreed to sign the piece together with Anscombe.42 As
was pointed out above, the book’s Preface contains some quite strong claims
248 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

concerning the thematic separation and unity of Wittgenstein’s late remarks

on knowledge: it suggests that On Certainty is ‘not a selection’ but a ‘single’
and ‘sustained’ treatment of a given topic – a ‘work’ of Wittgenstein. These
suggestions seem to belong fairly closely together with Anscombe’s
publication vision. These views can reasonably be questioned from both
philosophical and philological angles.

3.2. von Wright: One volume with three thematic chapters (1967–8)
As we have seen, in her letter of 13 September 1967, Anscombe contrasted
her preferred ‘single treatment of a single topic’ with a ‘scrappy’ publication.
Luckily, we know what this ‘scrappy’ publication was. It was G.H. von
Wright’s proposal for an edition from Wittgenstein’s last writings. Indeed,
before Anscombe took over in 1967–1968, von Wright was clearly, for
several years, the primus motor in preparing Wittgenstein’s last writings for
publication. In early 1962, he finished a typed transcription of the late
notebooks. He shared copies of his transcription with Anscombe, Norman
Malcolm and Rhees. This typescript formed the basis for further editorial
work. The possible structure and contents of the projected edition are
discussed in various letters between Wittgenstein’s literary executors – and
Malcolm – in the mid-1960s, and the topic was probably addressed in their
annual meetings. Finally, in Summer 1967, von Wright made up his mind
concerning the collection’s structure, drafted a German preface, and sent
this draft to Anscombe. And Anscombe’s letter from September 1967 – in
which the idea of thematically separate treatises is first formulated – is a
critical reply to von Wright’s proposal.
That von Wright did not merely have a vague idea concerning how he
should like to organize the material for publication but had planned a
carefully thought-out edition, is clear on the basis of further correspondence
and archival materials. In a letter to Blackwell’s director Henry Schollick
from May 1968, von Wright updates on the ‘last writings’ project:

Miss Anscombe and I have for years been planning and working on a
volume of Wittgenstein’s last writings. I have myself an opinion of its
composition but Miss Anscombe, I understand, has not yet made up her
mind. The problem is to decide what to include and what to omit. There
exists an edited German text ready for printing. I have been waiting to
hear from Miss Anscombe since last Autumn. I wish the matter were soon
put in order.43

As it seems, this ‘edited German text ready for printing’ has not been
preserved in the archives. Luckily, other materials related to the planned
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 249

edition are still available at the von Wright and Wittgenstein archives in
Helsinki. These materials, and the above letter, warrant the talk of an
unpublished edition of Wittgenstein’s last writings, planned by G.H. von
Wright in 1967–1968. On the basis of these materials, the structure and
contents of von Wright’s edition can fairly accurately be reconstructed.44 The
(working) title of the edition was simply ‘Wittgenstein: Last Writings’. Based
on my hypothetical reconstruction, the projected edition and its sources may
be presented in the following source-graph as follows:

FIGURE 10.5: Source-graph: G.H. von Wright’s unpublished edition of

Wittgenstein’s ‘Last writings’. © Lassi Jakola.

As is clear from the source-graph, Figure 10.5., von Wright’s edition

contained, as part I, two and a half chapters of the later LW2; as part II, the
later Part I of RoC; and as Part III, the whole of what was later published as
OC. Like the later editions, von Wright’s edition, too, reproduced longer
sections from Wittgenstein’s notebooks; indeed, the sections seem to have
been identical to those used in the later editions. And in accordance with the
guiding idea followed in the published volumes, the contents of von Wright’s
edition, too, were divided thematically into three groups, constituting the
three main parts of the book. Thus, the sequence of the stretches of remarks
in the MS notebooks was changed. Judging from the preserved table of
contents, the edition would have indicated the sections taken from different
manuscripts by clear divisions and given rough dates for each section.45 Since
only individual pages from the edition have been preserved, we do not know
whether the choices of variants and possible omissions would have been
identical to the editions as we know them.
250 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

One could say that von Wright’s 1967–1968 edition aspired to find a
compromise between thematic orientation and giving a fair presentation of
the late manuscripts’ contents. The edition was not as comprehensive as the
four final published volumes taken together – it included nothing from MS
169–171, omitted a section from MS 172 and most of MS 173, and presented
the sections taken from MS 176 in a reorganized sequence. But in comparison
with the published editions, this edition would have brought together, in one
single publication, a large part of the materials with which Wittgenstein was
preoccupied during his final years, thus encouraging people to study the
topics in connection with one another. I also find it significant that
the volume had a neutral title ‘Last writings’, which may be contrasted with
the thematic titles of the published editions.
What was, then, in Anscombe’s view, wrong with von Wright’s proposal?
– As we saw above, she considered the projected publication ‘scrappy’. The
authoritative Oxford English Dictionary explains the adjective ‘scrappy’ as
something ‘[c]onsisting of scraps; made up of odds and ends; disjointed,
unconnected’. While ‘consisting of scraps’ remains fairly neutral, the latter
paraphrase indicate that the word has a rather negative connotation.46 On a
semi-neutral level, Anscombe’s choice of word may simply have to do with
her discontent with editions in which the editors have selected and re-grouped
the MS material: she may have thought that von Wright’s edition is too
much like a scrapbook, as the editor has taken the liberty of making
extractions from the MS material and of organizing these materials in a
novel way.47 This, however, is clearly not all Anscombe’s letter suggests.
Indeed, as she contrasts von Wright’s ‘scrappy’ plan with a ‘single treatise on
a single topic’, her tone is definitely pejorative. This is yet another indication
that Anscombe tended to view Wittgenstein’s discussions as thematically
self-contained. This way of seeing the manuscripts is, however, not
philosophically neutral. It seems that Anscombe’s view, in fact, brings in
many substantial issues concerning the interpretation of Wittgenstein’s later
philosophy. And, as it seems, in such issues, von Wright and Anscombe
simply parted their ways. Unlike Anscombe, von Wright did – in 1967–1968,
at any rate – not think that the discussions in the late manuscripts may that
easily be thematically separated. On the contrary, he seems to have been,
from early on, convinced that there are important connections between
the topics. Already in 1964, he had characterized the remarks on the
‘Innen–Aussen problem’ to Anscombe as follows:

This part [. . .], which is chronologically the earliest, constitutes a kind of

bridge between the discussion in the Investigations and the “Zetteln” on
the one hand and the discussion of knowledge and certainty which begins
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 251

in Notebook VII [=MS 174, L.J] (and continues through Notebooks I,

VI1 and VI2) [=MSS 175–7, L.J] on the other hand. Indeed, the beginning
of Notebook VII [MS 174, L.J] very nicely leads up to the discussion
of knowledge which begins after the double bar on p. 117. [= MS 174,
14v, L.J.]48

I believe this observation alone could be a fairly strong argument in favour

of publishing the remarks together in one volume: if the ‘Innen–Aussen’
remarks indeed, as von Wright suggests, form a thematic link between the
Investigations and the late remarks on knowledge, publishing On Certainty
alone may make it difficult to see some thematic connections and continuities
in Wittgenstein’s thought that are visible in the MS sources. This sort
of worry may have come to von Wright’s mind when he learned that
Anscombe had, in September 1968, decided to go on with On Certainty as
a separate volume (see letter of 16 September 1968, quoted above). His
first reaction was sceptical:

Perhaps it is right to publish the notes on certainty as a monograph of

their own. I think that my final opinion in the matter will depend upon
what else of the last writings you think we ought to publish. As you
may remember, my opinion after our last meeting was that we should,
in addition to the notes on certainty, publish only the extract which
Wittgenstein himself made from his writings on colour-concepts, and a
selection from the notes on the “Innen-Aussen” problem.49

In this letter, von Wright still favours the concept which informs his
1967–1968 edition. But eventually, as we now know, Anscombe’s vision
prevailed and resulted in the publication of On Certainty in 1969. Despite
his initial scepticism, as von Wright saw the proofs of the upcoming book in
early 1969, he quickly became a convert to Anscombe’s vision. In March
1969, he informed Norman Malcolm that a

new posthumous work by Wittgenstein is now at the page-proof stage and

I am reading the proofs very carefully. It is the book on certainty. I am
now convinced that Elizabeth Anscombe was right against me, when
she thought it ought to be published as a work which stands alone. I like
it very much – and I am sure you will do the same.50

Eventually, von Wright is named together with Anscombe as an editor of

the book. While the final Preface was written by Anscombe, von Wright
agreed to sign it, and hence, at this point, openly agreed to Anscombe’s
252 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

approach – despite the fact that his own proposal from 1967 had been
structured differently.51
In the reception of Wittgenstein’s late thought, von Wright’s editorial
approach has frequently been equated with Anscombe’s. As we have seen,
this view does not quite correspond to historical reality. It seems that both
before and after the publication of On Certainty, von Wright had an
ambivalent and complex attitude to this volume. While he did, in a sense,
appreciate it as a ‘work’ of its own, he also remained well aware of the
textual and historical problems related to the format in which it was
published.52 This ambivalence surfaces in some quite interesting contexts, of
which the case of his article ‘Wittgenstein on Certainty’ is most noteworthy.
In August 1970, von Wright organized a conference of the International
Institute of Philosophy in Helsinki. In this conference, the topic of which
was epistemology, he read a paper entitled ‘Wittgenstein on Certainty’. The
version that was delivered in 1970 opens with observations that are in line
with his 1967–1968 proposal:53

Of Wittgenstein’s philosophy a singular “holisticity” is characteristic.

Everything in it is connected with everything else. It is impossible to
compartmentalize the body of his thoughts and speak of Wittgenstein’s
theory of knowledge, his metaphysics, or his ethics. He wrote of course
an immense number of remarks which are relevant to the traditional
problems in these fields. But much of what he wrote goes against the
traditional ways of isolating topics for special treatment. This
characterization holds not least for that which Wittgenstein has to say
about theory of knowledge. In a sense he can even be said to have wanted
to strike traditional epistemology dead.54

This passage is both puzzling and revealing, especially given that von Wright
had, in March 1969, given his consent to Anscombe’s edition of On
Certainty. Even more revealing is that this passage was not included in the
revised version of the presentation, which was published in 1972. Instead,
the article commences with claims that come fairly close to those expressed
in the Preface to the published edition.55 The most likely reason for the
omission is that the passage actually strongly undermines the thematic
approach applied in On Certainty – and argued for in the Preface von Wright
had himself signed. Here, it seems, several human factors enter the academic
scene: As regards loyalty to his co-editor, von Wright may have reasoned that
he had better simply stand behind the published edition, even though he
does not completely agree with the publication format. And given his will to
promote Wittgenstein’s work, von Wright may have come to think that the
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 253

thematic format may, after all, provide the philosophers of the late 1960s a
convenient ‘gateway’ to Wittgenstein’s philosophy. And he may have realized
that presenting Wittgenstein as someone who simply wants to ‘strike
traditional epistemology dead’ may not be the best way to introduce his
thoughts into contemporary discussions. All such reasons are understandable,
even though they may not quite be scholarly acceptable. All this shows,
I believe, that von Wright was, from early on, surprisingly well aware of the
problems associated with the thematic format, and was never absolutely
content with the approach.56

3.3. Rhees: Diachronic continuities in Wittgenstein’s thought (1970)57

Rush Rhees did not actively participate in the earlier stages of the editorial
work, as he was then focusing on the complexities of Wittgenstein’s
manuscripts from 1930s. But around the time OC was published in 1969,
he took a more active interest in the special character of Wittgenstein’s
final writings. In correspondence with von Wright, Rhees opposed the view
that OC constituted a kind of new opening in Wittgenstein work that
was stimulated by discussions with Norman Malcolm in the USA in 1949,
arguing instead that the remarks published in OC are ‘embedded into
the whole of Wittgenstein’s development’, to use Christian Erbacher’s
formulation.58 Rhees observed that the way Anscombe and von Wright had
stressed Malcolm’s significance in their Preface, may ‘prevent people from
recognizing the constant connexions between these remarks and his earlier
discussions’.59
Von Wright found Rhees’s observations interesting. And as plans were
made for a German-only edition of On Certainty by Suhrkamp, he warmly
encouraged Rhees to draft a new Introduction for the book.60 The Suhrkamp
edition was meant to be a relatively small and affordable book, which could
function as a kind of introductory text to Wittgenstein’s philosophy.61 As
Siegfried Unseld, the director of Suhrkamp, asked Rhees whether some
further materials – e.g. ‘The Lecture on Ethics’ – might be added to it, Rhees
got a new idea concerning the format of publication. In a telegram sent
to both Anscombe and von Wright on 10 March 1970, he proposed that
On Certainty might be published along with the 1929 ‘Lecture on Ethics’
and with the ‘Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough’, the earliest part of
which stem for the early 1930s.62 Rhees’s editorial plan, highlighting
the long-term thematic continuities in Wittgenstein’s thought, was never
realized, as Anscombe vetoed such a publication. In a disappointed tone,
Rhees reported on Anscombe’s negative reaction to von Wright on 19 March
1970 as follows:
254 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

I did have the impression that she had not seen the case there could be for
including Ethik Vortrag and the Bemerkungen über Frazer. [. . .] She feels
strongly that the remarks ‘on certainty’ (I am not altogether happy about
the title, but I cannot think of another) – that these remarks should appear
by themselves.

Sometimes I have wondered if she does not look on those remarks

as much more abgeschlossen [self-contained, L.J] than (I believe) they
are. – There is a great deal that could be said in connexion with this.63

After this format of publication was dropped, von Wright still encouraged
Rhees to write a new Introduction for the Suhrkamp edition of On
Certainty. On 23 March 1970, von Wright pointed out that such an
introductory essay

may after all do more good than merely including in the same volume
other stuff beside [Ü]ber Gewissheit. It would make the reader aware of
[a] connexion which he could then study in closer detail in the sources,
and whether these are in one or several books would not matter so very
much.

It seems that von Wright and Rhees both shared the understanding that
Wittgenstein’s late remarks on knowledge should be understood in the
larger context of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. And Rhees’s dissatisfaction
with the name of the volume is likely based on similar considerations, too:
certainty surely is not the only topic discussed in the book.
Eventually, Rhees’s Introduction was not published.64 Siegfried Unseld
considered it too scholarly for a publication directed at the general public.65
Hence, in the German Suhrkamp edition of Wittgenstein’s On Certainty,
too, Anscombe’s vision prevailed. The book’s text was also introduced by
Anscombe’s and von Wright’s Preface.
Rhees’s arguments for his editorial approach cannot be scrutinized in
detail in this contribution.66 Here, I shall simply illustrate Rhees’s ideas
concerning the Suhrkamp edition in another source-graph and then sum up
briefly the characteristic points of his approach. Note that the preserved
materials do not contain information concerning the exact order in which
the material would have been organized in the edition.
As is clear from the graph, Rhees’s plan is substantially different from the
actual publication programme and from von Wright’s unpublished edition.
Unlike them, this edition would have brought together material from 1929,
early 1930s and from 1950–1951, with the explicit aim at illustrating certain
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 255

FIGURE 10.6: Source-graph: Rush Rhees’s plan for a Suhrkamp edition of On

Certainty (1970). © Lassi Jakola.

temporal continuities in Wittgenstein’s thought. In evaluating this editorial

plan, one has to remember that Rhees’s editorial starting point was
substantially different from Anscombe’s and von Wright’s. He had not
actively taken part in the earlier discussions concerning Wittgenstein’s
last writings. OC had already been published, and the format given to
him was Suhrkamp’s preference for a semi-popular ‘introductory’ volume
to Wittgenstein’s thought. Within these parameters, Rhees’s solution was
essentially to present the texts in a novel way, which would bring forth
the thematic continuities he had identified in Wittgenstein’s thought. The
fact that his edition would have been preceded by a slightly longer
Introduction and not merely by an Editors’ preface, also sets this publication
plan apart from Anscombe’s and von Wright’s editions.

3.4. Three approaches to making Wittgenstein available

Let us sum up the main discoveries of the historical excursion. As we have
seen, Elizabeth Anscombe wanted to present Wittgenstein’s work from
1949 to 1951 as a series of novel, thematic contributions to specific
philosophical topics. In contrast to this approach, Rush Rhees suggested
highlighting ‘diachronic’ continuities in Wittgenstein’s thought by presenting
On Certainty side-by-side with selections from Wittgenstein’s earlier work.
And while von Wright maintained that Wittgenstein’s late work on
psychological concepts constitutes a link between the Philosophical
256 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Investigations and On Certainty, his 1967–1968 edition presented

‘synchronically’ all the main topics of Wittgenstein’s last writings in one
single book with a neutral title.
These three editorial perspectives to Wittgenstein’s late notebooks reflect,
I believe, characteristically the three literary executors’ differing views to
editing Wittgenstein.67 Von Wright’s perspective reflects his historical and
philological interest in Wittgenstein’s Nachlass and an editorial approach,
in which the primary concern is making Wittgenstein’s work available.
Anscombe’s programme, on the other hand, offers a bulk of Wittgenstein’s
late work in a format that introduces the late Wittgenstein as a contributor
to ongoing disputes in philosophy. While this way of organizing materials
may be text-critically problematic, On Certainty has been widely read and
provided many generations of philosophers with a convenient access to
Wittgenstein’s latest period. It may well be that considerations of this kind
influenced editorial choices at the time.68 And finally, Rhees thought that,
relying on his deep knowledge of the Nachlass and on his understanding of
the development of Wittgenstein’s philosophy, he could compile and
introduce an edition that makes some latent philosophical connections
patent. In this respect, his proposal seems to be motivated by a similar
attitude to editing that resulted in Philosophische Grammatik (1969).69

4. RHEESIAN AND VON WRIGHTIAN CORRECTIVES:

THE THEMATIC DIVISION REVISITED
One may certainly find several points of criticisms in both Rhees’s and von
Wright’s concrete editorial proposals.70 But disregarding details, the main
editorial points they raise concerning Wittgenstein’s last writings seem to
me both well-motivated and reasonable. I should like to finish this article by
suggesting that they provide us with two useful corrective perspectives to
the picture, which is suggested by the actual (‘Anscombean’) publication
history. Rhees’s suggestions may be used as a warning against the idea
that On Certainty constitutes a brand-new opening in Wittgenstein’s
thought. This ‘Rheesian’ line to Wittgenstein’s latest period has, indeed,
lately been probed by scholars, who have charted the emergence and role
of epistemological themes and discussions on colour in Wittgenstein’s
earlier work.71 It is well-known today that Wittgenstein’s dialogue with
Moore on epistemological issues and on certainty was no novelty of the early
1950s.72 Only after these sorts of philosophico-genetical studies, can we
properly evaluate to what extent Wittgenstein’s late manuscripts constitute
a ‘new’ philosophical opening, as the proponents of the ‘third Wittgenstein’
have suggested.
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 257

On the other hand, von Wright’s suggestions can be used as an antidote to

the idea that Wittgenstein’s late remarks can neatly be ‘compartmentalized’
into thematic pigeonholes, which correspond to disciplinary distinctions
within modern philosophy. It seems to me that von Wright’s perspective has
even more potential to undermine the actual editorial policy than Rhees’s.
While some scholars have criticized the existent editions roughly from a ‘von
Wrightian’ point of view,73 as far as I know, this path has not yet been probed
in the extent and detail that it deserves. Hence, I will conclude this article
with some suggestions concerning von Wright’s perspective.
As far as I can see, von Wright’s perspective invites us to undertake
scholarly activities on various levels: in editorial history, we need to examine
in detail the editors’ classification of remarks in MSS 169–177 into thematic
sections, along with their explicit and implicit grounds for this classification;
on text-critical level, we may, among other things, study and interpret
Wittgenstein’s own editorial marks in the manuscripts and view them in
relation to editor’s likely interpretation of them; or we need to work towards
a probable chronology of remarks – in addition to the rough chronology of
the manuscripts. On an interpretative level, we are invited to articulate the
possible thematic interconnections between Wittgenstein’s individual
remarks that occur in his last writings.
It seems to me that an important contrast between the results of the latter,
interpretative, task and the editors’ policy of isolating longer thematic
sections will soon become apparent. That is: while one surely may classify a
certain remark – or even chains of remarks – as belonging roughly to the
theme of colours, epistemology or philosophy of psychology, many problems
will arise, if one presumes that the notebooks may be divided into longer
sections, within which all the remarks fall into one – and only one – of these
categories. (As we saw above in Section 2.2.3, LW2 actually shows that this
idea cannot be maintained.) Even while a given theme may set the general
tune for a longer set of remarks, within such sets one will often stumble
upon individual remarks that either directly connect to, or at any rate, allude
to other themes. And very often among Wittgenstein’s remarks occur general
observations on philosophy and philosophical problems, which surely are
relevant for various, if not all, thematic contexts. What I am aiming at is this:
the thematic division may be helpful and even natural when looking at and
classifying individual remarks, but it is far too rough to form a general
editorial guideline: it will serve as a heuristic device at best. Wittgenstein’s
thought simply does not follow, thematically, the logic of yes-or-no and
either-or. The thematic classifications within the late notebooks are more
fruitfully studied using a scheme, which allows for extensive overlaps and
gradual thematic transitions. If we want to keep the three main thematic
258 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

FIGURE 10.7: Thematic classifications in MSS 169–177: a proposal. © Lassi Jakola.

categories, such a scheme may be represented in a Venn-diagram, where the

circles indicating sets of remarks falling under a given ‘topic’ overlap.
To illustrate this point, it is best to let Wittgenstein’s philosophical remarks
speak for themselves. The following chain of three consecutive remarks
stems from MS 171, pp. 4–5 and was published in LW2 in 1992. The remarks
are not separated by any editorial marks in the MS. The chain contains a
smooth transition from general observations concerning concepts, via an
observation concerning knowledge of one’s inner thoughts, to the concept
of pretension and imagination:

Our concepts, judgements, reactions never appear in connection with just

a single action, but rather with the whole swirl [Germ, Gewimmel] of
human actions.

Only I know what I am thinking actually means nothing else than: only I
think my own thoughts.
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 259

Can one imagine people who don’t know pretence and to whom one
cannot explain it?
Can one imagine people who cannot lie? – What else would these
people lack? We should probably also imagine that they cannot make
anything up and do not understand things that are made up.
—LW2: 56

This, of course, is not the only passage where thematic divisions and
transitions are not clear-cut. But the quoted passage has the further virtue
of giving us a philosophical reason why thematic compartmentalization
goes against the grain of Wittgenstein’s later thought. As is here illustrated
by the example of pretension – leading directly into certain analogies with
the phenomena of lying and making things up –, our concepts simply have
various connections in the complex Gewimmel of human life and action.
This surely was one reason why Wittgenstein thought that, in philosophy,
‘the very nature of investigation’ compels one to ‘travel criss-cross in every
direction over a wide field of thought’ (PI, Preface). Indeed, the thematic
orientation chosen as the publication format for Wittgenstein’s last writings
does not very much respect this observation, which guided the composition
of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations – the only work from his later
period, which he painstakingly edited, revised, reorganized and almost
published.

APPENDIX. THE REMARKS FROM MS 169–177

PRINTED IN VERMISCHTE BEMERKUNGEN (1977)
Twenty-five remarks from MSS 169–177 have been included in Vermischte
Bemerkungen (1977). In addition, two remarks selected for VB from MS 138
appear also in MS 169, even though the former MS is the direct source.
I have included these two remarks in the list, below, but have not numbered
them. Out of the total 25 remarks, 19 (76%) have been indicated with the
vertical-line siglum |[remark]| in Wittgenstein’s hand, whereas the remaining
six (24%) have not. This fact strongly suggests, that, while von Wright took
this siglum as a ‘symptom’ of a remark being of general nature, he based his
final selection on various other considerations, too, all of which are not
exclusively textual. This is in line with the interpretation of this siglum as
signifying separability from the immediate MS context, but not ‘generality’
in von Wright’s sense. In the following table, I have listed the sources for
each remark from MSS 169–177, which has been published in VB, also
indicating the use of the vertical-line siglum and the immediate context of
the remark in the manuscripts:
260 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

TABLE 10.1: The remarks from MS 169–177 published in Vermischte

Bemerkungen.

Nr. MS Page Remark & siglum Published Context Nota bene

169 26v–27r |Das Verhalten von VB 1994, Between The
Schriftstellern . . .| p. 151, via LW2, immediate
MS 138, p. 18.474 source for
p. 3a. and 18.5. VB is MS
= LSPP2, 138, this is
p. 31.6 an earlier
and 31.7. version of
the
remark.
27v In den Tälern der VB 1994, Between The
Dummheit . . . p. 153, via LW2, immediate
MS 138, p. 18.5 and source for
p.11a 18.6 = VB is MS
LSPP2, 138, this is
p. 31.7 and an earlier
32.1. version of
the
remark.
1 169 58v |Wenn das VB 1994, Between
Christentum die p. 149. LW2,
Wahrheit ist . . .| p. 37.1 and
37.2 =
LSPP2,
p. 53.1 and
53.2.
2 62v Kultur ist eine VB 1994, Between No siglum;
Ordnungsregel. . . . p.149. LW2, remark in
p. 39.4 VB but not
and 39.5 = in LW2
LSPP2,
p. 55.7 and
55.8.
3 173 17r |Es ist nicht VB 1994, Between
unerhört, daß . . .| p.157. RoC III §69
and §70.
4 35r |Ich glaube nicht, VB 1994, Between 4–9 are
daß man p.158. LW2, successive
Shakespeare . . .| p. 63.5 and remarks in
63.6 = the MS.
LSPP2,
p.87.7 and
87.8.
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 261

5 35r |Ich könnte VB 1994, Between 4–9 are

Shakespeare nur p.158. LW2, successive
anstaunen . . .| p. 63.5 and remarks in
63.6 = the MS.
LSPP2,
p.87.7 and
87.8.
6 35r–v |Ich habe ein VB 1994, Between 4–9 are
tiefes Mißtraun p.158. LW2, successive
gegen . . .| p. 63.5 and remarks in
63.6 = the MS.
LSPP2,
p.87.7 and
87.8.
7 35v |Es ist nicht, als VB 1994, Between 4–9 are
ob S. Typen von p.158. LW2, successive
Menschen . . .| p. 63.5 and remarks in
63.6 = the MS.
LSPP2,
p.87.7 and
87.8.
8 35v |‘Der große Hertz VB 1994, Between 4–9 are
Beethovens’ . . .| p.158–9. LW2, successive
p. 63.5 and remarks in
63.6 = the MS.
LSPP2,
p.87.7 and
87.8.
9 35v–36r |Der Dichter VB 1994, Between 4–9 are
kann eigenlich p.158–9. LW2, successive
nicht von sich p. 63.5 and remarks in
sagen . . .| 63.6 = the MS.
LSPP2,
p.87.7 and
87.8.
10 69r–v Ein und dasselbe VB 1994, = RoC No siglum,
Thema hat in p.159 and III, §213 remark
Moll einen RoC III, both in VB
andern §213. and RoC
Charakter . . .
11 75v |Ich glaube nicht, VB 1994, Between 11–13 are
daß p.159. RoC III, successive
Shakespeare . . .| §253 and remarks in
§254. the MS.
12 75v |Er konnte sich VB 1994, Between 11–13 are
auch nicht selbst p.159. RoC III, successive
als Prophet . . .| §253 and remarks in
§254. the MS.
262 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Nr. MS Page Remark & siglum Published Context Nota bene

13 76r |Ich glaube, um VB 1994, Between 11–13 are
einen Dichter zu p.159– RoC III, successive
genießen . . .| 160. §253 and remarks in
§254. the MS.
14 92r–93r Wenn der an Gott VB 1994, = RoC III, No siglum,
glaubende um sich p.160 and §317, remark
sieht & fragt . . . RoC III, between both in VB
§317 LW2, and RoC
p. 74.4 and but not in
74.5 = LW2 /
LSPP2, LSPP2.
100.3 and
100.4.
15 174 1v Ein Gottesbeweis VB 1994, Between 15 and 16
sollte eigentlich p. 161. LW2, successive
etwas sein, p. 81.3 and remarks in
wodurch man 81.4 = the MS.
sich . . . LSPP2, No
p.109.4 siglum,
and 109.5. remark in
VB but not
in LW2
16 2r Er ist dann etwa VB 1994, Before 15 and 16
ähnlich dem p. 161. LW2, successive
Begriff p. 81.4 = remarks in
‘Gegenstand’. Between the MS.
LSPP2, No siglum,
p.109.4 remark
and 109.5. in VB but
not in
LW2
17 5r |Ich kann VB 1994, Between 17–19
Shakespeare darum p. 161. LW2, successive
nicht p. 83.6 remarks in
verstehen . . .| and 7 = the MS.
LSPP2,
p.112.2
and 112.3.
18 5r |Mir kommt vor, VB 1994, Between 17–19
seine Stücke p. 161–2. LW2, successive
seien . . .| p. 83.6 remarks in
and 7 = the MS.
LSPP2,
p.112.2
and 112.3.
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 263

19 5v |Eine Zeit VB 1994, Between 17–19

mißversteht die p. 162. LW2, p. successive
andere . . .| 83.6 and remarks in
7== the MS.
LSPP2,
p.112.2
and 112.3.
20 7v Wie Gott den VB 1994, Between No siglum,
Menschen p. 162. LW2, remark in
beurteilt . . . p. 85.2 and VB but not
85.3 = in LW2
LSPP2,
p.114.2
and 114.2.
21 8r |Sieh Dir die VB 1994, Between
Menschen p. 162. LW2,
an: . . .| p. 85.3 and
85.4 =
LSPP2,
p.114.3
and 114.4.
22 10r |Die Philosophie VB 1994, Between
hat keinen p. 162–3. LW2, p.
Fortschritt 86.5 and
gemacht? . . .| 87.1 =
LSPP2,
p.116.1
and 116.2
23 175 56r |Gott kann mir VB 1994, Between
sagen: ‘Ich richte p. 163. OC §359
Dich aus Deinem and §360.
eigenen
Munde. . . .’|
24 63v |Ist der Sinn des VB 1994, Between
Glaubens an den p. 163. OC §385
Teufel der, . . .| and §386.
25 176 55v |Man kann sich VB 1994, Between
nicht beurteilen, p. 163. OC §534
wenn man sich and §535.
in den
Kategorien . . .|

Now, since the bulk of the manuscripts, from which these remarks have been
extracted, has been published in the three thematic editions, it is interesting
to have a look at how the editors dealt with the remarks published in VB. As
a rule, the remarks have been published exclusively in VB. There are only
264 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

two exceptions to this rule: nos. 10 and 14, which have been made available
both in VB and in RoC III. The reason for this is understandable: these two
remarks are among the six remarks (2, 10, 14–16 and 20), which were not
marked with the vertical-line siglum in the MSS. Hence Anscombe, who
edited RoC in the mid-1970s – as VB had not yet been published – did not
treat them as being separable from the immediate MS context (unlike nos. 3
and 11–13, which were so marked and, accordingly, omitted from RoC).
The four remaining remarks which are not marked with the vertical-line
siglum (2, 15, 16 and 20), on the other hand, occur in sections, which were
included in LW2, edited by von Wright and Nyman and published in 1992.
Allegedly because these remarks had already been included in VB earlier, the
editors decided to omit them from LW2. The issue is further complicated by
the fact that von Wright also decided to omit no. 14 from LW2: this remark,
occurring in the section which is a common source for RoC and LW2, had
already been published by Anscombe in RoC. Consequently, no. 14 is
considered ‘general’ and ‘detachable’ by von Wright – but not so by
Anscombe. This is a clear case where the editor’s judgement has led into
different decisions, as no basis for the decision is available in the manuscripts.
Interestingly, in the early 1980s, as LW1 and LW2 were being prepared,
Anscombe wrote to von Wright that it seems to her ‘quite unjustified to
remove from them any remarks that are in the Vermischte Bemerkungen, for
[. . .] obvious enough reasons’.75
On the basis of these examples, it is clear that extracting the six remarks
not marked with the vertical-line siglum for VB was a more substantial
editorial choice than extracting the rest, since the decision has no basis in the
MS material and is, thus, based solely on the editor’s judgement concerning
the remark’s ‘detachability’ or ‘general nature’. Admittedly, this decision
may be innocent in itself: VB is, after all, a selection from the Nachlaß by
G.H. von Wright. But the decision becomes questionable if we examine its
repercussions with respect to the other editions: von Wright’s decision to
extract the remarks for VB seems to have led him directly into omitting them
from LW2. And surely, the decision to omit the remarks from LW2 is
scholarly problematic, since no basis for this decision is available in the
manuscripts.76

ARCHIVAL MATERIALS
1. The National Library of Finland. (NLF)
COLL. 714, 11–12: The correspondence between G.H. von Wright and
Elizabeth Anscombe.
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 265

COLL. 714, 142–148: The correspondence between G.H. von Wright and
Norman Malcolm.
COLL. 714, 200–201: The correspondence between G.H. von Wright and
Rush Rhees.

2. Von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives, University of Helsinki (WWA)

Von Wright materials:
Wri-FC-004 and Wri-FC-006: The correspondence between G.H. von
Wright and Rush Rhees.
Wri-FC-016: The correspondence between G.H. von Wright and Blackwell
publishing (including H. Schollick and S. Chambers).
Wri-SF-064-c: G.H. von Wright: ‘Wittgenstein on Certainty’, a 15-paged
originally clipped typescript with minor handwritten corrections. (1970). A
typescript draft of von Wright 1972, 15pp.

Wittgenstein materials:
Witt-AM-F1. Described by GHvW as ‘Materials for the Last Writings on the
Philosophy of Psychology. With GHvW’s sketches of a preface and comments
on the manuscripts. The book as then projected was never published.’
Witt-AM-H9. Described by GHvW as ‘Revisions and corrections of
Wittgenstein-texts. Plan (abandoned) for a revised edition.’

NOTES
1. In this article, I use the abbreviations OC, RoC, LW2 and VB in referring to
these editions.
2. The position of MS 169 within the last writings may be disputed, since the first
half of this manuscript is related to MS 137 and MS 138, written in 1948–
1949. The scholars disagree whether this relation is that of a preliminary study
or a later revision. For the first option, see Rothhaupt (1996: 369–370); for the
latter, see van Gennip (2003: 130); and for elaboration, Rogers (2011: 47–48).
The dating of this part of MS 169 to either late 1948 or early-to-late 1949
depends on the answer given to this question.
3. Any reader of Wittgenstein should bear in mind that through his philosophical
career, the basic unit of Wittgenstein’s writing was a philosophical remark, and that,
besides writing and revising these remarks, a major part of his compositional work
consisted in reorganizing his remarks. Thus, each remark we find in Wittgenstein’s
more advanced works typically has a long text-genetical pre-history in various
earlier writings. MSS 169–177 is first-draft material precisely in the sense that, by
and large, the remarks do not have a such earlier history in any of Wittgenstein’s
writings. Schulte (1993: 2–4), in a description of Wittgenstein’s typical working
method, distinguishes four stages: (i) first draft – notebooks, (ii) revised hand-
written versions in notebooks of larger format (‘Bände’ or ‘Volumes’), (iii) a
266 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

selection of remarks from (ii) dictated to a typist, and (iv) a revised and reorganized
typescript on the basis of stage (iii).
4. See von Wright (1982: 46) and Pichler (1994: 138–141). The dates of the items
have been carefully discussed by Rothhaupt (1996: 365–387), and more
recently by Rogers (2011: 46–81).
5. Quoted after von Wright (1982: 165). Concerning von Wright’s ambivalent
relation to these issues, see section 3.2.
6. See Moyal-Sharrock (ed.) (2004a), in which especially Moyal-Sharrock (2004b:
1–6; 43–63) and Stroll (2004: 22) argue that the last writings and, in particular,
On Certainty mark a new stage in Wittgenstein’s thought.
7. Moyal-Sharrock and Brenner (2005: 1).
8. Personal remarks have mostly been removed; not all remarks that could be
classified as ‘general’ and as natural candidates for VB have been published.
In addition to omitting some remarks, the editors have omitted practically all
the variant readings that appear in the manuscripts.
9. In this article, I use the term ‘section’ or ‘thematic section’ technically to refer
to these thematically delimited longer stretches of remarks extracted from the
MSS.
10. RoC part I being an exception, see section 2.2.2.
11. Among the posthumous publications, RFM, the two volumes of RPP and
LW1 come closest to the thematic orientation followed in the publications of
the last writings.
12. In the German version, the claim is even more pronounced: ‘All dieses war von
Wittgenstein als nicht zum Text gehörig gekennzeichnet’. Interestingly, in the
Preface to LW2, no direct claims are made that Wittgenstein himself warranted
the thematic division; von Wright and Nyman (1992, x) simply state that
Wittgenstein’s remarks from 1949–1951 ‘can be divided into three parts’.
13. Compare also von Wright (2001a: 151–152): ‘Under sina två sista månader i
Cambridge skrev han vad som skulle bli ett av hans mest kändä och lästä verk,
kallat Über Gewissheit av oss förvaltare av hans litterära kvarlåtenskap’. This
passage seems to imply that the work was already there, and it was only named
by the editors, who published it. Many later scholars have presented the issue in
similar fashion. Even quite recently, Christian Erbacher (2015: 186) notes that
the main editorial issue in creating On Certainty and Remarks on Colour was
‘not selection but rather giving them a name’).
14. See e.g. Stern (1996), Westergaard (2019) and Schulte (unpublished MS), and
Section 4 below.
15. Van Gennip (2003: 129). Examples of chronological and the editors’ thematic
criteria are given in the discussions concerning RoC and LW2 in Section 2. A
more detailed examination of Wittgenstein’s use of sigla in these notebooks
remains a desideratum.
16. E.g. Pichler (1993), Rothhaupt (1996: 368) and Rogers (2011: 76).
17. This form of representation is potentially misleading as Wittgenstein may
sometimes have filled several notebooks simultaneously, or have returned to
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 267

an older, partly used notebooks at a later stage. Cf. Rogers (2011: 46–47). The
date-row is, thus, not exclusively chronologically ordered, but rather gives
information on the date of the MS – or part of the MS – which is listed in the
row above the date.
18. While §1–65 of On Certainty correspond to remarks taken from MS 172,
§66–192 to those from MS 174, the final division at §299 is not based on MS
division but on chronological and biographical considerations. The first half of
MS 175, i.e. §193–299, was probably written in autumn 1950 (note the date
23.9.50 on p. 30r). In late 1950 and early 1951 Wittgenstein probably did not
write down any philosophical remarks. After moving to Cambridge in February
1951, and after his hormonal cancer treatments had stopped, he surprisingly
found himself in better mood for writing. Indeed, on p. 35r of MS 175 begins
a continuous set of dated remarks (starting 10.3.1951), which runs until the
end of the notebook and continues directly on p. 22r of MS 176 and further
into MS 177. The final date in MS 177 is 27.4.1951. On dating MS 176, 1–22r,
see note 20 below.
19. That thematic considerations overrule temporal ones, is especially clear from
pp. 46v–51v of MS 176, which was later published in LW2: this section,
separated in the MS with horizontal lines, forms a part of the temporally
continuous set of dated remarks begun on p. 35r of MS 175. That temporal
considerations, on the other hand, overrule considerations based on MS
division, is clear from the fact that the editors do indicate the temporal division
of remarks, but not the division of the published materials into five separate
manuscripts. See note 18 above.
20. The exact dating of MS 176, 1–22r is a disputed issue. Being a revision of the
material in MS 173, it is certainly the latest of the three parts published in RoC.
This section of the notebook 176 has no dates: the dates start on p. 22r, which
directly continues the set of remarks from the end of MS 175. Probably basing
her opinion on these dates, Anscombe categorically dates this part ‘Cambridge
in March 1951’. But it seems likely that the first half of MS 176 was written
earlier: see Rogers (2011: 69–73), who supplies many arguments for a date in
summer 1950 (compare, however, also Rothhaupt’s more aporetic discussion in
his [1996: 386–387]). Rogers’ (ibid.: 74) arguments support von Wright’s
(WWA, Witt-AM-F1) conjecture that the revision was made in June 1950, when
Wittgenstein was staying at his house in Cambridge. However, a date in early
autumn 1950 is also possible. In any case, MS 176 seems to be an excellent
example of a notebook, which was used by Wittgenstein in two temporally
distinct periods. See also note 17 above.
21. The ‘section break’ occurs between III §130 and §131 (see the table in Figure
10.2). The published text gives an impression that §131 would occur directly
after §130: in reality, 16 manuscript pages separate these two remarks.
22. There was some disagreement between the editors whether they should publish
Wittgenstein’s late remarks on colour as a short ‘essay’, consisting of Part I only,
or as a more comprehensive collection which includes the material in MS 173,
too. Anscombe preferred having both sets, while von Wright favoured
publishing MS 176 only. See von Wright to Anscombe, 14 September 1967 and
21 September 1968 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12).
268 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

23. One reason may be the lack of concordance in the original publication of RoC.
A comparative concordance of RoC I and III is given in Rothhaupt (1996:
457–460). The early Finnish translation of the book (1982) contains a
concordance by Heikki Nyman.
24. That the book came out so late was an unfortunate consequence of Elizabeth
Anscombe’s quarrels with Blackwell and Suhrkamp concerning their publication
policies and royalties: the volume was ready already in early 1980s when LW1
was published. The book’s preface is dated ‘1982, 1991’.
25. The German edition contains a remark from MS 174, 1v ‘Wenn Faust sagt . . .’,
which is not included in LW2. The editors do not indicate that the remark has
been omitted in LW2 and added to LSPP2.
26. RPP1 (1980a), RPP2 (1980b) and LW1 (1982).
27. This section is marked with horizontal lines in the manuscript.
28. The overlap is announced by the editors in an explanatory footnote. The
overlap is indicated in Figure 10.3.
29. This supports van Gennip’s (2003: 129) thesis, made concerning On Certainty,
that the editors did not merely follow Wittgenstein’s own sigla.
30. This collection and its background is discussed in more detail by Bernt
Österman in his contribution to this book: on the genre of ‘general remarks’,
see Section 2 of his article. See also Erbacher (2017) and Rothhaupt (2017).
31. Unlike the original 1977 publication, the revised edition by Pichler (1994) gives
dates and references to MS pages, and contains useful indices.
32. See von Wright’s (1977) Vorwort to VB.
33. Joachim Schulte (1993: 6) characterized this siglum as indicating that ‘the
remark in question does not belong in this context’, adding that ‘many of these
remarks are of a general nature (a number of them have been printed in Culture
and Value)’. In 1996, Rothhaupt (1996: 330), accepted this interpretation; in
his later work, he seems to have revised his opinion and considers the vertical-
siglum remarks a corpus of remarks on their own (Rothhaupt 2017: 121–2). It
seems to me that the use of this siglum merits further research.
34. For a list of remarks published in VB, with information on the sigla, see Appendix.
Some remarks marked with the vertical-line siglum from MS 172 remain
unpublished, while some have been published in other editions. A good example of
the latter category is RoC I § 57 = RoC III § 261: Anscombe has marked the
vertical-line siglum with square brackets. This remark may give us important hints
regarding the significance of the siglum: the remark, occurring in the context of
Wittgenstein’s reflections on colour concepts, concerns sensations. On the other
hand, the remark is clearly grammatical (i.e. philosophical), not a ‘general’ remark
in von Wright’s sense. Hence, here the siglum primarily seems to signify some sort
of separation from the immediate context. However, this remark, occurring
originally in MS 173 p.77v–78r, was included in Wittgenstein own revision of these
remarks in MS 176, p.13v–14r. The siglum appears in both versions. Had
Wittgenstein thought that the remark is irrelevant, he probably would not have
recycled it again in the same context of colour-remarks. Hence separability from
the context surely does not (always) imply irrelevance for the context.
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 269

35. See Appendix.

36. Westergaard (2019) has recently argued that in the case of the first pages of MS
174, the exclusion of the remarks printed in VB from OC is philosophically
significant. Interestingly, these remarks do not have the typical siglum |[remark]|.
37. For a discussion why the editors may have favoured this ‘naked’ editorial
approach, see Wallgren’s and Backström’s contributions in this volume.
38. With the exception of some items (at least MS 172) that were discovered later,
Wittgenstein’s last writings were among the first manuscripts from Wittgenstein’s
Nachlass that were known to his literary executors, see von Wright (1982: 37).
To some extent, they were also studied from fairly early on: see Paul (2007: 294),
who recalls that he studied Wittgenstein’s late notes on colour as early as 1952
and drafted a translation of the remarks on knowledge in the same year. Evidently
Anscombe, too had read these notebooks. And already in his ‘Biographical sketch’
of Ludwig Wittgenstein from 1954, G. H. von Wright (1954: 20) publicly
announced the plans of publishing a selection from these materials.
39. Anscombe to von Wright, 13 September 1967 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12).
40. Von Wright to Anscombe, 14 September 1967 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12).
41. I do not know, however, how the word ‘always’ in the passage should be
interpreted. As argued above, there are no clear indications that such a position
would have been formulated earlier than in 1967. On the other hand, Anscombe
seems to have read Wittgenstein’s late remarks already in the early 1950s.
42. The preface and the translator are mentioned in Anscombe to von Wright, no
date 1969 (between letters dated 13 March and 7 April). In his answer of 7
April 1969, von Wright sends some corrections. Interestingly, it was von Wright
who suggested that the editors inform the reader that the numbering of the
remarks stems from the editors. (NLF, vWC 714.11–12.)
43. Von Wright to Schollick, 29 May 1968 (WWA, Wri-FC-016).
44. See WWA: Witt-Am-F1. I have recently made available the materials preserved
of this edition in Jakola 2021, which contains some necessary overlap with
this section. The preserved materials include (i) two versions of von Wright’s
Preface, (ii) a sheet of paper with a quotation from TS 222 (possibly a motto),
(iii) a table of contents and (iv) some loose pages from the edition.
45. The temporally continuous chain of remarks in MS 175, 176 and 177 forming
an exception: it would have been included as one long section, exactly as in the
published version of On Certainty.
46. OED, lemma ’scrappy’.
47. In 1976 Anscombe told von Wright that she does not want to ‘make any
groupings of the materials’ as they had done in the RFM. (Anscombe to von
Wright, 26 June 1976 [NLF, vWC 714.11–12]). See Section 4 of Backström’s
article in this volume for an elaboration of Anscombe’s ‘minimal’ approach to
editing – an approach which, however, is not easy to reconcile with her
preference of producing thematic monographs from Wittgenstein’s Nachlass.
48. In 1960s the ‘last writings’ were typically identified by the ‘Notebook-numbers’,
which are written on the cover or on the first page of most of MSS 168–177.
270 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

Unlike von Wright-numbering, this numbering is not chronological and can,

pace Westergaard 2019, hardly stem from Wittgenstein. My guess is that the
numbering was made ad hoc by Anscombe – or somebody close to her – simply
to facilitate reference to these items. This numbering may have been added in
the mid-1950s when these notebooks were photographed.
49. Von Wright to Anscombe, 21 September 1968 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12).
50. Von Wright to Malcolm, 5 March 1969 (NLF, vWC 714.142–148). A similar
remark is made to Anscombe on 10 March 1969 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12).
51. Interestingly, on 29 June 1969, von Wright informs Rhees that he contributed
only little to the Preface and is not satisfied with all what is said in it. See von
Wright to Rhees, 29 June 1969 (WWA, Wri-FC-004).
52. The positive evaluation is evident, e.g. in von Wright’s book Wittgenstein (1982,
10), where he refers to On Certainty as a ‘wonderful little book’ and adds that
it has been ‘widely read and also had a considerable influence’. See also the
beginning of von Wright 1972, discussed in note 55 below.
53. Prof. Lars Hertzberg, who witnessed von Wright deliver his talk in 1970, recalls
that the presentation begun with a reference to ‘holisticity’ of Wittgenstein’s
philosophy: this implies that von Wright, did, indeed, read the quoted
paragraph. (Oral communication on 24 November 2020.)
54. WWA, Wri-SF-064-c.
55. In the published version von Wright (1982: 165) formulates many highly
problematic views. (1) He states that, from late 1949 on, Wittgenstein wrote
‘almost exclusively about knowledge and certainty, commenting on G. E.
Moore’s views’. – On basis of philological and historical data, this claim is not
only misleading but plainly false. (2) He refers to OC as ‘Wittgenstein’s treatise
on certainty’. – But the book can hardly be called a treatise, since it has been
compiled from the Nachlass by the editors. (3) He claims that the last writings
‘possess a thematic unity which makes them almost unique in Wittgenstein’s
whole literary output’. – This claim may be correct, but it may be taken to
imply that the topic of certainty is a new one, and thematically clearly separate
from the rest. Indeed, von Wright also suggests that (4) OC ‘can be said to
summarize some of the novelties in his thinking’. – This suggestion, also
potentially misleading (c.f. Rhees’s perspective), has later often been quoted by
the proponents of the ‘third Wittgenstein’ in support of their views.
56. One aspect that may have influenced von Wright’s views is that he tended to
view the literary executors’ work as consisting of several ‘rounds’ of publishing
Wittgenstein. (Compare Erbacher 2015.) On the basis of archival materials, it is
evident that, roughly from mid-1960s on, von Wright thought that
Wittgenstein’s Nachlass should eventually be made available as it is (e.g. von
Wright to Anscombe, 2 April 1965 [NLF, vWC 714.11–12]). But he also
thought that this sort of Gesamtausgabe would be preceded by the first round of
publishing, where the editors would present edited selections from various
periods of Wittgenstein’s work. Interestingly, in von Wright’s later plan for a
revised, semi-critical edition of Wittgenstein’s late notebooks, the idea of
thematic separation is dropped: according to the plan, the late notebooks are to
be published as they are, with no thematic or other reorganization whatsoever
EDITORIAL APPROACHES 271

(WWA, Witt-AM-H9). This perspective of several ‘rounds’ may partly explain

von Wright’s ambivalence concerning OC and the fact that he, at times (i.e. in
round 1), supported publications that did not quite fill his own historical and
philological standards (to be followed in round 2).
57. Rhees’s proposals have been discussed in Peter Westergaard’s 2017 and, more
fully, in his contribution to this volume. On Rhees’ approach, see also
Wallgren’s and Solin’s contributions in this volume.
58. Erbacher (2015: 186); compare Rhees (2003: 3–5).
59. Rhees to von Wright, 18 June 1969 (WWA, Wri-FC-004).
60. Von Wright to Rhees, 29 June 1969 (WWA: Wri-FC-004): ‘You [i.e. Rhees]
could do what nobody else could accomplish quite satisfactorily, namely place
these last writings of L.W. in their proper setting in relation to the rest of his
work. It would be valuable, if this happened[.]’ – An English translation of
Rhees’s Preface is now available in Rhees (2003: 61–66).
61. Rhees to von Wright, 18 June 1969 (WWA, Wri-FC-004).
62. Rhees to von Wright, 10 March 1970 (WWA, Wri-FC-004).
63. Rhees to von Wright, 19 March 1970, (WWA, Wri-FC-004).
64. An English translation is now available in Rhees (2003: 61–6).
65. Rhees to von Wright, 1 June 1970, (WWA, Wri-FC-004).
66. Rhees’s reasons are discussed in more detail by Peter Westergaard in his
contribution to this volume.
67. See e.g. Erbacher’s (2015: 191) short characterization, which is much in line
with what I propose here.
68. See note 56 concerning von Wright’s attitude.
69. The classical criticism of Rhees’s edition is Kenny (1976). Recently, many
scholars have been more sympathetic to Rhees’s reconstruction work: see e.g.
Paul (2007), Rothhaupt (2011) and Erbacher (2019b).
70. E.g.: Why would the particular writings selected by Rhees be the right ones to
illuminate continuities in Wittgenstein’s thought? Or: If von Wright wanted to
present the topics of Wittgenstein’s late period together, why is his edition still
thematically unbalanced, as it heavily stresses the epistemological sections?
71. Van Gennip (2008) is a well-documented and thorough study of Wittgenstein’s
earlier work on epistemological issues. Already earlier, Josef Rothhaupt (1996)
carefully traced the history of colour-remarks in the whole of Wittgenstein’s
Nachlass. And Rhees’s own notes are now available in Rhees (2003).
72. For Norman Malcolm’s report concerning Wittgenstein’s and G. E. Moore’s
discussion on certainty from 1939, see Citron, ed (2015a).
73. David Stern (1996: 447) criticized the idea of On Certainty as a work of
Wittgenstein and stressed that printing the material apart from other writings
included in the source notebooks was an editorial decision. Joachim Schulte
(unpublished MS: 28) argues that the thematic division has ‘little or nothing to
do with Wittgenstein’s own understanding of his way of doing philosophy’.
And Peter Westergaard (2019: 270) has pointed out that the editors’ approach
272 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

has many unintended consequences as it, e.g. presents the separate works as a
fairly finished pieces of philosophical writing and obstructs attempts to ‘trace
the frequently implicit linkages between the various topics addressed in the
notebooks’.
74. The remarks printed in LW2 and LSPP2 have no running numbering. To
facilitate reference to individual remarks in these editions, I adopt the
convention of using decimals to indicate remarks on a given page: by writing
‘LW2, p. 18.1’ I refer to the first remark that begins on p. 18 of LW2. Note that,
if some remark begins on a previous page, it is referred to by the page number
(and decimal) of the previous page.
75. Anscombe to von Wright, 3 March 1980 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12).
76. The research on this contribution has been funded by the Finnish Academy
project The Creation of Wittgenstein, directed by Prof. Thomas Wallgren. An
early draft was presented in a gathering of the Von Wright and Wittgenstein
seminar at the University of Helsinki in November 2020. Besides having
benefitted from various discussions with the members of the research project,
thanks are due to Florian Franken-Figueiredo, Peter Hacker, Anthony Kenny,
Alois Pichler, Joachim Schulte and Peter Westergaard for comments and
feedback on the penultimate version. I thank Anita von Wright-Grönberg,
Benedict von Wright (the copyright holders of G.H. von Wright’s unpublished
writings and correspondence), Volker Munz (the copyright holder of Rush
Rhees’s letters kept in Helsinki) and Mary C. Gormally (the copyright holder of
Elizabeth Anscombe’s writings), who have kindly allowed me to quote from
unpublished letters and archive materials.
 CHAPTER ELEVEN

Art’s Part in
Wittgenstein’s Philosophy
HANNE APPELQVIST

1. INTRODUCTION
In his Foreword to the 1977 edition of Vermischte Bemerkungen, Georg
Henrik von Wright writes: ‘In the manuscript material left by Wittgenstein
there are numerous notes which do not belong directly with his philosophical
works although they are scattered among the philosophical texts’ (CV ixe).
Vermischte Bemerkungen is a selection of such notes, collected and arranged
by von Wright from Wittgenstein’s manuscripts and labelled by him as
‘aphorisms’ (CV ixe). Themes that fall under this allegedly less philosophical
category of remarks include culture, religion and the arts. While von Wright
readily acknowledges the difficulty of separating such notes from
Wittgenstein’s manuscript material, he is nonetheless committed – as an
editor of Wittgenstein’s Nachlass as well as in his own work – to a distinction
between philosophy proper and remarks on subjects of a more ‘general sort,
such as questions about art or about religion’ (CV ixe). According to him,
such remarks may at best provide an important insight into the cultural
context from which Wittgenstein’s philosophy arose, but do not contribute
to his philosophical enterprise.1
Von Wright’s editorial approach reflects the ethos of analytic philosophy
that standardly takes the arts to have little, if any, relevance for the problems
of such core areas of philosophy as metaphysics, epistemology or logic.
In the Anglo-American setting, philosophy itself is typically seen as

273
274 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

compartmentalized into more or less well-defined pockets that deal with

their own specific issues and topics. Aesthetics, the field of philosophy that is
perhaps most closely related to the arts and culture, is treated as a relatively
narrow investigation of art, beauty and taste. As a result, aesthetics is not
seen as interestingly connected with the hard core of philosophy, let alone
capable of making a philosophical contribution to that core on its own terms.
In my view, this very conception of philosophy in general and aesthetics in
particular has played a significant role in the reception of Wittgenstein’s
work. It has also significantly influenced the way in which the literary
executors approached Wittgenstein’s Nachlass, as exemplified by von
Wright’s way of treating Wittgenstein’s remarks on culture, religion and the
arts.
The way in which Wittgenstein’s Nachlass has been made available to
readers and the resulting reception of Wittgenstein’s work against the
analytic conception of philosophy has a long shadow. An illustrative example
of the reception of Wittgenstein’s remarks on aesthetics and the arts is
Severin Schroeder’s paper ‘Wittgenstein on Aesthetics’, published in the
2017 Blackwell Companion to Wittgenstein. Schroeder writes in summary of
his entry as follows:

One of the points that will, I hope, emerge from the following presentation
is that the lack of sustained work on philosophical aesthetics in
Wittgenstein’s writings is not entirely accidental. For on his view, aesthetic
issues are not susceptible of an abstract philosophical treatment. They
belong to art criticism, rather than philosophy, and what is more, their
discussion can only be addressed to an audience sharing a specific cultured
taste.
—Schroeder 2017, 6122

Schroeder is surely right to claim that we do not find a ‘sustained work on

philosophical aesthetics’ in Wittgenstein’s Nachlass, if by this we mean a
treatise on the ontology of art, say, or a systematic argument on the nature
of artistic expression or principles of taste. I also agree with Schroeder’s
diagnosis that this is no accident. However, in my reading, the reason is not
that Wittgenstein believed that aesthetic issues do not belong to philosophy,
as suggested by Schroeder. After all, already in the Tractatus, logic and ethics,
which Wittgenstein famously equates with aesthetics, are suggested to stand
on a par, as indicated by Wittgenstein’s way of characterizing both as
‘transcendental’ (TLP 6.13, 6.421; cf. NB 77). In his later work, in turn,
Wittgenstein compares work on philosophy to work in aesthetics and refers
to aesthetic investigation as grammatical, a term marking the preferred
ART’S PART IN WITTGENSTEIN’S PHILOSOPHY 275

philosophical method of his later period (Wittgenstein 2016, 9:32;

Wittgenstein 1966, II: 17–18).
In my reading, the main reason for the lack of sustained treatment of
aesthetic issues in Wittgenstein’s corpus is that Wittgenstein’s own
understanding of aesthetics does not correspond to the Anglo-American
conception of the field. The very fact, noted with surprise by von Wright,
that Wittgenstein’s remarks on aesthetics and the arts surface intermittently
in his writing and in the context of other topics, reflects an understanding of
aesthetics as intimately interconnected with philosophy in general. This is
because, for Wittgenstein, aesthetic issues are not issues that could be neatly
isolated from questions he is primarily concerned with, such as the
constitution of meaning, the nature of linguistic understanding, or the nature
of normativity.
For Wittgenstein’s work is not simply the fruit of early analytic philosophy.
As pointed out by many, Wittgenstein’s work has deep roots also in the
German tradition of philosophy.3 Moreover, aesthetics and the arts have a
much stronger philosophical relevance in the German tradition than they do
in anglophone thought. When reading the work of such thinkers as
Schleiermacher, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Schelling, Nietzsche, Gadamer and
Adorno, we find remarks on the arts (and music in particular) scattered
among discussions that do not, at least to the analytically trained philosopher,
seem to have anything to do with aesthetics narrowly conceived. That the
arts are capable of contributing to philosophy and doing so on their own,
specifically artistic or aesthetic terms is a leitmotif of the German tradition.
This tradition originates in the work of Alexander Baumgarten and Immanuel
Kant, who adopted Baumgarten’s seminal idea that logic and aesthetics are
two mutually complementing ways of approaching reality.4 In this tradition,
aesthetics is understood broadly as the investigation of the domain of
sensibility, which is required for the possibility of conceptually determined
cognition and manifests itself distinctly in non-conceptual aesthetic
judgments. Hence, while aesthetics includes the study of art, genius, as well
as aesthetic judgments and their justification (all themes that figure in
Wittgenstein’s remarks included in Culture and Value, the English edition of
Vermischte Bemerkungen), it is also integrally embedded in Kant’s discussion
on how to apply a conceptual rule to a sensible particular and in his treatment
of ethics and religion.
While Kant’s philosophy undoubtedly belongs to the shared history of
both analytic and continental philosophy, its reception has been somewhat
different in the two traditions. Those commentators of Wittgenstein’s work,
like Peter Hacker and David Pears, who have identified a connection between
Kant and Wittgenstein, have thus focused on Kant’s First Critique with less
276 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

emphasis on Kant’s own attempt to provide a unified picture of how logic

and aesthetics (in the broad sense of the term) belong together (see Hacker
1986; Pears 1987). Yet, for Kant himself, the ultimate goal of philosophy was
to address the wealth of human experience in a sense wider than mere
discursive cognition allows. Accordingly, for him, a complete picture of what
a human being is requires an account of not just knowledge but also of
intentional explanation relevant for human action, pure judgments of taste,
and the purposiveness of nature for our moral goals. This latter side of
Kant’s work is particularly dominant in his Critique of the Power of Judgment,5
which has remained less central in the analytic world or isolated into the
compartmentalized discussions of aestheticians.6
In spite of the disparity he sees between Wittgenstein’s work on philosophy
of language and his remarks on art, culture and religion, von Wright
acknowledges that Wittgenstein’s remarks on the arts are not limited to those
that have found their way to Culture and Value (CV ixe). In fact, such remarks
surface at key moments of Wittgenstein’s treatment of topics that belong to
the presumably hard core of his philosophical work. Already in the Tractatus,
Wittgenstein explains the central Tractarian notion of logical form by reference
to music (TLP 2.0131, 3.141, 4.014). And the key question of his later work,
namely, the understanding of language, is elucidated by appeal to the non-
conceptual understanding of a musical theme (PI §§ 184, 527, 531). In this
paper, I will argue that Wittgenstein’s remarks on music and the other arts are
not simply mere illustrations of an otherwise independent philosophical
account. Instead, Wittgenstein ought to be read against the background of the
German tradition with respect to aesthetics and the arts. This is to say that the
recurring analogy between language and music in Wittgenstein’s work is meant
to contribute to problems at the very core of philosophy and do so specifically
by revealing the limitations of discursive thought.
In the following, I will outline the ways in which Wittgenstein appeals to
music in relation to the supposedly hard logical or grammatical core of his
work. The first set of examples is from the Tractatus, the second from the
first part of the Philosophical Investigations. The examples thus represent
Wittgenstein’s own approach to the arts in the context of texts that he
himself prepared for publication. After discussing these examples, I will
conclude by comparing them with an example drawn from Culture and
Value. My overall goal is to show that what in Wittgenstein’s work has been
perceived as idiosyncratic and superfluous references to the arts actually
contributes to Wittgenstein’s philosophy when placed in the right
philosophical context. I also hope that this exercise will provide a new
perspective for the re-evaluation of von Wright’s methodological approach
in his editorial work on Culture and Value.7
ART’S PART IN WITTGENSTEIN’S PHILOSOPHY 277

2. MUSIC IN THE TRACTATUS

It is a question debated in the community of Wittgenstein scholars whether
there is a hard core in Wittgenstein’s early work insofar as such a hard core
is understood as an attempt to provide a philosophical account as an answer
to a set of specifically philosophical questions. But if there is such an account
– whether understood as a genuine proposal or as a deep confusion to be
uncovered and thrown away8 –, then it concerns the nature of linguistic
sense. This account, sometimes labelled as the ‘picture theory of meaning’,
treats propositions as pictures of possible states of affairs.
According to the picture theory, the sense of a proposition rests on two
conditions. First, as a picture, the proposition must have something in
common with the reality it depicts. This common essence of propositions
and possible states of affairs is logical form, which Wittgenstein claims to the
‘the form of reality’ (TLP 2.18). Second, the proposition must have elements
that, as constituents of the proposition, refer to the elements of the depicted
state of affairs. Whether the referential relation is effected by means of a
mental act of intention or by virtue of a more or less broadly interpreted
context principle, is a question of debate that we need not enter here.9 Either
way, it is clear from Wittgenstein’s text that not just the proposition as a
whole but also the constituents of propositions, i.e. names, have logical
forms (TLP 3.31, 3.327). These correspond to the forms of the constituents
of non-linguistics facts, i.e. objects, for which the names stand as
representatives (TLP 2.0121–2.01231, 3.22). We can ‘picture facts to
ourselves’ precisely because the elements of the picture are capable of
combining together in the way in which the elements of the pictured state of
affairs are imagined to be combined (TLP 2.1, 2.151). Such combining is
made possible by the forms of the elements: ‘Form is the possibility of
structure’ (TLP 2.033). In this way, then, logical form figures as the essential
condition for the possibility of linguistic sense (TLP 6.13).10
So the logical form envisioned in the Tractatus is the form of language (or
thought) as well as of non-linguistic reality. Both are conceived as structured
totalities: the world is the totality of facts, while language is the totality of
propositions (TLP 1.1, 4.001). Moreover, it is a central feature of propositions
that they, too, have structure. This structure mirrors the structure of the
pictured fact and is grounded in the forms of objects that Wittgenstein claims
to be the substance of the world (TLP 2.021, 3.21). Names, as constituents
of a proposition, ‘stand in a determinate relation to one another’, which is
to say that the proposition is a fact as well (TLP 2.141, 3.14). In explaining
this key idea of the Tractatus, Wittgenstein writes: ‘A proposition is not a
blend of words. [. . .] A proposition is articulate.’ (TLP 3.141.) But an
278 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

integral part of this explanation, if one given in brackets, is the following

remark: ‘– (Just as a theme in music is not a blend of notes.)’ (TLP 3.141).
So what are we supposed to bring home from this further remark that evokes
the idea of a musical theme as an articulate structure?
Here is a proposal. Like the Tractarian objects, whose essence lies in their
ability to combine together in virtue of their logical forms, the notes of a
scale are essentially capable of forming a musical theme. Musical notes
‘must have some pitch’, as Wittgenstein points out in the beginning of the
Tractatus, in the context of explaining his notion of an object (TLP 2.0131).
Just as it is impossible to imagine a note without some pitch and hence
a potential role in a melody, it is impossible to imagine an object
independently of its possibilities of combining with other objects (TLP
2.0121). The weight of Wittgenstein’s comparison between an object and a
note should not be underestimated either, given that otherwise Wittgenstein
refuses to give any examples of objects (TLP 2.024–2.0271). The reference
to notes, along with the reference to specks in a visual field that must
have some colour, is the only concrete illustration of the Tractarian
objects that complements the abstract requirements that objects must satisfy
(such as their simplicity, unalterability and subsistence) (TLP 2.0131, 2.02,
2.023, 2.024).
Moreover, just as the Tractarian facts that belong to a logical space, the
theme belongs to a musical space (TLP 1.13, 2.11, 2.202). But we do not
encounter a musical space independently of the relations between the notes
themselves, and this I take to be the point of Wittgenstein’s remark. As
suggested by the opening remarks of the Tractatus, we come to contact with
logical space by encountering the world as already structured. ‘The world as
I found it’ is already a ‘totality of facts’, and as such structured in accordance
with the possibilities determined by logical form (TLP 5.631, 1.1; see also
5.552–5.5521). The forms of the facts that comprise the world (as well as of
the possible states of affairs that do not happen to obtain) are grounded in
the forms of the objects, where these forms just mean the objects’ possibilities
of combining with one another (TLP 2.0123–2.01231). In this sense,
‘[o]bjects contain the possibility of all situations’ (TLP 2.014). Now, just as
the objects’ possibilities of combination determine their possible relations
with other objects in states of affairs, so too, in a given key like D minor, A
and D stand to one another in the internal relation of the dominant and the
tonic. Indeed, any given interval or melody reflects the potential relations
that obtain between the notes of the scale, i.e. the different tonal functions
determined by the relations between the notes. What the appeal to music
serves to underscore, then, is that the application of the constituents of a
proposition is not prescribed from an external point of view of an ideal
ART’S PART IN WITTGENSTEIN’S PHILOSOPHY 279

logical notation crafted by logicians,11 say, but the constituents of facts

already carry within themselves their own principle of organization.
So the forms of the constituent objects ground the possibility for the
objects to stand in determinate relations to one another hence giving the fact
an articulate structure. Every meaningful proposition, in turn, mirrors the
structure of the pictured fact in virtue of its constituents, names, being
related to one another in a way that corresponds to the configuration of the
objects of the pictured fact (TLP 3.21). Accordingly, propositions always
conform to the general propositional form ‘This is how things stand’ (TLP
4.5). However, meaningful propositions are not just articulate structures in
the sense of being organized and by conforming to the general propositional
form. In meaningful propositions, the constituent elements also stand for
objects; they have a referential relation to reality. Musical notes lack such a
reference. Hence, the point of Wittgenstein’s allusion to the articulateness of
a melody in his explanation of propositions as facts must point to the form
rather than the empirical content of propositions. It must point to what, in
the Tractatus, Wittgenstein claims to be the shared essence of language and
reality, namely, logical form (TLP 5.4711). In hearing any melody as an
articulate and complete musical thought, we thus hear the articulateness of a
proposition as a fact in the purest sense of the term, abstracted from any
empirical content and manifest in the general form of a proposition (TLP
4.5; see NB, 40).
In elaborating the core idea of the picture theory, namely that a ‘proposition
is a picture of reality’, Wittgenstein refers to the essential connection between
language and the world, which is based on their shared logical form (TLP
4.0312). Again, Wittgenstein’s example is from the realm of music. He writes:

A gramophone record, the musical idea, the written notes, and the sound-
waves, all stand to one another in the same internal relation of depicting
that holds between language and the world.
—TLP 4.014

The emphasis here is not on the principle of demarcation between language

and the world: it does not matter which phenomena listed stand for
propositions and which for non-linguistic states of affairs pictured by
propositions. What is relevant instead is the ‘essence of [the] pictorial
character’, namely, the internal relations between the four musical
phenomena, determined by logical form (TLP 4.013). As indicated by the
continuation of the remark just quoted, the point is rather that ‘[t]hey all
have a common logical construction’ (TLP 4.01413). In other words, the
formal unity of the sound waves, the notation, the recording, and the musical
280 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

idea reflects the formal unity of language, thought and reality – clearly a core
assumption of Wittgenstein’s early account.
The operative idea in Wittgenstein’s references to music in his discussion
of objects, of propositions as facts, and of the essence of the pictorial
character is the distinction between form and content. Wittgenstein claims
that the unalterable substance of the world, namely, the objects, is form and
content, where ‘form’ just means the objects’ possibilities of combination
(TLP 2.025). The distinction between form and content applies equally to
propositions (TLP 3.11–3.13). We find the purest instance of logical form in
senseless tautologies. This is because tautologies do not determine any
specific state of affairs as their empirical content (TLP 4.461, 6.2). In contrast
to meaningful propositions that are capable of determining empirical
content, tautologies cannot say anything about reality; they cannot determine
any specific state of affairs as their content (TLP 4.023). This is because, in a
tautology, the representing relations with reality ‘cancel one another, so that
it does not stand in any representational relation to reality’ (TLP 4.462).
Accordingly, tautologies only show their own form. They ‘show that they say
nothing’ (TLP 4.461).
According to Wittgenstein, his ‘fundamental idea is that the “logical
constants” are not representatives; there can be no representatives of the
logic of facts’ (TLP 4.0312). Accordingly, propositions of logic are tautologies:
they do not picture any empirical states of affairs, but only show or display
their own form. (TLP 4.46–4.462.) Yet, precisely as tautologies, abstracted
away from any possible empirical content, the propositions of logic
‘show the formal – logical – properties of the world’ (TLP 6.12). Again, ‘The
logic of the world [. . .] is shown in tautologies by the propositions of logic’
(TLP 6.22). Now consider an early notebook entry by Wittgenstein from
1915. Wittgenstein writes: ‘A tune is a kind of tautology, it is complete
in itself; it satisfies itself ’ (NB 40; 4.3.15). What Wittgenstein’s remark
implies, then, is that the musical theme has the form of sense without the
possibility of giving empirical content to that form (TLP 3.13). So again we
find music figuring as the model of logical form as reflected in tautologies.
Also this idea lies undeniably at the very centre of Wittgenstein’s early
philosophy proper.
I would argue further that, for Wittgenstein, the philosophical advantage
of evoking music in the context of philosophy of logic is related to a feature
that motivated Kant’s attention to the judgment of beauty as the paradigm
example of a merely reflective judgment, i.e. a judgment that has no concept
as its ground nor leads to concepts (CPJ 5:237). For Kant, the judgment of
beauty is by definition a judgment of the form of purposiveness, represented
without a concept of a purpose, i.e. without the possibility of expressing
ART’S PART IN WITTGENSTEIN’S PHILOSOPHY 281

a conceptual rule capturing the purpose of that form (CPJ 5:236). This
point about the non-conceptuality of an aesthetic judgment is echoed in
Wittgenstein’s insistence that musical themes are not like meaningful
propositions that are pictures of states of affairs, but more like tautologies
that do not say anything about reality, yet show their own form. And I would
like to add purposive form, because of Wittgenstein’s further remark that
‘the tune is complete in itself and satisfies itself ’ even when it does not say
anything (NB 40). In this way, then, the references to a musical theme make
tangible the Tractarian dictum of the ineffability of logical form.
What I am suggesting, dramatic as it may sound, is that logical form as the
‘essence of the world’ is displayed not just in propositions of logic but also
in music. This very idea of music revealing the form of the world figures in
different variations time and again in German aesthetics. We find it in Kant’s
idea of absolute music as a paradigm example of ‘free beauty’ that invites a
pure judgment of formal purposiveness and warrants judgments of the
purposiveness of nature in general (CPJ 5:220, 5:229). We find it in
Schopenhauer’s view that music is the immediate expression of the
metaphysical will, which for him is the essence of reality (Schopenhauer
[1819] 2011, 285); we find it in Hanslick’s claim that in the ‘tonally moving
forms’ of music we hear the formal features of the movements of the human
mind as well as of the universe (Hanslick [1854] 2018, 120); and we find it
in Adorno’s notion of music disclosing the condition of the society (Adorno
1978, 129). While Wittgenstein’s early account of the essence of the world
is more formal in character than these positions, his way of connecting music
to logical form may nonetheless be seen as a version of this idea pervading
German aesthetics.
The above instances of appeal to music in Wittgenstein’s early work
underscore his account of logic that differs significantly from the view
advocated by those who take the task of logic to be the construction of an
ideal logical notation intended to function as the externally prescribed
discipline for thought. They make intuitively available (‘intuitively’ in Kant’s
specific sense) the idea of seeing the form of a proposition independently of
its content. And they underscore the central idea that logical form is
inexpressible in language and available only as something that is shown or
manifest (TLP p. 3, 2.172, 2.174, 4.121, 6.22). Indeed, already in February
1915, Wittgenstein writes in his notebook, ‘Musical themes are in a certain
sense propositions.’ And he adds: ‘Knowledge of the nature of logic will for
this reason lead to knowledge of the nature of music’ (NB 40; 7.2.1915). So
is this simply a dispensable illustration of the central Tractarian dictum of the
all-encompassing logical form that applies to language, thought, and indeed
to any imaginable world (TLP 2.022)? Or does the remark have an
282 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

independent philosophical relevance in Wittgenstein’s attempt to elucidate

the impossibility of expressing in language the necessary condition for
language (TLP 4.121)? I myself lean towards the latter alternative.

3. MUSIC IN THE PHILOSOPHICAL

INVESTIGATIONS
I will now turn to Wittgenstein’s later work as articulated in the first part of
the Philosophical Investigations. If we look for a line of thought that ‘belongs
directly’ to the hard core of Wittgenstein philosophical work in its later
period, then the most obvious candidate is Wittgenstein’s discussion on rule-
following. The key passage reads as follows:

This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule,

because every course of action can be brought into accord with the rule.
The answer was: if every course of action can be brought into accord with
the rule, then it can also be brought into conflict with it. And so there
would be neither accord nor conflict here.
That there is a misunderstanding here is shown by the mere fact that in
this chain of reasoning we place one interpretation behind another, as if
each one contented us at least for a moment, until we thought of yet
another lying behind it. For what we thereby show is that there is a way
of grasping a rule which is not an interpretation, but which, from case to
case of application, is exhibited in what we call “following the rule” and
“going against it” ’
That’s why there is an inclination to say: every action according to a
rule is an interpretation. But one should speak of interpretation only
when one expression of a rule is substituted for another.
—PI § 201

What is at stake in the paradox is the possibility of applying a general rule to

a particular case, which is required for understanding (see PI § 292). What,
if anything, justifies a particular application of a rule so that we can talk
about behaviour as following a rule as opposed to being in mere conformity
with it? It is standardly assumed that, according to Wittgenstein, it is not
enough that my behaviour conforms to the rule that is constitutive of the
game that provides the context of the use. If I understand, then my behaviour
ought to be internally related to the rule so that I can appeal to the
conceptually formulated rule in explaining my application thereof. However,
in doing so, I inevitably fall back on yet new interpretations of the rule.
Here, ‘interpretation’ is understood as a conceptual formulation of the
original rule, as explained in the final sentence of the paragraph.
ART’S PART IN WITTGENSTEIN’S PHILOSOPHY 283

Sections 185 to 242 of the Philosophical Investigations are usually treated

as addressing the question of how the rule can determine its correct
applications.14 However, immediately before these sections, in section 184,
Wittgenstein gives a musical version of the more well-known mathematical
example of rule-following (see PI §§ 143–149). He writes:

I want to remember a tune, and it escapes me; suddenly I say “Now I

know it”, and I sing it. What was it like suddenly to know it? Surely it
can’t have occurred to me in its entirety in that moment! – Perhaps you
will say: “It’s a particular feeling, as if it were now there” – but is it now
there? Suppose I then begin to sing it and get stuck? – But may I not have
been certain at that moment that I knew it? So in some sense it was there
after all! – But in what sense? Perhaps you would say that the tune was
there if, for example, someone sang it through, or rehearsed it in his
imagination from beginning to end. I am not, of course, denying that the
statement that the tune is there can also be given a quite different sense
– for example, that I have a bit of paper on which it is written.
—PI § 184

The challenge at hand is like that of understanding the rule determining the
series of natural numbers (PI § 143). What is required for a warranted claim
to knowledge of the tune is an ability to take the step from the ‘rule’, i.e.
what gives identity to the tune, to its potentially infinitely many instances,
namely, performances of the tune. Also Wittgenstein’s candidates for the
criterion of knowing the tune – a particular feeling, performance, a mental
image – go in tandem with the mathematical example (see PI §§ 147–155).
However, the musical example is such that it immediately creates obstacles
to the route to an interpretation given by a rephrase or a rule-formulation.
While a rule-formulation may be given in the form of the bit of paper on
which the tune is written, its impotence in bridging the gap between the rule
and its application is blatantly clear. The written score does succeed in
conveying information about the abstract shape of the tune, but in comparison
to a particular performance it is but ‘a skeleton [made] out of a flourishing
body’, to borrow Hanslick’s characterization of the relation between a heard
performance of a musical piece and a technical analysis thereof (Hanslick
[1854] 2018, 22). Besides, to ‘know a tune’ involves having a hold of its
internal purposive unity, the ‘completeness of the tune’, that Wittgenstein
identified as a key feature of a musical theme already in 1915 (NB, 40).
The insight about the completeness of musical forms emerges also in the
Philosophical Investigations, where Wittgenstein asks: ‘What happens when we
learn to feel the ending of a church mode as an ending?’ (PI § 535.) Clearly, this
284 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

feeling of closure is something we can learn. Yet, the challenge of justifying the
aesthetic judgment (such as ‘This is a complete musical thought’, ‘This is where
it comes to an end.’) springing from that feeling cannot be exclusively met by
conceptual means. Granted, I can refer to a textbook on modal harmony and
quote a rule-formulation. Or I can try to convey my judgment by means of
comparisons, such as Wittgenstein’s ‘It is as if a conclusion were drawn’ (PI §
527; see Wittgenstein 2016, 9:31; Wittgenstein 1966, III: 1, 9). But if my
interlocutor does not experience the ending as an ending, the rule-formulations,
comparisons, or further descriptions will not resolve the matter. They do not
force my interlocutor to accept my judgment (CV 79; Wittgenstein 2016,
9:30–9:31, 9:39). So the correctness of the judgment, which I must acknowledge
if I am to ‘know the tune’, seems to hang in the air just as the next step to be
taken in the mathematical series.
In contrast to some, who read Wittgenstein’s later work as denying the
relevance of rules tout court, I take the later Wittgenstein to be committed
to giving an account of our ability to follow rules constitutive of language.15
There are cases where others are entitled to ask for a justification for my
application of a rule. In such cases, I am obliged to try and provide a
justification by explaining further the content of my judgment and do so by
appealing to an expression of the rule I have applied. Yet, as Wittgenstein
repeatedly emphasizes, we cannot appeal to new expressions of the rule
without entering into an infinite regress (PI §§ 201, 217, 261, 292). At some
point, I cannot bring up any further interpretation of the rule I have applied,
but have to follow the rule ‘blindly’, i.e. without a conceptual justification.16
In my reading, it is precisely this point that is brought to the fore already in
section 184 of the Philosophical Investigations, which evokes the puzzling
phenomenon of knowing a musical tune.
Later in the text, Wittgenstein explicitly introduces two cases of
understanding: the first where I can reformulate my judgment, and the
second where I follow the rule blindly. Here, in section 531, Wittgenstein
reconnects the second sense of understanding to the understanding of music.
He writes:

We speak of understanding a sentence in the sense in which it can be

replaced by another which says the same; but also in the sense in which it
cannot be replaced by any other. (Any more than one musical theme can
be replaced by another.)
In the one case, the thought in the sentence is what is common to
different sentences; in the other, something that is expressed only by these
words in these positions. (Understanding a poem.)
—PI § 531
ART’S PART IN WITTGENSTEIN’S PHILOSOPHY 285

These two uses of the word ‘understanding’, Wittgenstein claims, ‘make

up its meaning, make up my concept of understanding’ (PI § 532). As
I see it, Wittgenstein’s allusion to the ineffability of musical content is
anything but incidental. The musical example is meant to illustrate the
constitution of meaning by rules that cannot, however, be further interpreted
by being expressed in another medium.17 What is required instead is
developing a feeling for the rules of the musical system as a whole (see
Wittgenstein 1966, I:15).
The main point I want to bring home is that the example of a musical
theme that surfaces already in the Tractatus carries over to Wittgenstein’s
later view, surviving the many dramatic changes that otherwise occur in
Wittgenstein’s conception of language. True, in the Philosophical
Investigations, there is no appeal to an immutable logical form given in
the forms of the simple objects. Nor is there any commitment to a general
propositional form supposedly underlying the conventions of everyday
language. But in spite of these differences, there is something that
closely resembles the view that we find in the Tractatus. This is the idea
that once our conceptual resources – whether understood as the
Tractarian domain of meaningful propositions or Wittgenstein’s later
limited scope of justifications given by reference to conceptual formulations
of the applied rule – have been exhausted, the form of language shows
itself. Both variants of this idea are conveyed to us by reference to the
musical theme. While in 1915 Wittgenstein writes that the tune is a
tautology and as such complete in itself, in the Philosophical Investigations
we read:

Understanding a sentence in language is much more akin to understanding

a theme in music than one may think. What I mean is that understanding
a spoken sentence is closer than one thinks to what is ordinarily called
understanding a musical theme. Why is just this the pattern of variation in
intensity and tempo? One would like to say: ‘Because I know what it all
means.’ But what does it mean? I’d not be able to say. As an ‘explanation’,
I could compare it with something else which has the same rhythm
(I mean the same pattern).
—PI § 527

So again music serves as the model of a kind of formal unity that is assumed
for the possibility of linguistic sense. This is a formal unity that cannot be
spelled out any further but must be felt or grasped in a way different from the
conceptually formulated interpretations or reformulations of the sentence in
question (see PI § 201).
286 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

4. MUSIC IN CULTURE AND VALUE

I will conclude by discussing one further example of what I read as a
philosophically significant reference to music, but one that has ended up in
Culture and Value. I do not want to suggest that von Wright had no good
reasons for reading some of the remarks as detached from Wittgenstein’s
core concerns in philosophy. Some remarks in Culture and Value express
Wittgenstein’s personal preferences in the arts with no obvious connection
to his philosophical work on language. In this respect, they are on a par with
the coded remarks in MS 101 to 103 that the editors decided to omit from
the published version of Notebooks 1914–1916 (see Erbacher 2017, 92). An
example of this sort is Wittgenstein’s harsh judgment on Mahler’s music:

If it is true, as I believe, that Mahler’s music is totally worthless, the

question is what I think he should have done with his talent. For quite
obviously it took a string of very rare talents to produce this bad music.
Should he, say, have written his symphonies & burnt them? Or should he
have done himself violence & not have written them? Should he have
written them & realized that they were worthless? But how could he have
realized that?
—CV 76; MS 136 110b, 14.1.1948

This judgment is as telling about Wittgenstein’s own person and aesthetic

sensitivities as it is about Mahler’s music. Mahler’s music may seem worthless,
sentimental, lacking in sophistication and aesthetic rigour to a person who
already has a certain aesthetic ideal in mind, perhaps an ideal of clarity and
coolness (see CV, 2; Wittgenstein 2016, 9:18–22). To a person not so inclined
and in light of another ideal, Mahler’s music may appear rich, sensuous and
aesthetically satisfying. The point is that, given this personal connection,
indicated by Wittgenstein himself by the phrase ‘as I believe’, the remark
should perhaps not be read as contributing to his strictly philosophical work.
But there are other examples where the case is less obvious. Recall the
overall point I have tried to make in discussing the role of music in the
Tractatus and in the Philosophical Investigations. In both works, I have
suggested, Wittgenstein connects the notion of a musical theme to the
essence of language. In the Tractatus, this essence is logical form: ‘To give the
essence of a proposition means to give the essence of all description, and
thus the essence of the world’ (TLP 5.4711). In the Philosophical
Investigations, Wittgenstein writes in turn that ‘Essence is expressed in
grammar’ (PI § 371). In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein takes logical form to be
the form of every imaginable world, whereas in the Investigations grammar
ART’S PART IN WITTGENSTEIN’S PHILOSOPHY 287

is tied to our historically developing and culturally variable practices (TLP

2.022; PI § 199). Nevertheless, the two notions are alike in one significant
respect. In contrast with empirical statements and statements of opinion that
are contingent and debatable, logical form and rules of grammar alike have
the status of being exempt from the demand of justification (TLP 5.473; PI
§§ 240–241).
Now consider the following remark, drawn from MS 134 and published
in Culture and Value. I will call this the ‘Mozart remark’:

The “necessity” with which the second thought succeeds the first.
(Overture to Figaro.) Nothing could be more idiotic than to say it is
“agreeable” to hear one after the other. – But the paradigm according to
which all this is right is certainly obscure. “It is the natural development.”
You gesture with your hand, would like to say: “of course!” – One could
also compare the transition with a transition (the entrance of a new
character) in a story, for example, or a poem. That is how this piece fits
into the world of our thoughts and feelings.
—CV 65; translation altered18; MS 134 78, 30.3.1947

Even though the word ‘necessity’ appears in quotation marks in the opening
sentence of this remark, I would argue that the phenomenon at stake is the
very same phenomenon Wittgenstein evokes in his discussion of rule-
following (PI §§ 184, 527–535). This is the paradoxical moment of blind
rule-following, explained in the Philosophical Investigations by reference to
musical understanding. While the ‘paradigm according to which’ the two
musical thoughts naturally follow one another is obscure in that it cannot
be conceptually explained by reference to an unambiguous rule-formulation,
I still experience the continuation as correct or even necessary. Moreover,
this acknowledgement, guided by a feeling rather than by a conceptual
rule-formulation, is an indispensable aspect of my understanding of the
overture. It is indispensable despite the fact that, if another person asks me
for a justification for my judgment, my response may not be any stronger
than a gesture accompanied by the feeble ‘of course’.
However, the feeling guiding my judgment is not a mere reaction,
reducible to psychological facts. This point, familiar from Wittgenstein’s
Philosophical Investigations, is also signalled in the Mozart remark by
Wittgenstein’s reference to the idiocy of calling the musical development
‘agreeable’. In the German tradition of aesthetics, the term ‘angenehm’
indicates a causally conditioned response to a stimulus. Moreover, it is used
by Wittgenstein in this exact sense in his lectures on aesthetics in 1933,
where he draws the characteristically Kantian contrast between the causally
288 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

conditioned agreeable and the beautiful.19 The relevant sort of feeling is

rather a response to the musical system. Hence, the feeling of ‘naturalness’
in my response to Mozart’s overture is something I have to develop after I
have first been ‘drilled in harmony and counterpoint’, just as the feeling of
closure in a church mode is something I may learn only by listening and
perhaps discursively studying modal music (Wittgenstein 1966, I:15; see PI
§ 535). Accordingly, the correctness of one response as opposed to another
that I may learn to experience (feel, see or hear) is internally connected to the
rules of the musical system itself.
So why is it that the Mozart remark, written on 30 March 1947, has been
placed in Culture and Value and thereby assigned the character of an
aphorism without much philosophical significance? The question becomes
even more pressing when taken together with the fact that another remark,
which I will call the ‘Chopin remark’, immediately preceding the Mozart
remark in MS 134 and written on 29 March, has found its home in Zettel.
After all, according to von Wright, Zettel – a work based on a collection of
fragments Wittgenstein himself cut out from his manuscripts and left in a
box-file – contains some of the best remarks ever written by Wittgenstein
and could be read as a work complementing the Investigations, potentially
intended as a bridge between its first and second part.20 In Zettel, the Chopin
remark figures in a discussion on the understanding of music (Z §§ 157–175)
in the broader context of Wittgenstein’s reflection on the constitution of
meaning. It reads:

The way music speaks. Do not forget that a poem, even though it is
composed in the language of information, is not used in the language-
game of giving information.
Mightn’t we imagine a man who, never having had any acquaintance
with music, comes to us and hears someone playing a reflective piece of
Chopin and is convinced that this is a language and people merely want
to keep the meaning secret from him?
There is a strongly musical element in verbal language. (A sigh, the
intonation of voice in question, in an announcement, in longing; all the
innumerable gestures made with the voice).
—Z § 160–161; MS 134, 77, 29.3.1947

That Wittgenstein placed the Chopin remark in the arrangement of remarks

that became known as Zettel, thus treating it as he treated the remarks on
music in the Tractatus and in the Investigations, shows that he himself took
the remark to be of philosophical value. Moreover, I do not think there can
be any doubt that, in the context of MS 134, the Chopin remark belongs
ART’S PART IN WITTGENSTEIN’S PHILOSOPHY 289

together with the Mozart remark. The two remarks equally contribute to the
overall theme of aesthetic understanding as a model for nondiscursive
understanding of language, which I have argued to be the main motivation
for Wittgenstein’s repeated references to music.
Finally, if we look at the two remarks in the context of MS 134 and in
light of the interpretation I have here defended, we can see that what to von
Wright looked like isolated aphorisms emerging in the middle of a
philosophical reflection integrally belong to that reflection. On 19 March,
we find Wittgenstein evoking the idea of a melody going through his head
(MS 134, 46), thus echoing the case of ‘knowing the tune’ described in PI §
184. On 21 March, he launches a long discussion on aspect seeing, a theme
undoubtedly belonging to the core concerns of his later philosophy,
describing in detail the conditions of the experience (Erfahrung) of seeing an
aspect (MS 134, 55–76). On 27 March, he characterizes this experience as
one of ‘Now I know how to go on’ (‘Jetzt weiss ich weiter’), reminiscent of
the experience of the pupil knowing how to continue the mathematical
series, and stresses that what is involved is neither a thought nor an
interpretation (MS 134, 72–73; cf. PI §§ 179 and 201). These ideas, familiar
from Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, are followed by a remark on the
importance of examples in philosophy (MS 134, 76; cf. PI § 593), a remark
on how the tempo of reading a sentence influences the possibility of
understanding that sentence (MS 134, 76– 77; CV 65), only to culminate in
the Chopin and Mozart remarks (MS 134, 77; Z § 160 and MS 134, 78; CV
65). What could be read as an intermediary conclusion of this train of
thought then reads: ‘Language has several roots, it has many roots, not one’
(MS 134, 80; author’s translation). I have argued that these roots include
both discursive and nondiscursive elements, which is what Wittgenstein’s
references to music are meant to underscore.

5. EPILOGUE
In a relatively late interview from 1995, von Wright was asked about his
relation to the German tradition of philosophy, especially the critical theory
of the Frankfurt school and its cultural criticism. Von Wright responded by
saying that, instead of belonging to the strictly logical and analytical tradition
that had dominated his early work, his later writings on the state of the
Western culture could, in some sense, be seen as belonging to this tradition.
However, von Wright admitted that, for him, the connection between his
logical analytic work and his reflection of ethics, religion and the arts had
been a life-long problem. Earlier he had thought that the two sides of his
intellectual work could be strictly separated. They had belonged to ‘two
290 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

different worlds’, manifest in his choice to write on the former mostly in

English and on the latter in Swedish and Finnish. Literature and the other
arts had been a Sunday hobby for him, he said. In 1995, von Wright was
willing to admit – if hesitantly – that reflection on the arts and cultural
criticism could perhaps be seen as a form of philosophy. However, he was
less optimistic about the possibility of combining the two fields of thought
into a unified philosophical view.21 What I have tried to show is that
Wittgenstein did not share this view.

NOTES
1. See von Wright 1982h; for a discussion on the editorial history of Culture and
Value, see Christian Erbacher (2017). On von Wright’s own understanding of
this ‘rift in his philosophical personality’, see Österman 2019.
2. An interesting parallel for Schroeder’s take on Wittgenstein’s approach may be
found in von Wright’s remark on ‘existential questions’ that he believes are best
treated by artistic means. von Wright writes, ‘. . . it is justified to ask whether
philosophy is . . . the right medium for posing and treating these questions. For
my own part, I do not believe so.’ (von Wright 1955b, quoted and translated
from Swedish in Österman 2019, 3.)
3. Stenius 1960; Bell 1987; Moore 1987, 2007, 2013; see also Kannisto 1986,
Glock 1992.
4. ‘The Greek philosophers and the Church fathers have always carefully
distinguished between aistheta and noeta. So let the noeta, what is known by
the superior faculty of mind, be the object of logic, and aistheta the object of
episteme aisthetica or AESTHETICS’ (Baumgarten 1954, § CXVI)
5. For convenience this will be referred to as CPJ from here on.
6. In his classic commentary on the Tractatus, Erik Stenius acknowledges the
striking parallel between the Tractarian ineffabilia and notions that in Kant’s
First Critique are claimed to fall outside the bounds of theoretical cognition,
namely, religion, ethics, aesthetics, the philosophical self, the world as a whole,
logical form, and the practice of philosophy (Stenius 1960, 222). However, in
the interpretation of Wittgenstein’s early philosophy, this parallel has been
treated mostly as an indication of a negative, limiting condition of meaningful
language rather than seen in the full light of Kant’s overall project (see,
however, Moore 2007 and 2013).
7. Österman (ch. 8 in this volume) and Wallgren (ch. 12, section 7 in this volume)
offer different viewpoints on how the material included in Culture and Value
may contribute to our understanding of Wittgenstein’s philosophical goals.
8. This contrast corresponds roughly to the interpretative division between the
so-called traditional interpretation (e.g. Anscombe 1959, Stenius 1960, Hacker
1986, Pears 1987, Glock 1996) and the so-called resolute reading (e.g. Conant
2002, Diamond 1991, Floyd 2002). While the most radical formulations of the
resolute reading deny that there is anything like a philosophical theory to be
ART’S PART IN WITTGENSTEIN’S PHILOSOPHY 291

found in the Tractatus, more moderate versions acknowledge a kind of theory

but as one that collapses from within (see Bronzo 2012).
9. Again, the former view is typically defended by the traditional interpretation
(Hacker 1986, Kannisto 1986, Malcolm 1986, Kenny 1981, Glock 1996); the
latter view, originally put forth by Ishiguro (1969) and McGuinness (1981), is
adopted by the resolute reading (see, e.g. Conant 2002, 398–405; Diamond
1991, 138–139).
10. For a more detailed explication of the notion of logical form as a condition of
sense in the picture theory of language, see Appelqvist 2016.
11. This point and the resulting contrast between the Tractarian notion of logic and
that of Frege and Russell has been emphasized in Kannisto 1986, 121 and
Glock 1992.
12. ‘A proposition communicates a situation to us, and so it must be essentially
connected with the situation’ (TLP 4.03).
13. Translation altered. The original text reads: ‘Ihnen allen is der logische Bau
gemeinsam’.
14. See, for example, Baker and Hacker 2009a, 355–356 and Baker and Hacker
2009b, 25–27.
15. See, for example, Baker 2004, 52–72; Kuusela 2008, 111–145; Glüer and
Wikforss 2009.
16. For a more thorough explication of this point, see Appelqvist 2017. On
blindness as non-conceptuality and Wittgenstein’s rule-following discussion as
an heir of Kant’s treatment of the theme, see Bell 1987.
17. On the connection between Bell’s reading of Kant and ineffability, see Moore
2007.
18. The original reads: ‘Die “Notwendigkeit”, mit der Zweite Gedanke auf den ersten
folgt. (Figaro Ouvertüre.) Nichts dümmer, als zu sagen, es sei “angenehm” den
einen nach dem andern zu hören! – Aber das Paradigma, wonach das alles richtig
ist, ist freilich dunkel. “Es ist die natürliche Entwicklung.” Man macht eine
Handbewegung, möchte sagen: “natürlich!” – Man könnte den Übergang (dem
Eintritt winer neuen Figur) in einer Geschichte, z.B., oder einem Gedicht,
vergleichen. So past dies Stück in der Welt unser Gedanken & Gefühle hinein.’ In
MS 134 78 this remark is complemented by a quote from Goethe: ‘Man suchte
nichts hinter den Phänomen; sie selbst sind die Lehre’ (Goethe).’
19. CPJ 5: 208–210, 5: 236; M, 343–364; see Appelqvist 2018.
20. Editor’s Preface to the Finnish edition of Zettel (von Wright 1978d).
21. Lahtinen et al. 1995, 10–11.
292
 CHAPTER TWELVE

Unearthing the Socratic

Wittgenstein
THOMAS WALLGREN

1. INTRODUCTION
I suggest that it is helpful to think of the role that Wittgenstein’s literary
executors, Rush Rhees, Elizabeth Anscombe and Georg Henrik von Wright,
played in the creation of Wittgenstein as a story with two stages. In the first
stage their editorial work was marked by deeply shared commitment and
straightforward principles. The story of the second stage is the story of
Rhees’s, Anscombe’s and von Wright’s evolving, reflective concern about
how to handle their task.
My narration of the first stage proceeds in two steps. In section 2 I identify
basic editing principles which, as I suggest, explain much of what the
literary executors did as editors of Wittgenstein during, roughly, the first
two decades after his death. In section 3 I propose that the editions
which followed brought immense success, fraught with deep paradox. My
remarks on the second stage of the story, commencing around 1970, have
five sections (4–8). Each section deals with vast and complex material.
I present stylized views in the hope of bringing out philosophically
interesting aspects. I conclude with some notes on the possible relevance
of the discussion for fundamental issues in the self-understanding of
philosophy and, thereby, for the dialectics of enlightenment in our times
(section 9).

293
294 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

2. GIVING WITTGENSTEIN TO THE WORLD

Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright had all gone to Wittgenstein’s classes, they
were all friends of Wittgenstein and all were appreciated by him for their
philosophical talent. They mutually acknowledged these facts about each other
and their relation to Wittgenstein. Through their lives they shared the conviction
that Wittgenstein was a unique genius who would rank among the great
philosophers of all times. This all served as the foundation for their cooperation
as editors of the Nachlass. It was an exacting task that lasted several decades. It
could only succeed because of the executors’ effortless sense of equality in their
partnership and their deeply shared, unfaltering sense of the value and necessity
of their joint task and of their duty towards it.1 As it evolved, the most visible
element of the task was the bringing out of publications, especially books, in
Wittgenstein’s name.2 Less conspicuously, Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright
also took it upon themselves to search for writings by Wittgenstein, to secure
their preservation, to describe and catalogue them, to make them available to
scholars through archives and other unpublished resources, such as the Cornell
microfilm and electronically stored transcriptions, and to translate them or
promote their translation. My focus is on the first part of their endeavour; their
work as editors of posthumous publications by Wittgenstein.
If we turn to how Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright wanted to execute
this task, three basic characteristics of the ambitions and principles stand
out. The most fundamental point, one that emerges most vividly from their
correspondence, is that they shared a burning desire ‘to give Wittgenstein to
the world’.3 The literary executors also agreed that in the publications
discussion of editorial work, decisions and commentary should be kept to a
minimum.4 The third main principle that guided their endeavour, in
particular during the first decades, was the ambition to publish what was
good, or best, among Wittgenstein’s writings.5
The first two tasks, which the literary executors took on immediately after
Wittgenstein’s death, were to bring out what we now know as Wittgenstein’s
Philosophical Investigations (PI) and, in parallel with that, to search for and
collect all writings of Wittgenstein and to study the findings from the point
of view of what else to publish from them (von Wright 2001a: 158). It soon
appeared that Wittgenstein’s literary remains were much vaster then Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright had known (von Wright 1982c: 37f.). However,
the complex, somewhat amorphous nature of the material, often also called
Wittgenstein’s Nachlass, emerged only gradually to them. In the editorial
note to the first edition of the PI (1953) only some apparently minor issues
of a technical nature are mentioned. Even before the PI was published the
editors turned to what seemed to them to be the obvious choice for a second
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 295

publication, a selection of what they thought of as Wittgenstein’s writings on

the philosophy of mathematics. Despite the many challenges concerning
selection, the management of variants, indexing, cross-references and layout,
the first edition of Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics (RFM) was
published as early as 1956.
RFM remains the only book by Wittgenstein that Rhees, Anscombe and
von Wright edited jointly. Most later books published in Wittgenstein’s name
were edited by one of them, or two of them together. In all editions the
overall responsibility remained in the hands of the three original literary
executors. As a matter that required no second thought, the books were all
offered to a leading academic, English publisher. Moreover, the executors
followed, without explanation, an overall policy of publishing the books as
German–English parallel editions, if possible. The books that were the result
of this process are often referred to as Wittgenstein’s ‘works’.6 Von Wright
has remarked that when, at long last, LW2 was published in 1992, the literary
executors had essentially accomplished the task that had been given them in
Wittgenstein’s will (von Wright 2001a: 163).

3. A SUCCESS AND ITS PARADOXES

In retrospect, it is easy to see that there were divergences between the literary
executors’ vision of how best to realize the three original principles of editing
on which they agreed with such ease in the early years. We will shortly look
at some of the divergences more closely, but it may be useful to register first
some basic differences in their respective approaches to the task.
The primary ambition of Rhees was always to construct from various
manuscripts editions that he judged Wittgenstein would have wanted to
publish, or at least accepted for publication, because of the light they shed
on the development of his thinking.7 From very early on he was guided by
the idea that Wittgenstein did not write works on separable topics.8
Anscombe’s practice was largely guided by the quite different perception
that one can find in the manuscripts works on various philosophical topics
that were already there in a more or less completed form. Von Wright, like
Anscombe, often expressed the view that some of Wittgenstein’s manuscripts
have the character of completed works on distinct topics. When different
ways of publishing were suggested by Rhees and Anscombe he usually took
sides with Anscombe.9 His influential essays on the origins of the Tractatus
and the PI (von Wright 1982d and 1982e) follow broadly the same line,
presenting Wittgenstein’s philosophical endeavour both in the 1910s and
after his return to Cambridge as aiming for the production of a work that
could be published as a book. But his own editorial work, especially his work
296 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

on Vermischte Bemerkungen / Culture and Value (VB / CV), some of his

letters to Rhees, and his late concern about the idea of the PI as a work
with a part II, tell a partly different story of what kind of work von
Wright perceived the later Wittgenstein was engaged in and what its aims
might be.10
An intriguing feature of the cooperation between Rhees, Anscombe and
von Wright is that the discovery of the difficulty of their task, and the
discovery that different editorial decisions made by them might have deeply
different philosophical implications for engagement with Wittgenstein, did
not lead to sustained reflective discussion between them. In some cases issues
were raised, especially by Rhees, but the overall dynamic is aptly characterized
by von Wright when on 18th August 1988 he writes to Rhees and Anscombe:
‘It is much to be regretted that we never had a clear understanding . . . about
the nature of the work we wanted to do with the Nachlass.’11
There were reasons for this restraint in editorial self-reflection. Factors
external to an understanding of Wittgenstein would have played a role. The
story of the posthumous editing begins in the early 1950s and its cultural
centre of gravity is the University of Cambridge. This milieu was, it seems, at
the time rather foreign to the idea that editors should be visible in their
editions through multi-layered and lengthy philological commentary and
philosophical interpretation.12 In the background we can sense the power of
the avant-garde notion of philosophy that was in vogue in the early and mid-
twentieth century. It is typical of the philosophical mood in which Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright grew up, that G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell,
young Wittgenstein, the Vienna Circle and others were seen as thinkers who
had liberated philosophy from impotent tradition and given it new vitality.
What was fresh and new was important, and presenting it in a distilled form
was the goal of all publishing, hence also of the publishing of Wittgenstein.13
However, the most forceful background factor that stood in the way of
embarking on editorial self-reflection must have been Wittgenstein’s own
attitude to such matters. In his writings Wittgenstein was remarkably
restrictive in all referencing and in all discussion of how his work relates to
work done by others. Wittgenstein was also perceived by the literary
executors as working with little attention to, and even with little awareness
and knowledge of, both the Western philosophical heritage at large and of
the goings-on in contemporary philosophy.14 Moreover, Wittgenstein’s
aversion to scholarly work of an interpretative nature would to Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright have served as an effective obstacle against
discussing editorial challenges, policies and choices in prefaces or other
publications. More fatefully, it also served, it seems to me, as a reason for the
editors not to discuss with each other in any great detail the philosophical
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 297

aspects of the challenges they faced and the alternatives that would have
been possible.15
The fact that the ‘best writings on familiar philosophical topics’ approach
dominated the posthumous publication history from 1951 to the 1990s is of
fundamental importance. In consequence, Wittgenstein has often been seen
as a rather conventional academic figure who authored works on easily
recognizable philosophical topics. This is how Wittgenstein was created and,
one might argue, this is what he has, to a large extent, become.16 The result
is deeply paradoxical. In some sense the effort of Rhees, Anscombe and von
Wright was a tremendous success. The books they edited and published as
works authored by Wittgenstein were overnight sensations in the academic
world. On the other hand, this very form of success is in Wittgenstein’s case
highly problematic.
The psychiatrist Maurice O’Connor Drury, one of Wittgenstein’s first
students when he took up lecturing in Cambridge in 1930, was a close friend
of Wittgenstein. He tells us that Wittgenstein in deepest earnest warned him
against becoming a professional philosopher, but he also wanted him never
to give up serious thinking (Drury 2019: 90). In an oft-quoted passage,
Drury wrote that one reason why he wanted to write and publish some of his
impressions of Wittgenstein was that Wittgenstein at the time found his
reception primarily in a world alien to him. ‘It would be,’ writes Drury, ‘a
tragedy if well meaning commentators should make it appear that his
writings were now easily assimilable into the very intellectual milieu they
were largely a warning against.’17 What milieu did Drury have in mind?
Some clues are given by Drury’s words that ‘Wittgenstein had a great horror
of what Schopenhauer once described as “professorial philosophy by
philosophy professors”.’18
Even though Wittgenstein was always in many ways an alien to university
philosophy, he was also a Cambridge professor for some years. In a letter to
von Wright Wittgenstein warned him sternly about Cambridge. ‘Cambridge
is a dangerous place,’ he wrote, but he was also very active in promoting von
Wright as his successor.19 Hence, it does not seem right to think that
Wittgenstein, when he said to his physician’s wife, Mrs Joan Bevan, on his
deathbed that his life had been a good one, that he would have implied that
academic philosophy was not an important part of that good life (Malcolm,
1958: 100). But Wittgenstein was throughout his life deeply ambivalent
about the worth of philosophy, whether professorial or not. His qualms need
to be understood against the background of the complexities and ambivalences
in his conception of philosophy and the role of philosophy in the reflective,
critical formation of the self, community and culture. The more we think of
Wittgenstein as an important philosopher, as one who has something original
298 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

and important to say about what philosophy is and would need to be, or
become, the deeper the existential challenge his struggle presents to anyone
who today identifies him- or herself with the epithet of philosopher.

4. BEST WRITINGS VERSUS COMPLETE EDITION

It only transpired gradually, in the course of many years, that the editors’ early
agreement about basic editorial principles would not always pave the way for
easy mutual decisions.20 In the correspondence we can see that the first challenge
to the ‘best writings’ endeavour that becomes evident to the literary executors is
the question of a complete edition. The idea of publishing everything in the
Nachlass is already mentioned in the correspondence in 1965, but for a long
time this notion lies idle.21 Hence, when the literary executors are approached
in the 1970s by scholars who wish to produce electronic transcriptions of the
Nachlass, they see such transcriptions as a tool merely for archival research.22 It
is only after the mid-1970s that an agreement gradually emerges between
Anscombe and von Wright that their goal is to bring out a ‘complete edition’.
Rhees was also at first, in the 1970s, positive to the idea of a complete edition,
but later he grew rather sceptical.23
However, when the editors considered what we may call ‘the everything
question’ it soon appeared that it was a can of worms. Where can we draw
the line between what, in all that Wittgenstein wrote and in what we know
about what he said and did, does and what does not belong to his philosophy
or is relevant for understanding it? Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright never
discussed the issue systematically, but various issues came up at different
times. The first issue that surfaced in the correspondence was the question
how to deal with repetitions, variations and changes in the manuscripts and
typescripts. Later many more topics arose, including the question whether
letters, lecture notes, dictations, notes taken by close collaborators under the
instruction or close guidance of Wittgenstein, notes in diaries, notes in
plain text only or also notes in code, memoirs and memories from
conversations belong to ‘everything’?24 What are the criteria? I will consider
two issues.
For a philosopher who said, ‘philosophy was my life’,25 how can we best
define how what we might classify as personal, or as private, is related to what
we think of as philosophical in what he wrote and said and what was
philosophical in his life? Anscombe famously commented in a letter to
Engelmann: ‘If by pressing a button it could have been secured that people
would not concern themselves with his [Wittgenstein’s] personal life, I should
have pressed the button.’26 But even so, Anscombe did not object to the
engagement of Rhees and von Wright in publishing letters, memoirs and
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 299

other material in which the personal plays a large role. Rhees edited a book
with personal recollections of Wittgenstein (Rhees ed., 1981), but his interest
in doing so was of a particular kind: he thought such materials might be
helpful for the understanding of Wittgenstein’s philosophy to those who have
a serious interest in it. He severely condemned the attention paid to
Wittgenstein’s personal life that was not driven by such an interest.27
Moreover, Rhees did not think all personal information would be
philosophically relevant. He once commented that he was sure that
Wittgenstein would have objected to the idea of having a plate with his name
on a house where he had lived. In another letter, which Rhees shared with
von Wright, he objected to Kristóf Nyíri about his plan to publish a dream
report by Wittgenstein.28 Von Wright was also ambivalent. In an early
biographical sketch, published with a memoir by Norman Malcolm, von
Wright writes that ‘the idea that someone was collecting data for a biography
would certainly have been deeply distasteful to him [Wittgenstein]’.29
Nevertheless, like Rhees, von Wright did think there were inner connections
between life and work in Wittgenstein’s case. This explains why he was active
in presenting and promoting the publication of materials about Wittgenstein’s
life, which may be seen as illuminating the person rather than his philosophy,
despite his early acknowledgement of Wittgenstein’s attitude to such
undertakings. (Malcolm 1958, von Wright 1958, NB 1961, Engelmann 1967,
CLF 1969, Wittgenstein 1973, Wittgenstein 1974b, von Wright, ed. 1990
and CC 1995.) Von Wright’s conviction that in Wittgenstein’s case it is
impossible to sort out the philosophically irrelevant personal from ‘everything’
that is of relevance is already clear in the biographical sketch. He writes there
that ‘the work and personality of Wittgenstein will provoke varying comments
and different interpretations . . .. In Wittgenstein many contrasts meet . . .
anyone who tries to understand Wittgenstein in his rich complexity’ must see
any one-sided interpretation as a falsification.30 But, as in Rhees’s case, von
Wright was also to some extent protective, as we can see in his changing views
about the remarks by Wittgenstein written in code. At first, von Wright judged
them to be to such a degree personal and external to Wittgenstein’s philosophy
that he wanted them to be known and available only to serious scholars
through archives. Later, when the editors had been blamed for keeping
materials secret, and the coded remarks were already widely circulated and
discussed, von Wright did agree to making the coded remarks available to all,
as happened with the Bergen Electronic Edition.31 The ambivalences in the
views of Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright on the relevance of the personal /
philosophical distinction for the idea of publishing everything takes us to
fundamental issues in debates about the self-understanding of philosophy.
Judgement about what, in Wittgenstein’s case, belongs and what does not
300 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

belong to everything will necessarily involve controversial judgements about

what philosophy is and to what extent interest in Wittgenstein and interest in
his philosophy are separable.32 But other topics that in the correspondence
troubled the literary executors carry philosophical weight too. The more we
think that the core of philosophy is ‘thinking’, understood perhaps as the
exercise of a non-personal, rational faculty that takes the form of a systematic
argument towards a thesis or positions on well-defined topics, the less likely
will it seem that Wittgenstein materials coming from conversations or
personal letters would be essential to an ‘everything’ publication. The more
we see philosophy as happening between people who engage with and react
to each other, the more we are likely to take an interest in dictations, lecture
notes, diaries, letters, reminiscences and reports from conversations as
relevant to it. So, underlying differences in philosophical commitment about
how we each understand philosophy will, in interplay with the differences in
understanding what philosophy was for Wittgenstein, play a role in our
judgement about the value, in a complete edition, of other texts than texts
written by Wittgenstein when he was working on his own.
The issue can be illustrated by the following case. Von Wright once asked
Anscombe to consent to the publication in Finnish of a volume of Wittgenstein
translations that would include ‘the Lectures and Conversations on
Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief and . . . the lecture on ethics, the
notes on Frazer and the paper of cause and effect which appeared in
Philosophia’. Anscombe responded quickly. Her letters would rarely have
sustained discussion of editorial principles but now she argues pointedly and
at some length that Cyril Barrett’s notes from lectures must ‘not appear as
one of a series of publications of Wittgenstein’.33 The exchange shows that
Anscombe was in this case much more alert than von Wright was to the
philosophical stakes that were involved. Von Wright did not come back to
the matter, but in his practice he later followed Anscombe’s line. Their joint
understanding of what should be included in what von Wright called ‘the
complete printed edition of the Nachlass’ was from then on that only
Wittgenstein’s manuscripts and typescripts should be there.34 There is to my
knowledge no later discussion between the literary executors of the relevance
for the Wittgenstein corpus of letters, lecture notes, personal memoirs and
second-hand information about what Wittgenstein said.

5. THE ‘PART II’ QUESTION AND THE ‘WORK’

QUESTION. IS THE PI A WORK BY WITTGENSTEIN?
The PI is widely regarded as the most definitive testimony of Wittgenstein’s
later philosophical views. Since the 1960s some questions concerning
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 301

editorial interventions and historical incidents that define the PI as the world
has known it have attracted attention. The biggest controversy has been
about what in the first 1953 edition, and in all later editions overseen by
Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright during their lifetimes, was called part II of
the PI. The discussion about part II owes a great deal to the fact that von
Wright, in 1982, thirty years after the first publication of the PI, and again
twice after that, in his publications raised concern about presenting it as a
work with two parts.35 Von Wright’s essay ‘The Troubled History of the
Philosophical Investigations, Part II’ (von Wright 1992) was discussed in the
correspondence between him and Anscombe. Anscombe is only mildly
critical. Her main concern is not about the substance of von Wright’s essay
but about his use of the word ‘troubled’ in the title, which, she thinks, may
not help to bring interesting issues into focus.36
In their editorial note to the 1953 edition of the PI, Rhees and Anscombe
had originally justified the two parts idea with a rather inscrutable reference
to Wittgenstein’s intentions. Von Wright was curious about the evidence for
their reported justification. On this matter, Rhees once wrote to von Wright
that when he visited Wittgenstein in Dublin in December 1948–January
1949 Wittgenstein was working on a ‘revision’ of ‘Part II’, saying that he
wanted to use it for revisions of part I adding: ‘But he [Wittgenstein] did not
explain just which parts of the “Part I” manuscript’ he wanted to replace
with the new material. Later Rhees comments: ‘I might guess “in the blue”
that he wanted to use them in re-writing, say, the last one hundred and fifty
§§ of part I.’ Similarly, Anscombe informs von Wright that her view on the
matter was based purely on what Wittgenstein said to her when she visited
him in Dublin (this visit, too, was in 1948). Both von Wright and Anscombe
note that the typescript on the basis of which ‘part II’ was printed did not yet
exist at that time.37 Interesting for us is the nature of von Wright’s critical
attention. He seeks to relate the reports from his colleagues to other evidence,
especially to evidence about the dating of manuscripts and typescripts, which
include remarks that are later published in the PI, part I. The critical attention
he brings into play thus has no intrinsic relation to questions about
interpreting and learning from Wittgenstein’s philosophy. In other words,
von Wright approaches the part II question as if it were the kind of question
that could best be decided, if indeed it is decidable at all, on the basis of two
kinds of evidence: evidence concerning the external features of the texts and
evidence concerning the author’s intention.38 In the letters, von Wright
implicitly takes for granted that there is such a thing as a certain work by
Wittgenstein, the PI, and that what was published as its part II is a candidate
for belonging to it.39 Rhees and Anscombe seem to find von Wright’s
approach to the matter natural. At least they do not object. Their silent
302 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

agreement reflects a larger, implicit consensus, that informs the creation of

Wittgenstein as accomplished by his original literary executors. This brings
us from the particular case of the status of part II to the general question of
works by Wittgenstein. Was he an author of works? And how important did
he think communication though works, or books, is in philosophy?
A major reason for assigning to part I of the PI a special, uniquely
authoritative status among Wittgenstein’s writings is the fact that it seemed
so self-evident to Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright to publish it in
Wittgenstein’s name soon after his death. There are also philosophical
grounds for seeing it as the most important key to his later philosophy.40
Nevertheless, it does not follow that it is innocent to regard it as a
(philosophical) work by Wittgenstein; the notions of ‘work’, ‘philosophy’
and ‘author’ stand in a precarious relation in this case.41 Wittgenstein often
talked with his friends about a book he was working on, about his book, and
about its volumes. But he also often talked about his intention to destroy his
writings and he is thought to have partly realized this intention at times.42
Wittgenstein’s qualms about publishing are sometimes brushed aside as
interesting only from a psychological point of view. But we should also ask
whether it is integral to Wittgenstein’s conception of philosophy that his
philosophical work and the book category, or work category, as well as his
reluctance to publish in print at all, all stand in an uneasy relationship to
each other. We may note, first, the following: We saw above that the claim
that the PI is a ‘work’ with two parts is primarily based on what Anscombe
and Rhees remember that Wittgenstein told them in 1948–1949. But their
memory from those same conversations also gives one reason to claim that
even the PI part I, is not in any standard sense a work by Wittgenstein.
Wittgenstein certainly did not complete it, and as Rhees emphasizes, he
‘could have no clue’ of what PI part I would have looked like if Wittgenstein
would have realized his one-time intention of working what has been called
part II into it, (or: into ‘it’).43 One purpose of the discussion below is to
provide some resources for further discussion on this matter.

6. RUSH RHEES AND THE UNITY OF

LOGIC AND ETHICS
As noted above, Rhees was always more interested than Anscombe and von
Wright were in the implications of editorial choices for the understanding of
Wittgenstein. However, it was only after some twenty years that their
differences in outlook became marked. To understand Rhees, I suggest it is
useful to think of him as raising two interrelated sets of concern. He criticized
the idea that the right way to edit would be to assume that we find in
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 303

Wittgenstein’s writings investigations of separable topics – certainty, colour,

mathematics, aesthetics, philosophy of psychology or mind and other topics
– and that we can do justice to his work by selecting on a topical basis
extracts of the writings and publish them as works by Wittgenstein. I will call
the idea Rhees criticized ‘the separability idea’ or ‘the compartmentalisation
idea’.44 The main advocate of this idea seems to have been Anscombe. Rhees’s
other concern was about what we might call ‘the time of philosophy’. The
first concern has caught the attention of scholars more than the second, the
latter being of greater interest to me here.45 Both concerns together are, as I
will suggest, helpful devices for bringing into focus some of Rhees’s views of
what there is in Wittgenstein’s work that makes it unusual and challenging.
Anscombe, and especially von Wright, looked at the physical manuscript
and typescript items as the prime candidate units for publications.46 In stark
contrast to this ‘external’, ‘synchronic’ or ‘documentary’ approach, Rhees’s
editorial effort was guided by what we may call a ‘critical’, ‘reconstructive’
and ‘longitudinal’ or ‘diachronic’ idea.47 Rhees believed that we can only
understand what philosophical work Wittgenstein undertakes at any specific
time if we see how his work often goes back to and continues a movement
of thought, an investigation, or several investigations that he has been
engaged in before, and if we see how the investigations of seemingly disparate
topics gain their direction from Wittgenstein’s comprehensive search for
understanding of himself. Rhees also believed that Wittgenstein’s
understanding of what such a comprehensive search needed to consider and
what kind of search it would have to be – that is, his conception of subjects,
methods and aims in philosophy – developed and that the understanding of
its development could not be served by looking at external criteria.48
Obviously, views on these matters must involve ambitious and controversial
interpretations of what Wittgenstein was concerned with and how his self-
understanding evolved, and would hence be fundamentally at odds with the
notion that the editing of Wittgenstein could be a neutral, or perhaps, a
‘naked’ enterprise.49
Arguably, the discrepancies between the approach of Anscombe and von
Wright on the one hand and Rhees on the other, reflect a deep difference in
their understanding of the role of philosophy, as Wittgenstein practised it and
as Rhees wanted to practise it, in our lives. Philosophy was for Anscombe and
von Wright not at the heart of their search for answers to the morally and
existentially most fundamental questions in life. Anscombe held religious
convictions that were not answerable to philosophy.50 Von Wright was
throughout his life strongly inclined to think that basic features of our
worldviews, including questions about meaning and the good and about moral
norms and political views, do not rest on a cognitive content that could be the
304 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

subject of rational deliberation.51 Hence, both Anscombe and von Wright

thought that although philosophical work could make our concepts clearer it
would in fundamental moral matters always stand in debt to semantic resources
that were external to it. That is one reason why a ‘professorial’ understanding
of philosophy was, arguably, not alien to them, and why they did not share
Drury’s alarmism about giving Wittgenstein to the professors. Rhees’s views
were closer to those of Drury than to those of Anscombe and von Wright.52 To
him, any clarification in Wittgenstein’s philosophy from any one time, directed
at any individual matter, could only be seen in the right light if we could also
see it as one aspect of Wittgenstein’s constant struggle with the most
fundamental and pressing questions in his life. For this reason, Rhees’s work
was already in the 1960s, as well as later, guided throughout by the effort to
lay bare the unity between what Wittgenstein studied, how he studied what he
studied and what motivated his search. To Rhees, understanding Wittgenstein’s
philosophy would always have to involve reflection on what made the
problems Wittgenstein worked on worthy of his attention; on what made
these problems problems for him. I call this ‘the unity of logic and ethics
idea’.53 The notes below try to give some content to this abstract notion. The
point is not to show that Rhees was in the right in all respects, but rather to
bring attention to how Rhees helps us see in Wittgenstein’s work challenges
that have not been made easy to see by Anscombe’s and von Wright’s editorial
interventions.
In a way, Anscombe and von Wright also have a notion of a unity of logic
(conceptual clarification) and ethics in Wittgenstein. They both thought that
the idea of philosophy as therapy encapsulated something that was new and
radical in Wittgenstein’s views. Nevertheless, in their hands Wittgensteinian
therapy becomes a method of finding out in the case of well-defined
individual conceptual problems how the idea of the problem is based on
illusions of sense. Problems are solved, or dissolved – the distinction does
not really matter – one by one and positions are arrived at. The only new
twist as compared with traditional problem-solving philosophy is that the
positions are positions about where there is sense and where there is no
sense rather than positions about where there is truth and where there is
falsity.
One way of expressing what goes missing here is to introduce a distinction
between two ways of understanding the idea that an important contribution
from Wittgenstein is that he shifts the attention of philosophers from
questions about truth to questions about sense or meaning. On the first,
‘binary’ understanding, in therapeutic philosophy we want to know what
makes sense, or has meaning, and what does not make sense, does not mean
anything. The second way of relating to, or working with, the notion of a
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 305

shift from the search for truth to the search for meanings as an important
element in Wittgenstein’s philosophy is to see it as an invitation to think of
meaning as something that has qualities and depth, rather than as something
that is there or not there.54 Consider just one well-known example. When
Wittgenstein writes, at PI 371, that ‘Essence is expressed by grammar’ the
remark can be seen as part of an effort to show that there is, or is not, such
a thing as the essential meaning of our words, or the essence of what words
refer to, that philosophy aspires to get right. Another way of making sense
of the remark is to read it as contribution to Wittgenstein’s evolving effort to
relate constructively to philosophical tradition and to take care, in his own
original way, of the idea that philosophy aims at metaphysical insight.55
Anscombe and von Wright both present the Wittgensteinian idea of
philosophy as therapy as a search for an understanding that makes our
problems go away completely when we see that where we thought we saw a
problem we were misled by nothing but an illusion.56 We might see an ethical
dimension in the binary idea of philosophy as therapy: when a problem is
dissolved an unrest in our soul goes away and then a moral relief has been
achieved, but of a ‘punctual’ kind. It was a part of the self-understanding of
Anscombe and von Wright that they did not see any major difference between
their binary and punctual idea of the aims of therapeutic philosophy and a
different conception according to which Wittgenstein’s philosophy aims at
an evolving, enriching and deepening understanding of meaning.57
I believe that Rhees saw the matter differently. For him the difference
between these two approaches to what the shift from the search for truth to
the search for meaning implies was of great importance. The fact that he
could not bring Anscombe and von Wright to share, or even understand, his
view created an acute sense of an intellectual difference, but also of a moral
distance, between him and his colleagues. That this experience was, at times,
a source of pain, at least for Rhees, comes out plainly when he writes to von
Wright, soon after they have met: ‘It was a good thing that we could meet.
The meeting left me feeling depressed and gloomy, and probably it was the
same for you. We meet so rarely . . . and we look on the work in such
different ways, that no one of us can understand the conceptions and
reactions of the others.’58
What did Rhees have in mind? One suggestion is that Rhees wanted to
make visible how all of Wittgenstein’s work has a moral motivation and
force. Rhees writes to von Wright:

You will agree that you cannot tell anyone what philosophy is, if he has
never been near enough the water to get his feet wet. And it is impossible
to tell anyone what Wittgenstein’s conception of philosophy is, if he has
306 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

made no long or serious study of what Wittgenstein has written. It would

have been impossible for Wittgenstein himself to do this. And the remarks
in that section of Typoskript 213 [the ‘Philosophie’ section] can have
force or sense only against the Hintergrund of the philosophizing which
Wittgenstein does, or has done. Wittgenstein used to say something in this
sense to people who wanted to come to his lectures. It is why he used (for
example) to speak of the work of philosophy as the work of changing
one’s way of looking at things, durch lange Übung.59

Why would long practice play any role in philosophy? One aspect has to do
with the distinction between being told what is true and understanding the
justification or grounds of the truth. To the extent that there is an intrinsic
relation between understanding how a truth or insight is arrived at and what
the insight is, philosophical practice has to do with the quality, or depth of
the understanding.60 A weighty topic; but more than that may be at stake.
One of the deepest differences between Rhees’s understanding of
Wittgenstein and the therapeutic understanding shared by Anscombe and
von Wright is, it seems to me, that to Rhees a study of conceptual problems
will typically not be a matter that can be concluded. My understanding of,
say, our capacity to understand, misunderstand and fail to understand
ourselves and each other may be helped if I see why, on certain occasions,
the notion of logic as something sublime, or of a ‘something’, perhaps a
beetle in a box that another person has and cannot show, leads me astray:
how it is false, or ‘false’.61 It is part of human life that we are sometimes
transparent to each other or suddenly revealed to each other, perhaps in love
or joy, in shame, despair or sorrow. The sense of transparency here is moral.
We can ‘see’, or know, or recognize, or report that we are being excluded or
left alone, or left behind, or cared for, or longed for, or loved. One aspect of
what we then ‘see’ is the weight of it. The dramatic cases are the easiest to
recognize: When Cordelia in King Lear sees, through her tears, the moral
corruption of her sisters and father, she sees the beetle they might have
wanted to keep secret and which they may have thought they can keep
secret. Perhaps she knows their qualia (if that term can be made sense of)
better than they do themselves?62 But unless the truth of the notion of the
inner and private, or of the sublime nature of logic, the real needs that these
notions answer to, is also recognized, we will not understand why in other
cases the image of the beetle, or the study of family-likeness between rules in
logic and in ordinary language, will not help us; why there is often a problem
with, for instance, recognizing the relative weight in any given case of
betrayal and indifference. It is only if a philosophical problem that troubles
us has very few roots and repercussions in our lives, that a therapeutic
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 307

discovery will be a result that will in any simple or straightforward way make
us safe from surprise. The Übung Rhees has in mind is not only needed in
order to understand the possibility or impossibility of, say, giving sense to the
ideas of a private language, or absolute correct rule-following, or the notions
of logical and moral necessity. It is also needed in order for us to understand
how the role played by justification in these matters may alter our view of
what it is that the justification in philosophy is about – how it may alter our
idea of what word meaning is; what we search for when we study the
meaning of words.63
A further aspect of why Rhees might have insisted on Übung as necessary
for getting to what is important in Wittgenstein’s philosophy is the personal
nature of philosophical problems.64 Readers may be brought to philosophy
by questions and problems in their lives which are different from the ones
that made philosophical work important for Wittgenstein. If so, readers may
learn from a study of how Wittgenstein worked on his problems how they
might work on their own questions (Rhees, 1974: 76f.). Rhees wanted to
represent Wittgenstein as an author to whom philosophical problems are
such that we may only come to terms with them by pursuing at different
times different approaches to them, seeing new connections, placing them in
new contexts, making them speak to examples and discourses the relevance
of which we may only be able to arrive at when our imaginations have been
enriched in ways we could not have expected or guessed at before. To
concretize, we may think here of the controversy between Rhees and
Anscombe and von Wright over the relation between Wittgenstein’s ‘Lecture
on Ethics’ (LE), and what has been published as ‘Remarks on Frazer’ (RF)
and On Certainty (OC). If we think that these give access to separable
investigations we will get a different notion of the relation between
Wittgenstein’s critique of Frazer as being ‘much more savage than most of
his savages’ and the notion of ‘hinge propositions’ in OC than we do if we
think of them as closely related.65 In the former case it will, for instance, be
easier than in the latter case to think that Wittgenstein would later on, in the
light of the insights arrived at in OC, withdraw his notion that Frazer is more
primitive than the primitive people he writes about. Or, to put the point
more generally: If we think of OC as separable from RF it is easier to read
OC as a pamphlet advocating cultural relativism about moral worldviews
and cosmologies than if we read it as standing in continuity with the morally
engaged nature of RF, in which curiosity, respect and an effort to learn from
those foreign to us is a key concern.66
The general question of the unity between theoretical and moral concerns
arises in the correspondence primarily in relation to the editing of RFM.
Anscombe and von Wright worry that the book has not been well received
308 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

among specialists. Rhees cuts discussion short, noting sharply: ‘I will repeat
only that if someone like Kreisel should say that in suggestions like these
Wittgenstein is trying to do what he ought to have left to mathematicians –
then he would show that he had not grasped what Wittgenstein was up to.
Wittgenstein was not pretending to do mathematics.’67 What, if anything, is
the point of Rhees’s implied distinction between work in mathematics and
work on something else, let us call it the ‘foundations of mathematics’? One
way of approaching the matter is to ask whether, and in what sense, the
notes on logic and the discussion of natural numbers in the PI are, or are not,
related to human, moral concern. The question takes us, as I wish to suggest,
to the heart of Rhees’s differences with Anscombe and von Wright about
editing, and also to an aspect of Wittgenstein that Rhees more than most
interpreters was alert in observing and wanted to bring out. The topic is,
again, huge. I will provide a few remarks on the matter, first with close
reference to how Rhees formulates his concern in letters (i) and then in two
separate subsections (ii–iii) with reference to mainstream debates in
Wittgenstein scholarship.68

(i) In trying to explain, in letters to von Wright, his preference for editions
which integrate writings on seemingly different topics and from different
times, one theme which Rhees often puts forward is Wittgenstein’s discussion
of rule-following. Rhees draws attention to the close contact between
Wittgenstein’s discussion of rule-following in mathematics and in language.
He also emphasizes, again and again, the interconnectedness of the
separability theme and the time-of-philosophy question. Here is one
example: Rhees discusses the relation of his editing of PB to the discussion
of whether to publish the Big Typescript as it is, and to related matters. He
goes into great detail about the genealogy (date and ms. source) of various
remarks, which he has published as two separate appendices to PB, with the
titles ‘Komplex und Tatsache’ and ‘Der Begriff der Unendlichkeit in der
Mathematik’. He also worries that his presentation of the details of the
genealogy will make it difficult for von Wright to see ‘the wood for the
trees’. The wood he wants to present, or at least some aspects of it, is
explained as follows:

I will only mention, without discussing it, an obvious point in which

Komplex [‘Komplex und Tatsache’] bears on the double essay on Das
Unendliche [‘Der Begriff der Unendlichkeit in der Mathematik’]. . . .
Throughout this essay we find developing a new conception of einer
Regel . . . and new developments in the conception of logical analysis; in
the conception of the Anwendung mathematischer Ausdrücke, and in the
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 309

relation of such expressions zur Wirklichkeit. . . . This was on the way

towards the newer conception of Grammatik. . . . My point is here that
‘Komplex und Tatsache’ shows one of the developments which was
particularly influential in this change. . . . he could no longer talk
about Übereinstimmung mit der Wirklichkeit in anything like the old
senses of Abbildung and Projektion. . . . It went also with the recognition
of what had been wrong in the way he spoke of Elementarsätze in the
Tractatus.
Russell’s and Frege’s accounts of the relation of mathematics and
reality; the danger of falling into the cruder formulations of the Formalist
position; the faults in Russell’s account of possibility and its relation to
actuality; the way Frege works with ‘identity’ . . . these questions had
occupied Wittgenstein from the beginning and continued to do so . . . .
Witness for instance his later discussion of: Whether there could be a
people who had an applied mathematics without a pure mathematics. –
This was part of his discussion of the relation between grammatical
propositions and material propositions: his idea, in his later years, that
there was not a sharp distinction between them.69

The letter contains much food for thought. In the passage I quote we see,
among other things, Rhees’s concern with the long time over which
Wittgenstein’s views on identity, logical analysis and logical form, and other
topics in the philosophy of logic and mathematics develop. Rhees not only
links the interpretation of the material on ‘Komplex und Tatsach’, which was
written in 1931, to the work leading to the Tractatus in the 1910s. He also
stresses that the material sheds light on the gradual shift to views which
crystallize in Wittgenstein’s conceptions of grammar in his ‘later years’.
(Interesting for the present context is, for instance, that when Rhees claims
that the later Wittgenstein did not distinguish sharply between material and
grammatical propositions, his claim fits what I here have called the non-
binary idea of philosophy as therapy better than it fits the binary idea.) We
also see how the longitudinal interest is intimately linked to the separability
question. When Rhees in the same letter continues ‘any such discussion of
“grammatical rules” bore on his way of thinking about mathematical proof ’,
we see how, to Rhees, our understanding of Wittgenstein’s conception of
grammar, which has often been placed centrally in interpretations of his later
philosophy of language and its relevance for moral philosophy (and, arguably
also for political philosophy70), can benefit from a study of Wittgenstein’s
work on the philosophy of logic and mathematics.
Similarly, but more pointedly, Rhees comments in the following year on
von Wright’s draft for a preface to OC:
310 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

You say in the first paragraph: “In the middle of 1949 . . . .Malcolm
aroused his interest in Moore’s ‘Defence of Common Sense’ . . . This
book contains the whole of what Wittgenstein wrote on this topic from
that time until his death.” . . .
I think this is very misleading. And it may prevent people from
recognizing the constant connexions between these remarks and his
earlier discussions.71

These and many other places in the letters very clearly bring out how
important it was to Rhees to fight the ‘separability’ idea of Wittgenstein’s
work and how a longitudinal time perspective is required to make his
opposition clear. It is more difficult to bring into sharp relief the many ways
in which these same concerns are integral to what I call Rhees’s unity of logic
and ethics idea, but I will illustrate my proposal by providing two further
quotes from letters. When von Wright informs Rhees that he is about to
bring out a volume with letters from Wittgenstein ‘to his Cambridge friends’,
Rhees writes back:

We could read the last two sentences of this letter [from Russell to
Wittgenstein72] as an expansion of Wittgenstein’s answer to Russell when
he was pacing up and down Russell’s room about midnight, and came in
saying, ‘When I leave this room, I am going to commit suicide.’ He then
started pacing up and down the room, without saying anything at all.
Russell sat quiet for about three quarters of an hour, and then he asked,
‘Wittgenstein, are you thinking about your sins, or about logic?’ ‘Both’,
said Wittgenstein, and went on pacing. – Russell told me this as an amusing
anecdote. . . . I have not read Russell’s autobiography, but I would guess
he tells the story there. . . . This idea of mit mir Selbst in’s Reine kommen,
is one that recurs again and again in Wittgenstein’s reflexions on
Lebensfragen or personal matters. . . . I do not think the idea will mean
much to most English readers. If it does not, then English readers will get
a very fragmentary idea of him and his writings.73

It is not obvious what Rhees has in mind here. But one aspect is the intimacy
between his work in philosophical logic with what was deep, and perhaps to
many of his readers alien, in his personal moral struggle. The same notion of
this intimacy is touched upon in later letters, as, for instance, when Rhees
writes to von Wright: ‘He [Unseld] suggested printing the Lecture on Ethics
. . . in the same volume with Über Gewissheit. At first I thought it incongruous.
On second thought, I was inclined to think it a good idea. . . . the volume
containing the Lecture and the remarks on Gewissheit would be a better
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 311

introduction to Wittgenstein’s way of thinking then either of them alone

could be. In particular, I should welcome a corrective to the idea that his
views on ethics can be understood without seeing them in relation to his
views on logic or philosophy.’74

(ii) We may think here, also, of the relevance of Rhees’s views with respect
to the difference between Kripke’s and Cavell’s Wittgenstein. Kripke’s
philosophical engagement in his Wittgenstein: On Rules and Private Language
(Kripke 1982), revolves around the idea that if not even plus can be
distinguished safely from quus, no epistemic foundations are safe and
relativism is invincible. In contrast, Cavell invites us to consider how
Wittgenstein’s rule-following discussion gives us an opportunity to see how
the human condition involves a dialectic between a search for certainty and
the acknowledgement of fallibility (Cavell 1979). The difference between
the perspectives can be illuminated in view of what I have called the
difference between the binary and non-binary reading of Wittgenstein’s idea
of philosophy as therapy and its implications for the moral valency of the
idea that trust in reason is endangered by radical doubt. When we come
from the binary reading, the perspective we easily assume is that Wittgenstein’s
investigation stands in the Cartesian tradition of searching for a philosophical
safeguard against radical doubt.75 Thus, for Kripke, the discussion of plus
and quus is framed as a search for unassailable correctness in rule-following,
which stands in continuity with the search for infallible inference, and,
thereby, with the search for a centre of all possible rationality. Kripke thus
interprets Wittgenstein as one who is searching for, and perhaps undermining
our belief in, something that would fulfil the dream that has haunted Western
philosophy since Parmenides, namely of finding through a use of pure
conceptual argument access to a realm of being, or form of knowledge, that
is free from the risks that belong to timely existence and the burden of
responsibility for one’s judgement.76 When seen from another perspective,
suggested by Cavell, the same investigations by Wittgenstein also include a
critical interrogation of the metaphysical idea of logical or conceptual
necessity as a foundational realm of a higher order. In the first kind of
questioning we ask: How can we understand the idea of the crystalline purity
of logical inference? In the second we ask: How can we understand the
(moral?) idea that the study of that purity, of (transcendent?) logical necessity,
takes us close to something of greatest importance? It is only when these two
questions are brought to bear on one another that further questions arise and
come to life concerning the intrinsically moral nature of the idea of pure
reason and about why the word ‘necessity’ seems to have three faces; the
face of laws of nature, of logical truth and of moral duty, and about what
312 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

follows for someone who searches for a good life and self-determination
from all this.

(iii) Another way of linking Rhees’s anti-compartmentalist and longitudinal

views to well-known later discussions in Wittgenstein scholarship is, I want
to suggest, to bring them to bear on Wittgenstein’s discussion of Frege’s
notion of exactness. In the PI Wittgenstein interrogates Frege’s idea that an
area that does not have a sharp boundary is not really an area at all. He
draws attention to the many uses of the word ‘exact’, some of which are
mathematical and some not.77 One lesson is that we will get a different
perspective on what exactness is, or, on what the word means, if we think of
a Fregean ‘mathematically idealized’ use of the word as (i) paradigmatic and
as normative for other uses than we get if we think of the different uses as
(ii) complementary, implying that there is no normative hierarchy or
transitivity between different contexts, or if we think of (iii) a non-
mathematical ‘everyday’ use of the word ‘exact’ as primary and all other uses
as derivative. The more we think that mathematical reason carries, or ought
to carry, authority in our civilization or way of life, the more are we likely to
be attracted by the first of these options. However, when we see this, we also
see that the authority we want, then, to invest in mathematical reasoning is
invested there for moral reasons, and hence open to critical investigation
from that perspective.78

7. VON WRIGHT AND THE UNITY OF

WITTGENSTEIN’S PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS
AND HIS CRITIQUE OF MODERNITY
I noted above that von Wright by and large seconded Anscombe’s vision of
‘naked’ and ‘compartmentalised’ editing. It seems to me right to say that
editing of Wittgenstein that realizes this vision has the effect of ‘domesticating’
Wittgenstein; of making his writings easier to receive in standard analytic,
academic philosophy than they become when they are edited along the lines
preferred by Rhees. Nevertheless, even if von Wright did not feel at home in
addressing the ‘Rheesean’ unity of ethics and logic idea, through some of his
editorial work he in fact promoted an interest in it.79
A similar, but even more pronounced tension between von Wright’s
Anscombean ‘domesticating’ editing of the Wittgenstein materials, and the
ways in which he as editor has also paved the way for more transgressive and
less narrowly academic, or ‘professorial’, interpretations of Wittgenstein, is
evident in the case of the VB / CV. Von Wright’s work as its editor is his most
personal and radical contribution to what in the present volume is called the
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 313

creation of Wittgenstein. Two concerns were at stake for von Wright. Von
Wright wanted to show to the world Wittgenstein’s artistic, and hence more
than professorial, genius by giving to the world what he sieved out from the
Nachlass and presented as aphorisms by Wittgenstein.80 He also wanted to
show Wittgenstein’s relevance for the critique of modernity and, thereby, for
social and political philosophy. We may call the latter topic the question of
the unity of logic and political philosophy in Wittgenstein’s work. Only that
will be discussed here.81
Von Wright’s interest is prompted by changes in his own moral and
intellectual profile. In the late 1960s von Wright again, after a gap of more
than twenty years, steps forward as a public intellectual who engages in
discussion on the social and political upheavals of his times.82 From the
early 1970s onwards, von Wright adds to his interest in current political
matters engagement in discussion of social and political philosophy with
Charles Taylor, with Karl-Otto Apel and Jürgen Habermas from the
Frankfurt School, with Mihailo Markovic and Gaja Petrovic from the
Yugoslavian Praxis group and others.83 It is when these elements in his own
journey have become alive to him that von Wright decides to go back to the
collection of general remarks he had distilled from Wittgenstein’s writings in
the 1960s and proceeds to publish VB.84 Immediately after the book had
been published, von Wright presented it to the second Wittgenstein
conference at Kirchberg. The key topic of his presentation was the question
of what I here call the unity of logic and political philosophy, or, to use von
Wright’s terminology, the question of the relation between Wittgenstein’s
philosophy and his critical views of progress and modernity.85 Von Wright’s
interest is keen, even intense, but his pronouncements are extremely cautious
and ambivalent.
In the opening paragraphs of his foreword to VB, von Wright introduces
a distinction between general remarks and philosophical remarks and he
claims that what the book presents is a collection of general remarks. The
distinction is immediately obscured when von Wright goes on to describe his
collection. He says he has selected and arranged ‘notes’ taken from
Wittgenstein’s manuscript material, which he claims have the following
traits; they are ‘autobiographical’, ‘about the nature of philosophical activity’
and about ‘subjects of a general sort’. These characterizations may easily give
the impression that in von Wright’s view these notes are intrinsically not
philosophical and, in particular, that they are not part of Wittgenstein’s
philosophy. This impression is reinforced when von Wright writes that the
notes are ‘scattered among the philosophical texts’. But von Wright also
writes that these same notes ‘do not belong directly with his philosophical
works’, that the notes are in ‘the manuscript material’, and sometimes that
314 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

they lose some of their force when they are taken from their context.86 Von
Wright’s presentation is most convoluted.
In the last section of the 1982 version of the essay von Wright read at the
1977 conference at Kirchberg, he writes that he has discussed ‘three aspects
of Wittgenstein’s thought . . . the view that the individual’s beliefs,
judgements, and thoughts are entrenched in unquestioningly accepted
language-games and socially sanctioned forms of life . . . that philosophical
problems are disquietudes of the mind caused by some malfunctioning in the
language-games and therewith in the life of the community. . . . [and]
Wittgenstein’s rejection of the scientific-technological civilization of
industrialized societies.’ (von Wright 1982g: 215.) Von Wright claims that ‘it
can hardly be denied that these three aspects are closely interconnected and
deeply integrated in Wittgenstein’s intellectual personality’. He adds, with
no explanation or justification, that ‘there is not much reason for thinking
that they [the first and the third aspect] are connected’, except in Wittgenstein’s
thought in which they were, von Wright writes, connected, but perhaps only
for ‘historical and psychological reasons’. Such reasons von Wright
characterizes as ‘accidental or contingent’. Moreover, von Wright insists
that it is only if the connection between the first and the third aspect is not
only historical, psychological, accidental or contingent but also conceptual
that it is ‘relevant to the understanding of his [Wittgenstein’s] philosophy’.
(Ibid. 215f.)
Let us remind ourselves of the textual ground for von Wright’s discussion.
It is VB, that is, the selection von Wright has made based on his notion that
in Wittgenstein’s writings some notes are philosophical and others are
general, and not, or not directly, philosophical. So, von Wright first produces
a text, the VB, which builds fundamentally on the assumption that notes,
which are stripped of their context, can be readily identifiable as not
philosophical when they stand alone. He then asks whether these same
notes, or some of them, namely the ones that address politically explosive
questions about modernity and progress, are also philosophically relevant.
But the problem – whether Wittgenstein’s philosophical work and his
critique of the scientific-technological civilization of industrialized societies
are separate endeavours – arises only because of the terms of discussion set
by von Wright himself: Von Wright’s claims both that the notes he has
selected for VB ‘are’ there ‘in the manuscript material Wittgenstein left
behind’ and that they are ‘scattered among the philosophical texts’. So, he
claims that in some sense they belong to the philosophical texts. But he also
claims that they ‘do not belong’ to them ‘directly’.’87
Von Wright’s ambivalence is also his great merit. It is not clear how to
apply distinctions such as general / philosophical, personal / conceptual or
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 315

political / non-political in these matters. In our engagement with Wittgenstein,

our fundamental tools for conceptual orientation and self-understanding are
constantly challenged. Von Wright probably never settled the scores on how,
or whether, philosophy and the critique of modernity are linked in
Wittgenstein’s thinking, nor did he achieve clarity about the same question
in his own thinking.88 However, it is one of von Wright’s lasting achievements
to have drawn attention, by his editing of VB together with his essays on
Wittgenstein and his times, to the fact that the question stares those of us
who are so inclined in the face in Wittgenstein’s work and life. A case in
point, highlighted by von Wright, is Wittgenstein’s remark about cars – a
remark that may strike readers who live under the shadow of climate crisis
as a dark premonition:

The sickness of a time is cured by an alteration in the mode of life of

human beings, and it was possible for the sickness of philosophical
problems to get cured only through a changed mode of thought and of
life, not through a medicine invented by an individual.
Think of the use of the motor-car producing or encouraging certain
sicknesses, and mankind being plagued by such sickness until, from some
cause or other, as the result of some development or other, it abandons
the habit of driving.89

Von Wright quotes the passage and comments: ‘The passage is impressive
when quoted out of context. But it receives a new dimension when we read
it in its own context.’90 Now, what is its ‘own context’ and what ‘new
dimension’ does it there receive? We may follow von Wright and say: the
context that is ‘its own’ is a discussion of set theory in the RFM. But is that
right? To Wittgenstein the problem with set theory was the fantasy that often
accompanied interest in it, according to which set theory would open doors
to a new, correct understanding of the foundations of mathematics. This
idea, the idea that we understand mathematics and other cultural practices
better through a reductive analysis of their supposed single or narrow base,
than by investigating the variety of language-games and practices in which
what we call mathematics is involved, is, I think, one element of Wittgenstein’s
critique. The critique is not of set theory but of mystifications of it. It is a
critique of how set theory is thought to be relevant. Arguably, a false idea of
its relevance is one pathology of modernity. If that is the case, then
Wittgenstein’s discussion of set theory and of the modern dream of basing
mathematics on something else, of reduction, is in itself a contribution to a
self-criticism of modernity and an effort to see through and cure us from one
of its pathologies. That is, however, not how von Wright saw things. His
316 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

views are, in fact, quite paradoxical. He first claims that for Wittgenstein set
theory was ‘a cancer rooted deep in the body of our culture’ (von Wright
1982g: 208), the scientific-technological civilization of industrialized
societies that Wittgenstein criticizes in many remarks in VB. He then suggests
that set theory, and also another key topic in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy,
behaviouristic psychology, are both ‘only symptoms of a sickness, not its
cause. The cause is in the language-games and reflects in its turn the way of
life.’ (Ibid.) He continues: ‘All the philosopher can do is to expose the
disorder in the language-games, describe it . . . this intellectual cure . . . will
have no important consequences of a social nature.’(Ibid. 208f.)
There are two paradoxical elements in what von Wright writes. The first
is direct and uncomplicated. Von Wright claims that Wittgenstein sees set
theory both as a sickness (‘a cancer’) and as ‘only a symptom’ and, hence, not
a sickness. The second is more complicated, leaving us with the diffuse
picture that in interpreting Wittgenstein’s remarks on set theory three
dimensions are relevant. One is Wittgenstein’s exposition or description of
the language-game of set theory. The second element is that such exposition
can serve as an intellectual cure that rids the mind of the individual practising
philosophy from ‘torments produced by the unrecognized illness’. (Ibid.
209.) The third is the question how, or whether, the first and second element
have social consequences.
The idea that philosophical arguments have no connection to social
practice is difficult to fathom.91 Von Wright’s claim is, of course, in line with
Wittgenstein’s claim that the sickness of a time could not be cured by a
medicine invented by an individual. But what is the status of such a claim? It
is certainly a claim about politics and about how historical change happens,
or how it does not happen; how historical change can not be explained. The
claim could be studied for its meaning and its truth. Wittgenstein did not
engage in such study – his remark strikes me as an outcry, not as an idea that
caught his philosophical interest. In contrast, von Wright showed keen
philosophical interest in the topic, as evidenced in his essays on Marx’s
philosophy of history, which he wrote at the time when he was busy editing
VB (von Wright 1978).
To sum up, my claim is that von Wright’s statements about what is
philosophical in Wittgenstein’s writings and what is not philosophical are
not very clear. The same is true of von Wright’s remarks on the relation
between Wittgenstein’s remarks on his times and his remarks on other topics.
Nevertheless, von Wright discovered as integral to Wittgenstein’s philosophy
a theme that Rhees and Anscombe were, it seems to me, mostly blind to and
which, arguably, at least according to Socrates, is integral to all philosophical
investigation. The theme is the relation between work on oneself, on how
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 317

one sees things on the one hand, and interventions in social life on the
other.92

8. A BLIND SPOT
In the first remark in the Philosophical Investigations there is a quote from
St Augustine followed by comments. How many voices, or points of view,
are part of the dialogue that commences? What is Wittgenstein’s role and
presence? And how does the next remark, PI 2, speak to the dialogue in
PI 1? Interest in such questions has opened space for discussion of the
philosophical relevance of the form of Wittgenstein’s writing in the PI. It is
in this connection that some researchers have drawn attention to how
important was the part played in the studies that are the basis for what was
published as the PI, not only by writing and rewriting individual remarks,
but also by arranging and rearranging the order between them. The effects
can be of many kinds: that linkages between topics are made visible or
hidden; contrasts, possible objections and alternative developments are
brought into view; our confidence in an idea is stabilized or undermined and
so forth. It is in relation to such studies that the words compose, composition,
polyvocality and polyphony have found a place in Wittgenstein studies.93
These terms were rarely used by Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright. In fact,
in their work as Wittgenstein editors they showed almost no interest in the
possible philosophical relevance of Wittgenstein’s painstaking work on the
arrangement and rearrangement of his writings – of his work on its form.94
The consequence is the single most remarkable lacuna in their work as
literary executors: the lack of attention to the many ways in which the PI,
which they always agreed has a privileged status in the Nachlass as an
essentially completed masterpiece, is different in form from any other books
they published in Wittgenstein’s name. Their discussion of the part II issue
testifies to this lack. Their deliberations about what kind of work Wittgenstein
might have done if he had realized the intention Rhees and Anscombe ascribe
to him of working material from part II and further material into part I is
limited to reports about the quality of the various materials, as if the quality
would be what it is regardless of how the material is used or brought to life
in the composition of a dialogue between multiple voices.95
What could be the philosophical relevance and value of such a polyvocal
composition? Or what philosophically relevant differences could there be
between a text that is composed as a dialogue between multiple voices as
compared with one that is composed as a linear argument, or, let us say, as a
dialogue between only the two voices Cavell once singled out, the voice of
temptation and the voice of correction (Cavell 1969: 71). To see that
318 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

compositional work is philosophically relevant, let us first simply remind

ourselves of the remark about cars in RFM: following the suggestions by von
Wright we can say that with the car in the picture the critique of modernity
and the philosophy of mathematics become intertwined in RFM. One might
respond that this intertwining would be there anyway. But is that so? Would
St Augustine be there anyway, in the PI, had Wittgenstein not quoted him?
Perhaps. And is there any connection between the role played by the
composition of dialogue between multiple voices, Wittgenstein’s reluctance
to publish and the changes in his conception of philosophy after, roughly,
1935? Perhaps some connections can be discerned.
Consider Socrates. His philosophical practice consisted in nothing but
polyvocal dialogue. Moreover, he did not leave any philosophical writings
behind even though there is little doubt that he knew how to write.96 Why?
The more we think that philosophy is an open-ended search about how we
are willing to let the words we share with others – words we owe to them,
receive from them and give back to them, as gifts and curses – guide us in our
effort to live upright lives, the more integral what Vlastos calls Socrates’
‘principle of sincerity’ becomes to philosophy.97 Arguably, you can only
know what I mean with what I say, with what I claim in a philosophical
investigation, if you know me, how I live, how what I say about the meaning
of a word bears on my life. In written exchange between strangers this
internal relation between what I put forward and how I live is difficult to
discern. That difficulty is a difficulty in your understanding of me, of how I
understand a particular concept. Hence, the suspicion that because, or to
the extent that, the principle of sincerity is vital in philosophy, written
communication between strangers cannot serve philosophy well.
It has become a common perception that the most perfect exemplar of
Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, and the fullest expression of what he wanted
to achieve, is to be found roughly in the first 420 of the numbered remarks
in PI, part 1. But that is problematic. Rhees once wrote to von Wright that
Wittgenstein had told him that he was not satisfied with the parts we know
as remarks 109–133, which are essential to what in the literature is often
referred to as ‘the philosophy chapter’.98 Rhees also on another occasion
notes ‘what a kick I got out of it’, when Wittgenstein read aloud to him in
summer 1944, presenting a remark about the activity of butter as the last
remark in the book he worked on.99 This very remark, remark 693, is what
we now have as the last remark in PI part I. The last sentence of the remark
is put in parenthesis. It reads: ‘(It would also be possible to speak of an
activity of butter when it rises in price, and if no problems are produced
by this it is harmless.)’ Why was Wittgenstein pleased to end his book
like this?100
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 319

Suggestion 1: Wittgenstein was happy to keep this ‘butter remark’ as an

ending because of how it stands in dialogue with the Preface, and in it, in
particular with the lack of any suggestion that the purpose and value of the
work would have anything at all to do with the notion that philosophy, when
successful, results in truth in the sense of correct ideas, arguments or theories.
If that is at least part of what Wittgenstein speaks to when he speaks about
the possible legitimacy of speaking of the activity of butter, possibly the
butter remark serves as a reminder that philosophy when it engages you and
me, and unknown others who are not now present, but who share our
language and could be part of our conversation, is neither an engagement
which must bring us to agreement, nor an engagement in which disagreement
must tear us apart. It is also not an engagement that must come to an end.
But it has the promise that, thanks to what we learn from it, you and I will
allow each other, and other others, who are not present now, to better
understand and appreciate what we take on board, what burden we accept
to carry and what opportunities become available if we are ready to endorse,
or reject, or leave open, the acceptability of speaking in such-and-such a way
of, say, the secrets of one’s own mind, or of numbers, or essences, or of the
activity of butter when its price rises.

Suggestion 2: A side-effect of how remark 693 of the PI speaks to the

Preface is how it speaks to Wittgenstein’s qualms about remarks 109–133.
When judged from the perspective of the Preface it seems disappointing that
these remarks are not meandering or do not travel criss-cross vast landscapes,
they do not concern many subjects, and they do not leave as much as possible
to the reader. They rather run the risk of being read (as has so frequently
happened) as announcing truths about philosophy that readers can take on
board, sparing them the trouble of thinking and arriving at judgements
themselves.101 If we keep in mind how greatly other, later work by the literary
executors has reinforced the notion that Wittgenstein can be read as a
philosopher who produced treatises on separable topics and arrived at
positions on these topics, this seems to serve as a fateful ground for missing
out on Wittgenstein, at least to the extent that the integrated, open-ended,
self-transformative dimensions of his work are essential to it. But when
seen from the perspective also of remark 693 we may ask: how bad is
that? If someone says that we learn from Wittgenstein that philosophy
leaves everything as it is, or, that we learn how to solve or dissolve some
particular problems of philosophy, and no problems are produced, then
what he says is harmless.
I will stop here: the point here is not to insist on any particular lesson to
be taken from the notion that the composition of polyvocal, or polyphonic,
320 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

dialogue added a new philosophical quality to Wittgenstein’s writings; a

quality that has consequences for how we understand what kind, or kinds,
of truth philosophy searches for and the ways in which we think about the
worth of that search. The point is that the topic is legitimate and that Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright have not made it easy to discern.

9. ENLIGHTENMENT OPTIMISM:
FROM SOCRATES TO WITTGENSTEIN
Few great philosophers have been as ambivalent about the worth of philosophy
as Wittgenstein. He famously ends the preface to his only ambitious publication,
the Tractatus, with a memorable note on how little we should expect from
philosophy for dealing with the real problems of life. After 1933 he did not
publish in print at all. Midway between the intentions at times to publish his
work in print and at times to destroy it, is his desire at times, mirrored also in
one paragraph in the printed preface about for whom the PI is intended,
merely to make a few copies of his work to give to select friends.102 Then, after
Wittgenstein’s death, came Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright. Now, in view of
Wittgenstein’s will, and in view of the understanding Wittgenstein must have
had about their response to it, Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright could hardly
not have published a fair amount of his writings. (That they were in their right
to publish and, thereby, to contribute to the creation of Wittgenstein as they
did is of course indisputable.) Nevertheless, one may wonder why they did not
comment on the friction between their eagerness to publish and Wittgenstein’s
hesitance about publishing. It appears to me that if we want to understand
Wittgenstein, we need to understand how his qualms about whether to publish
at all are intrinsic to some aspects of his understanding of what philosophy is
and, in particular, about the worth of philosophy.
It is possible to argue that we can characterize Socratic philosophy as a
philosophy which is about the meaning of words, which does not seek and
does not arrive at truth, which examines self and others in a many-voiced,
friendly, dialogue between equals, which thereby is a form of caring for the
conditions of rational existential and political self-determination, which is
always open-ended and which, still, when it has all these features, realizes
one form, perhaps the highest possible form, of human wisdom and
perfection. It is possible to argue that Wittgenstein’s life, work and writings
constitute a practice of philosophy that is in all these respects similar to our
characterization of Socratic philosophy.103 There would be only one radical
difference between Socrates and Wittgenstein, but over a most fundamental
matter, namely enlightenment optimism. Wittgenstein urged Drury to leave
academic philosophy and never give up serious thinking. Concerning the
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 321

necessity of the latter, he was perhaps as convinced as Socrates was. But I

don’t think he could have said, as Socrates did, that a life not spent examining
oneself and others is not worth living.104 Arguably, this is so because we can
sense a worry in Wittgenstein that could not have been there for Socrates.
The worry is the worry of those who, like Horkheimer and Adorno (1979),
arrive more than twenty centuries after Socrates. They look at what we have
done and what we do, and at what has happened and is happening to Europe
and to the now globally dominant Western civilization, when we have during
all that time partly seen ourselves and each other as following through on
Socrates’ proposal that we commit ourselves to enlightenment. Wittgenstein
once expressed his view about the worth of this civilization by telling von
Wright, shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War, that for the
decay of its civilization to be completed, Europe needed ‘not one, but two or
three great wars’.105 106

NOTES
1. See Erbacher 2016 and Erbacher’s contribution to the present volume.
2. See the Table of posthumous publications by Wittgenstein edited by Rhees,
Anscombe and von Wright in this volume. In his will Wittgenstein gave to
Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright the task to serve as the executors of his
literary remains. Henceforth I will in this article refer to them as the literary
executors and also as editors of Wittgenstein. When other editors than any of
the three are intended I will make this explicit.
3. Quote from a letter by von Wright to Rhees, 1 September 1984 (WWA,
Wri-FC-006). The full sentence and the next read: ‘It is true that we have
wanted to give Wittgenstein to the world in as “naked” a form as possible –
without long introductions or learned comments. This has been right.’ Two
questions invite themselves. One: what ‘world’ did the executors think
Wittgenstein ought to be given to? And two: what, or who, is the ‘Wittgenstein’
that should be given? Should we read von Wright as really meaning, not any
‘world’, but the world of professional philosophy? And when von Wright in the
letter writes ‘Wittgenstein’ does he really have in mind something more precise,
namely ‘Wittgenstein’s philosophical writings?’ (See von Wright 1982a; 5.)
From conversations with colleagues I know that it may seem natural that we fill
in these or similar words – such as ‘the world of academic philosophy,’ or
‘philosophical writings, not personal writings’ –, as a matter of course, assuming
that we are then true to a self-evident background understanding shared by
Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright. My impression is that while there are things
to be said in favour of such a tendency, there are also things that can be said
against it, on both points. Three further quotes from the correspondence must
here suffice to provide an indication of the kind of complexity both issues – the
question of Wittgenstein’s audience and of what (or who) ought to be given to
this audience – involve, and involved also for Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright.
On 15 September 1983 von Wright writes to Anscombe: ‘I think one can say
322 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

that, in the past, we did our best to make Wittgenstein’s posthumous writings
accessible to the world of learning.’ (NLF, vWC 714.11–12.) The next year, on
26 June, he writes to Anscombe again: ‘Our moral task was to give Wittgenstein
to the world so to speak and to make him known to and read by a wide public.’
(NLF, vWC 714.11–12.) On 25 July 1988 Rhees writes to von Wright: ‘I agree
with you entirely that “we must not let our own financial concerns override our
duties to make, in the best possible manner, his work available to the world”.’
(WWA, Wri-FC-006.) Emphasis added.
4. Despite the deep differences in approach between Rhees on the one hand and
Anscombe and von Wright on the other, to be discussed below, Rhees always
agreed with Anscombe and von Wright about keeping editorial commentary to
a minimum.
5. From the correspondence I get the clear impression that especially Anscombe
and von Wright were in their selection of texts for publication primarily guided
by their rather intuitive sense of where in the writings they recognised what
they deemed good. This kind of attention guided them more, it seems to me,
than the idea that they would look, first, for writings that are especially relevant
for some distinct philosophical theme and then select from this material on the
basis of quality. A charming aspect of the correspondence is the enthusiasm,
which often shines through, when Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright write to
each other about their experience of reading the Wittgenstein materials.
6. Wittgenstein himself offered the only work in philosophy which he eventually
published, the TLP, first to Karl Kraus’s publisher, Jahoda & Sigel, and then to
Otto Weininger’s publisher, Braumüller, not to an academic press (von Wright
1982d: 77–94 and Monk 1990, chapters 7 and 8). On the other hand,
Wittgenstein approached English academic publishers when, in 1938 and 1943,
he considered publishing some of his later work (von Wright 1982e: 120–122).
7. Rhees’s idea that editing needs to be sensitive to the philosophical relevance of
various choices and decisions, and that a key aim should be to shed light on the
development of Wittgenstein’s thinking, or on his intentions, or on both matters,
recurs in at least 46 of his letters to von Wright, from the early 1950s to the 1980s.
8. See the letter from Rhees to von Wright, 2 March 1952 (NLF, vWC 714.200–
201). For later expressions of this basic attitude, see for instance the letters
from Rhees to von Wright, 10 August 1972 (WWA, Wri-FC-005), 16 March
1973 (WWA, Wri-FC-005) and 26 August 1982 (NLF, Wri-FC-006).
9. In the letters Anscombe is laconic about editing principles. She writes to von
Wright (in an undated letter, probably from summer 1976, NLF, vWC 714.11–
12): ‘I don’t believe in editing’ and on 26 June 1976: ‘As you know, I favour
minimal editing.’ (NLF, vWC 714.11–12.) In a letter dated 13 September 1967,
Anscombe writes to von Wright that she thinks of what later becomes Über
Gewiβheit/On Certainty (OC) as a single treatise on a single subject. (NLF,
vWC 714.11–12.) On 16 September 1968 she suggests to von Wright that OC
should be published on its own. (NLF, vWC 714.11–12.) On 21 September
1968 von Wright replies that this is perhaps right. (NLF, vWC 714.11–12.) A
little later, on 10 March the following year, von Wright writes to Anscombe that
he is ‘completely convinced’ that OC should be published as a separate book, as
she has suggested (NLF, vWC 714.11–12). But in letters to Rhees from 9 and
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 323

24 March 1970 (1970 WWA, Wri-FC-004) and again, on 24 May 1988, von
Wright expresses his ambivalence about regarding OC as a work by
Wittgenstein (WWA, Wri-FC-006). The editor’s Preface to OC, signed by
Anscombe and von Wright, presents the problematic Anscombean view that OC
was there, ready, in the Nachlass as a work. On this topic, see also the chapters
by Westergaard, Backström and Jakola in this volume.
10. For the idea that manuscripts can be seen as completed works, see von Wright
1982a: 26 and numerous letters, for instance von Wright’s letters to Rhees, 31
January 1963 (NLF, vWC 714.200–201), 2 February 1974 (NLF, Wri-FC-005),
23 November 1983 (WWA, Wri-FC-006), 1 September 1984 (WWA, Wri-
FC-006) and 24 May 1988 (WWA, Wri-FC-006). For von Wright’s very
different approach in his work as editor of VB/CV, see Österman, chapter 8 in
the present volume.
11. The letter is at WWA, Wri-FC-006.
12. The sparsity of references in the publications by Rhees, Anscombe and von Wright
is another reflection of the Oxbridge spirit of the time, and perhaps also of
Wittgenstein’s influence on them. Cf. Denis Paul’s book (2007), with its reports
about Isaiah Berlin’s concerns about the executors handling of the Nachlass.
13. A similar ‘modernist’ spirit was characteristic of phenomenological and
existentialist philosophy at the time. This spirit of course has a longer history
with Descartes’ Discourse and Kant’s first critique as the most formidable
examples. For relevant discussion of the characteristics of modernity, see Jauss
1970, Koselleck 1979, Habermas 1985, also Wallgren 1999. For discussion of
Wittgenstein in his relation to modernism, see Matar (ed.) 2017.
14. Anscombe 2019 (1953): 231–235. Von Wright 1957: 226 and 1958: 15. See
also Appelqvist (this volume.)
15. We do not know all of what was discussed when the literary executors met. But
for corroborative evidence for my claims, see for instance the letter from von
Wright to Rhees and Anscombe, 18 August 1988, quoted above and this later
comment by von Wright on a seminar on the Tübingen project: ‘The topic of
the seminar was Wittgenstein’s philosophy more than the publishing of his
literary remains.’ (von Wright 2001a: 164). It is striking, from the point of view
taken here, that von Wright even at this late stage takes for granted that
discussion of the publishing of Wittgenstein’s literary remains and discussion of
Wittgenstein’s philosophy are separable.
16. Gadamer 1960 may still be the most important contribution to the kind of
discussion of ‘effective history’ (‘Wirkungsgeschichte’) appealed to here. See
also Lindén, J.-I., ed. (2019).
17. Quoted by Rush Rhees in Rhees 1981: ix from a ms. by Drury from 1966.
18. Drury, Contribution to a BBC Symposium on 12 January 1960, quoted from
Drury 2019: 90. Cf. CV: 75.
19. Wittgenstein wrote: ‘I have no doubts that you will be a better professor than
any of the other candidates for the chair. But Cambridge is a dangerous place.
Will you become superficial? smooth? The passage in your letter which makes
me feel particularly uneasy is the one about your feeling enthusiasm at the
thought of teaching in Cambridge. It seems to me: if you go to Cambridge you
324 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

must go as a sober man. . . . If I wanted to play providence I’d write you a

lukewarm recommendation; but I won’t. I’ll write you as good a one as you can
possibly wish for. For what can I know about the future.’ (Wittgenstein, letter
to von Wright, 23 February 1948. Quoted from McGuinness, ed. 2008: 423.)
20. Some scholars have made the useful proposal that we think of the editorial
history as proceeding in steps or rounds, rather than as a gradual learning
process marked by increasing distance and, at times, disagreement between the
literary executors. I think the different narrative constructions are
complementary, but I will not discuss the matter. The first use of the term
‘rounds of publication’ may be in von Wright 2001a: 163.
21. On 2 April 1965, von Wright writes to Anscombe: ‘A new idea is gradually
maturing within me: We ought to publish everything which is there (with the
exception of the writings in code and some obviously worthless things).’ (NLF,
vWC 714.11–12.) The first mention of a complete edition of Wittgenstein’s
writings that I have come across is in a letter from Walter Boehlich at Suhrkamp
Verlag to Rhees, dated 3 July 1962 (NLF, vWC 714.200–201). Boelich imagines
that there could soon be a ‘Gesamtwerk’ in two volumes.
22. See, for instance, the letter from Anscombe to von Wright (without date,
probably summer 1980, NLF, vWC 714.11–12) and von Wright to Anscombe,
2 August 1980 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12).
23. Mentions of a ‘complete works edition’ are numerous in letters from von Wright
to Anscombe in the 1980s. Some might think that publishing ‘everything’, for
instance as in the Bergen Electronic Edition, would be a neutral, philosophically
innocent, way of ‘giving Wittgenstein to the world’. Rhees would have nothing
to do with such naivety. On 4 December 1982, Rhees writes to von Wright
that he thinks editors should select, not publish everything. He adds: ‘I know
you will disagree.’ (On 3 October 1984 Rhees writes to von Wright that
disagreements about how to computerise the Nachlass go together with ‘deep-
seated and antagonistic convictions’ WWA, Wri-FC-006). I think neither
Anscombe nor von Wright could have written that. Under pressure from Rhees
von Wright hesitates. On 20 February 1988 (WWA, Wri-FC-006) he suggests to
Rhees that the Norwegian project should aim only at a transcription stored
electronically, not publication, and on 18 March 1988 (WWA, Wri-FC-006) he
writes to Anscombe that even a perfect transcription, if there is such a thing, is
not necessarily the text one wants to see in print. For detailed documentation of
the history of the Bergen Electronic Edition, and for reflection on the question
of the (non-)neutrality of any editing and publication from Wittgenstein’s
Nachlass and the novelties of various electronic editions and resources as
compared with printed editions, see Pichler 2010, 2021a and 2021b.
24. See, for instance, the letters from von Wright to Rhees, 18 November 1968 (WWA,
Wri-FC-004), Rhees to von Wright, 3 October 1978 (WWA, Wri-FC-006).
25. Von Wright 1993c: 152. (Translation by author.) In a letter to Mr Stoneborough
from 8 April 1973 Rhees writes similarly: ‘His [Wittgenstein’s] work in
philosophy was his life.’ (WWA, Wri-FC-005.)
26. Published in Engelmann 1967: xiv. For a longer quote from the same letter and
a relevant discussion of Anscombe’s views, see Backström (this volume).
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 325

27. When Bartley published a book (Bartley 1973) which claimed to portray
Wittgenstein’s sexual practices and his own thoughts about them, Rhees’s
objection, expressed in a letter to von Wright 25 June 1973 (WWA, Wri-
FC-005), was to the tone of the presentation, not to its content. See also Rhees
1974.
28. Rhees to Kristóf Nyíri, 19 June 1980 (WWA, Wri-FC-006). See also Stern 2001.
29. Von Wright 1958: 5, fn 1.
30. Von Wright 1958: 22. Emphasis added in order to stress the relevance, also to
von Wright, of the question of the distinction between understanding
Wittgenstein and understanding his work. See also Tractatus remark 6.54 and
Conant’s discussion of this remark in Conant 2002, and Österman (this volume,
chapter 4).
31. For Anscombe’s and von Wright’s early views on remarks in code, see for
instance von Wright’s letters to Anscombe, 28 April and 30 December 1966
(both letters at NLF, vWC 714.11–12). For discussion of the editorial views on
the coded remarks, see Backström (this volume).
32. Drury 2019. See also Klagge (ed.) 2001, and Klagge 2011, and the biographies
by McGuinness (1988) and Monk (1990).
33. Letters, von Wright to Anscombe, 7 March 1984 and Anscombe to von Wright,
14 March 1984 (both letters at NLF, vWC 714.11–12).
34. Quote from a letter by von Wright to Anscombe, 16 March 1984 (NLF, vWC
714.11–12). The von Wright–Anscombe consensus later became the default
assumption that directed both the editing of the Bergen Electronic Edition and
the Wiener Ausgabe. In practice, the notion of a complete edition was defined
as the writings listed in the von Wright catalogue (von Wright 1982c: 43–49).
This means, for instance, that some dictations are included, but that most of the
materials derived from Wittgenstein’s collaboration with Waismann, which have
been published as volume 3 in the Suhrkamp ‘Werkausgabe’ of Wittgenstein’s
works, are not in the Bergen Electronic Edition (von Wright 1982c: 37f.
McGuinness 1984). The Skinner materials, which have recently been published
(Gibson, A and N. O’Mahony (2020), ), were not known to von Wright.
35. Von Wright 1982e, esp. 135. See also von Wright 1992. Later von Wright
laments that because of an operation and his convalescence after it, he could
not participate with Rhees and Anscombe in work on the publication of the PI
(von Wright 2001b: 7).
36. Anscombe to von Wright, April 15 1991 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12). See also
the reflections on the part II issue in Backstöm’s contribution to this volume
(ch. 7).
37. The quotes in this paragraph are from letters by Rhees to von Wright, 10
August 1972 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12) and Rhees to von Wright’s assistant
Heikki Nyman, 28 July 1980 (WWA, Wri-FC-006). See also the letters by von
Wright to Anscombe on 2 December 1980 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12) and 12
January 1991 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12), by Anscombe to von Wright, April 15
1991 (NLF, vWC 714.11–12), von Wright 1982e: 133–135 and Hacker and
Schulte 2009: xxii.
326 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

38. Von Wright 1992. Cf. von Wright 1982e and 2001c.
39. In his essay on the origin and composition of the PI, von Wright writes, more
carefully, that ‘I lean towards the opinion that Part I of the Investigations is a
complete work.’ (1982e: 136). But he adds that when part II and Zettel are
considered, Wittgenstein’s ‘chef d’oeuvre . . . could also be thought of as a
trilogy.’ (ibid.).
40. See, for instance: Cavell 1976 and 1979, Stern 1996 and 2004, Pichler 2004,
Wallgren 2006b and 2020.
41. See McGuinness 2002, Pichler 2004, Rothhaupt 1996, Schulte 2005, Stern
1996, Venturinha (ed.) 2010.
42. Anscombe 2019 (1953): 225, Schulte 2001b: 78. Malcolm 1958: 58, von
Wright 1982c: 37, Von Wright 1982e: 116, von Wright 1961: v. See also, for
instance, the letter from Rhees to Mr Stoneborough, 8 April 1973 (WWA,
Wri-FC-005) and letters from von Wright to Rhees, 18 November 1968 (WWA,
Wri-FC-004) and 31 January 1978 (WWA, Wri-FC-006) for further reports
about Wittgenstein’s desire to destroy his materials, including the 1942/43
version of the PI.
43. Quote from Rhees’s letter to von Wright’s assistant Heikki Nyman, 28 July
1980 (WWA, Wri-FC-006).
44. For examples of Rhees’s early interest, see his letters to von Wright 2 March
1952 and 2 November 1955 (both at NLF, vWC 714.200–201). The term
‘compartmentalisation’ was used by von Wright in a talk given in Helsinki in
1970. On this, see Jakola (this volume). There are dozens of letters from Rhees
to von Wright in which he reflects on the philosophical reasons, criteria and
consequences of various editorial choices. Rhees often comments on the
difficulty, or impossibility, of doing justice to Wittgenstein’s thinking by
presenting him as working on topics which are isolated from, or separable
from, each other. To him, the right way, or better, the obvious way, in which an
editor might do justice to Wittgenstein’s effort was to try to collect material in
manuscripts from different times that together would shed light on how
Wittgenstein’s thinking, his philosophical questions, ideas and method,
developed over time. This theme is present in a great number of letters from
Rhees to von Wright from 1952 to the 1980s. On 19 March 1970, Rhees
reports to von Wright that Anscombe has commented on Rhees’s proposal to
publish LE with OC, that LE could only be something tacked on to OC. Rhees
comments: ‘I wonder . . . .’ (WWA, Wri-FC-004.) Another typical instance is
Rhees’s letter to von Wright on 10 August 1972 (WWA, Wri-FC-005), where
Rhees draws attention to the connection between the work published in OC
and Wittgenstein’s reaction to a lecture by Russell in 1935, and suggests that the
publication of OC as a separate item risks creating a false impression of the
development of Wittgenstein’s thinking and conception of philosophy.
45. For the first of Rhees’s concerns, see the incisive and detailed studies by Jakola,
Solin and Westergaard in this volume. I do not claim that the first concern is
less important than the second. My suggestion is rather that attention to the
second sheds additional light on why compartmentalisation is problematic, at
least in Wittgenstein’s case. The topics are quite grand. Here is one aspect: the
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 327

‘time’ notion that I bring in could be understood in terms of the tension

between two ideas of the time of truth and thinking, especially as they have
shaped the philosophical heritage in which Wittgenstein, rather half-heartedly,
always also placed himself: the idea of truth and thought as timeless vs as
unfolding in (existential? historical?) time. I think it is reductive of Wittgenstein
to think that the orientation to life-world, practice, language-games, etc. that is
prominent in his later thinking, and arguably important already in the Tractatus
(the key remark is TLP 4.002; see also 4.026, 5.5563 and 5.473–5.4733),
brings with it an exclusion of the ambition to get right in what sense we must
understand philosophy, or thinking, as also concerned with the concepts of
timeless truth and the absolute, not only with concepts which we think of as
tied for their meaning to contingent contexts.
46. For one example of von Wright’s attitude, see his letter to Anscombe, 23
November 1983 (WWA, Wri-FC-006), where he characterises a certain ms. as a
‘practically finished work’.
47. For discussion of the distinction between ‘documentary’ and ‘critical’ editing in
the case of Wittgenstein, see Pichler 2021b.
48. I suggest that one aspect of what Rhees wanted to keep in view was that
Wittgenstein’s later writings on certainty, set theory, behaviourism, rule-
following, etc. are also commentaries on the kind of interest that informs his
use of the notion of the absolute as it occurs in LE. My views on the importance
to Rhees, as editor of Wittgenstein, of his own (changing) views on how
Wittgenstein’s conception of philosophy developed are indebted to a talk by
Nuno Venturinha in Helsinki, July 2019 (and also, as in all such cases, to
discussion over the years with numerous colleagues, students and friends).
49. Anscombe uses the word ‘naked’ to characterize her editorial ideal in a letter to
von Wright (undated, probably January 1977,NLF, vWC 714.11–12) and, as we
have seen, von Wright uses the same word to characterize his ideal (von Wright
1982a: 5). For discussion, see Backström, this volume.
50. See Richter (this volume) and Haldane, J. 2019a.
51. See Österman (this volume, chapter 4). See also, von Wright, 1989: 20. In
Varieties of Goodness von Wright (1963) assigns a role to philosophy in
moulding our understanding of the good and suggests that natural needs may
provide a basis for a cognitive notion of the good of man. His investigation is,
however, based on a dogmatic rejection of what he calls the autonomy of the
moral good. For discussion, see Jakola (2017) and also Jakola (article ms
2022).
52. See the letter from Rhees to von Wright 8 July 1982 (WWA, Wri-FC-006).
53. Logic should be taken here in the broad sense in which it was frequently used
by Wittgenstein. See for instance OC, remarks 56 and 81. Ethics is used here in
the broad sense in which it was used by Wittgenstein when he wrote in a letter
to von Ficker that the point of the Tractatus is ethical (Wittgenstein 1969: 35).
54. A simplifying, but not perhaps altogether false perception of Wittgenstein would be
that in the TLP he supported the first ‘binary’ view of the sense / nonsense distinction
and that he, in his later philosophy, developed a ‘gradual’ view of the matter.
328 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

55. The prevalent notion that Wittgenstein is ‘anti-metaphysical’ has played a huge
role in the reception of Wittgenstein. The perception of Wittgenstein as
anti-metaphysical seems to me thoroughly misguided, but as long as
Wittgenstein is interpreted as engaged in philosophical therapy aiming at the
dissolution, or overcoming, of philosophical problems, it is difficult to get rid
of. (See Wallgren 2006a, 2006b and 2013.)
56. Anscombe, 2019 (1953) and 1976, von Wright 1957.
57. In Wallgren 2020 I discuss Wittgenstein’s relation to Socrates’ conception of
philosophy and to Pyrrhonian scepticism, with particular reference to Sextus. I stress
the importance to Socrates and Sextus, as well as to Wittgenstein, of philosophy as
open-ended searching. From this perspective suspension of judgement is less central to
the characterisation of Pyrrhonism than has often been said.
58. Rhees to von Wright, 13 November 1970 (WWA, Wri-FC-004).
59. Rhees to von Wright, January 22 1976 (WWA, Wri-FC-006). For similar
reflections and further explications of Rhees’s views, see for instance his letters
to von Wright, 5 March 1970, 19 March 1970 and 18 June 1970 (all three
letter at WWA, Wri-FC-004) and copies of letters in the von Wright
correspondence from Rhees to Anthony Kenny, 2 March 1977 (WWA,
Wri-FC-006) and from Rhees to Kristóf Nyíri, 19 June 1980 (WWA, Wri-
FC-006).
60. Vlastos has drawn attention to the relevance of this topic for understanding
Socrates. See Vlastos 1991.
61. Wittgenstein famous remark about a ‘beetle’ is in PI 293. Cf. the discussion of
what Nagel and many others have called ‘subjective conscious experience’ and
also, following C. I. Lewis, ‘qualia’. See Nagel 1974.
62. King Lear Act I, Scene 1. The full-blown theatrical version of the same idea is
provided in Hamlet Act II, Scene 2 and Act III, Scene 2. See also Backström
2007 and Backström, Nykänen, Toivakainen and Wallgren, eds 2019.
63. In a letter from Rhees to von Wright from 3 July 1973 (WWA, Wri-FC-005),
Rhees stresses that Wittgenstein’s investigations on Cantor and set theory were
never brought to completion. Rhees suggests that this observation should guide
the editorial work. In contrast to Rhees, von Wright wants to find a publishable
whole, a ‘Ganzheit’ (von Wright to Rhees 16 July 1973,WWA, Wri-FC-005). If
we read Wittgenstein as a philosopher who engages in a search with no end in
sight, the most relevant parallel is, again, to Socrates, who insisted that his way
of doing philosophy serves human wisdom even though it never arrives at
knowledge. Cf. Wallgren 2006b, 2020.
64. Rhees’s insistence on the ethical and personal nature of philosophical problems can
only be understood correctly if we see how it involves a distinction between what is
personal in the sense of being private and not of philosophical and moral interest and
what is personal but not a private matter only. I will not discuss this distinction. For
indications of Rhees’s views and how they affected his editing of Wittgenstein, see the
letters from Rhees to von Wright, 12 February 1970 (WWA, Wri-FC-004), 1 October
1972 (WWA, Wri-FC-005), 25 June 1973 (WWA, Wri-FC-005), 27 June 1980
(WWA, Wri-FC-006), 9 May and 8 July 1982 (both letters at WWA, Wri-FC-006),
and 26 May 1988 (WWA, Wri-FC-006). In a letter from June 25 1973 (WWA,
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 329

Wri-FC-005), Rhees distinguishes between two ways in which what Bartley says about
Wittgenstein may be problematic. One problem may be about what he says, another
about the way he says it. Rhees’s criticism of Bartley is about the latter issue. In the
letter to Mr Stoneborough from April 1973, from which I have already quoted, Rhees
writes: ‘I would discourage publishing stuff to feed the growing interest in
Wittgenstein’s “personality” among people who had no interest in his work in
philosophy: his work in philosophy was his life.’
65. Remarks on Frazer quoted from Wittgenstein 1993: 131. The quote from OC,
is from remark 341.
66. The example and the comments on it are mine, not Rhees’s, but I hope they are
in his spirit.
67. Rhees to von Wright, 4 April 1973 (WWA, Wri-FC-005).
68. See also Solin’s chapter in the present volume.
69. Rhees to von Wright, 13 March 1968, (WWA, Wri-FC-004).
70. See the discussion of von Wright below.
71. Rhees to von Wright, 18 June 1969, (WWA, Wri-FC-004).
72. The letter from Russell to Wittgenstein that Rhees refers to, and the text place in it,
is identified in the a letter by Rhees with the reference page 60 R29. (The reference
must be to the ms. sent to Rhees by von Wright.) I believe it is the letter from
Wittgenstein to Russell from 3 March 1914, which is letter number 38, at p. 70, in
McGuinness (ed.) 2008, but I have not been able to confirm this.
73. Rhees to von Wright, February 12 1970 (WWA, Wri-FC-004). Emphasis added.
Rhees guesses rightly. Russell tells the anecdote, in almost the same words, in
his autobiography (Russell 1975: 330).
74. Rhees to von Wright, March 5 1970 (WWA, Wri-FC-004).
75. Cf. Toivakainen 2020.
76. I follow Theunissen’s reading of Parmenides in Theunissen 1991.
77. PI 71 and passim.
78. This is, of course, the point of Wittgenstein’s memorable remark to his students
about Cantor’s paradise. Wittgenstein quoted Hilbert as saying: ‘No one is
going to turn us out of the paradise which Cantor has created.’ And he
commented: ‘I would say, “I wouldn’t dream of trying to drive anyone out of
this paradise.” I would try to do something quite different: I would try to show
you that it is not paradise – so that you’ll leave of your own accord. I would say,
“You’re welcome to this; just look about you”.’ Diamond (ed.) 1976, 103.
79. Wittgenstein’s Notebooks 1914–1916, was published on the initiative of von
Wright and he also encouraged the publication of Engelmann’s memoir (see
McGuinness 1967: xi).
80. On 8 September 1967 von Wright informs Rhees that he has sent to him, under
special cover, the draft of his essay on the ‘ “Entstehungsgeschichte” of the
Tractatus.’ On 16 September 1967 Rhees writes back. He comments:
‘ “Aphorisms”. I do not think Wittgenstein would have used this name for them.
And for me it carries a wrong suggestion. – Would he not have called them
“Bemerkungen” (remarks) even then?’ (Both letters at WWA, Wri-FC-004).
330 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

81. For insightful discussion of the former topic, see Österman 2019 and Österman,
ch. 8 in this volume.
82. In his autobiography, von Wright presents an op-ed criticising the US war in
Vietnam as his first contribution to public debate of contemporary issues
(2001a: 243. Cf. von Wright, 1989: 19–21). In fact, von Wright in his youth,
between 1934 and 1941, often published articles of a similar kind. See
Backström and Wallgren (eds), (forthcoming.)
83. See von Wright, 1989: 32–43. For von Wright’s exchange with the Frankfurt
School and the Praxis group, see von Wright 2001a: 249–261 and Huttunen,
Laitinen and Wallgren 2019.
84. There is in the holdings of the von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives, a
collection of general remarks extracted by von Wright. This collection was
completed in 1966 (WWA, Witt-AM-023). On 14 December 1974 von Wright
wrote to Brian McGuinness: ‘I have recently been rereading the “general
remarks” by Wittgenstein which I “collected” from the manuscripts years ago. I
came to the conclusion that they must now be published.’ (WWA, Wri-FC-007.)
85. In one manuscript version of von Wright’s talk at Kirchberg in 1977, kept at the
von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives of the University of Helsinki (WWA,
Wri-SF-065-b), comparisons are made of Wittgenstein’s thoughts with those of
both Marx and Adorno.
86. Von Wright, Foreword to the VB Edition of 1977, quoted from CV 1998. See
the similar but shorter comment in von Wright 1982c: 60.
87. Emphasis added.
88. The critique of progressive modernity is a major theme in several of von Wright’s
books with essays in Swedish, including von Wright 1978, 1986, 1993 and 1994. I
have elsewhere discussed the problematic relation between von Wright’s Swedish
language essays, with their deep criticism of progressive modernity, and his English
language contributions to the analytic tradition in philosophy; a tradition that has
been closely aligned with belief in the development of science and technology as a
progressive enterprise. (Wallgren 2016.)
89. RFM, 3rd edition.: 132. Similar in tone and intention is: ‘Men have judged that
a king can make rain; we say this contradicts all experience. Today they judge
that aeroplanes and the radio etc. are means for close contact of people and
spread of culture.’ OC 132. I sometimes wonder whether the Finnish company
Nokia was not under the influence of Wittgenstein when, at the time around
2010, when the company was the world’s leading manufacturer of mobile
phones, it made the slogan Connecting People central in its marketing.
90. The quote and discussion of it appear in von Wright 1982g: 208. For reasons
unknown to me von Wright’s quotation, at 1982g: 208, differs in some details
from the version in the source he refers to (RFM, 3rd edition: 132). The quote
provided here follows the text in RFM, 3rd edition.
91. The opposite idea, that there is a connection, is, of course, not straightforward
either.
92. Socrates pronounced: ‘I think that I am one of very few Athenians, not to say
the only one, engaged in the true political art and that of the men today I alone
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 331

practice statemanship.’ (Gorgias 522d. See also Apology 36c and passim.) In a
pioneering work Hanna Pitkin drew attention to the similarities between
Socrates’ and Wittgenstein’s conception of philosophy in her book Wittgenstein
and Justice. Pitkin thinks of their philosophy as unfolding in dialogue between
two persons, primarily between ‘guide and seeker’ (Pitkin 1993 (1972), xxiii),
while I emphasise the polyvocal character in the work of both thinkers. – As
discussed in the previous section, Rhees was for a long time passionately
engaged in editing Wittgenstein in ways which would bring forth how his work
on logic was always also moral work on himself; arguably also, how any work
on the philosophy of logic worth its name would have this quality. Rhees by
and large neglects the question that attracted von Wright’s attention especially
in the 1970s, of the unity of Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language and
mathematics with his critique of modernity. But there are some exceptions. One
example is when Rhees writes to von Wright, on 21 April 1982: ‘During the
next 19 years there were certain big changes in Wittgenstein’s method in
philosophy. And with this went changes in what he would have called the “Ziel
in der Philosophie”, if he had used this expression; also changes in the way he
would have characterised the “depth” or the “greatness” of philosophical
problems; the relation of philosophy to cultural and social conditions; and so
on.’ (WWA, Wri-FC-006.)
93. Cavell 1976, Stern 1996, Rothhaupt 1996 and Pichler 2004. Wittgenstein
put enormous effort into the ordering and reordering, perhaps the
‘composition’, of his many-voiced later work, in particular into the various
versions of the PI.
94. Von Wright’s sustained work to trace ms. sources for the PI documented in the
so-called Helsinki Ausgabe (see Wittgenstein 2001, von Wright 1982, Schulte
2001a, von Wright 2001c) does not lead to reflection on how and why
Wittgenstein’s philosophical creation in later years takes the form of dialogue.
Von Wright presents this feature only as a literary or stylistic merit and gives no
philosophical significance to it. Similarly, Anscombe seems to have thought that
in what she calls part II we see Wittgenstein at his best, as if the quality would
be there before the work on arrangement and composition of dialogue
(Erbacher, C., A. dos Santos Reis and J. Jung 2019: 239). But there Anscombe
also suggests that the PI might be compared with a musical composition. In
Anscombe’s well-known later discussion of the form of Wittgenstein’s writing
she reflects on the role of the remark and on what Wittgenstein in the Preface
to the PI (in Anscombe’s translation) calls the ‘criss-cross’ nature of his
investigation (Anscombe 1969). Even there Anscombe does not pay attention to
how much Wittgenstein worked on the composition of his polyphonic dialogue,
nor does she see the possible relevance of this aspect of his work for the
evolution of his views on the aims, worth and criteria of success in philosophy.
The idea that Wittgenstein’s basic unit of writing is the remark is problematic
insofar as it distracts from attention to the philosophical stakes of the work he
did on relating remarks to each other: on interrogating a remark, or a set of
remarks, through other remarks, and how through this work all remarks, even
the ones the reader may cherish the most, may begin to appear less as oracles
speaking final truths, than as invitations to further thinking and common search
with one another.
332 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

95. In the case of Rhees, we saw earlier that he claimed to have no clue as to how
Wittgenstein would have gone about working part II into part I. Following
Pichler’s groundbreaking work (2004), I submit that, pace the doubts of Rhees,
we have one important clue: the clue is the shift that Wittgenstein achieves in
Norway in 1936/37, from work that strives to linear presentation of separable
topics, to work that takes the form of an ‘Album’, polyphonically composed.
96. Holger Thesleff, oral communication. Thesleff ’s argument is that because of
the practice of ostracism it is reasonable to assume that Socrates knew how to
write.
97. The idea that a clear distinction can be made between understanding
somebody’s thought, or words, or argumentation, versus understanding that
someone, the person, is important and problematic. I restrict attention to
aspects of understanding in which the intrinsic relation between moral
practice and what we take words to mean is intimate.
98. Rhees to von Wright, 30 May 1972 (WWA, Wri-FC-005).
99. Rhees to von Wright, 27 February 1969 (WWA,Wri-FC-004).
100. On remark 693 as an ending of PI, see Hacker 1996 and Schulte 2001c.
101. In his letters, Rhees is time and again at pains to explain how misleading and
dangerous it is to give readers the impression that they could gain a good
understanding of Wittgenstein’s conception of philosophy by reading his
remarks on the nature of philosophy. Here is one example: ‘When you say it
[the so-called philosophy chapter in the Big Typescript] is “the longest
statement of Wittgenstein on the nature of philosophy”, I want to ask: Is it
longer then the Unterschungen? You will say this is unfair, But if someone
asked me, “What is the nature of philosophy?” it would have more sense to
refer him to the Untersuchungen than to this chapter.’ (Rhees to Nyman 21
April 1982, WWA, Wri-FC-006.)
102. During his lifetime Wittgenstein often gave copies of his writings to friends to
read. Wittgenstein also considered his lectures to be a form of publishing.
(Malcolm 1984: 48.)
103. Building especially on Vlastos 1991 and Vlastos 1994 I have proposed a
notion of Socratic philosophy along the lines summarised here (Wallgren 2006
and Wallgren 2020). Obviously the picture I draw of Socrates’ conception of
philosophy is very different from the idea Wittgenstein had of it. Wittgenstein
often appears to think of Socrates as an embodiment of a philosopher who
searches for definitions that would contain the truth about the meaning of
words, or concepts. (See for instance CV: 30.) I discuss some similarities and
differences between Socrates’ and Wittgenstein’s conceptions of philosophy in
the publications just mentioned. To the extent that there is truth in my
proposal that a ‘Socratic’ incarnation of Wittgenstein is an incarnation of him,
it is obvious that all these aspects of Wittgenstein’s philosophy can be seen in
the PI, part 1 and that, therefore, his literary executors with the publication of
the PI already gave to ‘the world’ all it needs to gain access to that
incarnation. But later chapters in the creation of Wittgenstein (the many
books published in Wittgenstein’s name after the publication of the PI) have
complicated the picture.
UNEARTHING THE SOCRATIC WITTGENSTEIN 333

104. I follow Tredennick’s translation of The Apology 38a.

105. Von Wright writes: ‘Wittgenstein shared Spengler’s apocalyptic vision. Over
the years it deepened into a disgust of our decaying civilisation and a wish for
its collapse. “Do you really believe that Europe needs yet another great war?”
I once asked him in view of the imminent outbreak of war in 1939. “Not one,
but two or three”, he replied.’ (1993c: 97, my translation.) On p. 7 in a
typescript version of the opening address at Kirchberg in 1977, von Wright
writes: ‘When in the summer months of 1939 I expressed my horror before
the impending war he [Wittgenstein] said that not one but four or five great
wars was what mankind needed.’ (WWA, Wri-SF-065-b.) See also von Wright
1982b: 30.
106. Permission to quote from Elizabeth Anscombe’s letters was kindly provided by
Mary Geach, © M C Gormally. Permission to quote from Rush Rhees’s letters
was kindly provided by Volker Munz. Permission to quote from Georg Henrik
von Wright’s letters and unpublished manuscripts was kindly provided by
Anita von Wright-Grönberg and Benedict von Wright. I wish to thank Hanne
Appelqvist, Joel Backström, David Cockburn, Mladen Dolar, Lars Hertzberg,
Lassi Jakola, Camilla Kronqvist, Olli Lagerspetz, Niklas Toivakainen and
Bernt Österman for their helpful comments on draft versions of this paper.
334
APPENDIX 1

335
336 APPENDIX 1

FIGURE A1.1: Facsimile of G.H. von Wright’s copy of Wittgenstein’s will kept at
The von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives, University of Helsinki. The editor
thanks the Master and Fellows of Trinity College for permission to reproduce the
text of the will in the present volume.
APPENDIX 1 337
338
APPENDIX 2

339
 TABLE A2.1: Table of writings published posthumously with Ludwig Wittgenstein named as author and at least one of the

340
following as editor: Rush Rhees, G.E.M. Anscombe, G.H. von Wright.

Year Title Abbr. Editor Translator Editors’ Preface Language Publisher

1953 Philosophische PU / PI G. E. M. G. E. M. Editors’ Note German- Basil
Untersuchungen/ Anscombe & Anscombe by G. E. M. English Blackwell,
Philosophical R. Rhees Anscombe & Oxford
Investigations R. Rhees,
1 p.
1958 Second Edition G. E. M. G. E. M. Note to Second German- Basil
Anscombe & Anscombe Edition, 1 p. English Blackwell,
R. Rhees Oxford
1967 Third Edition G. E. M. G. E. M. Note to Second German- Basil
Anscombe & Anscombe Edition, 1 p. English Blackwell,
R. Rhees Oxford
1997 Re-Issued G. E. M. G. E. M. Note to the German- Blackwell
Second Edition Anscombe & Anscombe Re-Issued English Publishers,
R. Rhees Second Edition, Oxford
1 p.
2009 Revised Fourth P. M. S. G. E. M. Editoral Preface German- Wiley-
Edition Hacker & Anscombe, P. to the Fourth English Blackwell,
Joachim M. S. Edition and Oxford
Schulte Hacker & Modified
Joachim Translation,
Schulte 10 p.
 1956 Bemerkungen über BGM / G. H. von G. E. M. Editors’ German- Basil
die Grundlagen der RFM Wright, R. Anscombe Preface, 3 p. English Blackwell,
Mathematik/ Rhees & G. Oxford
Remarks on the E. M.
Foundations of Anscombe
Mathematics
1967 Second Edition G. H. von G. E. M. Editors’ German- Basil
Wright, R. Anscombe Preface, 3 p. English Blackwell,
Rhees & G. Oxford
E. M.
Anscombe
1974 Revised Third G.H. von Editors’ Preface German Suhrkamp
Edition Wright, R. to the Revised Verlag,
Rhees & Edition Frankfurt am
G.E.M. Main
Anscombe
1978 Third Edition, G. H. von G. E. M. Editors’ Preface English Basil
Revised and Wright, R. Anscombe to the Revised Blackwell,
Reset Rhees & G. Edition, 5 p. Oxford
E. M.
Anscombe
1958 Preliminary Studies BBB R. Rhees Preface by R. English Basil
for the Rhees, 10 p. Blackwell,
“Philosophical Oxford
Investigations”
Generally known as
The Blue and Brown

341
Books
 Year Title Abbr. Editor Translator Editors’ Language Publisher

342
1969 Second Edition R. Rhees Note on the English Basil
Second Edition, Blackwell,
1 p. Oxford
1960 ‘Aufzeichnungen AL / NL G. H. von G. E. M. Editors’ German- Suhrkamp
über Logik Wright & G. Anscombe Preface, 1 p. English Verlag,
September 1913 / E. M. Frankfurt am
Notes on Logic Anscombe Main
September 1913’ in
Schriften
1961 Notebooks 1914– TB / NB G. H. von G. E. M. Editors’ German- Basil
1916 Wright & G. Anscombe Preface, 2 p. English Blackwell,
E. M. Oxford
Anscombe
1979 Second Edition G. H. von G. E. M. Preface to the German- Basil
Wright & G. Anscombe Second Edition, English Blackwell,
E. M. 1 p. Oxford
Anscombe
1964 Philosophische PB R. Rhees Anmerkung des German Basil
Bemerkungen Herausgebers, Blackwell,
2 p. Oxford
1975 Philosophical PR R. Rhees Raymond Editor’s Note English Basil
Remarks Hargreaves by R. Rhees, 5 Blackwell,
& Roger p. Oxford
White
 1965 ‘A Lecture on Ethics’ LE R. Rhees No Preface English The
Philosophical
Review, 74
(1): 3–12
1967 Zettel/Zettel Z G. E. M. G. E. M. Editors’ Preface German- Basil
Anscombe & Anscombe by G. E. M. English Blackwell,
G. H. von Anscombe & Oxford
Wright G. H. von
Wright, 2 p.
1981 Second Edition G. E. M. G. E. M. Preface to the English Basil
Anscombe & Anscombe Second Edition Blackwell,
G. H. von by G. E. M. Oxford
Wright Anscombe &
G. H. von
Wright, 1 p.
1967 ‘Bemerkungen über GB R. Rhees Introductory German Synthese, 17
Frazers ‘The Golden Note by R. (3): 233–253
Bough” Rhees, 2 p.
1971 ‘Remarks on RF R. Rhees J. Beversluis English The Human
Frazer’s Golden World, 3:
Bough’ 28–41
1979 Bemerkungen R. Rhees A. C. Miles Introductory German- The Brynmill
über Frazers Note by R. English Press,
Golden Rhees, 2 p. Doncaster
Bough/Remarks
on Frazer’s

343
Golden Bough
344
Year Title Abbr. Editor Translator Editors’ Language Publisher
1989 ‘Bemerkungen R. Rhees No Preface German Suhrkamp
über Frazers Verlag,
Golden Bough’ Frankfurt am
in Vortrag über Main
Ethik und
andere kleine
Schriften
1968 ‘Wittgenstein’s LPE R. Rhees Note on the English The
Notes for Lectures Text by R. Philosophical
on “Private Rhees, 5 p. Review, 77
Experience” and (3): 271–320
“Sense Data” ’
1969 Über Gewissheit/On ÜG/OC G. E. M. Denis Paul Preface by G. German- Basil
Certainty Anscombe & & G. E. M. E. M. English Blackwell,
G. H. von Anscombe Anscombe & Oxford
Wright G. H. von
Wright, 1 p.
1974 Reprinted with G. E. M. Denis Paul Preface by G. German- Basil
corrections and Anscombe & & G. E. M. E. M. English Blackwell,
indices G. H. von Anscombe Anscombe & Oxford
Wright G. H. von
Wright, 1 p.
1969 Philosophische PG R. Rhees Anmerkung des German Basil
Grammatik Herausgebers, Blackwell,
5 p. Oxford
1974 Philosophical R. Rhees Anthony Note in English Basil
Grammar Kenny Editing, 4 p. Blackwell,
Oxford
 1969 Briefe an Ludwig von CLF G. H. von No Preface German Otto Müller
Ficker Wright & Verlag,
Walter Salzburg
Methlagl
1970 ‘Das Blaue Buch & R. Rhees Petra von Vorbemerkung German Suhrkamp
Eine Philosophische Morstein des Verlag,
Betrachtung’ in Herausgebers Frankfurt am
Schriften 5 von R. Rhees, 6 Main
p.
1971 Prototractatus: An PT B. F. D. F. Pears No Preface German- Routledge &
early version of McGuinness, & B. F. English Kegan Paul,
Tractatus Logico- T. Nyberg & McGuinness London
Philosophicus G. H. von
Wright
1973 Letters to C. K. CCO G. H. von Foreword by G. English Basil
Ogden: with Wright H. von Wright, Blackwell,
Comments on the 3 p. Oxford and
English Translation Routledge &
of the Tractatus Kegan Paul,
Logico-Philosophicus London and
Boston
1974 Letters to Russell, CRK G. H. von B. F. No Preface German Basil
Keynes and Moore Wright & B. McGuinness and Blackwell,
F. English Oxford
McGuinness
1976 ‘Ursache und CE R. Rhees Peter Winch Editor’s Note German- Philosophia:
Wirkung: Intuitives by R. Rhees, 1 English Philosophical
Erfassen / Cause and p. Quarterly of

345
Effect: Intuitive Israel, 6 (3–4):
Awareness’ 391–425
 Year Title Abbr. Editor Translator Editors’ Language Publisher

346
1977 Bemerkungen über BÜF / G. E. M. Linda L. Editor’s Preface German- Basil
die Farben/Remarks ROC Anscombe McAlister & by G. E. M. English Blackwell,
on Colour Margarete Anscombe, 1 p. Oxford
Schättle
1977 Vermischte VB G. H. von Vorwort von G. German Suhrkamp
Bemerkungen: Eine Wright & H. von Wright, Verlag,
Auswahl aus dem Heikki 4 p. Frankfurt am
Nachlaß Nyman Main
1978 Second Edition G. H. von Vorwort zur German Suhrkamp
Wright & zweiten Verlag,
Heikki Ausgabe von G. Frankfurt am
Nyman H. von Wright, Main
1 p.
1980 Amended CV G. H. von Peter Winch Preface by G. German- Basil
Second Edition Wright & H. von Wright, English Blackwell,
with English Heikki 2 p. Oxford
Translation Nyman
(Vermischte
Bemerkungen /
Culture and
Value)
1984 ‘Vermischte G. H. von Preface by G. German Suhrkamp
Bemerkungen: Wright & H. von Wright, Verlag,
Eine Auswahl aus Heikki 3 p. Frankfurt am
dem Nachlaß’ Nyman Main
in Werkausgabe
Bd. 8
 1994 Neubearbeitung G. H. von Vorwort zur German Suhrkamp
des Textes durch Wright, Neuausgabe Verlag,
Alois Pihler Heikki 1994 von G. H. Frankfurt am
Nyman & von Wright, 2 Main
Alois Pichler p.
1998 Revised Edition G. H. von Peter Winch Foreword to German- Blackwell
Wright, New Edition English Publishers,
Heikki 1994 by G. H. Oxford
Nyman & von Wright, 2
Alois Pichler p. and Editorial
Note by Alois
Pichler, 4 p.
1980 Briefe: Briefwechsel BW B. F. Joachim Vorwort von B. German Suhrkamp
mit B. Russell, G. E. McGuinness Schulte F. McGuinness Verlag,
Moore, J. M. Keynes, & G. H. von & G. H. von Frankfurt am
F. P. Ramsey, W. Wright Wright, 3 p. Main
Eccles, P. Engelmann
und L. von Ficker
1980 Bemerkungen über BPP / RPP G. E. M. G. E. M. Preface by G. German- Basil
die Philosophie der Anscombe & Anscombe E. M. English Blackwell,
Psychologie, Bd. G. H. von Anscombe & Oxford
1/Remarks on the Wright G. H. von
Philosophy of Wright, 1 p.
Psychology, Vol. 1
1980 Bemerkungen über BPP / RPP G. H. von C. G. Preface by G. German- Basil
die Philosophie der Wright & Luckhardt & H. von Wright English Blackwell,
Psychologie, Bd. Heikki Maximilian & Heikki Oxford
2/Remarks on the Nyman A. E. Aue Nyman, 1 p.

347
Philosophy of
Psychology, Vol. 2
 Year Title Abbr. Editor Translator Editors’ Language Publisher

348
1982 Letzte Schriften über LSPP1 / G. H. von C. G. Editors’ Preface German- Basil
die Philosophie der LW1 Wright & Luckhardt & by G. H. von English Blackwell,
Psychologie, Bd. Heikki Maximilian Wright & Oxford
1/Last Writings on Nyman A. E. Aue Heikki Nyman,
the Philosophy of 2 p.
Psychology, Vol. 1
1983 ‘Some Hitherto CVW Comments on English The
Unpublished Letters the Letters, 2 p. Cambridge
from Ludwig Review: A
Wittgenstein to Journal of
Georg Henrik von University Life
Wright’ and Thought,
104: 56–64
1990 A Portrait of PPW G. H. von Foreword by G. English Basil
Wittgenstein as a Wright H. von Wright, Blackwell,
Young Man: From 4 p. Oxford
the Diary of David
Hume Pinsent
1912–1914
(Includes two letters
by Wittgenstein.)
 1990 ‘Unpublished CBR B. F. B. F. Unsigned, 2 p. German Russell: The
correspondence McGuinness McGuinness and Journal of the
between Russell & & G. H. von English Bertrand
Wittgenstein’ Wright Russell
Archives, 10
(2): 101–124
1992 Letzte Schriften über LSPP2 / G. H. von C. G. Editors’ Preface German- Blackwell
die Philosophie der LW2 Wright & Luckhardt & by G. H. von English Publishers,
Psychologie, Bd. Heikki Maximilian Wright & Oxford
2/Last Writings on Nyman A. E. Aue Heikki Nyman,
the Philosophy of 3 p.
Psychology, Vol. 2
1993 Letzte Schriften über LSSP G. H. von Editor’s German Suhrkamp
die Philosophie der Wright and Preface: Verlag.
Psychologie, Das H. Nyman G. H. von Frankfurt am
Innere und das Wright and Main
Äussere, 1949–1951 H. Nyman
1995 Cambridge Letters: CC Brian No Preface English Blackwell
Correspondence with McGuinness Publishers,
Russell, Keynes, & G. H. von Oxford
Moore, Ramsey and Wright
Sraffa
2001 Philosophische PI / PU Joachim Vorwort von G. German Suhrkamp
Untersuchungen: Schulte, H. von Wright, Verlag,
Kritisch-genetische Heikki 5 p. Frankfurt am
Edition Nyman, Eike Main
von Savigny

349
& G. H. von
Wright
350 THE CREATION OF WITTGENSTEIN

The criteria for inclusion of a publication in the table are that the publication
includes original writings by Wittgenstein that are published here for the first
time in German or English and that at least one of the three literary heirs and
executors named in Wittgenstein’s will, Rush Rhees, G.E.M. (Elizabeth)
Anscombe or Georg Henrik von Wright, is one of its editors.
The list seeks to be complete, i.e. to include all publications that meet
these three criteria and only these publications.
The table lists the publications in chronological order of first appearance.
The abbreviations in the table are drawn from Pichler, A., M. A. R. Biggs
and S. A. Szeltner (2011), ‘Bibliographie der deutsch- und englischsprachigen
Wittgenstein-Ausgaben’, Wittgenstein-Studien, 2: 249–286. Available online:
www.ilwg.eu/files/Wittgenstein_Bibliographie.pdf
Abbreviations for the German title of the publication are included only in
the case of publications referred to in this volume with the German
abbreviations.
The book Schriften published in 1960 by Suhrkamp Verlag is included in
the table because it includes the first publication of ‘Aufzeichnungen über
Logik’ / ‘Notes on Logic’ edited by Rhees, Anscombe or von Wright. The
book has only the German text. The next item in the table, from 1961,
includes ‘Aufzeichnungen über Logik’ / ‘Notes on Logic’ in German and
English, with additional original materials. The book Letzte Schriften über
die Philosophie der Psychologie, Das Innere und das Äussere, 1949–1951
published by Suhrkamp Verlag in German only in 1993 is included because
it has at least one remark that is not included in the German-English book
Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology; The Inner and the Outer,
1949–1951, Vol. 2 / Letzte Schriften über die Philosophie der Psychologie,
Das Innere und das Äussere, 1949–1951, Bd. 2, published by Blackwell in
1992.
Wittgenstein’s ‘Lecture on Ethics’ was first published in the journal
Philosophical Review, Vol. 74, No. 1 (Jan., 1965), pp. 3–12. The journal
editors have played a part as editors. The ground for attributing an editorial
role for it to Rush Rhees is the following mention by the editors of the
journal at p. 3 in the original publication: ‘We are indebted to Mr. Rush
Rhees for the above information [about the text and its origin] and for help
in the preparation of the following materials.’
The table has been compiled by Rickard Nylund in cooperation with the
editor of the volume, Thomas Wallgren.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRINTED SOURCES
Primary sources
Wittgenstein, L. (1913), Review of P. Coffey, ‘The Science of Logic’, Cambridge
Review, 34 (853).
Wittgenstein, L. (1921), Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung, Annalen der
Naturphilosophie 14 (3).
Wittgenstein, L. (1922), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, with an Introduction by
B. Russell, London: Kegan Paul.
Wittgenstein, L. (1926), Wörterbuch für Volks- und Bürgerschulen, Vienna: Hölder-
Pichler-Tempsky.
Wittgenstein, L. (1929), ‘Some Remarks on Logical Form’, Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society, Supp., 9: 162–171.
Wittgenstein, L. (1933), A Letter to the Editor, dated Cambridge, 27 May, 1933,
Mind, 42 (167): 415–416.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953), Philosophical Investigations / Philosophische
Untersuchungen, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1956), Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics / Bemerkungen
über die Grundlagen der Mathematik, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe, R. Rhees, and
G.H. von Wright, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1961a), Notebooks 1914–1916, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and
G.H. von Wright, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1961b), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D.F. Pears and
B.F. McGuinness, London: Routledge.
Wittgenstein, L. (1967a), ‘Bemerkungen über Frazers The Golden Bough’, Synthese,
17: 233–253.
Wittgenstein, L. (1967b), Zettel, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright, trans.
G.E.M. Anscombe, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

351
352 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wittgenstein, L. (1969a), On Certainty / Über Gewißheit, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and

G.H. von Wright, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe and D. Paul, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1970), Über Gewißheit, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Wittgenstein, L. (1971), ‘Remarks on Frazer’s “Golden Bough” ’, The Human
World, 3: 18–41.
Wittgenstein, L. (1974a), Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der Mathematik, ed.
G.H. von Wright, R. Rhees and G.E.M. Anscombe, Schriften 6, expanded and
revised new edition, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Wittgenstein, L. (1975), Note sul ‘Ramo d’oro’ di Frazer, Milano: Adelphi Edizioni.
Wittgenstein, L. (1977a), Remarks on Colour / Bemerkungen über die Farben, ed.
G.E.M. Anscombe, trans. L.L. McAlister and M. Schättle, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1977b), ‘Remarques sur “Le Rameau d’or’ de Frazer” ’, Actes de la
recherche en sciences socials, 16: 35–42.
Wittgenstein, L. (1977c), Vermischte Bemerkungen, ed. G.H. von Wright in
collaboration with H. Nyman, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Wittgenstein, L. (1978), Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, ed. G.H. von
Wright, R. Rhees and G.E.M. Anscombe, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe, 3rd edn,
revised and reset. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1979a), Bemerkungen über Frazers Golden Bough, ed. R. Rhees,
trans. A.C. Miles and R. Rhees, Doncaster: Brynmill Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1979b), ‘Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough’, in C.G. Luckhardt
(ed.), Wittgenstein: Sources and Perspectives, 61–81, trans. J. Beversluis, Hassoks,
Sussex: The Harvester Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1979c), Notebooks 1914–1916, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and
G.H. von Wright, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe, 2nd edn, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1980), Culture and Value / Vermischte Bemerkungen, ed. G.H. von
Wright in collaboration with H. Nyman, trans. P. Winch, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1980a), Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, ed.
G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe, Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1980b), Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 2, ed.
G.H. von Wright and H. Nyman, trans. C.G. Luckhardt and M.A.E. Aue,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1989), Vortrag über Ethik und andere kleine Schriften, Frankfurt
am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Wittgenstein, L. (1991), Geheime Tagebücher 1914–1916, ed. W. Baum, Wien:
Turia und Kant.
Wittgenstein, L. (1992), Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology: The Inner
and the Outer, 1949–1951, Vol. 2 / Letzte Schriften über die Philosophie der
Psychologie, 1949–1951, Bd. 2, ed. G.H. von Wright and H. Nyman, trans.
C.G. Luckhardt and M.A.E. Aue, Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1993), Philosophical Occasions, 1912–1951, ed. J.C. Klagge and
A. Nordmann, Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.
Wittgenstein, L. (1993a), Letzte Schriften über die Philosophie der Psychologie,
Das Innere und das Äussere, 1949–1951, ed. G.H. von Wright and H. Nyman,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Wittgenstein, L. (1995), Ludwig Wittgenstein: Wiener Ausgabe, Band 3, Wien:
Springer-Verlag.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 353

Wittgenstein, L. (1998), Culture and Value / Vermischte Bemerkungen, ed. G.H. von
Wright in collaboration with H. Nyman, revised edn of the text by A. Pichler,
trans. P. Winch, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Wittgenstein, L. (2001), Philosophische Untersuchungen: Kritisch-genetische Edition,
ed. J. Schulte in cooperation with H. Nyman, E. von Savigny and G.H. von
Wright, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Wittgenstein, L. (2003), Public and Private Occasions, ed. J.C. Klagge and A.
Nordmann, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Wittgenstein, L. (2005), The Big Typescript: TS 213, German–English Scholars’
Edition, ed. and trans. M.A.E. Aue and C.G. Luckhardt, Malden, Massachusetts:
Blackwell Publishing.
Wittgenstein, L. (2009), Philosophical Investigations / Philosophische
Untersuchungen, ed. P.M.S. Hacker and J. Schulte, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe,
P.M.S. Hacker and J. Schulte, Revised 4th edn, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (2022), Private Notebooks 1914–1916, ed. and trans. M. Perloff,
New York: W.W. Norton.

Published lectures, conversations and correspondence

Diamond, C., ed. (1976), Wittgenstein’s Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics,
Cambridge, 1939: From the Notes of R.G. Bosanquet, Norman Malcolm, Rush
Rhees, and Yorick Smythies, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
McGuinness, B., ed. (2008), Wittgenstein in Cambridge: Letters and Documents
1911–1951, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Wittgenstein, L. (1966), Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and
Religious Belief, ed. C. Barrett, Berkeley, California: University of California
Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1969b), Briefe an Ludwig von Ficker, ed. G.H. von Wright in
cooperation with W. Methlagl, Salzburg: Otto Müller Verlag.
Wittgenstein, L. (1973), Letters to C.K. Ogden, ed. with an Introduction by G.H.
von Wright and with an Appendix of Letters by Frank Plumpton Ramsey,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell and London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Wittgenstein, L. (1974b), Letters to Russell, Keynes and Moore, ed. with an
Introduction by G.H. von Wright, assisted by B.F. McGuinness, Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1989), Vortrag über Ethik und andere kleine Schriften, ed. and
trans. J. Schulte, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Wittgenstein, L. (2016), Wittgenstein: Lectures, Cambridge 1930−1933, from the
Notes of G.E. Moore, ed. D.G. Stern, B. Rogers and G. Citron, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Secondary sources
Achebe, C. ([1977] 2016), ‘An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of
Darkness’, The Massachusetts Review, 57 (1): 14–27.
Adorno, T.W. (1978), ‘On the Social Situation of Music’, Telos: Critical Theory of
the Contemporary, 35: 128–164.
Allison, H. (2001), Kant’s Theory of Taste, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
354 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, A.R. (1958), ‘Mathematics and the “Language Game” ’, The Review of
Metaphysics, 11 (3): 446–458.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1954), ‘Misinformation: What Wittgenstein Really Said’, The
Tablet, 17 April: 373.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1957), Intention, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1958), ‘Modern Moral Philosophy ’, Philosophy, 33 (124):
1–19.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1959), An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, London:
Hutchinson University Library.
Anscombe, G.E.M. ([1959] 1967), An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus,
London: Hutchinson University Library.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1969), ‘On the Form of Wittgenstein’s Writing’, in R.
Klibansky (ed.), Contemporary Philosophy: A Survey, Vol. 3, 373–378, Florence:
La Nuova Italia.
Anscombe, G.E.M. ([1959] 1971), An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1973), ‘To the Editor: “Wittgenstein” ’, Times Literary
Supplement, 16 November (3741): 1401.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1976), ‘The Question of Linguistic Idealism’, in J. Hintikka
(ed.), Essays on Wittgenstein in Honour of G.H. von Wright, Acta Philosophica
Fennica 28, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1977), ‘Vorwort des Herausgebers’, in L. Wittgenstein,
Remarks on Colour, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Anscombe, G.E.M. ([1976] 1981), ‘The Question of Linguistic Idealism’, in G.E.M.
Anscombe, The Collected Philosophical Papers of G.E.M. Anscombe: Volume I,
From Parmenides to Wittgenstein, 112–134, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1981a), The Collected Philosophical Papers of G.E.M.
Anscombe: Volume I, From Parmenides to Wittgenstein, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1981b), The Collected Philosophical Papers of G.E.M. Anscombe:
Volume II, Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1981c), The Collected Philosophical Papers of G.E.M.
Anscombe: Volume III, Ethics, Religion and Politics, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Anscombe, G.E.M. (2000), Intention, 2nd edn, Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London: Harvard University Press.
Anscombe, G.E.M. ([1985] 2005), ‘Has Mankind One Soul: An Angel Distributed
Through Many Bodies?’, in M. Geach and L. Gormally (eds), Human Life, Action
and Ethics: Essays by G.E.M. Anscombe, 17–26, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Anscombe, G.E.M. ([1975] 2008), ‘Contraception and Chastity ’, in M. Geach and
L. Gormally (eds), Faith in a Hard Ground: Essays on Religion, Philosophy and
Ethics by G.E.M. Anscombe, 170–191, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Anscombe, G.E.M. ([1979] 2008), ‘What Is It to Believe Someone?’, in M. Geach
and L. Gormally (eds), Faith in a Hard Ground: Essays on Religion, Philosophy
and Ethics by G.E.M. Anscombe, 1–10, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Anscombe, G.E.M. ([1969] 2011), ‘On the Form of Wittgenstein’s Writing’, in
M. Geach and L. Gormally (eds), From Plato to Wittgenstein: Essays by G.E.M.
Anscombe, 187–192, Luton: Andrews UK Ltd.
Anscombe, G.E.M. ([1995] 2011), ‘Ludwig Wittgenstein’, in M. Geach and L.
Gormally (eds), From Plato to Wittgenstein: Essays by G.E.M. Anscombe,
157–170, Luton: Andrews UK Ltd.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 355

Anscombe, G.E.M. ([1989] 2015), ‘Knowledge and Essence’, in M. Geach and

L. Gormally (eds), Logic, Truth and Meaning: Writings of G.E.M. Anscombe,
206–211, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Anscombe, G.E.M. and G.H. von Wright (1969), ‘Vorwort der Herausgeber ’, in
L. Wittgenstein, On Certainty, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Anscombe, G.E.M. and P. Geach (1961), Three Philosophers: Aristotle, Aquinas,
Frege, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Appelqvist, H. (2016), ‘On Wittgenstein’s Kantian Solution of the Problem of
Philosophy ’, The British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 24 (4): 697–719.
Appelqvist, H. (2017), ‘What Kind of Normativity is the Normativity of
Grammar?’, Metaphilosophy, 48 (1–2): 123–145.
Appelqvist, H. (2018), ‘Wittgenstein on Aesthetic Normativity and Grammar ’, in
D.G. Stern (ed.), Wittgenstein in the 1930s: Between the Tractatus and the
Investigations, 209–223, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Backström, J. (2007), The Fear of Openness: an Essay on Friendship and the Roots
of Morality, Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.
Backström, J. (2011), ‘Wittgenstein and the Moral Dimension of Philosophical
Problems’, in O. Kuusela and M. McGinn (eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Wittgenstein, 729–752, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Backström, J. (2013), ‘Wittgenstein, follower of Freud’, in Y. Gustafsson, C.
Kronqvist and H. Nykänen (eds), Ethics and the Philosophy of Culture:
Wittgensteinian Approaches, 212–244, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Backström, J. (2022), ‘Anscombe’s Wittgenstein’, in R. Teichmann (ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Elizabeth Anscombe, 415–441, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Backström, J., H. Nykänen, N. Toivakainen and T. Wallgren, eds (2019), Moral
Foundations of Philosophy of Mind, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Backström, J. and T. Wallgren, eds (forthcoming), Den okände von Wright.
Tidskritik och andra texter av Georg Henrik von Wright 1926–1997, Helsingfors:
Svenska Litteratursällskapet i Finland.
Baker, G. (2004), Wittgenstein’s Method: Neglected Aspects, ed. K.J. Morris,
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Baker, G. and P.M.S. Hacker (2009a), Wittgenstein: Understanding and Meaning,
Volume 1 of an Analytical Commentary on the Philosophical Investigations, 2nd
extensively revised edn by P.M.S. Hacker, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Baker, G. and P.M.S. Hacker (2009b), Wittgenstein: Rules, Grammar and Necessity,
Volume 2 of an Analytical Commentary on the Philosophical Investigations, 2nd
extensively revised edn by P.M.S. Hacker, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bartley, W. W. III (1973), Wittgenstein, Philadelphia and New York: J.B. Lippincott.
Bartley, W. W. III (1974), ‘To the Editor: “Wittgenstein” ’, Times Literary
Supplement, 11 January (3749): 32.
Bartley, W. W. III ([1973] 1977), Wittgenstein, London: Quartet Books.
Baum, W. (1991), ‘Nachwort zur Edition’, in L. Wittgenstein, Geheime Tagebücher
1914–1916, 159–186, ed. W. Baum, Wien: Turia und Kant.
Baumgarten, A. (1954), Reflections on Poetry: Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten’s
Meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus, trans. K.
Aschenbrenner and W.B. Holther, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
356 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell, D. (1987), ‘The Art of Judgment’, Mind, 96 (382): 221–244.

Benjamin, W. (1996), ‘The Task of the Translator ’, in M. Bullock and M.W.
Jennings (eds), Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, Volume 1, 1913–1926,
253–263, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Bergström, L., H. Ofstad and D. Prawitz (1978), En filosofibok: Tillägnad Anders
Wedberg, Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag.
Berkman, J. (2021), ‘The Influence of Victor White and the Blackfriars Dominicans
on a young Elizabeth Anscombe: An Essay accompanying the Republication of
G.E.M. Anscombe’s “I am Sadly Theoretical: It is the Effect of Being at Oxford”
(1938)’, New Blackfriars, 102 (1101): 706–727.
Bernays, P. (1959), ‘Comments on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Remarks on the
Foundations of Mathematics’, Ratio, 2: 1–22.
Biggs, M. and A. Pichler (1993), Wittgenstein: Two Source Catalogues and a
Bibliography, Working Papers from the Wittgenstein Archives at the University
of Bergen 7, Bergen: University of Bergen.
Bishop, E. (1975), ‘The Crisis in Contemporary Mathematics’, Historia
Mathematica, 2: 507–517.
Boulous Walker, M. (2017), Slow Philosophy: Reading Against the Institution,
London/New York: Bloomsbury.
Bouwsma, O. K. (1986), Wittgenstein: Conversations, 1949–1951, ed. J.L. Craft
and R.E. Hustwit, Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.
Broad, C.D., ed. (1939), ‘Letters from Finland’, The Cambridge Review, 61 (200).
Bronzo, S. (2012), ‘The Resolute Reading and Its Critics: An Introduction to the
Literature’, Wittgenstein-Studien, 3 (1): 45–80.
Bulygin, E. (2016), ‘Reminicenses of Georg Henrik von Wright’, in G. Meggle and
R. Vilkko (eds), Georg Henrik von Wright’s Book of Friends, 33–51, Acta
Philosophica Fennica 92, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.
de la Cadena, M. (2015), Earth Beings: Ecologies of Practice across Andean Worlds,
Durham and London: Duke University Press.
de la Cadena, M. and M. Blaser, eds (2018), A World of Many Worlds, Durham and
London: Duke University Press.
Cavell, S. ([1969] 1976), Must We Mean What We Say?: A Book of Essays, Reissued
edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cavell, S. (1979), The Claim of Reason: Wittgenstein, Skepticism, Morality, and
Tragedy, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Chen, B. (2016), ‘When a Young Chinese Scholar Met von Wright . . .’, in G.
Meggle and R. Vilkko (eds), Georg Henrik von Wright’s Book of Friends, 7–32,
Acta Philosophica Fennica 92, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Citron, G. (2015a), ‘Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Conversations with Rush Rhees
(1939–50): From the Notes of Rush Rhees’, Mind, 124 (493): 1–71.
Citron, G., ed. (2015b), ‘A Discussion Between Wittgenstein and Moore on
Certainty (1939): From the Notes of Norman Malcolm’, Mind, 124: 73–84.
Cockburn, D. (2009), ‘Rush Rhees: The Reality of Discourse’, in J. Edelman
(ed.), Sense and Reality: Essays out of Swansea, 1–22, Heusenstamm: Ontos
Verlag.
Conant, J. (2000), ‘Elucidation and Nonsense in Frege and early Wittgenstein’, in
A. Crary and R. Read (eds), The New Wittgenstein, 174–217, London and New
York: Routledge.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 357

Conant, J. (2002), ‘The Method of the Tractatus’, in E.H. Reck (ed.), From Frege to
Wittgenstein: Perspectives on Early Analytic Philosophy, 374–462, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Conrad, J. (1996), Heart of Darkness, 2nd edn, ed. R.C. Murfin, Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Conradi, P.J. (2001), Iris Murdoch: A Life, New York and London: W.W. Norton
& Company.
Descartes, R. (1954), Philosophical Writings, ed. and trans. G.E.M. Anscombe and P.
Geach, London: Nelson.
Diamond, C. (1991), The Realistic Spirit: Wittgenstein, Philosophy, and the Mind,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Diamond, C. (2019), ‘Reflections of a Dinosaur ’, Proceedings and Addresses of the
American Philosophical Association, 93: 87–104.
Drury, M. O’C. (1981), ‘Conversations with Wittgenstein’, in R. Rhees (ed.),
Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal Recollections, 97–171, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Drury, M. O’C. (2017), The Selected Writings of Maurice O’Connor Drury: On
Wittgenstein, Philosophy, Religion and Psychiatry, ed. J. Hayes, London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Drury, M. O’C. (2019), The Selected Writings of Maurice O’Connor Drury: On
Wittgenstein, Philosophy, Religion and Psychiatry, ed. J. Hayes, London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Dummett, M. (1979), ‘Digging into Wittgenstein’, Nature, 281: 241–242.
Dussel, E. (1985), Philosophy of Liberation, trans. A. Martínez and C. Morkovsky,
Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
Engelmann, P. (1967), Letters from Ludwig Wittgenstein: With a Memoir, ed. B.
McGuinness, trans. L. Furtmüller, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Engelmann, P. (1968), Letters from Ludwig Wittgenstein: With a Memoir, ed. B.
McGuinness, trans. L. Furtmüller, New York: Horizon Press.
Erbacher, C. (2015), ‘Editorial Approaches to Wittgenstein’s Nachlass: Towards a
Historical Appreciation’, Philosophical Investigations, 38 (3): 165–198.
Erbacher, C. (2016), ‘Wittgenstein and His Literary Executors’, Journal for the
History of Analytical Philosophy, 4 (3): 1–39.
Erbacher, C. (2017), ‘ “Among the omitted stuff there are many good remarks
of a general nature” – On the Making of von Wright and Wittgenstein’s
Culture and Value’, SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy,
18 (2): 79–113.
Erbacher, C. (2019), ‘ “Good” Philosophical Reasons for “Bad” Editorial Philology?
On Rhees and Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Grammar’, Philosophical
Investigations, 42 (2): 111–145.
Erbacher, C. (2020), Wittgenstein’s Heirs and Editors, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Erbacher, C. (forthcoming), The Happy Afterlife of Ludwig W., Stuttgart: Metzler.
Erbacher, C., A. dos Santos Reis and J. Jung (2019), ‘ “Ludwig Wittgenstein” – A
BBC Radio Talk by Elizabeth Anscombe in May 1953’, Nordic Wittgenstein
Review, 8 (1–2): 225–240.
Erbacher, C., J. Jung and A. Seibel (2017), ‘The Logbook of Editing Wittgenstein’s
“Philosophische Bermerkungen”: Rush Rhees’ Letters to Georg Henrik von
Wright 1962–64’, Nordic Wittgenstein Review, 6 (1): 105–147.
358 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Escobar, A. (2018), Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy,

and the Making of Worlds, Durham: Duke University Press.
Flowers, F. A. III and I. Ground, eds (2016), Portraits of Wittgenstein, Vols. 1–2,
London, New York, Oxford, New Delhi, Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic.
Floyd, J. (2002), ‘Number and Ascription of Number in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus’,
in E.H. Reck (ed.), From Frege to Wittgenstein: Perspectives on Early Analytic
Philosophy, 308–352, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Floyd, J. and F. Mühlhölzer (2020), Wittgenstein’s Annotations to Hardy’s Course
of Pure Mathematics: An Investigation of Wittgenstein’s Non-Extensionalist
Understanding of the Real Numbers, Cham: Springer Nature.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1960), Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen
Hermeneutik, Tübingen: Mohr.
Gadamer, H.-G. (2007), ‘The Artwork in Word and Image: “So True, So Full of
Being!” ’, in R.E. Palmer (ed.), The Gadamer Reader: A Bouquet of the Later
Writings, 195–224, trans. R.E. Palmer, Evanston, Illinois: The Northwestern
University Press.
Garzón Valdés, E. (2016), ‘Some Features of Georg Henrik von Wright as a Human
Being and as a Philosopher ’, in G. Meggle and R. Vilkko (eds), Georg Henrik
von Wright’s Book of Friends, 63–73, Acta Philosophica Fennica 92, Helsinki:
Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Geach, M. (2005), ‘Introduction’, in M. Geach and L. Gormally (eds), Human Life,
Action and Ethics: Essays by G.E.M. Anscombe, xiii–xxi, Exeter: Imprint
Academic.
Geach, M. and L. Gormally, eds (2005), Human Life, Action and Ethics: Essays by
G.E.M. Anscombe, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Geach, M. and L. Gormally, eds (2008), Faith in a Hard Ground: Essays on
Religion, Philosophy and Ethics by G.E.M. Anscombe, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Geach, M. and L. Gormally, eds (2011), From Plato to Wittgenstein: Essays by
G.E.M. Anscombe, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Geach, M. and L. Gormally, eds (2015), Logic, Truth and Meaning: Writings of
G.E.M. Anscombe, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Geach, P. (1988), ‘Editor’s Preface’, in L. Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein’s Lectures on
Philosophical Psychology 1946–47, ed. P. Geach, Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Geach, P. (1991), ‘A Philosophical Autobiography ’, in H.A. Lewis (ed.), Peter Geach:
Philosophical Encounters, 1–25, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van Gennip, K. (2003), ‘Connections and Divisions in On Certainty’, in W. Löffler
et al. (eds), Knowledge and Belief, Papers of the 26th International Wittgenstein
Symposium, 3–9 August 2003, Kirchberg am Wechsel, 129–131, Neulengbach:
Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.
van Gennip, K. (2008), Wittgenstein’s On Certainty in the Making: Studies into its
Historical and Philosophical Background, PhD diss., Enschede: Print Partners
Ipskamp.
Gibson, A. (2015), ‘Peter Geach: A Few Personal Remarks’, Philosophical
Investigations, 38 (1–2): 25–33.
Gibson, A. and N. O’Mahony (2020), Ludwig Wittgenstein: Dictating Philosophy,
Berlin: Springer.
Ginsborg, H. (1997), ‘Lawfulness Without Law: Kant on the Free Play of
Imagination and Understanding’, Philosophical Topics, 25 (1): 37–81.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 359

Glock, H.-J. (1992), ‘Cambridge, Jena or Vienna? The Roots of the Tractatus’,
Ratio, 5 (1): 1–23.
Glock, H.-J. (1996), The Wittgenstein Dictionary, Oxford: Blackwell.
Glüer, K., and Å. Wikforss (2009), ‘Es braucht die Regel nicht: Wittgenstein on
Rules and Meaning’, in D. Whiting (ed.), The Later Wittgenstein on Meaning,
148–166, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
von Goethe, J.W., J.P. Eckermann and F.J. Soret (1850), Conversations of Goethe with
Eckermann and Soret, Volume I, trans. J. Oxenford, London: Smith, Elder & Co.
Haaparanta, L. and I. Niiniluoto, eds (2003), Analytic Philosophy in Finland,
Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 80, New
York: Rodopi.
Habermas, J. (1985), Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne: Zwölf Vorlesungen,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Hacker, P.M.S. (1986), Insight and Illusion: Themes in the Philosophy of
Wittgenstein, Revised edn, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hacker, P.M.S. (1996), Wittgenstein’s Place in Twentieth Century Analytic
Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Hacker, P.M.S. and J. Schulte (2009a), ‘Editorial Preface to the Fourth Edition and
Modified Translation’, in L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, viii–xvii,
ed. P.M.S. Hacker and J. Schulte, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and J.
Schulte, Revised 4th edn, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hacker, P.M.S. and J. Schulte (2009b), ‘The Text of the Philosophical
Investigations’, in L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, xviii–xxiii, ed.
P.M.S. Hacker and J. Schulte, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and
J. Schulte, Revised 4th edn, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Haldane, J., ed. (2019a), The Life and Philosophy of Elizabeth Anscombe, Exeter:
Imprint Academic.
Haldane, J. (2019b), ‘Elizabeth Anscombe: Life and Work’, in J. Haldane (ed.), The
Life and Philosophy of Elizabeth Anscombe, 1–11, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Hanslick, E. ([1854] 2018), Eduard Hanslick’s On the Musically Beautiful: A New
Translation, trans. L. Rothfarb and C. Landerer, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hardy, G.H. (1941), A Course of Pure Mathematics, 8th edn, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hertzberg, L. (2001), ‘Rush Rhees on Philosophy and Religious Discourse’, Faith
and Philosophy, 18 (4): 431–442.
Hertzberg, L. (2012), ‘Rhees on the Unity of Language’, Philosophical
Investigations, 35 (3–4): 224–237.
Hertzberg, L. (2016a), ‘Att förstå en filosof i förhållande till hans tid: von Wright
läser Wittgenstein’, in J. Strang and T. Wallgren (eds), Tankens utåtvändhet:
Georg Henrik von Wright som intellektuell, 121–140, Helsingfors / Stockholm:
Svenska Litteratursällskapet i Finland / Appell Förlag.
Hertzberg, L. (2016b), ‘Walking and Talking with Georg Henrik von Wright’, in G.
Meggle and R. Vilkko (eds), Georg Henrik von Wright’s Book of Friends, 95–103,
Acta Philosophica Fennica 92, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Hintikka, J., ed. (1976), Essays on Wittgenstein in Honour of G.H. von Wright, Acta
Philosophica Fennica 28, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Hollingworth, M. (2018), Ludwig Wittgenstein, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horkheimer, M. and T.W. Adorno, (1979), Dialectic of Enlightenment, London:
Verso.
360 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Horner, A. and A. Rowe, eds (2016), Living on Paper: Letters from Iris Murdoch,
1934–1995, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Huttunen, R., A. Laitinen and T. Wallgren (2019), ‘Habermas in Finnland:
Analytische Philosophie, Rechtstheorie und postmarxistische Gesellschafstheorie
im Dialog’, in L. Corchia, S. Müller-Doohm and W. Outhwaite (eds), Habermas
global: Wirkungsgeschichte eines Werks, 443–458, Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Ishiguro, H. (1969), ‘Use and Reference of Names’, in P. Winch (ed.), Studies in the
Philosophy of Wittgenstein, 20–50, London: Routledge & Kegal Paul.
Jakola, L. (2017), ‘In Search of the Good of Man – G.H. von Wright’s Humanistic
Ethics’, in I. Niiniluoto and T. Wallgren (eds), On the Human Condition –
Essays in Honour of Georg Henrik von Wright’s Centennial Anniversary,
269–290, Acta Philosophica Fennica 93, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica
Fennica.
Jakola, L. (2020), ‘Wittgenstein and G.H. von Wright’s path to The Varieties of
Goodness’, Nordic Wittgenstein Review, 9: 37–77. doi:10.15845/nwr.v9i0.3546.
Jakola, L. (2021), ‘G.H. von Wright’s Unpublished Edition of Wittgenstein’s “Last
Writings”: Editors’ Preface and Other Materials, ca. 1967–68’, Nordic
Wittgenstein Review, 10: 1–45. doi:10.15845/nwr.v0i0.3598.
Jakola, L. (article ms 2022), ‘G.H. von Wright’s Connective Analysis of Goodness:
The Varieties of Goodness (1963) Revisited’.
Janik, A. (1985), Essays on Wittgenstein and Weininger, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Janik, A. and S. Toulmin (1973), Wittgenstein’s Vienna, New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Jauss, H.R. (1970), Literaturgeschichte als Provokation, Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp Verlag.
Jerusalem, W. (1913), Einleitung in die Philosophie, Wien/Leipzig: Wilhelm Braumüller.
Kahane, G., E. Kanterian and O. Kuusela (2007), ‘Introduction’, in G. Kahane,
E. Kanterian and O. Kuusela (eds), Wittgenstein and His Interpreters: Essays in
Memory of Gordon Baker, 1–36, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Kanamori, A. (2020), ‘Kreisel and Wittgenstein’, in P. Weingartner and H.-P. Leeb
(eds), Kreisel’s Interests: On the Foundations of Logic and Mathematics, 1–32,
London: College Publications.
Kannisto, H. (1986), Thoughts and Their Subject: A Study of Wittgenstein’s
Tractatus, Acta Philosophica Fennica 40, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Kant, I. (1977), Kant’s Political Writings, ed. H.S. Reiss, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kant, I. (1998), Critique of Pure Reason, ed. and trans. P. Guyer and A.W. Wood,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (2000), Critique of the Power of Judgment, ed. P. Guyer, trans. P. Guyer and
E. Matthews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kenny, A. (1976), ‘From the Big Typescript to the Philosophical Grammar ’, in J.
Hintikka (ed.), Essays on Wittgenstein in Honour of G.H. von Wright, 41–53,
Acta Philosophica Fennica 28, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Kenny, A. (1981), ‘Wittgenstein’s Early Philosophy of Mind’, in I. Block (ed.),
Perspectives on the Philosophy of Wittgenstein, 140–147, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kenny, A. (2004), ‘Philosophy States Only What Everyone Admits’, in E.
Ammereller and E. Fischer (eds), Wittgenstein at Work: Method in the
Philosophical Investigations, 173–182, London and New York: Routledge.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 361

Kenny, A. (2006), ‘A Brief History of Wittgenstein Editing’, in A. Pichler and S.

Säätelä (eds), Wittgenstein: The Philosopher and His Works, 382–396, Frankfurt
am Main: Ontos Verlag.
Kenny, A. (2019a), ‘Elizabeth Anscombe at Oxford’, in J. Haldane (ed.), The Life
and Philosophy of Elizabeth Anscombe, 12–22, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Kenny, A. (2019b), ‘Elizabeth Anscombe: Unconventional Talents’, The Tablet, 23,
March: 6–7.
Klagge, J.C., ed. (2001), Wittgenstein: Biography and Philosophy, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Klagge, J.C. (2011), Wittgenstein in Exile, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Klagge, J.C. (2019), ‘The Wittgenstein Lectures, Revisited’, Nordic Wittgenstein
Review, 8 (1–2): 11–82.
Knott, H.A. (2017), ‘On Reinstating “Part I” and “Part II” to Wittgenstein’s
Philosophical Investigations’, Philosophical Investigations, 40 (4): 329–349.
Knott, H.A. (2020), ‘On Reinstating “Part I” and “Part II” to Wittgenstein’s
Philosophical Investigations – A Supplementary Note’, Philosophical
Investigations, 43 (4): 382–390.
Koselleck, R. (1979), Vergangene Zukunft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Kreisel, G. (1958), ‘Wittgenstein’s Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics’,
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 9 (34): 135–158.
Kreisel, G. (1979), Untitled review of the revised edition of Wittgenstein’s Remarks
on the Foundations of Mathematics, American Scientist, 67 (5): 619.
Kripke, S. (1982), Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language: An Elementary
Exposition, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Kruskopf, E. (2008), En livslång vänskap: Brevväxlingen mellan Göran Schildt och
Georg Henrik von Wright 1937–2001, Ekenäs: Christine och Göran Schildts
stiftelse.
Kuusela, O. (2008), The Struggle Against Dogmatism: Wittgenstein and the Concept
of Philosophy, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Kuusela, O. (2020), ‘Philosophy as Education in Thinking: Why Getting the Reader
to Think Matters to Wittgenstein’, in S. Wuppuluri and N. da Costa (eds),
WITTGENSTEINIAN (adj.): Looking at the World from the Viewpoint of
Wittgenstein’s Philosophy, 21–37, Cham: Springer.
Lahtinen, M., S. Pihlström and J.S. Tuusvuori (1995), ‘ “Uuden etsiminen vain
intellektuaalisesti ei johda mihinkään”: Georg Henrik von Wright niin & näin
haastattelussa’, niin & näin, 2/1995: 4–14.
Lindén, J.-I., ed. (2019), Prolegomena zur historischen Ontologie, Heidelberg:
Universitätsverlag Winter.
Lipscomb, B.J.B. (2021), The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth
Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lucchesi, A. (2016), ‘When Rush Rhees’ son dropped out’, Campus Times,
24 March.
MacCumhaill, C. and R. Wiseman (2018), ‘A Female School of Analytic
Philosophy? Anscombe, Foot, Midgley and Murdoch’, In Parenthesis, 1 October.
Malcolm, N. (1958), Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir, Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press.
362 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Malcolm, N. (1984), Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir, 2nd edn, Oxford and New
York: Oxford University Press.
Malcolm, N. (1986), Nothing Is Hidden: Wittgenstein’s Criticism of his Early
Thought, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Malmstén, B. (1995), ‘Kontinuitetens ljus; evigheten i von Wright’, in K. Stern and
B. Gamfeldt (eds), Röster om Georg Henrik von Wright, 51–60, Stockholm: ABF
Stockholm.
Matar, A., ed. (2017), Understanding Wittgenstein, Understanding Modernism,
London and New York: Bloomsbury.
McGuinness, B. (1967), ‘Editor’s Note’, in P. Engelmann, Letters from Ludwig
Wittgenstein: With a Memoir, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
McGuinness, B. (1981), ‘The So-called Realism of the Tractatus’, in I. Block (ed.),
Perspectives on the Philosophy of Wittgenstein, 60–73, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
McGuinness, B. (1984), ‘Vorwort des Herausgebers’, in B. McGuinness (ed.),
Ludwig Wittgenstein und der Wiener Kreis: Gespräche aufgeizeichnet von
Friedrich Waismann, Ludwig Wittgenstein Werkausgabe Band 3, Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
McGuinness, B. (1988), Wittgenstein, A Life: Young Ludwig (1889–1921), London:
Duckworth.
McGuinness, B. ([1988] 1990), Wittgenstein, A Life: Young Ludwig (1889–1921),
London: Penguin.
McGuinness, B. (2002), Approaches to Wittgenstein: Collected Papers, London:
Routledge.
McGuinness, B., ed. (1984), Ludwig Wittgenstein und der Wiener Kreis: Gespräche
aufgeizeichnet von Friedrich Waismann, Ludwig Wittgenstein Werkausgabe Band
3, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Meggle, G. and R. Vilkko, eds (2016), Georg Henrik von Wright’s Book of Friends,
Acta Philosophica Fennica 92, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Miles, R.E. Jr. (1985), ‘Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American
Lives Saved’, International Security, 10 (2): 121–140.
Monk, R. (1990), Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, London: Jonathan Cape.
Monk, R. (1991), Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, London: Vintage.
Monk, R. (2007), ‘Bourgeois, Bolshevist or Anarchist? The Reception of
Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics’, in G. Kahane, E. Kanterian and O.
Kuusela (eds), Wittgenstein and His Interpreters: Essays in Memory of Gordon
Baker, 269–294, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Moore, A.W. (1987), ‘Beauty in the Transcendental Idealism of Kant and
Wittgenstein’, The British Journal of Aesthetics, 27 (2): 129–137.
Moore, A.W. (2007), ‘Wittgenstein and Transcendental Idealism’, in G. Kahane,
E. Kanterian and O. Kuusela (eds), Wittgenstein and His Interpreters: Essays in
Memory of Gordon Baker, 174–199, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Moore, A.W. (2013), ‘Was the Author of the Tractatus a Transcendental Idealist?’, in
P. Sullivan and M. Potter (eds), Wittgenstein’s Tractatus: History and
Interpretation, 239–255, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moyal-Sharrock, D., ed. (2004a), The Third Wittgenstein: The Post-Investigations
Works, Ashgate: Aldershot.
Moyal-Sharrock, D. (2004b), ‘Introduction: The idea of a Third Wittgenstein’, in
D. Moyal-Sharrock (ed.), The Third Wittgenstein: The Post-Investigations Works,
1–22, Ashgate: Aldershot.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 363

Moyal-Sharrock, D. (2004c), ‘On Certainty and the Grammaticalization of

Experience’, in D. Moyal-Sharrock (ed.), The Third Wittgenstein: The Post-
Investigations Works, 43–62, Ashgate: Aldershot.
Moyal-Sharrock, D. and W.H. Brenner (2005), ‘Introduction’, in D. Moyal-
Sharrock and W.H. Brenner (eds), Readings of Wittgenstein’s On Certainty, 1–15,
Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
Murdoch, I. (2016), Living on Paper: Letters from Iris Murdoch, 1934–1995, ed. A.
Horner and A. Rowe, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Mühlhölzer, F. (2010), Braucht die Mathematik eine Grundlegung?: Ein Kommentar
des Teils III von Wittgensteins Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der
Mathematik, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
Mühlhölzer, F. (2012), ‘Teil III der Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der
Mathematik und die zugrunde liegenden Manuskripte 122 und 117: Ein
Vergleich’, Wittgenstein-Studien, 3 (1): 19–44.
Nagel, T. (1974), ‘What Is It Like to Be a Bat?’, The Philosophical Review, 83 (4):
435–450.
Niiniluoto, I. (2012), ‘Eino Kaila’s Critique of Metaphysics’, in I. Niiniluoto and S.
Pihlström (eds), Reappraisals of Eino Kaila’s Philosophy, 70–89, Acta
Philosophica Fennica 89, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Niiniluoto, I. and S. Pihlström, eds (2012), Reappraisals of Eino Kaila’s Philosophy,
Acta Philosophica Fennica 89, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Nykänen, H. (2021), ‘Nietzsche’s Nose’, European Journal of Psychoanalysis, 14 (2).
Nyíri, J.C. (1976), ‘Wittgenstein’s New Traditionalism’, in J. Hintikka (ed.), Essays
on Wittgenstein in Honour of G.H. von Wright, 503–512, Acta Philosophica
Fennica 28, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
O’Grady, J. (2001), ‘Elizabeth Anscombe’, The Guardian, 11 January.
Orzechowski, A. and A. Pichler (1995), ‘A Critical Note on the Editions of
Wittgenstein’s Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough’, Wittgenstein Studies,
2: 1–9.
Österman, B. (2019), ‘Healing the Rift: How G.H. von Wright Made Philosophy
Relevant to His Life’, Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, 7 (8):
1–18.
Österman, B. (2020), ‘Två filosofer i 1900-talet och deras brev’, in B. Österman
(ed.), ‘Skriv så ofta du kan’: Brevväxlingen mellan Georg Henrik von Wright och
Eino Kaila 1937–1958, 13–111, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Litteratursällskapet
i Finland 851, Helsingfors: Svenska Litteratursällskapet i Finland.
Oxford English Dictionary (2021), OED Online, Oxford University Press, March
2021. Lemma ‘scrappy, adj.1’. Accessed 14 April 2021.
Paul, D. (2007), Wittgenstein’s Progress 1929–1951, Publications from the
Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen 19, Bergen: University of Bergen.
Pears, D. (1987), The False Prison: A Study of the Development of Wittgenstein’s
Philosophy, Vol. 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Perloff, M. (2011), ‘Writing Philosophy as Poetry: Literary Form in Wittgenstein’, in
O. Kuusela and M. McGinn (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Wittgenstein,
714–728, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perloff, M. (2012), Wittgenstein’s Ladder: Poetic Language and the Strangeness of
the Ordinary, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Phillips, D.Z. (1997), ‘Introduction’, in D.Z. Phillips (ed.), Rush Rhees on Religion
and Philosophy, xi-xxii, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
364 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Phillips, D.Z. (2006), ‘Rush Rhees: A Biographical Sketch’, in R. Rhees and D.Z.
Phillips (ed.), Wittgenstein and the Possibility of Discourse, 266–275, 2nd edn,
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Phillips, D.Z. and P. Winch, eds (1989), Wittgenstein: Attention to Particulars:
Essays in Honour of Rush Rhees, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pichler, A. (1993), ‘A Source Catalogue of the Published Texts’, in M. Biggs and A.
Pichler, Wittgenstein: Two Source Catalogues and a Bibliography, Working Papers
from the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen 7, Bergen: University
of Bergen.
Pichler, A. (1994), Untersuchungen zu Wittgensteins Nachlaß, Working Papers from
the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen 8, Bergen: University of
Bergen.
Pichler, A. (2004), Wittgensteins Philosophische Untersuchungen: Vom Buch zum
Album, Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.
Pichler, A. (2010), Towards the New Bergen Electronic Edition, in N. Venturinha
(ed.), Wittgenstein After His Nachlass, 157–172, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pichler, A. (2016), ‘Recollections from Encounters with Georg Henrik von Wright’,
in G. Meggle and R. Vilkko (eds), Georg Henrik von Wright’s Book of Friends,
153–166, Acta Philosophica Fennica 92, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica
Fennica.
Pichler, A. (2019), ‘Wittgenstein Nachlass Ts-226: A Case of Wittgensteinian (Self-)
Translation’, in P. Oliveira, A. Pichler and A. Moreno (eds), Wittgenstein in/on
Translation, 153–188, Coleção CLE 86, Campinas: CLE.
Pichler, A. (2021a), ‘Überlegungen dazu, was die digitale genetische Edition leisten
kann und leisten soll’, in J. Brandl, D. Messelken and S. Wedman (eds), Denken.
Reden. Handeln: Nachträge zu einem Salzburger Symposium mit Georg Meggle,
327–337, Salzburg: Salzburg University Press.
Pichler, A. (2021b), ‘Hierarchical or Non-hierarchical? A Philosophical Approach
to a Debate in Text Encoding’, Digital Humanities Quarterly, 15 (1).
Pichler, A., M.A.R. Biggs and S.A. Szeltner (2011), ‘Bibliographie der deutsch- und
englischsprachigen Wittgenstein-Ausgaben’, Wittgenstein-Studien, 2: 249–286.
Pitkin, H.F. (1993), Wittgenstein and Justice, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California:
University of California Press.
Plato (1961), The Collected Dialogues of Plato, ed. E. Hamilton and H. Cairns,
trans. L. Cooper, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Redpath, T. (1990), Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Student’s Memoir, London:
Duckworth.
Rhees, R. (1969), Without Answers, New York: Schocken Books.
Rhees, R. (1970), ‘On Continuity: Wittgenstein’s Ideas, 1938’, in R. Rhees,
Discussions of Wittgenstein, 140–157, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rhees, R. (1971), ‘Introductory Note’, The Human World, 3: 18–28.
Rhees, R. (1974), ‘Wittgenstein’, The Human World, 14: 66–78.
Rhees, R. (1976), ‘Wittgenstein on Language and Ritual’, in J. Hintikka (ed.),
Essays on Wittgenstein in Honour of G.H. von Wright, 450–484, Acta
Philosophica Fennica 28, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Rhees, R. (1979), ‘Wittgenstein über Sprache und Ritus’, in H.J. Heringer and
M. Nedo (eds), Wittgensteins geistige Erscheinung, 35–66, Ludwig Wittgenstein:
Schriften, Beiheft 3, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 365

Rhees, R. (1981), ‘Postscript’, in R. Rhees (ed.), Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal

Recollections, 190–231, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Rhees, R. (1982), ‘Wittgenstein on Language and Ritual’, in B. McGuinness (ed.),
Wittgenstein and his Times, 69–107, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Rhees, R. (1994), ‘The Fundamental Problems of Philosophy’, ed. T. Tessin,
Philosophical Investigations, 17 (4): 573–586.
Rhees, R. (1996), ‘On Editing Wittgenstein’, ed. D.Z. Phillips, Philosophical
Investigations, 19 (1): 55–61.
Rhees, R. (1998), Wittgenstein and the Possibility of Discourse, ed. D.Z. Phillips,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rhees, R. (2003), Wittgenstein’s On Certainty: There – Like Our Life, ed. D.Z.
Phillips, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Rhees, R. (2005), Wittgenstein’s On Certainty: There – Like Our Life, ed. D.Z.
Phillips, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Rhees, R. (2006), Wittgenstein and the Possibility of Discourse, ed. D.Z. Phillips,
2nd edn, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Rhees, R., ed. (1981), Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal Recollections, Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Rogers, B. (2011), Philosophical Method in Wittgenstein’s On Certainty, PhD Diss.,
Irvine, California: University of California.
Rothhaupt, J.G.F. (1996), Farbthemen in Wittgenstein’s Gesamtnachlaß:
Philologisch-philosophische Untersuchungen im Längsschnitt und in
Querschnitten, Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum Verlag.
Rothhaupt, J.G.F. (2010), ‘Wittgenstein at Work: Creation, Selection and
Composition of ‘Remarks”, in N. Venturinha (ed.), Wittgenstein After His
Nachlass, 51–63, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rothhaupt, J.G.F. (2011), ‘Der Komplex “MS140(I)+MA114(II)+MS115(I)” als
Wittgensteins Buch “Lsrpmhmlsrhxsv Yvoviqfntvn” ’, in C. Jäger and W. Löffler
(eds), Epistemology: Contexts, Values, Disagreement, Papers of the 34th
International Wittgenstein Symposium, August 7–13 2011, Kirchberg am
Wechsel, 247–250, Neulengbach: Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.
Rothhaupt, J.G.F. (2016), ‘Wittgensteins “Bemerkungen über Frazers
Golden Bough”: Verortung im Gesamtnachlass – Einbindung in die
Philosophietradition – Editions- und Publikationsgeschichte’, in L. Albinus,
J.G.F. Rothhaupt and A. Seery (eds), Wittgenstein’s Remarks on Frazer: The Text
and the Matter, 11–83, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Rothhaupt, J.G.F. (2017), ‘Wittgensteins “General Remarks”: Auswahlen von
Bemerkungen in oder aus seinem Nachlass’, Wittgenstein-Studien, 8: 103–136.
Rothhaupt, J.G.F. and W. Vossenkuhl, eds (2013), Kulturen und Werte:
Wittgensteins Kringel-Buch als Initialtext, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Russell, B. (1936), ‘The Limits of Empiricism’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society, 36 (1): 131–150.
Russell, B. (1975), The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, London: George Allen
and Unwin.
Santos, B. de S. (2014), Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide,
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Schildt, G. (2003), Vinterkriget som fars: En ung mans dagbok 1939–1945,
Helsingfors: Söderströms.
366 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schilpp, P.A. and L.E. Hahn, eds (1989), The Philosophy of Georg Henrik
von Wright, The Library of Living Philosophers, LaSalle, Illinois: Open
Court.
Schopenhauer, A. (2011), The World as Will and Representation: Volume I, ed. and
trans. J. Norman, A. Welchman and C. Janaway, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schroeder, S. (2017), ‘Wittgenstein on Aesthetics’, in H.-J. Glock and J. Hyman
(eds), A Companion to Wittgenstein, 612–626, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schulte, J. (1993), Experience and Expression: Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of
Psychology, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Schulte, J. (2001a), ‘Einleitung’, in L. Wittgenstein, Philosophische Untersuchungen:
Kritisch-genetische Edition, 12–47, ed. J. Schulte in cooperation with H. Nyman,
E. von Savigny and G.H. von Wright, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Schulte, J. (2001b), ‘Letter from a Philosopher’, in J.C. Klagge (ed.), Wittgenstein:
Biography and Philosophy, 176–194, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schulte, J. (2001c), ‘On Wittgenstein’, Philosophical Investigations, 24 (2):
162–169.
Schulte, J. (2005), ‘What is a Work by Wittgenstein?’, in A. Pichler and S. Säätelä
(eds), Wittgenstein: The Philosopher and his Works, 356–363, Working Papers
from the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen 17, Bergen:
University of Bergen.
Schulte, J. (2016), ‘Memories of Georg Henrik von Wright’, in G. Meggle and
R. Vilkko (eds), Georg Henrik von Wright’s Book of Friends, 187–202, Acta
Philosophica Fennica 92, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Schulte, J. (n.d.), ‘Wittgenstein on Certainty and Doubt’, unpublished manuscript,
6th complete draft.
Schwenkler, J. (2015), ‘Understanding “Practical Knowledge” ’, Philosophers’
Imprint, 15 (15): 1–32.
Schwenkler, J. (2019), ‘Untempted by the Consequences: G.E.M. Anscombe’s Life
of “Doing the Truth” ’, Commonweal, 2 December.
Shakespeare, W. (1996), The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Ware:
Wordsworth Editions.
Solin, K. (2018), ‘Rush Rhees on Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics’, in
G. M. Mras, P. Weingartner and B. Ritter (eds), Philosophy of Logic and
Mathematics, 41st International Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg am Wechsel,
5–11 August, 2018, 233–235, Kirchberg am Wechsel: Austrian Ludwig
Wittgenstein Society.
Somavilla, I. (2010), ‘Wittgenstein’s Coded Remarks in the Context of His
Philosophizing’, in N. Venturinha (ed.), Wittgenstein After His Nachlass, 30–50,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stenius, E. (1960), Wittgenstein’s Tractatus: A Critical Exposition of its Main Lines
of Thought, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Stern, D.G. (1994), ‘Recent Work on Wittgenstein, 1980–1990’, Synthese, 98 (3):
415–458.
Stern, D.G. (1996), ‘The Availability of Wittgenstein’s Philosophy’, in H. Sluga and
D.G. Stern (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein, 442–476,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, D.G. (2001), ‘Was Wittgenstein a Jew?’, in J.C. Klagge (ed.), Wittgenstein:
Biography and Philosophy, 237–272, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 367

Stern, D.G. (2004), Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: An Introduction,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, D.G. (2006), ‘How Many Wittgensteins?’, in A. Pichler and S. Säätelä (eds),
Wittgenstein: The Philosopher and His Works, 205–229, Frankfurt am Main:
Ontos Verlag.
Stern, K. and B. Gamfeldt, eds (1995), Röster om Georg Henrik von Wright,
Stockholm: ABF Stockholm.
Strang, J. and T. Wallgren, eds (2016), Tankens utåtvändhet: Georg Henrik von
Wright som intellektuell, Helsingfors / Stockholm: Svenska Litteratursällskapet i
Finland / Appell Förlag.
Stroll, A. (2004), ‘Wittgenstein’s Foundational Metaphors’, in D. Moyal-Sharrock
(ed), The Third Wittgenstein: The Post-Investigations Works, 13–24, Ashgate:
Aldershot.
Tanttu, J. (1962), ‘Herrasmiehen ammatti: Akateemikko’, Suomen Kuvalehti,
38/1962.
Teichman, J. (2001), ‘Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe 1919–2001’,
Proceedings of the British Academy, 115: 31–50.
Theunissen, M. (1982), Selbstverwirklichung und Allgemeinheit: Zur Kritik des
gegenwärtigen Bewußtseins, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Theunissen, M. (1991), Negative Theolgie der Zeit, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Verlag.
Toivakainen, N. (2020), Displacing Desire: An Essay on the Moral-Existential
Dynamics of the Mind-Body Problem, Helsinki: Unigrafia.
Tranøy, K.E. (1976), ‘Recollections of Wittgenstein’, in J. Hintikka (ed.), Essays on
Wittgenstein in Honour of G.H. von Wright, 11–21, Acta Philosophica Fennica
28, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Tugendhat, E. (1986), Self-Consciousness and Self-Determination, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Venturinha, N., ed. (2010), Wittgenstein After His Nachlass, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Venturinha, N. (2010), ‘A Re-Evaluation of the Philosophical Investigations’, in
N. Venturinha (ed.), Wittgenstein After His Nachlass, 143–156, Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Venuti, L. (1998), The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference,
London: Routledge.
Vlastos, G. (1991), Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vlastos, G. (1994), Socratic Studies, ed. M.F. Burnyeat, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vogler, C. (2019), ‘A Spiritual Autobiography’, Comment, 1 November.
Wallgren, T. (1999), ‘The Modern Discourse of Change and the Periodization and
End of Modernity’, in A. Ollila (ed.), Historical Perspectives on Memory,
195–220, Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society.
Wallgren, T. (2006a), ‘Overcoming Overcoming: Wittgenstein, Metaphysics, and
Progress’, in S. Pihlström (ed.), Wittgenstein and the Method of Philosophy,
97–130, Acta Philosophica Fennica 80, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.
Wallgren, T. (2006b), Transformative Philosophy: Socrates, Wittgenstein, and the
Democratic Spirit of Philosophy, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield /
Lexington Books.
368 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wallgren, T. (2013), ‘Radical Enlightenment Optimism: Socrates and Wittgenstein’,

in L. Perissinotto and B. Ramón Cámara (eds), Wittgenstein and Plato:
Connections, Comparisons and Contrasts, 298–330, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Wallgren, T. (2016), ‘Mitt i 1900-talets brännspegel’, in J. Strang and T. Wallgren
(eds), Tankens utåtvändhet: Georg Henrik von Wright som intellektuell, 19–38,
Helsingfors / Stockholm: Svenska Litteratursällskapet i Finland / Appell Förlag.
Wallgren, T. (2017), ‘Wittgenstein’s Modernist Political Philosophy’, in A. Matar
(ed.), Understanding Wittgenstein, Understanding Modernism, 75–91, London
and New York: Bloomsbury.
Wallgren, T. (2020), ‘Queer Scepticism: Socrates, Sextus and Wittgenstein’, in
A. Marques and B. Romão (eds), Wittgenstein and the Sceptical Tradition, 25–52,
Bern-Berlin-Buxelles-New York-Oxford-Wien: Peter Lang.
Wallgren, T. and B. Österman (2014), ‘The von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives
at the University of Helsinki’, Wittgenstein-Studien, 5 (1): 273–281.
Westergaard, P.K. (2013), Mennesket er et ceremonielt dyr: Ludwig Wittgensteins
Bemærkninger om Frazers ‘Den gyldne gren’, København: Forlaget Anis.
Westergaard, P.K. (2015), ‘On the “Ketner and Eigsti Edition” of Wittgenstein’s
Remarks on Frazer’s “The Golden Bough” ’, Nordic Wittgenstein Review, 4 (2):
117–142.
Westergaard, P.K. (2016), ‘Thirteen Loose Sheets of Varying Size: On Part II of
Bemerkungen über Frazers “The Golden Bough” ’, in L. Albinus, J.G.F. Rothhaupt
and A. Seery (eds), Wittgenstein’s Remarks on Frazer: The Text and the Matter,
291–309, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Westergaard, P.K. (2017), ‘A Note on Rhees, the Bemerkungen über Frazers “The
Golden Bough” and Über Gewißheit’, in C. Limbeck-Lilienau and F. Stadler
(eds), The Philosophy of Perception and Observation, 40th International
Wittgenstein Symposium, August 6–12, 2017, Kirchberg am Wechsel, 288–291,
Neulengbach: Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.
Westergaard, P.K. (2019), ‘A Note on MS 174 – The Meaning of a Remark is Given
by the Stream of the Text’, in A. Siegetsleitner, A. Oberprantacher and M.-L.
Frick (eds), Crisis and Critique: Philosophical Analysis and Current Events, 42nd
International Wittgenstein Symposium, 4–10 August, 2019, Kirchberg am
Wechsel, 270–272, Neulengbach: Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.
Winch, P. (1964), ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’, American Philosophical
Quarterly, 1 (4): 307–324.
Wiseman, R. (2016a), Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Anscombe’s Intention,
London and New York: Routledge.
Wiseman, R. (2016b), ‘The Intended and Unintended Consequences of Intention’,
American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 90 (2): 207–227.
von Wright, G.H. (1942), ‘Georg Christoph Lichtenberg: Ett tvåhundraårsminne’,
Finsk Tidskrift, 131: 238–248.
von Wright, G.H. (1946), ‘Filosofien och vetenskaperna’, Finsk Tidskrift, 140: 1–14.
von Wright, G.H. (1951a), An Essay in Modal Logic, Amsterdam: North-Holland
Publishing Company.
von Wright, G.H. (1951b), ‘Deontic Logic’, Mind, 60 (237): 1–15.
von Wright, G.H. (1954), ‘Ludwig Wittgenstein: En biografisk skiss’, Ajatus, 18: 5–23.
von Wright, G.H. (1955a), ‘Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Biographical Sketch’, The
Philosophical Review, 64 (4): 527–545.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 369

von Wright, G.H. (1955b), ‘Modern filosofi I’, Nya Argus, 48: 124–127.
von Wright, G.H. (1955c), Tanke och förkunnelse, Helsingfors: Söderströms.
von Wright, G.H. (1957), Logik, filosofi och språk: Strömningar och gestalter i
modern filosofi, Helsingfors: Söderströms.
von Wright, G.H. (1958), ‘A Biographical Sketch’, in N. Malcolm, Ludwig
Wittgenstein: A Memoir, 1–22, Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press.
von Wright, G.H. (1961), ‘Preface’, in L. Wittgenstein, Notebooks 1914–1916, ed.
G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe, Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
von Wright, G.H. (1963), The Varieties of Goodness, London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
von Wright, G.H. (1969), ‘Special Supplement: The Wittgenstein Papers’, The
Philosophical Review, 78 (4): 483–503.
von Wright, G.H. (1971a), Explanation and Understanding, Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press.
von Wright, G.H. (1971b), Logik, filosofi och språk, reviderad och utökad upplaga,
Helsingfors: Söderströms.
von Wright, G.H. (1972), ‘Wittgenstein on Certainty’, in G.H. von Wright (ed.),
Problems in the Theory of Knowledge, 47–60, The Hague: Martin Nijhoff.
von Wright, G.H. (1977), ‘Vorwort des Herausgebers’, in L. Wittgenstein,
Vermischte Bemerkungen, ed. G.H. von Wright, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Verlag.
von Wright, G.H. (1978a), ‘Eine zerreissfeste Weltanschaung’, in G.H. von Wright,
Humanismen som livshållning och andra essayer, 135–144, Helsingfors:
Söderströms.
von Wright, G.H. (1978b), ‘En filosof ser på filosofien’, in L. Bergström, H. Ofstad
and D. Prawitz (eds), En filosofibok: Tillägnad Anders Wedberg, 186–204,
Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag.
von Wright, G.H. (1978c), Humanismen som livshållning och andra essayer,
Helsingfors: Söderströms.
von Wright, G.H. (1978d), ‘Saatesanat’, in L. Wittgenstein, Zettel: Filosofisia
katkelmia, 5–7, ed. G.H. von Wright and G.E.M. Anscombe, Helsinki: WSOY.
von Wright, G.H. (1982), Wittgenstein, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
von Wright, G.H. (1982a), ‘Introduction’, in G.H. von Wright, Wittgenstein, 1–11,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
von Wright, G.H. (1982b), ‘Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Biographical Sketch’, in
G.H. von Wright, Wittgenstein, 13–34, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
von Wright, G.H. (1982c), ‘The Wittgenstein Papers’, in G.H. von Wright,
Wittgenstein, 35–62, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
von Wright, G.H. (1982d), ‘The Origin of the Tractatus’, in G.H. von Wright,
Wittgenstein, 64–109, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
von Wright, G.H. (1982e), ‘The Origin and Composition of the Philosophical
Investigations’, in G.H. von Wright, Wittgenstein, 111–136, Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
von Wright, G.H. (1982f), ‘Wittgenstein on Certainty’, in G.H. von Wright,
Wittgenstein, 163–182, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
von Wright, G.H. (1982g), ‘Wittgenstein in Relation to His Times’, in G.H. von
Wright, Wittgenstein, 201–216, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
370 BIBLIOGRAPHY

von Wright, G.H. (1982h), ‘Wittgenstein in Relation to His Times’, in B.

McGuinness (ed.), Wittgenstein and his Times, 108–120, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
von Wright, G.H. (1983a), ‘Mein Verhältnis zur deutschen Literatur:
Selbstbiographisches Fragment’, Jahrbuch für finnisch-deutsche
Literaturbeziehungen, 17: 15–17.
von Wright, G.H. (1983b), ‘The Origin and Development of Westermarck’s Moral
Philosophy’, in T. Stroup (ed.), Edward Westermarck: Essays on His Life and
Works, 25–61, Acta Philosophica Fennica 34, Vammala: Societas Philosophica
Fennica.
von Wright, G.H. (1986), Vetenskapen och förnuftet: Ett försök till orientering,
Helsingfors: Söderströms.
von Wright, G.H. (1987), ‘Truth-logics’, Logique et Analyse, 30 (120): 311–334.
von Wright, G.H. (1989), ‘Intellectual Autobiography’, in P.A. Schilpp and
L.E. Hahn (eds), The Philosophy of Georg Henrik von Wright, 1–55, The
Library of Living Philosophers, LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court.
von Wright, G.H., ed. (1990), A Portrait of Wittgenstein as a Young Man: From the
Diary of David Hume Pinsent 1912–1914, Oxford: Blackwell.
von Wright, G.H. (1992), ‘The Troubled History of Part II of the Investigations’,
Grazer Philosophische Studien, 42: 181–192.
von Wright, G.H. (1993a), ‘A Pilgrim’s Progress’, in G.H. von Wright, The Tree of
Knowledge and Other Essays, 103–113, Leiden/New York/Köln: E.J. Brill.
von Wright, G.H. (1993b), ‘Addendum to “The Wittgenstein Papers” ’, in L.
Wittgenstein, Philosophical Occasions, 1912–1951, 407–510, ed. J.C. Klagge
and A. Nordmann, Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.
von Wright, G.H. (1993c), Myten om framsteget: Tankar 1987–1992 med en
intellektuell självbiografi, Helsingfors: Söderströms.
von Wright, G.H. (1993d), ‘The Myth of Progress: A Contribution to the Debate
on Modernity’, in G.H. von Wright, The Tree of Knowledge and Other Essays,
204–228, Leiden/New York/Köln: E.J. Brill.
von Wright, G.H. (1993e), The Tree of Knowledge and Other Essays, Leiden/New
York/Köln: E.J. Brill.
von Wright, G.H. (1993f), ‘The Wittgenstein Papers’, in L. Wittgenstein,
Philosophical Occasions, 1912–1951, 480–506, ed. J.C. Klagge and A.
Nordmann, Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.
von Wright, G.H. (1993g), ‘Wittgenstein and the Twentieth Century’, in G.H. von
Wright, The Tree of Knowledge and Other Essays, 83–102, Leiden/New York/
Köln: E.J. Brill.
von Wright, G.H. (1994a), Att förstå sin samtid: Tanke och förkunnelse och andra
försök 1945–1994, Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag.
von Wright, G.H. (1994b), ‘Logic and Philosophy in the Twentieth Century’, in
D. Prawitz, B. Skyrms and D. Westerståhl (eds), Logic, Methodology and
Philosophy of Science IX, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
von Wright, G.H. (1995), ‘Slutord’, in K. Stern and B. Gamfeldt (eds), Röster om
Georg Henrik von Wright, 79–87, Stockholm: ABF Stockholm.
von Wright, G.H. (1996), Six Essays in Philosophical Logic, Acta Philosophica
Fennica 60, Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.
von Wright, G.H. (1999), ‘Om von Wrightarna på Haminalax och några
traditionslinjer savolaxisk högreståndshistoria’, Hufvudstadsbladet, 31 October.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 371

von Wright, G.H. (2001a), Mitt liv som jag minns det, Helsingfors: Söderströms.
von Wright, G.H. (2001b), ‘On Wittgenstein’, Philosophical Investigations, 24 (2):
177–179.
von Wright, G.H. (2001c), ‘Vorwort’, in L. Wittgenstein, Philosophische
Untersuchungen: Kritisch-genetische Edition, 7–11, ed. J. Schulte in cooperation
with H. Nyman, E. von Savigny and G.H. von Wright, Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp Verlag.
von Wright, G.H. (2003), ‘What Philosophy Is for Me’, in L. Haaparanta and
I. Niiniluoto (eds), Analytic Philosophy in Finland, 79–88, New York: Rodopi.
von Wright, G.H. and H. Nyman (1992), ‘Vorwort der Herausgeber’, in L.
Wittgenstein, Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology: The Inner and
the Outer, 1949–1951, Vol. 2, ed. G.H. von Wright and H. Nyman, trans.
C.G. Luckhardt and M.A.E. Aue, Oxford: Blackwell.

ELECTRONIC RESOURCES
Biggs, M. and A. Pichler (2013), Wittgenstein: Two Source Catalogues and a
Bibliography, Working Papers from the Wittgenstein Archives at the University
of Bergen 7. In: From the WAB archives: A selection from the Bergen
Wittgenstein archives’ ‘Working Papers’ and audio-visual materials. Available
online: http://wab.uib.no/wp-no7.pdf. Accessed: 30 May 2022. Republication by
the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen. Original publication in:
Biggs, M. and A. Pichler (1993).
Biggs, M. and A. Pichler (2013): In: From the WAB archives: A selection from the
Bergen Wittgenstein archives’ ‘Working Papers’ and audio-visual materials
<http://wab.uib.no/agora-wab/>. Republication by the Wittgenstein Archives at
the University of Bergen. Original publication in: Biggs, M. and A. Pichler
(1993).
Coda, A., G. Citron, B. Halder, A. Janik, U. Lobis, K. Mayr, B. McGuinness,
M. Schorner, M. Seekircher and J. Wang, eds (2011), Wittgenstein:
Gesamtbriefwechsel / Complete Correspondence, Innsbrucker Electronic Edition,
2nd edn, Innsbruck: InteLex. (IEA 2011)
Golanski, A. (2019), https://twitter.com/alanigolanski/status/1085561866217287680.
Pichler, A., M.A.R. Biggs and S.A. Uffelmann (2019), ‘Bibliographie der deutsch-
und englischsprachigen Wittgenstein-Ausgaben’. http://www.ilwg.eu/files/
Bibliographie%20-%202019-11-26.pdf
Sydenham High School website: https://www.sydenhamhighschool.gdst.net/about-
the-school/history/
Teichman, J. ‘Anscombe, (Gertrude) Elizabeth Margaret (1919–2001)’, Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available
online: https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.
001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-75032 Accessed: 30 May 2022.
Wittgenstein, L. (2000), Wittgenstein’s Nachlass: The Bergen Electronic Edition,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Bibliography has been compiled by Patrik Forss in cooperation with the editor
of the volume, Thomas Wallgren.
372
 NOTE ON ARCHIVAL RESOURCES

The primary materials relating to the work of Rush Rhees, G.E.M. Anscombe
and G.H. von Wright as editors of Wittgenstein’s Nachlass that have been
used for the scholarship presented in this volume are kept at the archives
listed below.

THE COLLEGIUM INSTITUTE ARCHIVE OF G.E.M.

ANSCOMBE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Abbreviation used in this volume: AA
https://www.collegiuminstitute.org/anscombe-archive-info
The Collegium Institute describes itself as an independent, academic
community with a catholic vision founded by faculty, alumni, students and
friends of the University of Pennsylvania.
The Collegium Institute has The Anscombe Archive with catalogued
items including unpublished manuscripts, philosophical offprints with
substantial marginalia and personal correspondence with major philosophical
figures, including Rhees and von Wright. The material includes Anecdotes
about Wittgenstein, a typescript made by Luke Gormally of two Anscombe-
notebooks.
At the time of finishing the manuscript for the present volume, The
Collegium Institute is host to the Anscombe Papers Project: https://www.
collegiuminstitute.org/anscombe-papers-project

373
374 NOTE ON ARCHIVAL RESOURCES

RICHARD BURTON ARCHIVES AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF SWANSEA
Abbreviation used in this volume: RBA
https://www.swansea.ac.uk/library/richard-burton-archives/
The Richard Burton Archives is the corporate memory and archive
repository of Swansea University and holds material of local, regional and
national significance. The Archives selects, preserves and makes accessible to
all the records of historical value created or acquired by the University. The
Archives also hold the personal papers of Rush Rhees, including manuscripts
and personal correspondence with Anscombe and von Wright.

THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF FINLAND

Abbreviation used in this volume: NLF
https://www.kansalliskirjasto.fi/en/collections/georg-henrik-von-wright-
collection
The Georg Henrik von Wright Collection (formerly called The Bibliotheca
Wrightiana) is based on items kept in Georg Henrik von Wright’s home
library at Skepparegatan 4 during his lifetime, which were donated by von
Wright to NLF in 2002. It includes a vast collection of philosophical and
scientific books, a large collection of offprints and more than 14,000 letters
of a professional or private nature. Many of von Wright’s Wittgenstein books
are also kept in the National Library, including his first copies of the Tractatus
and the Philosophical Investigations.

THE VON WRIGHT AND WITTGENSTEIN

ARCHIVES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
Abbreviation used in this volume: WWA
https://www2.helsinki.fi/en/projects/the-von-wright-and-wittgenstein-
archives
The von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives (WWA) at the University of
Helsinki is a humanities research infrastructure based on the Wittgenstein
Archive founded by Georg Henrik von Wright during his lifetime. It was
originally kept in connection with von Wright’s university office. It was
donated by von Wright to the University of Helsinki in the year 2000
together with a major part of von Wright’s own literary estate (mainly
manuscripts and correspondence), and scientific books owned by him, most
of which are related to Wittgenstein or von Wright’s own work. WWA has
functioned under its present name since 2009. The holdings of WWA have
NOTE ON ARCHIVAL RESOURCES 375

gradually expanded and they now include, among other things, the late
Jaakko Hintikka’s collection of books related to Wittgenstein and von
Wright. WWA holds an almost complete collection of copies of the Nachlass
used by von Wright for his work on Wittgenstein, often kept with marginal
notes and correspondence relating to the work. The correspondence held
at WWA comprises more than 10,000 letters, complementing the
correspondence kept at NLF.
The Note on Archival Rources has been compiled by Anna Lindelöf in
cooperation with Bernt Österman and Thomas Wallgren.
376
 INDEX

The letter f following an entry indicates a page with a figure.

The letter t following an entry indicates a page with a table.

AA (The Collegium Institute Archive of Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The

G.E.M. Anscombe) 70, 78 Golden Bough’, proposals
Abriss der Logistik (Carnap, Rudolf) 57 concerning 225
Adorno, Theodor 281 causality 49
aesthetics 274–5, 280–1, 286, 287–9 censorship 156–7
German 281, 287–8 certainty 153
AL (‘Aufzeichnungen über Logik’) Christianity 41
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 82, 83, communication partners 74
342t, 350 complete edition, discussion
Anderson, Alan Ross 116, 125, 134 n. 49 concerning 94, 98, 99, 298, 300
Anderson, John 22 Culture and Value (Vermischte
angenehm (causally conditioned response Bemerkungen), as editor /translator
to a stimulus) 87–8 92, 97, 100
Anscombe, Elizabeth (Gertrude Elizabeth decoding 168 n. 34
Margaret) 2 as eccentric 37–8, 49–50
archives 70, 78 editing views 3, 92, 95, 145–8, 151,
Bartley, William 170 n, 42 153, 156–8, 246–8, 256, 295,
Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der 298–9, 300, 303
Mathematik (Remarks on the education 39, 42, 43, 44
Foundations of Mathematics), as family 39, 43
editor 72, 81, 82, 91, 119, as feminist 42
130 n. 14, 145–6, 307–8 finances 45
Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der Foot, Philippa 41, 42, 126
Mathematik (Remarks on the Hare, R. M. 42, 43
Foundations of Mathematics), as homosexuality, thoughts on 41,
translator 91, 110, 118, 121, 146 170 n. 42, 170 n. 43

377
378 INDEX

Intention 40–1, 82 ‘Reply to Mr C. S. Lewis’s Argument

intention 48, 49 that “Naturalism” is Self-Refuting,
‘Justice of the Present War Examined, A’ 49
The’ 48–9 Rhees, correspondence with 70–2, 74,
last writings (of Wittgenstein), as 211, 225, 253 see also
editor 237, 238, 240, 241, 246–8, correspondence calendar
250–2 as Roman Catholic 38–40, 41, 43,
Last Writings on the Philosophy of 45–6, 48, 49, 50, 170 n. 43,
Psychology, Vol 2, as editor 153 303
Lecture on Ethics, A, proposals separability/compartmentalisation
concerning 204, 210 idea 303
life and career 43, 44–5, 49, 74, 84, thematic editing 151, 153, 238,
88 255–6, 303
literary executers disagreement 73, ‘Theory of Language, A’ 46–7
204, 205, 221, 224–5, 227, 305, Thomas Aquinas, Saint, influence of
307, 308 40, 41 style
‘Ludwig Wittgenstein’ 46, 47 Three Philosophers 48
‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ 43, 49 Tractatus Logico-Philsophicus 46, 48,
Monk, Paul 41–2 82, 158
‘Necessity and Truth’ 39 as translator 45, 138–45
Notebooks 1914–1916, as editor 146, Über Gewißheit/On Certainty, as
154–8 editor 88, 146, 151–2, 153,
Notebooks 1914–1916, as translator 167 n. 26, 216, 217–18, 221, 238,
82, 154 246–8, 251–2, 254, 322 n. 9
On Certainty/Über Gewißheit, as unity of logic and ethics idea 304
editor 88, 146, 151–2, 153, Vermischte Bemerkungen (Culture and
167 n. 26, 216, 217–18, 221, 238, Value), as editor /translator 92, 97,
246–8, 251–2, 254, 322 n. 9 100
Philosophische Untersuchungen von Wright, conflict with 73
(Philosophical Investigations), as von Wright, correspondence with
translator 45, 80, 138–42 70–2, 74, 246–7, 248, 251, 296,
Philosophische Untersuchungen 300, 301 see also correspondence
(Philosophical Investigations), as calendar
editor 72, 80, 81, 145–54, 301, von Wright, relationship with 45
317, 331 n. 94 war 48, 49
Philosophische Untersuchungen ‘War and Murder’ 41
(Philosophical Investigations), Wittgenstein, relationship with 41, 44,
thoughts on 40, 82 45–6, 141, 147, 164 n. 10, 294,
philosophy 39–40, 43–4, 47–9, 301, 302
303–5 Wittgenstein, thoughts on 41, 43,
practical syllogism 40–1 46–8, 49, 147
‘Question of Linguistic Idealism, The’ ‘Wittgenstein: Last Writings’,
47 unpublished edition, thoughts on
Remarks on Colour, as editor 146, 250
151, 153, 238, 241, 246, 264 Zettel, as editor 146
Remarks on the Philosophy of Anscombe Archive 70, 78
Psychology, as editor 146 aphorisms 176–86, 190, 197–8, 273,
Remarks on the Philosophy of 286, 288, 289, 313, 317, 318
Psychology, as editor 92 Aquinas. See Thomas Aquinas, Saint
INDEX 379

architecture 196 Anscombe, as editor 72, 81, 82, 91,

archives 70, 73, 75–6, 78, 80 119, 130 n. 14, 145–6, 307–8
Bergen Electronic Edition 70, 156 Anscombe, as translator 91, 110, 118,
Cornell University microfilm 70, 121, 146
87–8, 156 cars remark 315, 318
Rush Rhees Collection in the discussion 122–8
Richard Burton Archive 70, 75, editorial process, finalization 119–22
78, 231 editorial process, initial work 106–9
The Collegium Institute Archive of editorial process, main work 110–19
G.E.M. Anscombe 70, 78 preface 118–19, 128
Von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives Rhees, as editor 72, 81, 82, 90, 91,
70, 73, 78, 231 106–29, 308
Wittgenstein Archive, University of Rhees, as indexer 119–20
Bergen 75, 98, 99, 100 set theory 315
Wittgenstein Archive, University of spacing 119, 127–8, 129
Tübingen 73, 75, 80, 89, 93, 94 Unseld, Siegfried 216
Wren Library, Trinity College von Wright, as editor 60, 72, 81, 82,
Cambridge 75, 79, 98, 205, 231 90, 91, 106–29, 145–6, 165 n. 16,
Aristotle 176, 181, 182, 190, 307–8
Ethica Nicomachea 40–1 von Wright, as indexer 82, 119–20,
arts, the 273–6 119–20, 121
music in Culture and Value 286–9 Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Golden
music in Philosophische Bough’ (Wittgenstein, Ludwig)
Untersuchungen (Philosophical (GB/GB 1967/GB 1971) 85, 86,
Investigations) 282–5 88, 89, 227, 228
music in Tractatus Logico-Philsophicus Brynmill edition 229
276, 277–82 in Human World, The 204, 228,
aspect seeing 289 229–30
‘Aufzeichnungen über Logik’ (AL/NL Ketner and Eigsti edition 228
1960) (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 82, literary executers disagreement 204,
83, 342t, 350 205, 221, 224–5, 227, 307
Augustine, Saint 26, 37, 317–18 Rhees and MS 110 Frazer
transcription, as editor 204,
Barrett, Cyril 75 205–11, 212
Bartley, William 91, 170 n, 42 Rhees and MS 143 Frazer
Baum, Wilhelm 96, 154, 158 transcription, as editor 204–5,
Baumgarten, Alexander 275 211–214
BBB/BBB 1958 (Preliminary Studies for Rhees and Synthese edition, as editor
the ‘Philosophical Investigations’, 204, 205, 206, 211, 214–16, 227,
generally known as The Blue and 228, 229–30
Brown Books) (Wittgenstein, Rhees, as editor 88, 151–2, 203–5,
Ludwig) 80, 82, 83, 88, 134 n. 52 227–30
beetle remark 306 Rhees, proposals concerning Lecture
Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der on Ethics, A 151, 204, 205,
Mathematik (Remarks on the 218–21, 224–7, 253–4
Foundations of Mathematics) Rhees, proposals concerning On
(BGM/RFM/RFM 1956/RFM Certainty/Über Gewißheit 204,
1978) (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 85, 220–8, 226, 253–4
89, 105–6, 216, 223–4, 295 in translation 228
380 INDEX

Bergen Electronic Edition 70, 156 complete edition 13, 94, 95, 98, 99,
Bevan, Edward 45 298–300
BGM. See Bemerkungen über die Conquest of Mexico (Prescott, William
Grundlagen der Mathematik H.) 206
(Remarks on the Foundations of Conradi, Peter J. 37
Mathematics) Continuation War 58
Big Typescript: TS 213 (BT 2005) CoR (‘Collection of Remarks by Ludwig
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 85, 86, 87, Wittgenstein, A’) (ed. by von
94, 96, 206, 211 Wright) 176–7, 180, 182, 185,
Big Typescript, Wiener Ausgabe Band 11 210, 211
(Wi11) (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 85, Cornell University
86, 87, 92, 94, 96 microfilm 70, 87–8, 156
Brenner, Michael 236 ‘Wittgenstein Papers, The’ 88
Briefe an Ludwig von Ficker (CLF/CLF correspondence between the literary
1969) (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 88 executors 69–77, 298, 322 n. 5 see
BT 2005 (Big Typescript: TS 213) also under Anscombe, Elizabeth
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 85, 86, 87, and Rhees, Rush and von Wright,
94, 96, 206, 211 Georg Henrik
Buch der Lieder (Heine, Heinrich) 56 Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der
Burckhardt, Jacob Mathematik 106–29
Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, Die correspondence calendar 77–101
56 incompleteness 72–7
butter remark 318–19 correspondence calendar 77–101
abbreviations 101–3
‘Can There Be a Private Language?’ 1950s 79, 80t–4t
(Rhees, Rush) 24 1960s 79, 84t–9
Cantor, Georg 111–12, 114, 118–19, 128 1970s 89t–93t
Carnap, Rudolf 1980s 79–80, 93–8t
Abriss der Logistik 57 1990s 98–101
Logische Aufbau der Welt, Der 57 overview 78t–80
cars remark 315, 318 year-wise distribution 79f
Cavell, S. 311 Course of Pure Mathematics, A (Hardy, G.
CCO/CCO 1973 (Letters to C. K. Ogden) H.) 115–16, 122, 124, 125
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 86, 88, 89 Critique of the Power of Judgment (CPJ)
censorship 155–7 (Kant, Immanuel) 276
Chopin, Frédéric 288, 289 CRK/CRK 1974 (Letters to Russell,
Cioffi, Frank 229–30 Keynes and Moore) (Wittgenstein,
CLF/CLF 1969 (Briefe an Ludwig von Ludwig) 89, 90, 345t
Ficker) (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 88 Culture and Value (CV) (Wittgenstein,
Cockburn, David 23, 30, 123 Ludwig) 26, 86, 91, 92, 177, 183,
‘Collection of Remarks by Ludwig 195–6, 198, 235
Wittgenstein, A’ (CoR) (ed. by von aesthetics 275
Wright) 176–7, 180, 182, 185, Anscombe, as editor /translator 92,
210, 211 97, 100
Collegium Institute Archive of G.E.M. coded remarks 155
Anscombe (AA) 70, 78 MS sources 243–5
compartmentalisation idea 303 see also music in 286–9
detachability, separability idea, Nyman, Heikki, as editor 177
thematic editing remarks in 244–5, 259–64
INDEX 381

translations 92 correspondence about 69–77 see also

von Wright, as editor 63, 87, 89, 91, correspondence calendar
92, 100, 146, 177, 179, 183, 210, decoding 168 n. 34
244, 259, 264, 273, 286, 289, detachability 185–6 see also
296, 312–15 compartmentalisation idea,
von Wright, thoughts on 179–80, separability idea, thematic editing
190–1, 197, 273 literary executors, principles of
von Wright, work on aphorisms/remarks 293–313
177, 178–9, 181, 182, 186, 190, philosophy 162–3
273, 286, 289 Rhees, Rush, views on 3, 122, 125,
CV. See Culture and Value 227, 146–7, 151–2, 203, 253, 256,
295, 298–9, 302–12
Daniel, Norman separability idea 303, 308, 309, 310
‘Justice of the Present War Examined, see also compartmentalisation
The’ 48–9 idea, detachability, thematic
D’Arcy, Martin editing
Nature of Belief, The 43 suppression 154, 155–8
Defence of Common Sense (Moore, thematic 151, 153–4, 237–9, 240,
George Edward) 216, 217 243, 244, 245, 248–53, 255–6,
Denyer, Nicholas 79, 100 257–9, 303, 308, see also
detachability 185–6 see also compartmentalisation idea,
compartmentalisation idea, detachability, separability idea
separability idea, thematic tripartite theme 151, 153–4
editing von Wright, Georg Henrik, views on
dialogue 317–20 3, 4–5, 60, 151, 156–8, 256, 257,
Diamond, Cora 23, 75 270 n. 56, 295–6, 298–9, 300,
Diarios Secretos (GT/GT 1985b) 94, 96, 303, 312–17
154, 156, 159, 160, 161 Eigsti, James 228
Diaris Secrets (GT/GT 1985a) 94, 96, Einleitung in die Philosophie (Jerusalem,
154, 156, 159, 160, 161 Wilhelm) 56
Discussions of Wittgenstein (Rhees, Rush) enlightenment 320–1
24 enlightenment proposal 1
Dostoevsky, Fyodor 183–4 Essay in Modern Logic, An (von Wright,
Drury, Maurice O’Connor 24, 45–6, 74, Georg Henrik) 123, 124
88, 297, 304 Ethica Nicomachea (Aristotle) 40–1
Rhees, correspondence with 73, 206, Explanation and Understanding (von
209–10, 215, 228 Wright, Georg Henrik) 60,
192
Eckermann, J. P.
Gespräche mit Geothe 56, 59 First Critique (Kant, Immanuel) 275–6
editing 2–3, 75–6f, 96, 294–7 Foot, Philippa 41, 42, 126
Anscombe, Elizabeth, views on 3, 92, Forbes, George 21
95, 145–8, 151, 153, 156–8, Frankfurt School 10, 61, 289, 313
246–8, 256, 295, 298–9, 300, Frazer, James George 307
303 Golden Bough, The 206, 207–8, 215,
censorship 155–7 224 see also Bemerkungen über
compartmentalisation idea 303 see Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’
also detachability, separability idea, Frege, Gottlob 46
thematic editing notion of exactness 312
382 INDEX

GB/GB 1967/GB 1971 (Bemerkungen In the Shadow of Descartes (von Wright,

über Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’). Georg Henrik) 63
See Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The ‘Intellectual Autobiography’ (von Wright,
Golden Bough’ Georg Henrik) 192
Geach, Mary 39, 40 Intention (Anscombe, Elizabeth) 40–1, 82
Geach, Peter 39, 41, 44, 45, 74, 141–2
Three Philosophers 48 Janik, Allan and Toulmin, Stephen
Wittgenstein’s Lectures on Wittgenstein’s Vienna 189, 190, 195,
Philosophical Psychology (PGL) 97 196, 197
Zettel, as editor 165 n. 17 Jerusalem, Wilhelm 56
Geheime Tagebücher (The Secret Diaries) Einleitung in die Philosophie 56
(GT) 94, 96, 154 ‘Justice of the Present War Examined,
van Gennip, Kim 238–9 The’ (Anscombe, Elizabeth and
Gespräche mit Geothe (Eckermann, J. P.) Daniel, Norman) 48–9
56, 59
Gödel, Kurt 107–9, 110, 111, 114, 117, Kaila, Eino 56–7, 60
122 Kant, Immanuel 275–6, 280–1
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von Critique of the Power of Judgment
Hermann und Dorothea 59 276
Leiden des jungen Werther, Die 56 First Critique 275–6
Golden Bough, The (Frazer, James Kenny, Anthony 38, 42, 44, 48, 74, 75
George) 206, 207–8, 215, 224 Anscombe, criticism of 141
see also Bemerkungen über Frazers Nachlass (estate) of Wittgenstein 79
‘The Golden Bough’ Rhees, criticism of 92
Gospel in Brief, The (Tolstoy, Leo) 160 Ketner, Kenneth L. 228
grammar 47, 286–7, 309 King Lear (Shakespeare, William) 306
GT/GT 1985a (Diaris Secrets) 94, 96, Kreisel, Georg 74, 80, 116, 123–4,
154, 156, 159, 160, 161 131 n. 22
GT/GT 1985b (Diarios Secretos) 94, 96, von Wright 125, 134 n. 49
154, 156, 159, 160, 161 Wittgenstein, thoughts on 133 n. 47
Kripke, Saul 144, 311
Habermas, Jürgen 313 Wittgenstein: On Rules and Private
Hacker, Peter 100, 142–5, 148, 149 Language 311
Haldane 141–2 Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, Die
Hanslick, Eduard 281, 283 (Burckhardt, Jacob) 56
Hardy, G. H.
Course of Pure Mathematics, A LA 1966 (Lectures and Conversations)
115–18, 122, 124, 125 (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 86, 89,
Hare, R. M. 42, 43 166 n. 21
Heine, Heinrich language-games 27–9, 31, 46–7, 182,
Buch der Lieder 56 189, 197, 207–8, 214, 222, 223,
Hegel, Georg W. F. 39, 192, 275 316
Hermann und Dorothea (Goethe, Johann Larsson, Hans
Wolfgang von) 59 Psykologi 56
Hertzberg, Lars 122, 123 last writings (of Wittgenstein) 148–54,
Hintikka, Jaakko 126, 214 235–7
Hume’s Theory of the External World Anscombe, as editor 246–8
(Price, H. H.) 43 editorial policies 245, 264
INDEX 383

Last Writings on the Philosophy of Lichtenberg, C. G. 183

Psychology, Vol 2 235, 238, 242–3 Sudelbücher (Waste books) 183
On Certainty 235, 236, 238, 240f, Vermischte Schriften 183
253–4 ‘Limits of Empiricism, The’ (Russell,
posthumous publications and their MS Bertrand) 111
sources 237–46 literary executors 293–4, 320, 336f–7f
publication programme 245–6 Anscombe, Elizabeth. See Anscombe,
Remarks on Colour 241f–2 Elizabeth
Rhees, Rush, as editor 253–5f best writings versus complete edition
thematic editing 151, 153–4, 237–9, 298–300
240, 243, 244, 245, 248–53, complete edition 13, 94, 95, 98, 99,
255–6, 257–9 298–300
Vermischte Bemerkungen (Culture and correspondence. See correspondence
Value) 243–5, 259–64 between the literary executers
von Wright, as editor 236, 237, dialogue as writing form 317–20
248–53, 254 disagreement 73, 204, 205,
‘Wittgenstein: Last Writings’, 221, 224–5, 227, 305, 307,
unpublished edition 237, 248–52 308–11
Last Writings on the Philosophy of editing principles of 293–313
Psychology, Vol 1 (LW1/LW1982) Malcolm, Norman 80–1
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 93, 94, 264 modernity 313, 314, 315
Last Writings on the Philosophy of Philosophische Untersuchungen
Psychology, Vol 2 (LW2/LW1992) (Philosophical Investigations)
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 86, 93, 94, 300–2, 317–19
95, 97, 98, 235, 238, 246 Rhees, Rush. See Rhees, Rush
editing 85, 94, 151, 152–3, 242, 243, success and its paradoxes 295–8
264 unity of logic and ethics 302–12
MS sources 242–3 unity of logic and political philosophy
source-graph 242f 313
LE. See Lecture on Ethics, A von Wright, Georg Henrik. See von
Lecture on Ethics, A (LE) (Wittgenstein, Wright, Georg Henrik
Ludwig) 43, 89, 151–2, 210–11 literature 183–4
literary executers disagreement 204, logic 274, 275, 276, 306
307 logical form 277, 278–81, 286
Rhees, as editor 89, 151–2 Logical Problem of Induction, The (von
Rhees, proposals concerning 204, Wright, Georg Henrik) 58, 59
205, 209, 210–11, 218–21, 224–7, Logical Studies (von Wright, Georg
253–4, 310–11 Henrik) 60
Lectures and Conversations (LA 1966) Logik, filosofi och spark (Logic,
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 86, 89, philosophy and language) (von
166 n. 21 Wright, Georg Henrik) 181
Leiden des jungen Werther, Die (Goethe, Logische Aufbau der Welt, Der (Carnap,
Johann Wolfgang von) 56 Rudolf) 57
Letters to C. K. Ogden (CCO/CCO 1973) Logischphilosophische Abhandlung
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 86, 88, 89 (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 1 see also
Letters to Russell, Keynes and Moore Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
(CRK/CRK 1974) (Wittgenstein, (TLP)
Ludwig) 89, 90, 345t Loos, Adolf 196
384 INDEX

‘Ludwig Wittgenstein’ (Anscombe, music

Elizabeth) 46, 47 in Culture and Value 286–9
‘Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Biographical in Philosophische Untersuchungen
Sketch’ (von Wright, Georg (Philosophical Investigations)
Henrik) 60, 62, 155, 184, 188 282–5
Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal in Tractatus Logico-Philsophicus 276,
Recollections (Rhees, Rush) 24 277–82
Ludwig Wittgenstein Werkausgabe
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 177 Nachlass (estate) of Wittgenstein 2, 4–5,
LW1/LW1982 (Last Writings on the 91, 294 see also literary executors
Philosophy of Psychology, Vol 1) aesthetics 274
93, 94, 264 Austrian part 88
LW2/LW1992 (Last Writings on the board of trustees, changes 79, 98,
Philosophy of Psychology, Vol 2). 100–1
See Last Writings on the Philosophy categorizing 4–5
of Psychology, Vol 2 complete edition 94, 95, 98, 99,
298–300
MacCumhaill, Clare 43 computerization 91, 92, 94
McGuinness, Brian 74, 75, 88, 96, 97 conferences about 73
Rhees, correspondence with 75, 85 Cornell microfilm 70, 87–8, 156
von Wright, correspondence with 73, correspondence about 69–77
75 correspondence calendar. See
Mahler, Gustav 286 correspondence calendar
Malcolm, Norman 45, 58, 60, 209, 216, last writings. See last writings
217, 253 Nedo, Michael 92, 94, 95, 96–7, 98,
as literary executor 80–1 99, 100
von Wright, correspondence/ publishing of 99, 147
relationship with 8, 24, 58, 73, Stonborough, John 88
75 transcript 94
Marx, Karl 10, 39, 61, 102, 190–7, 316 von Wright catalogue 4–5, 54
Marxism 192–5, 197 von Wright, G.H. 4–5, 59
mathematics 31, 105–22, 124–5, National Library of Finland (NLF) 75,
133 n. 48, 308, 309, 312, 315 78
Maury, André 75 Natural Theology (Boedder, Bernard) 43
Midgley, Mary 42–3, 126 Nature of Belief, The (D’Arcy, Martin) 43
‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ (Anscombe, NB/NB 1961. See Notebooks 1914–1916
Elizabeth) 43, 49 ‘Necessity and Truth’ (Anscombe,
modernity 61, 63, 188, 189, 191, 192, Elizabeth) 39
194, 196–7, 198, 313, 314–16 Nedo, Michael 73, 75, 91, 92, 94, 95,
Monk, Ray 96 96–7, 98, 99, 100
Moore, George Edward 80, 222, 226 NL/NL 1957 (‘Notes on Logic’)
Defence of Common Sense 216, 217 (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 83
Moore Volume (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) NL 1960 (‘Aufzeichnungen über Logik’)
80, 81, 205–6 (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 81, 82,
von Morstein, Petra 75 342t, 350
Moyal-Sharrock, Daniele 236 NLF (National Library of Finland) 75,
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 287–8, 289 78
Mühlhölzer, F. 126 Norm and Action (von Wright, Georg
Murdoch, Iris 37, 42–3 Henrik) 60
INDEX 385

Norwegian Wittgenstein Project 95, 96, Pascal, Blaise 24

97, 98, 99 Paul, Denis 41–2, 74, 87
Notebooks 1914–1916 (NB/NB 1961) PB/PB 1964 (Philosophische
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 81, 82–3, Bemerkungen) (Wittgenstein,
84 Ludwig) 85, 86, 308–9
Anscombe, Elizabeth, as translator personal/private, the 154, 156, 157,
82 170 n. 42, 171 n. 44, 298–300,
coded remarks 154–63 307
decoding 168 n. 34 PG/PG 1969 (Philosophische Grammatik
editing 146, 154–5, 286 [Philosophical Grammar])
survival 155 (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 87, 89, 92,
‘Notes on Logic’ (NL/NL 1957) 146, 211, 212, 214, 256
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 83 PH 1989 (‘Philosophie’) (Wittgenstein,
see also ‘Aufzeichnungen über Ludwig) 98
Logik’ Phillips, D. Z. 23, 24, 25
Nyíri, Kristóf 189, 190–2, 299 ‘Philosophie’ (PH 1989) (Wittgenstein,
‘Wittgenstein’s New Traditionalism’ Ludwig) 98
191 Philosophische Bemerkungen (PB/PB
‘Wittgenstein’s philosophical 1964) (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 85,
anthropology as seen from the 86, 308–9
perspective of Marx’s theory of Philosophische Grammatik (Philosophical
history’ 191 Grammar) (PG/PG 1969)
Nyman, Heikki 75, 96, 177 (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 87, 89, 92,
146, 211, 212, 214, 256
OC/OC 1961. See On Certainty Philosophische Untersuchungen
On Certainty (OC/OC 1961)/Über (Philosophical Investigations) (PI/PI
Gewißheit (ÜG) (Wittgenstein, 1953) (Wittgenstein, Ludwig)
Ludwig) 228, 235, 236, 238, 246, 15 n. 8, 26, 81, 110, 182, 215,
255–6 236, 259, 294
Anscombe as editor 88, 146, 151–2, Anscombe, as editor 72, 80, 81,
153, 167 n. 26, 216, 217–18, 145–54, 301, 317, 331 n. 94
221, 238, 246–8, 251–2, 254, Anscombe, thoughts on 40, 82
322 n. 9 Anscombe, as translator 45, 80,
editing 85, 86, 88, 89, 146, 151–3 138–42
errors in 89 aphorisms/general remarks 186, 198,
literary executers disagreement 204, 317, 318
307 audience 320
MS sources 240f beetle remark 306
Rhees, proposals concerning 204, bilingual edition 142
205, 216–18, 219–28, 253–5f, butter remark 318–19
310–11 dialogue as writing form 317–20
Schulte, Joachim 271 n. 73 editorial controversy 148–50
source-graphs 240f, 255f Frege’s notion of exactness 312
Stern, David 271 n. 73 German edition 83
translation 87 Hacker, Peter and Schulte, Joachim
von Wright, as editor 88, 146, 142–5, 148, 149
167 n. 26, 216–17, 238, 247, language 30, 284, 285, 286–7
251–2, 253–4, 310, 322 n. 9 music in 282–5
Westergaard, Peter 272 n. 73 origins 91
386 INDEX

part II 99, 300–2 practical syllogism 40–1

re-writing 301 Preliminary Studies for the ‘Philosophical
Rhees, as editor 72, 85, 146–7, 148, Investigations’, generally known as
149, 150, 208, 301, 317 The Blue and Brown Books (BBB/
Rhees, thoughts on 24, 224 BBB 1958) (Wittgenstein, Ludwig)
Rhees, as translator 23, 24 80, 82, 83, 88, 134 n. 52
rule-following 282–5, 287 Prescott, William H.
Seele discussion 142–5 Conquest of Mexico 206
Venuti, Lawrence 138 Price, H. H. 43
von Wright, as editor 198, 301 Hume’s Theory of the External World
von Wright, origins research 90, 92, 43
331 n. 94 private/personal, the 154, 156, 157,
von Wright, thoughts on 184, 186, 170 n. 42, 171 n. 44, 298–300,
195, 198, 208, 251, 255–6, 301, 307
331 n. 94 Prototractatus. An Early Version of
philosophy 1, 275–6, 296, 299–300, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (PT/
306–7, 318, 320–1 PT 1971) (Wittgenstein, Ludwig)
aesthetics 274–5 87, 89
arts, the. See arts, the psychologism 28
aspect seeing 289 Psykologi (Larsson, Hans) 56
British 126 PT/PT 1971 (Prototractatus. An Early
butter remark 318–19 Version of Tractatus Logico-
editing 163–4 Philosophicus) (Wittgenstein,
German tradition 275 Ludwig) 87, 89
language 28, 30
logical form 277, 278–81, 286 ‘Question of Linguistic Idealism, The’
ownership of ideas 3 (Anscombe, Elizabeth) 47
picture theory 277, 279
propositions 277–81 RBA (Richard Burton Archive), Rush
rule-following 282–5, 287, 308, 311 Rhees Collection in the 70, 75, 78,
Socratic 320–1 231
tautologies 280–1 readers 2–3, 26
as therapy 304–5, 311–12 ‘Religious Belief. Ritual and Myth’ lecture
time of philosophy theme 303, 308 (Rhees, Rush) 227
unity of logic and ethics idea 304, Remarks on Colour (ROC/ROC 1977)
310–11 (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 152–3,
unity of logic and political philosophy 235, 236
313 Anscombe, as editor 146, 151, 153,
PI/PI 1953. See Philosophische 238, 241, 246, 264
Untersuchungen (Philosophical MS sources 241f–2
Investigations) source-graph 241f
Pichler, Alois 75, 177 von Wright 85, 86, 151
picture theory 277, 279 ‘Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough’ (GB/
Pinsent, David 156 GB 1967/GB 1971/RF). See
Pitchler, George 87 Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The
Pitkin, Hanna 331 n. 92 Golden Bough’
Wittgenstein and Justice 331 n. 92 Remarks on the Foundations of
Plato 32, 33 Mathematics) (RFM/RFM 1956/
powerlessness 159–60 RFM 1978). See Bemerkungen
INDEX 387

über die Grundlagen der Drury, Maurice O’Connor,

Mathematik correspondence with 73, 206,
Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology 209–10, 215, 228
(RPP/RPP 1980a/b) (Wittgenstein, editing views 3, 122, 125, 227,
Ludwig) 88, 90, 92, 93, 145, 146, 146–7, 151–2, 203, 253, 256, 295,
243, 347t 298–9, 302–12
‘Reply to Mr C. S. Lewis’s Argument that editing, thematic 253, 255–6, 303, 308
“Naturalism” is Self-Refuting, A’ see also compartmentalisation idea,
(Anscombe, Elizabeth) 49 detachability separability idea
RF (‘Remarks on Frazer’s Golden homosexuality, thoughts on 170 n. 42
Bough’). See Bemerkungen über Kenny, Anthony, correspondence with
Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’ 75
RFM/RFM 1956/RFM 1978. See language-games 27–9, 31, 207, 214,
Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen 223
der Mathematik (Remarks on the language, unity of 29–33, 122
Foundations of Mathematics) last writings (of Wittgenstein), as
Rhees, Rush 2, 24–5, 72 editor 237, 253–5f
Anscombe, correspondence with Lecture on Ethics, A, as editor 89,
70–2, 74, 211, 225, 253 see also 151–2
correspondence calendar Lecture on Ethics, A, proposals
archives 70, 75, 78, 231 concerning 204, 205, 209, 210–11,
Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der 218–21, 224–7, 253–4, 310–11
Mathematik (Remarks on the life, education and career 21–4, 74,
Foundations of Mathematics), as 84, 229
editor 72, 81, 82, 90, 91, 106–29, literary executors disagreement 204,
308 205, 221, 224–5, 227, 305, 307,
Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der 308–11
Mathematik (Remarks on the logic 123, 124–5
Foundations of Mathematics), as Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal
indexer 119–20 Recollections 24
Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The McGuinness, Brian, correspondence
Golden Bough’ as editor see under with 75, 85
Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Nedo, Michael, correspondence with
Golden Bough’ 75
Brown Books, as editor 83 On Certainty/Über Gewißheit,
‘Can There Be a Private Language?’ proposals concerning 204, 205,
24 216–18, 219–28, 253–5f,
Certainty seminars 219, 226 310–11
character 125, 126 On Certainty/Über Gewißheit,
Cioffi, Frank, correspondence with thoughts on editing 151–2
229–30 Phillips, D. Z. 23, 24, 25
communication partners 74–5 Philosophische Bemerkungen, as editor
compartmentalisation idea 303 see 86, 308–9
also detachability, separability idea, Philosophische Grammatik, as editor
thematic editing 87, 92, 146, 211, 212, 214
complete edition 94, 95, 98, Philosophische Untersuchungen
298–300 (Philosophical Investigations), as
death 73, 98 editor 72, 85, 146–7, 148, 149,
Discussions of Wittgenstein 24 150, 208, 301, 317
388 INDEX

Philosophische Untersuchungen ‘Wittgenstein’s Builders’ 24, 27–9

(Philosophical Investigations), as Wittgensteins geistige Erscheinung
translator 23, 24, 141 229
Philosophische Untersuchungen works 24 see also under individual
(Philosophical Investigations), titles
thoughts on 24, 224 Richard Burton Archive (RBA) 70, 75,
philosophy 25–7, 115, 126, 304, 78, 231
306–8, 331 n. 92 Richards, Ben 45, 46, 73
philosophy/life distinction 4 ROC/ROC 1977. See Remarks on Colour
preface writing 217–18 RPP/RPP 1980a/b (Remarks on the
Preliminary Studies for the Philosophy of Psychology)
‘Philosophical Investigations’, (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 88, 90, 92,
generally known as The Blue and 93, 145, 146, 243, 347t
Brown Books, as editor 83, rule-following 282–5, 287, 308, 311
134 n. 52 Rush Rhees Collection in the Richard
privacy 170 n. 42, 171 n. 44 Burton Archive (RBA) 70, 75, 78,
‘Religious Belief. Ritual and Myth’ 231
lecture 227 Russell, Bertrand 81, 82, 310
‘Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough’, ‘Limits of Empiricism, The’ 111
as editor 151–2
rhetoric 26–7 Second World War 42, 48, 49
separability idea 303, 308, 309, 310 Schildt, Göran 55
see also compartmentalisation idea, Schlick, Moritz 210
detachability, thematic editing Schollick, Henry 106, 248
‘Some Developments in Wittgenstein’s Schopenhauer, A 281
View of Ethics’ 210 Schroeder, Severin
time of philosophy theme 303, 308 ‘Wittgenstein on Aesthetics’ 274
Über Gewißheit/On Certainty, Schulte, Joachim 100, 227, 229,
proposals concerning 204, 205, 271 n. 73
216–18, 219–28, 253–5f, 310–11 Philosophische Untersuchungen
Über Gewißheit/On Certainty, (Philosophical Investigations)
thoughts on editing 151–2 142–5, 148, 149
understanding 32–3 separability idea 303, 308, 309, 310 see
unity of logic and ethics idea 304, also compartmentalisation idea,
310–11 detachability, thematic editing
von Wright, correspondence with Shakespeare, William
70–2, 74, 205–6, 207–8, 210, 211, King Lear 306
213, 214, 215–17, 218–20, 221–2, Six Essays in Philosophical Logic (von
224–7, 253–4, 296, 299, 301, Wright, Georg Henrik) 61
305–6, 308–11, 318 see also Skinner, Francis 42
correspondence calendar slow reading 127–8
Without Answers 24 Smythies, Yorick 45–6
Wittgenstein, relationship with 22, 23, Socrates 318, 320–1, 330 n. 92
25–6, 33, 294, 301, 302, 318 Somavilla, Ilse 158–9
Wittgenstein, thoughts on 27–9, 31, ‘Some Developments in Wittgenstein’s
122–3, 133 n. 48, 332 n. 101 View of Ethics’ (Rhees, Rush)
Wittgenstein and his Times 229 210
‘Wittgenstein on Language and Ritual’ sophism/sophistry 32–3
227, 228–9 soul, the 141–5
INDEX 389

Sraffa, Piero 74, 80 ‘Troubled History of the Philosophical

Stern, David 271 n. 73 Investigations. Part II’ (von Wright,
Stonborough, John 88 Georg Henrik) 301
Stonborough, Thomas 87
style 140–1 Über Gewißheit (ÜG)/On Certainty
Sudelbücher (Waste books) (Lichtenberg, (OC) 228, 235, 236, 238, 246,
C. G.) 183 255–6
Suhrkamp Verlag 106–7, 253 Anscombe as editor 88, 146, 151–2,
153, 167 n. 26, 216, 217–18,
Tanke och förkunnelse (von Wright, 221, 238, 246–8, 251–2, 254,
Georg Henrik) 60 322 n. 9
Tarski, Alfred 111, 112 editing 85, 86, 88, 89, 146, 151–3
tautologies 280–1 errors in 89
The Collegium Institute Archive of literary executers disagreement 204,
G.E.M. Anscombe 70, 78 307
thematic editing see editing, thematic MS sources 240f
‘Theory of Language, A’ (Anscombe, Rhees, proposals concerning 204,
Elizabeth) 46–7 205, 216–18, 219–28, 253–5f,
third Wittgenstein 236, 237, 256 310–11
Thomas Aquinas, Saint 39, 40, 44 Rhees, thoughts on editing
Three Philosophers (Anscombe, Elizabeth 151–2
and Geach, Peter) 48 Schulte, Joachim 271 n. 73
time of philosophy theme 303, 308 source-graphs 240f, 255f
TLP. See Tractatus Logico-Philsophicus Stern, David 271 n. 73
Tolstoy, Leo 46 translation 87
Gospel in Brief, The 160 von Wright, as editor 88, 146,
Toulmin, Stephen and Janik, Allan 167 n. 26, 216–17, 238, 247,
Wittgenstein’s Vienna 189, 190, 195, 251–2, 253–4, 310, 322 n. 9
196, 197 von Wright, proposals concerning
Tractatus Logico-Philsophicus (TLP) 204, 219, 221, 225, 226
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 2, 24, 26, Westergaard, Peter 272 n. 73
44, 83, 159, 196, 236, 320 ÜG. See Über Gewißheit
see also Logischphilosophische ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’
Abhandlung (Winch, Peter) 209
aesthetics 274 unity of logic and ethics idea 304,
Anscombe 46, 48, 82, 158 310–11
aphorisms/general remarks 186, unity of logic and political philosophy
198 313
immortality 87 University of Tübingen 91, 92
Janik, Allan and Toulmin, Stephen Wittgenstein Archive 73, 75, 80, 89,
195, 196 93, 94
logical form 277, 278–81, 286–7 Unseld, Siegfried 106, 118, 216, 218,
music in 276, 277–82, 286 219, 225, 226, 253, 254
Notebooks 1914–1916, coded
remarks in 158, 159, 161 Varieties of Goodness, The (von Wright,
von Wright 81, 82, 83, 88, 186, 198 Georg Henrik) 60, 63, 64
translation 138, 139, 141–5 VB/VB 1977. See Vermischte
Trinity College Cambridge 80, 84, 88, 98 Bemerkungen (Culture and
see also Wren Library Value)
390 INDEX

Vermischte Bemerkungen (Culture and ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’

Value) (VB/VB 1977) 209
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 26, 86, 91, Winter War 58
92, 177, 183, 195–6, 198, 235 Wiseman, Rachael 43
aesthetics 275 Without Answers (Rhees, Rush) 24
Anscombe, as editor /translator 92, Wittgenstein, Ludwig 297, 320 see also
97, 100 Wittgenstein, works of
coded remarks 155 aesthetics 274–5, 287–9
MS sources 243–5 alienation 187, 188–9, 191
music in 286–9 Anscombe, relationship with 41, 44,
Nyman, Heikki, as editor 177 45–6, 141, 147, 164 n. 10, 294,
remarks in 244–5, 259–64 301, 302
translations 92 Anscombe, thoughts on 44–5
von Wright, as editor 63, 87, 89, 91, aphorisms 176–86, 190, 197–8,
92, 100, 146, 177, 179, 183, 210, 273, 286, 288, 289, 313, 317,
244, 259, 264, 273, 286, 289, 318
296, 312–15 archives. See archives
von Wright, thoughts on 179–80, aspect seeing 289
190–1, 197, 273 audience 320, 321 n. 3
von Wright, work on aphorisms/ beetle remark 306
remarks 177, 178–9, 181, 182, butter remark 318–19
186, 190, 273, 286, 289 career 22, 44, 45, 57–8, 297
Vermischte Schriften (Lichtenberg, C. G.) cars remark 315, 318
183 censorship 155–7
Vietnam 61 certainty 153
Von Wright and Wittgenstein Archives Chopin, Frédéric 288, 289
(WWA) 70, 73, 78, 231 coded remarks 5, 154–63, 299
von Wright catalogue 4–5, 54, 88, 89 complete edition 13, 94, 95, 98, 99,
Vortrag über Ethik und andere kleine 298–300
Schriften (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) conditions of access to 2
227 as conservative-traditionalist 191
correspondence 5, 82
WAB (Wittgenstein Archive, University of cultural place 187, 188–9, 191,
Bergen) 75, 98, 99, 100 195
Waismann, Friedrich 85 death and burial 45, 297
war 42, 48, 49, 321 Drury, Maurice O’Connor,
‘War and Murder’ (Anscombe, Elizabeth) relationship with 297
41 editing views 296
‘Wenn ich bei meiner Liebsten bin’ (von enlightenment 320–1
Wright, Georg Henrik) 56 form/content 280
Westergaard, Peter 272 n. 73 Frazer, James George, thoughts on
Wi11 (Big Typescript, Wiener Ausgabe 206–8, 210, 212, 215, 224, 307
Band 11) (Wittgenstein, Ludwig) see also Bemerkungen über Frazers
85, 86, 87, 92, 94, 96 ‘The Golden Bough’
will of Wittgenstein 2, 159–62, 336f–7f Frege’s notion of exactness 312
Winch, Peter 23, 24, 79, 92, 98, 177 grammar 47, 286–7, 309
Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The Hardy, G. H. 115–18, 122, 124
Golden Bough, proposals health 236, 267 n. 18
concerning 209 homosexuality 91, 156, 157
INDEX 391

influences 179, 190 remarks, general/philosophical 175–82,

language 31, 138, 141, 145, 164 n. 7, 185–7, 189, 190–1, 197–8, 236,
195, 196, 206–8, 220, 224, 276, 244, 257–9, 265 n. 3, 273–6, 286,
277–89 288–9, 306, 313–15, 318–19,
language-games 27–8, 46–7, 182, 331 n. 94
189, 197, 207–8, 214, 222, 223, Rhees, relationship with 22, 23, 25–6,
316 33, 294, 301, 302, 318
last writings. See last writings rhetoric 26–7
lectures, publication/transmission of 5, rule-following 282–5, 287, 308, 311
91, 94, 95, 109, 209 see also Russell, Bertrand, relationship with 310
Lecture on Ethics, A Seele discussion 142–5
as literary writer 184 set theory 315–16
logic 124–5, 274, 276, 280, 281 sexuality 156, 157
logical form 277, 278–81, 286 slow reading 127
magic/metaphysics, thoughts on style 140, 141, 230
207–8, 212, 223–4, 328 n. 55 tautologies 280–1
Mahler, Gustav 286 themes 151, 238–9, 240
Malcolm, Norman 216, 217 thinking 140
manuscripts guided by 5 third Wittgenstein 236, 237, 256
Marxism 192–5 understanding 284–5
mathematics 31, 105–22, 124–5, unity of logic and political philosophy
133 n. 48, 308, 309, 312, 313
315 von Wright, relationship with 53, 56,
modernity 188, 189, 191, 192, 57–8, 59, 62, 63, 294, 297
194, 196–7, 198, 313, war 321
314–16 Western civilization, thoughts on
Moore, George Edward, interest in 321
216, 217, 220, 226 will of 2, 159–62, 336f–7f
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 287–8, world, independence of 159–62
289 world, substance of 277, 278, 279,
music. See music 280, 281
Nachlass (estate) of. See Nachlass world-pictures 222–3, 228
objects 278–9, 280 Wittgenstein, works of 2, 26, 147–8, 151,
personality 62, 126, 156–7, 159 152–3, 302, 340t–50 see also
philosophy as therapy 304–5, under individual titles
311–12 ‘Aufzeichnungen über Logik’ 81, 82,
philosophy/life distinction 4, 5–6 342t, 350
picture theory 277, 279 Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der
Pinsent, David, relationship with Mathematik (Remarks on the
156 Foundations of Mathematics). See
powerlessness, thoughts on 159–60 Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen
private/personal, the 154, 156, 157, der Mathematik
170 n. 42, 171 n. 44, 298–300, Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The
307 Golden Bough’ 85, 86, 88, 89
propositions 277–81 Big Typescript: TS 213 85, 86, 87, 94,
publishing reluctance 13, 302, 318, 96, 206, 211
320 Big Typescript, Wiener Ausgabe Band
religion, thoughts on 45–6, 47–8, 11 85, 86, 87, 92, 94, 96
158–60, 223–4 Briefe an Ludwig von Ficker 88
392 INDEX

Culture and Value (Vermischte Remarks on the Philosophy of

Bemerkungen). See Culture and Psychology 88, 90, 92, 93, 145,
Value 146, 243, 347t
Diarios Secretos 94, 96, 154 table of works 340t–50
Diaris Secrets 94, 96, 154 Tractatus Logico-Philsophicus. See
Geheime Tagebücher (The Secret Tractatus Logico-Philsophicus
Diaries) 94, 96, 154 Über Gewißheit. See Über Gewißheit
Last Writings on the Philosophy of Vermischte Bemerkungen (Culture
Psychology, Vol 1 93, 94, 264 and Value). See Vermischte
Last Writings on the Philosophy of Bemerkungen (Culture and
Psychology, Vol 2). See Last Value)
Writings on the Philosophy of Vortrag über Ethik und andere kleine
Psychology, Vol 2 Schriften 227
Lecture on Ethics, A. See Lecture on ‘Wittgenstein: Last Writings’,
Ethics, A unpublished edition 237, 248–52
Lectures and Conversations 86, 89, Wittgenstein’s notes on Mathematics’
166 n. 21 (California publication) 209
Letters to C. K. Ogden 86, 88, 89 Wörterbuch für Volks- und
Letters to Russell, Keynes and Moore Bürgerschulen 1
89, 90, 345t Zettel 85, 87, 91, 93, 146, 165 n. 17,
Logischphilosophische Abhandlung 1 288
Ludwig Wittgenstein Werkausgabe Wittgenstein (von Wright, Georg Henrik)
177 179
Moore Volume 80, 81, 205–6 Wittgenstein and his Times (Rhees, Rush)
Notebooks 1914–1916. See Notebooks 229
1914–1916 Wittgenstein and Justice (Pitkin, Hanna)
‘Notes on Logic’ 83, 342t, 350 331 n. 92
On Certainty. See On Certainty ‘Wittgenstein and the Twentieth Century’
‘Philosophie’ 98 (WTC) (von Wright, Georg
Philosophische Bemerkungen 85, 86, Henrik) 191, 197
308–9 Wittgenstein Archive, University of
Philosophische Grammatik Bergen (WAB) 75, 98, 99, 100
(Philosophical Grammar) 87, 89, Wittgenstein Archive, University of
92, 146, 211, 212, 214, 256 Tübingen 73, 75, 80, 89, 93, 94
Philosophische Untersuchungen ‘Wittgenstein in Relation to His
(Philosophical Investigations). See Times’(WRT) (von Wright, Georg
Philosophische Untersuchungen Henrik) 63, 179–80, 187, 188–9,
Preliminary Studies for the 191, 192–4, 196, 197
‘Philosophical Investigations’, ‘Wittgenstein: Last Writings’, unpublished
generally known as The Blue and edition (Wittgenstein, Ludwig)
Brown Books 80, 82, 83, 88 237, 248–52
Prototractatus. An Early Version of ‘Wittgenstein on Aesthetics’ (Schroeder,
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Severin) 274
87 ‘Wittgenstein on Certainty’ (von Wright,
Remarks on Colour. See Remarks on Georg Henrik) 226–7, 252
Colour ‘Wittgenstein on Language and Ritual’
‘Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough’ (Rhees, Rush) 227, 228–9
307 see also Bemerkungen über Wittgenstein: On Rules and Private
Frazers ‘The Golden Bough’ Language (Kripke, Saul) 311
INDEX 393

‘Wittgenstein Papers, The’ (Cornell 106–29, 145–6, 165 n. 16, 176,

University) 88 181, 182, 190, 307–8
‘Wittgenstein Papers, The’ (von Wright, Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der
Georg Henrik) 4–5 Mathematik (Remarks on the
Wittgenstein. Sources and Perspectives Foundations of Mathematics), as
(Luckhardt, C.G.) 229 indexer 82, 119–20, 119–20, 121
‘Wittgenstein’s Builders’ (Rhees, Rush) Bemerkungen über Frazers ‘The
24, 27–9 Golden Bough, proposals
Wittgensteins geistige Erscheinung (Rhees, concerning 205–6, 207–8, 210,
Rush) 229 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 225
Wittgenstein’s Lectures on Philosophical censorship 156–7
Psychology (PGL) (Geach, Peter) coded remarks 299, 154–8
97 ‘Collection of Remarks by Ludwig
‘Wittgenstein’s New Traditionalism’ Wittgenstein, A’, as editor 176–7,
(Nyíri, Kristóf) 191 180, 182, 185, 210, 211
‘Wittgenstein’s notes on Mathematics’ communication partners 75
(California publication) 209 complete edition, discussion
‘Wittgenstein’s philosophical concerning 94, 95, 98, 99, 298,
anthropology as seen from the 300
perspective of Marx’s theory of as composer 56
history’ (Nyíri, Kristóf) 191 Culture and Value (Vermischte
Wittgenstein’s Vienna (Janik, Allan and Bemerkungen), as editor 63, 87,
Toulmin, Stephen) 189, 190, 195, 89, 91, 92, 100, 146, 177, 179,
196, 197 183, 210, 244, 259, 264, 273,
wittgensteinsource.org 70, 76 286, 289, 296, 312–15
WL. See Wren Library, Trinity College Culture and Value (Vermischte
Cambridge Bemerkungen), thoughts on
world, independence of 159–62 179–80, 190–1, 197, 273
Wörterbuch für Volks- und Bürgerschulen Culture and Value (Vermischte
(Wittgenstein, Ludwig) 1 Bemerkungen), work on aphorisms/
Wren Library, Trinity College Cambridge remarks 177, 178–9, 181, 182,
(WL) 75, 79, 98, 205, 231 see also 186, 190, 273, 286, 289
Trinity College Cambridge death 55
von Wright, Georg Henrik 2, 89, 295, decoding 168 n. 34
313 see also von Wright catalogue editing views 3, 4–5, 60, 151, 156–8,
Anderson, Alan Ross, relationship 256, 257, 270 n. 56, 295–6,
with 125, 134 n. 49 298–9, 300, 303, 312–17
Anscombe, conflict with 73 editing, thematic 151, 153–4, 237,
Anscombe, correspondence with 238, 244, 248–53, 255–6, 257
70–2, 74, 246–7, 248, 251, 296, ‘empiriska satsernas
300, 301 see also correspondence avgränsningsproblem De’ (The
calendar demarcation problem of empirical
Anscombe, relationship with 45 propositions) 57
appearance and character 54–5, 126 Essay in Modern Logic, An 123,
archives 70, 73, 78, 231 124
Bemerkungen über die Grundlagen der Explanation and Understanding 60,
Mathematik (Remarks on the 192
Foundations of Mathematics), as family 55, 56, 58–60
editor 60, 72, 81, 82, 90, 91, German influence 53, 56
394 INDEX

health 58 On Certainty/Über Gewißheit, as

homosexuality, thoughts on editor 88, 146, 167 n. 26, 216–17,
171 n. 43 238, 247, 251–2, 253–4, 310,
honorary volume for 92 322 n. 9
In the Shadow of Descartes 63 On Certainty/Über Gewißheit,
‘Intellectual Autobiography’ 192 proposals concerning 204, 219,
Janik, Allan and Toulmin, Stephen, 221, 225, 226
influence of 189, 190, 195–7 Philosophische Untersuchungen
Kaila, Eino, influence of 56–7 (Philosophical Investigations), as
Kenny, Anthony, correspondence with editor 198, 301
75 Philosophische Untersuchungen
Kirchberg conference 313, 314 (Philosophical Investigations),
Kreisel, Georg 123–5, 134 n. 49 origins research 90, 92, 331 n. 94
language-games 197, 316 Philosophische Untersuchungen
last writings (of Wittgenstein), as (Philosophical Investigations),
editor 236, 237, 248–53, 254 thoughts on 184, 186, 195, 198,
Last Writings on the Philosophy of 208, 251, 255–6, 301, 331 n. 94
Psychology, as editor 94, 264 philosophy 54, 55, 56, 57, 60–1,
Lecture on Ethics, A, proposals 62–4, 183, 187–8, 289–90, 303–5,
concerning 204, 210, 219 313, 314–16
Letters to Russell, Keynes and Moore, philosophy/life distinction 4
as editor 89 Pichler, Alois, correspondence with
Lichtenberg, C. G. 183 75
life, education and career 53–4, 55–7, privacy 171 n. 44
58, 59–61, 74, 80, 84, 175 progress 61
literary executers disagreement 73, Remarks on Colour 85, 86, 151
204, 205, 221, 224–5, 227, 305, Remarks on the Philosophy of
307, 308–11 Psychology, as editor 92, 146
literature 183–4 Rhees, correspondence with 70–2, 74,
logic 123–5, 128 205–6, 207–8, 210, 211, 213, 214,
Logical Problem of Induction, The 58, 215–17, 218–20, 221–2, 224–7,
59 253–4, 296, 299, 301, 305–6,
Logical Studies 60 308–11, 318 see also
Logik, filosofi och spark (Logic, correspondence calendar
philosophy and language) 181 Schollick, Henry, correspondence with
‘Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Biographical 248
Sketch’ 60, 62, 155, 184, 188 set theory 315–16
Malcolm, Norman, correspondence/ Six Essays in Philosophical Logic 61
relationship with 8, 24, 58, 73, Tanke och förkunnelse 60
75 technology 61
Marxism 189–90, 192–5 Tractatus Logico-Philsophicus 81, 82,
McGuinness, Brian, correspondence 83, 88, 186, 198
with 73, 75 tripartite theme 151
modernity 61, 63, 313, 314–16 ‘Troubled History of the Philosophical
Norm and Action 60 Investigations. Part II’ 301
Notebooks 1914–1916, as editor 146, Über Gewißheit/On Certainty as
154–8 editor 88, 146, 167 n. 26, 216–17,
Nyíri, Kristóf, influence of 189, 238, 247, 251–2, 253–4, 310,
190–2 322 n. 9
INDEX 395

Über Gewißheit/On Certainty, ‘Wittgenstein in Relation to His

proposals concerning 204, 219, Times’ 63, 179–80, 187, 188–9,
221, 225, 226 191, 192–4, 196, 197
unity of logic and ethics idea 304 ‘Wittgenstein: Last Writings’,
Varieties of Goodness, The 60, 63, unpublished edition, thoughts on
64 237, 248–52, 255–6
Vermischte Bemerkungen (Culture and ‘Wittgenstein on Certainty’ 226–7,
Value), as editor 63, 87, 89, 91, 252
92, 100, 146, 177, 179, 183, 210, ‘Wittgenstein Papers, The’ 4–5
244, 259, 264, 273, 286, 289, works 54, 56, 61, 63 see also under
296, 312–15 individual titles
Vermischte Bemerkungen (Culture and ‘zerreissfeste Weltanschaung, Eine’
Value), thoughts on 179–80, (A tear-proof worldview) 194
190–1, 197, 273 Zettel, as editor 85, 146
Vermischte Bemerkungen (Culture and von Wright, Tor 55, 56
Value), work on aphorisms/remarks von Wright catalogue 4–5, 54, 88, 89
177, 178–9, 181, 182, 186, 190, writing style 140–1, 317–18
273, 286, 289 WRT (‘Wittgenstein in Relation to His
war 58, 60–1 Times’) (von Wright, Georg
‘Wenn ich bei meiner Liebsten bin’ Henrik) 63, 179–80, 187, 188–9,
56 191, 192–4, 196, 197
Wittgenstein 179 WTC (‘Wittgenstein and the Twentieth
Wittgenstein, relationship with 53, 56, Century’) (von Wright, Georg
57–8, 59, 62, 63, 294, 297 Henrik) 191, 197
Wittgenstein, thoughts on 58, 63–4, WWA (Von Wright and Wittgenstein
123, 124, 125, 178–9, 181, 184, Archives) 70, 73, 78, 231
187–97
Wittgenstein, work on his aphorisms Z/Z 1967/Z 1981 (Zettel) (Wittgenstein,
176, 178, 180, 181–4, 185, 186, Ludwig) 85, 87, 91, 93, 146,
197–8, 289, 313 165 n. 17, 288
Wittgenstein, work on his general / ‘zerreissfeste Weltanschaung, Eine’ (A
philosophical remarks 175–9, tear-proof worldview) (von Wright,
180–2, 185–7, 189, 190–1, 197–8, Georg Henrik) 194
244, 273, 276, 286, 289, 313–15 Zettel (Z/Z 1967/Z 1981) (Wittgenstein,
‘Wittgenstein and the Twentieth Ludwig) 85, 87, 91, 93, 146,
Century’ 191, 197 165 n. 17, 288
396
397
398
399
400