Lawrence’s Crystal Palace remark (1908, age 23) is repulsive. Russell’s later rationalizations that you quote (1956, age 84—Lawrence died in 1930) came after Hitler and Auschwitz, though; you also make no mention of his infatuation with Lawrence and the exceptionally hurtful letter he received from him on September 15, 1915. Only a few months earlier, Russell had written to Ottoline Morrell “Lawrence has quick, sensitive impressions which I don’t understand, tho’ they would seem quite natural to you. I love him more and more. . . . Lawrence has the same feeling against sodomy that I have; you had nearly made me believe there is no harm in it, but I have reverted; and all the examples I know confirm me in thinking it is sterilizing.” Of the September 1915 letter episode Lawrence biographer Jeffrey Meyers writes: "There was no rational basis to this letter, which attributed to Russell his own 'repressed desires' and scorn for mankind. Lawrence probably wrote it because Russell disagreed with him about the proper mode of political action and still supported, in a modified form, the dying democratic system, which Lawrence believed had been discredited by the outbreak of the war. When he received this devastating letter Russell, overwhelmed by the force of Lawrence’s personality, was at first convinced that Lawrence had preternatural insight into unconscious motives that Russell’s own intellect could not perceive. 'For twenty-four hours,' Russell later noted, 'I thought that I was not fit to live and contemplated committing suicide.' But he soon recovered his balance and severed relations with Lawrence."—Lawrence, for all his faults, at his best, was a supreme novelist who, among other things, broadened the fabric of emotion to reinclude the body and sex at long last, often with a tenderness unmatched in world literature—your Cartland remark above is simply absurd. Russell was a socially powerful and influential, but rather mediocre, philosopher well entrenched in the class system and establishment, relatively advanced in his liberal social beliefs and opinions, often courageous and outspoken; while he received the Nobel Prize for literature, he was outclassed by brilliant writers like Lawrence or Wittgenstein—and in both cases the personal antipathy was mutual. Who reads anything by Russell today, except perhaps select chapters of his clear but monumentally humdrum History of Western Philosophy? Your placing Russell’s (simplified) reactions to Lawrence in relation to his “also” meeting Lenin and “seeing through” him is hugely unfair.