\brief{Ernest Nagel an Rudolf Carnap und Ina Carnap, 6. März 1935}{März 1935}

%c/o American Express Company

%38 Piazza di Spagna,

%Roma, Italy. March 6, 1935.

\anrede{Dear Professor and Mrs. Carnap,}

\haupttext{In the first place, let me thank you very warmly for the little book of your English lectures\IC{\londonervortraege}; I am very proud to have a
presentation copy. In the second place, I want to apologize for not replying to your last letter sooner. I hope you will
forgive me and am sure you will understand my delay in writing. ``My lady''\IN{\nagelfrau} did come after all. She disembarked at Nice
about a month ago, and for a while I thought our troubles were over and that we would be able to go through the ceremony
without difficulty. Unfortunately, my divorce papers have been held up in America, and without them I could do nothing.
We waited in Nice for a while, hoping they would be sent soon. But as weeks went by we became tired of waiting any longer
and came down to Rome a few days ago still in an unmarried state. It is impossible for a divorcee to be married in Italy,
but since nobody seems to be much interested whether one is ``really'' married or not, I don't think we shall have much
difficulty. I wish I had listened to your advice, and so had escaped from Nice sooner. While waiting for my divorce
papers I became ill with the grippe, and that is an important reason for my not responding any earlier. We are remaining
here until about the end of April, and shall then go to England via Holland. But I hope to write you again before
then.

I promised to write you about the second meeting of the Wiener Kreis\II{\schlickzirkel} which I was able to attend. It was not much
different from the first one. Schlick\IN{\schlick} continued with his reply to Lewis\IN{\lewis} \IW{}, and ended the meeting with reading about two or
three pages from a Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein} manuscript\IW{}. The latter dealt with the psycho-physical problem, and of course argued that
the allegedly apriori synthetic propositions about psycho-physical matters were in fact linguistic conventions when they
were not empirical propositions. Schlick\IN{\schlick} read the manuscript\IW{} hastily, just to fill in the few minutes left before the
meeting was to adjourn. There was next to no discussion, there really was no time for that, and I confess I found the
session rather dull. The people I talked to had the impression on which I did that they would require to \uline{read} W[ittgenstein]'s\IN{\wittgenstein}
paper\IW{} before making a judgment upon it. At the subsequent meeting, at which I was no longer able to be present, your
Antinomien paper\IC{\msantinomien} was going to be discussed. Gödel\IN{\goedel} was to be asked to report on it and lead the discussion, and since Dr.
Tarski\IN{\tarski} was also in Vienna I imagine I missed an exciting meeting. That's what comes of having a private life.

I met Tarski\IN{\tarski} again, but he seems to have been pressed for time (he always seems to be pressed for time) and I found it
difficult to talk with him. How I regret I couldn't be in Prague and listen in on your conversations with him!

Schlick\IN{\schlick} did not have his reply quite finished when I left Vienna, and although I offered my services to proof-read it he
did not seem to require them. But by this time it is probably in print, and I am wondering whether you will answer
Lewis\IN{\lewis} too. If you will and need someone to look over the English (in this connection or in any other) please do not
hesitate to call on me; I will quite prompt in returning the manuscripts. \neueseite{}

I had a very interesting discussion with Waismann\IN{\waismann}, and he made clear to me the position which he and Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein} hold
at present. But what impressed me most, I think, is the personal tragedy of the man in his utter dependence on
Wittgenstein's\IN{\wittgenstein} whims.

I have not heard from Columbia University\II{\columbiauniversity} again, so that I do not know what arrangements are being made for the
next year. I hope at any rate that your lecture-tour is finally in order, and that your visiting the U.S. next year is no
longer uncertain. If you can spare some moments from more important things, please let me know how the matter stands.

I met a young lady here who had attended the meetings in London at which Hempel\IN{\hempel} and Black\IN{\black} read papers. She showed me
some shorthand notes of what went on, and from these and her verbal comments I judge the meeting was a huge success. But
you probably have first-hand reports of the sessions.

My time is taken up with reading in the foundations of mathematics and trying to organize the lecture course I will have
to give next year. There is nobody in Rome of whom I know who is interested in such things, so that I have little
intellectual stimulus. But it is relatively warm, and I take occasional walks through the ancient streets. I confess,
though, that I am not thrilled very much at being in the ``Eternal City'', and am quite convinced now that the only
form of art besides literature to which I am sensitive is music.

Finally, I would like to congratulate Mrs. Carnap\IN{\ina} on the English of her letter. Of course, there are some errors, but they
are forgiveable ones, and everything was clearly expressed. A few months in an English-speaking environment will
make you both experts in the language. I shall close this long-winded letter with the hope that the future will turn out
that way.

With warmest regards and esteem to you both,}

\grussformel{Sincerely yours,\\
Ernest Nagel}

\briefanhang{Beste Grüße von meine Braut\IN{\nagelfrau}.}

\ebericht{Brief, msl., 2 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/870410}{RC 029-05-14}; Briefkopf: msl. \original{c/o American Express Company \,/\, 38 Piazza di Spagna, \,/\, Roma, Italy. March\,6, 1935}.}