\brief[\ekll{Beilage zu {230}:} Carnap an Charles W.~Morris, Santa Fe/ New Mexico, 19.\,Juni 1944]%
{Rudolf Carnap an Charles Morris, 19. Juni 1944}{Juni 1944}\labelcn{1944-06-19-Carnap-an-Morris}
%\blockade{Unklar, wann Neurath das bekommen hat, sicher als Beilage zu Carnaps Brief vom 6.\,5.\,1945 - eventuell dort als Briefanhang einbauen, cf. Eb.}


\anrede{Dear Charles,}

\haupttext{
A few days ago I received at long last, the proofs of \uline{Neurath's monograph}\inneurath{}\index{Carnap, Rudolf!on Neurath's monograph} from the Press.\fnA{Neurath, Foundations of the Social Sciences, see letter 10. note XYX.} Since the pagination and the running titles are printed, I suppose that these are already the final proofs. I never got the galley proofs; I do not understand why the Press didn't send them to me automatically as in earlier cases.

After reading the monograph\index{Carnap, Rudolf!on Neurath's monograph}, I must say frankly that I find it in a rather unsatisfactory state. First, from the linguistic-stylistic point of view, it seems to me in a rather bad shape. I see from your letters that you made some minor changes. But I think it is still in need of a thoroughgoing revision. Now it will, of course, cause additional expenses: but I think, if the Press is not willing to bear them, we should cover them from the Encyclopedia royalties. A publication in the present form will do no good to the reputation of either the Encyclopedia or the Press. As you will remember, at some earlier occasion some readers expressed sharp criticism of the poor English. I am astonished that the editorial staff of the Press did not raise objections. I suppose they would not have accepted the ms. in its present form if it were a separate book; but here they probably thought that the responsibility for editing is not theirs but ours.

The second point is still more\index{Carnap, Rudolf!on Neurath's monograph} important. It is the way of formulation and representation of the whole. Here I mean not linguistic questions, but certain features that would be the same if \nneurath{}\inneurath{} had written in German. It seems that the whole has been formulated in a very hasty and careless way; no care and time has been taken to work it over, make thin\ekl{g}s clearer, and give it some coherence. It jumps from one idea to another, while the poor reader looks in vain for a connecting thread. \nneurath{}\inneurath{} uses many of his rather obscure pet terms without explaining what he means by them, e.\,g. `Universal Jargon', `Encyclopedia', `absolutistic', `aggregation', etc.; also quite new ones, e.\,g. `Terminological Empiricism', where not even I have been able to find out what is meant by it. Especially in the first part, dealing with more general questions of empiricism, the representation is often not clear and sometimes quite confuse. Some sentences are incomprehensible to me, and how many more will be so for the average reader. The later parts are not quite so bad, especially the discussion of more specific problems of the foundations of the social sciences\index{social sciences}. On the whole, the monograph seems to me to \ekl{be} below that level which so far we have succeeded in maintaining in the Encyclopedia, and the weakest thing \nneurath{}\inneurath{} has written (with possibly one exception, the Aristotelian Society paper).\fnEE{Neurath, \glqq Universal Jargon and Terminology,\grqq.} The motivation for the hasty work is clear: \nneurath{}\inneurath{} wanted to hurry because the Press considered to discontinue the whole. I understand very well that you, even if you felt likewise critical, hesitated to write to \nneurath{}\inneurath{}, first because of the lack of time, and then also because of his sensitivity and violent emotional reactions to criticism and his obstinacy and unwillingness to accept suggestions for improvements from anybody. Nevertheless, if I had seen the ms., I should have written to \nneurath{}\inneurath{} and asked him to work it over.

Now I think, this second point is more important, but it is also more difficult, maybe impossible, to do anything about it. I wish I could talk over with you the whole matter. Please write me frankly your opinion on both points. Do you think I am overcritical? And then, I should like to get your advice what we or I could do now. I do not wish to make an issue of it if I know beforehand that no good will come of it. I do not wish to insist on principles and ideal standards when I see that thereby I endanger my friendship with Neurath\inneurath{} the Volcanic\index{Carnap, Rudolf!on Neurath\inneurath{} the Volcanic} and the continuation of our good cooperation for the Encyclopedia and other things. Therefore, if (as I assume) it is now too late to ask \nneurath{}\inneurath{} to revise the whole, without making him furious and the Press unwilling and impatient, then I shall not veto the publication. This is a compromise and a hard concession to make, because I am convinced that the monograph will do more harm than good for the Encyclopedia and for the movement of empiricism\index{empiricism!movement of} in general. But I realize that to antagonize and offence \nneurath{\inneurath{}} now would possibly do still more harm.

On the other hand, I\index{Carnap, Rudolf!on Neurath's monograph} think I ought not appear to be responsible for something which I am in fact not responsible because I did not see the ms. before it was printed and I would not have accepted it in its present form if I had seen it. I should like to have your advice as to a way to release me from the editorial responsibility without, however, an explicit and public expression of my disapproval. Would it perhaps be best simply to omit my name from the title page of this monograph? (This would be like Roosevelt\IN{\roosevelt} letting a bill become law without either signing it or voting it). Or do you think that this would not be right because our names are on the left-hand title page refers to the whole Encyclopedia and not to the monograph? Would you think it better to put a small, inconspicuous note on the back of the right-hand title page, perhaps above the Copyright, to the effect that, due to special circumstances (not to be specified or perhaps wartime circumstances or something else?) I do not share the editorial responsibility (or, I have not participated in the editorial function) for this monograph? Or something similar?

I can report good news about my back. It has continuously improved and I am now up about six hours daily, intermittently, with rest periods in between. Therefore, I am confident that I shall be able to teach in the autumn.

My work on probability proceeds well. It is growing ever more, so that it is still very far from being finished. How is your Theory of Signs developing?\fnEE{Morris, \textit{Signs, Language and Behavior}, ist 1946 erschienen.}
}

\grussformel{Cordially,\\C.}%\Apagebreak

\ebericht{\blockade{Wann hat Nth. das bekommen? In Haarlem 1945 eingeordnet} Brief, msl., Dsl., 2 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/847153}{ON 223}; Briefkopf: msl. \original{R. Carnap\,/\, P.O.B. 1914\,/\,Santa Fe, N. M.} und \original{June 19, 1944.}.}
