of the core networks of his time. In each place he came in contact with the
current attention leader: Russell in 1912–1914, Schlick in 1927–1932, Moore
at Cambridge in the 1910s and again from 1929 until his death in 1951. Each
time Wittgenstein became the darling of his sponsor, while quickly radicalizing
the existing position in a fashion that transferred greater attention to himself.
Another way of saying this is that Wittgenstein battened on the reputation
already achieved—by Russell, by the Vienna Circle, by the ordinary language
movement. He was so to speak an emotional energy vampire, sucking suste-
nance out of his sponsors and transferring it to his own position.
There are numerous examples (Monk, 1990; Levy, 1981). Russell’s elation
at finding Wittgenstein for a disciple turned to anger and depression as he felt
superseded, overwhelmed with demands, and periodically rejected by Wittgen-
stein’s fits of temper. Wittgenstein had the same effect on Moore, treating him
alternately as confidant, enemy, and errand boy. Wittgenstein’s famous moodi-
ness made sense as part of the social dynamics of a small, intensely focused
group, constantly reminding its members of their elite status; the rivalries and
jealousies both over preeminence and over closeness to the favorite resemble
the popularity contests and love affairs of an adolescent social club. In fact
this is a fairly apt description of the Apostles, especially in their phase of
homosexual affairs (for the most part rather platonic).
Wittgenstein’s relationship with the self-conscious preciosity of the soci-
ety was emblematic of both their stance and his. Reputations were made in
the Apostles, after initial selection for intellectual brilliance, on the basis of
iconoclastic performances. McTaggart had assumed the leadership in the late
1880s with a paper “Violets or Orange Blossom?” defending homosexual love;
Moore ascended to new heights of candor in 1894 with “Shall we take delight
in crushing our roses?” in which he endorsed heterosexual prudery together
with masturbation. In 1902 Strachey took over leadership by outshocking
everyone with a paper on defecation as the ultimate artistic act because an
expression of oneness with Nature (Levy, 1981: 103, 144, 231–233). When
Wittgenstein was invited in 1912, in the midst of a round of accusations of
jealousy (against Russell for keeping Wittgenstein for himself, and more gen-
erally over homosexual ties within the group), he delivered the ultimate shock
by promptly resigning after his first meeting. Wittgenstein had already had
similar experience of the hothouse atmosphere of artistic reputations in Vienna,
only there it was suicide which established one’s reputation for passionate
commitment; there was a rash of suicides around the turn of the century,
including two of Wittgenstein’s brothers (Johnston, 1972: 174–179). Wittgen-
stein’s brooding over suicide during the first few decades of his life, whatever
its subjective component, was also a claim for status membership in this elite;
the obsession stopped after he established his independent intellectual reputa-
The Post-revolutionary Condition^ •^735