In the Rand Archive, Part 5: On the Brandens

Jennifer Burns is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

In the Rand Archive, Part 5: On the Brandens

Thursday, 26 November 2009 09:58

I originally intended In the Rand Archive to be a four part blog series, but due popular demand I am now extending the series to cover a number of topics readers have asked about. In this installment, I discuss my findings in the archive that relate to Rand’s relationship with Barbara and Nathaniel Branden.

Let me say at the outset of this posting that I do not consider Rand’s relationship with Nathaniel Branden to be the foundational event in her intellectual or emotional life; I think the influence of Isabel Paterson and Frank O’Connor has been overlooked in the general focus on Nathaniel Branden. Nor do I think Rand’s extramarital affair with Branden is particularly noteworthy. Part of the fascination with this episode comes, I believe, from our own embedded expectations about gender and sexuality. Would anyone consider it remarkable or unusual for a famous and wealthy male author in his 50s to convince a young acolyte into a sexual affair? “Open” relationships and non-traditional marital arrangements are also par for the course when it comes to intellectuals, even American ones – examples can be found in the ideas of “free love” in New York’s Greenwich Village, the career of Victoria Woodhull, and the Brook Farm community in the 19th century.

Nevertheless, there is clearly a burning curiosity – and controversy – over all aspects of Rand’s relationship with Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. Many readers have wondered what, if anything, I saw in the archives that speaks to these controversies. So here I will briefly sketch out some of my findings on this matter.

When I began researching, my primary understanding of Rand’s life came from the two Branden memoirs, Barbara Branden’s The Passion of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden’s Judgement Day: My Years with Ayn Rand. In my first stage of research, one of my primary goals was simply verifying if the essentials of the Brandens’ stories were correct. I was surprised to discover how accurate both books were. I did not discover any major errors or distortions in basic chronology or timing. I viewed the first series of correspondence between Rand and Nathan Blumenthal, and Barbara Weidman’s letters to Rand when she was away from her (the two later changed their names to Barbara and Nathaniel Branden). All of this material matched the accounts in the memoirs: here was the story of early difficulties in the relationship between Barbara and Nathan, for the reasons described; Nathan’s turbulent relationship with his family; the inflammatory letter he wrote to the UCLA newspaper (which I quote in my book), and so forth.

I also spent a good deal of time trying to discern what, if anything, Rand told Nathan Blumenthal about “free will.” This topic surfaced in their first letters and was one reason Rand decided to contact Blumenthal. Additionally, some of Murray Rothbard’s surviving letters indicate she changed her mind about this concept during the 1950s (for details, see Justin Raimondo’s An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray Rothbard). I could not uncover anything to speak to this point one way or the other, and so let it lie. Here, my guiding philosophy was that unless something I found contradicted the Brandens’ memoirs, it would not be a focus of my published work. Though my interest in Rand was primarily intellectual, rather than on the personal nature of all her relationships, part of my job as a historian is to set the record straight and I would have done so had I felt the Brandens were untruthful in their description of Rand or their relationship with her.

That said, there were several aspects of Barbara Branden’s memoir which material in the archive definitely falsifies: the most famous of these is the typewriter story. Material from the archive indicates this legend is long established in family history and originated with Rand herself, though it is unclear if the youthful Rand was experimenting with tales of origin, or if the distortions of memory played a role (think of a game of telephone, stretched across generations). Barbara Branden also describes Leo as the young Rand’s primary love interest, while letters from the Rosenbaums indicate Rand had a devoted male admirer, “Seriozha”, who was a fixture in their household and accompanied Rand as far as Moscow when she was leaving Russia. So perhaps that famous fib about a fiancé which got her out of Latvia had more truth to it than previously understood. In both cases, these errors are explainable and even predictable, given that Barbara Branden’s account was based upon oral history and Rand’s own memories about herself at a young age, which are naturally selective and subjective.

In the next phase of my research, I began understanding, as I write in Goddess of the Market’s concluding Essay on Sources, “the subtle interpretative power” the two memoirs exert. I have touched upon these points in my book, but primarily they are: downplaying Rand’s continued connection to her family while in the United States; the significance of her relationship to Frank; the nature of her relationship to Leonard Peikoff.
Here is some of the evidence I saw that led to my conclusions:

- Extensive letters from the Rosenbaums to Rand during the 1920s, including correspondence about her failed effort to bring them to the United States in 1937.

- Stacks of notes between Ayn and Frank, signed with obvious affection. Ayn often left these for Frank when she stayed up late to write. They emphasized for me how pivotal he was to her daily life, and how dependent she was upon his presence and caring.

- Multiple interviews that suggested despite the dominant position Rand appeared to hold in the relationship, Frank had his own subtle power over her. As anyone who has read Hegel knows, even the relationship between master and slave (which their marriage assuredly was not) is far from clear cut.

- Biographical interviews where Rand stressed the importance of several conversations with Peikoff that helped her understand herself as a philosopher and convinced her to pursue that aspect of her thought more thoroughly. These segments of the conversation do not appear in the Branden’s memoir.

Overall, what I saw in the archive confirmed for me that while the Branden’s memoirs are useful sources, they should not be taken as the final word on Rand’s life.

Next time: What they didn’t let me publish

Comments (8)

|2009-11-27 13:42:36 Joe - Fascinating-Thank you!

This is another great post. Thank you!

One problem with verifying the Brandens' accounts is that so many of the conversations were witnessed only by the Brandens and people now deceased.

Dr.Harry Binswanger has stated publicly that Ayn Rand related to him a very different account of her last meeting with BB. Did you see any of AR's account of this meeting?

Fascinating comments on Frank and Dr. Peikoff. Could you relate in any more detail LP's influence on her? Intriguing.

Thank you again!

|2009-11-29 08:39:54 Neil Parille - To Whom It May Concern

Hi Jennifer,

This is an interesting series of posts, to be sure.

I'm wondering if the archives have the financial documents that would be required to confirm or refute Rand's claim that NB engaged in what bordered on fraud with respect to the 67 loan.

You quote Henry Holzer's later claim that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by NB, but I'm wondering if you saw the actual documents.

-Neil Parille

|2009-12-02 06:17:55 Henri - Frank

I would be interested in what way Frank had any influence on Rand. And particular in what fields and how big it was.

I always had the feeling that Franks role was downplayed by both the Brandens and the ARI.

By the Brandens because it would make them less important and by ARI because it would, in their eyes, make Rand less perfect, individualistic and original.

|2009-12-15 00:20:33 Anonymous - Great review

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-winter/ayn-rand-jennif er-burns.asp

|2009-12-15 03:58:52 Neil Parille - Mayhew Review

I wrote a review of Mayhew's review:

http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/robert-mayhew-reviews-goddess- of-market.html

-Neil

|2009-12-15 09:51:45 Irfan Khawaja - Mayhew's review

I'm wondering if you (Dr. Burns) have any plans of responding to Robert Mayhew's review in The Objective Standard (link above provided by Anonymous poster). To the best of my knowledge, it's the most intellectually substantive review of your book to appear in print, and written by an author well qualified to write on the topic. The review also happens to touch on the role of the Brandens in Rand's life, and in your biography, in ways that intersect with the present series about the Archives. I think it deserves a response from you, as well as a place (i.e., link) among the other reviews on your site.

|2009-12-15 20:12:24 Michael Caution - Mayhew's review

I agree with Prof. Khawaja and would be interested to know if you plan to respond in any way. I also read that you have agreed to reply to James Valliant's review once it is posted on solopassion.com, is this correct? Full disclosure, I myself have reviewed your book on amazon citing its faults which are also shared by Mayhew.

|2010-02-21 14:12:53 Jennifer Burns - responding to comments

Neil: There is scattered material on NBI finances in the archive, and some legal files there may also shed light on this matter, but I believe most legal material is currently off-limits to researchers.

I have no plans at present to respond to specific reviews of my book.

-Jennifer