Abstract
Proposing in 1910 that one treat propositions as incomplete fragments of belief-complexes, Russell departed from his realism about propositions defended earlier, in The Principles of Mathematics (1903). According to one frequently endorsed interpretation, he maintained that his ontological commitment to false propositions as objective entities cannot be reconciled with the associated theory of propositional unity.
I explain that the versions of this interpretation in Sainsbury (1979) and Linsky (1993) are incorrect from exegetical reasons. The objection they ascribe to later Russell is based on the so-called 'unity argument'.
I also argue against Weiss (1995) and Lebens (2009) who endorse the unity argument independently on exegesis of Russell's texts. In the course of my argument, I outline early Russell's primitivist views about unity and truth.