 F.H. Bradley regarded himself the nemesis of external relations, but not only them. Famously, Bradley brought a vicious regress argument against external relations. In his original version (1893: 32–3), Bradley presented a dilemma to show that external relations are unintelligible. Here’s the dilemma. Either a relation \(R\) is nothing to the things \(a\) and \(b\) it relates, in which case it cannot relate them. Or, it is something to them, in which case \(R\) must be related to them. But for \(R\) to be related to \(a\) and \(b\) there must be not only \(R\) and the things it relates, but also a subsidiary relation \(R'\) to relate \(R\) to them. But now the same problem arises with regard to \(R'\). It must be something to \(R\) and the things it related in order for \(R'\) to relate \(R\) to them and this requires a further subsidiary relation \(R''\) between \(R'\), \(R\), \(a\) and \(b\). But positing more relations to fix up the problem is only throwing good money after bad. We fall into an infinite regress because the same reasoning applies equally to \(R'\) and however many other subsidiary relations we subsequently introduce—this is commonly called “Bradley”s Regress’. As Bradley later summed up,