Related Links in the Library:
Mack's Introduction to Auberon Herbert, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion
by the State, and Other Essays, ed. Eric Mack (Indianapolis: Liberty
This collection of essays makes available
the major and representative writings in political
philosophy of one of the distinctive figures in the
profound and wide-ranging intellectual debate which
took place during the late Victorian age. It was during
this period, in the intellectual and social ferment
of the 1880s and 1890s, that Auberon Herbert (1838-1906)
formulated and expounded voluntaryism, his system
of "thorough" individualism. Carrying natural
rights theory to its logical limits, Herbert demanded
complete social and economic freedom for all noncoercive
individuals and the radical restriction of the use
of force to the role of protecting those freedoms—including
the freedom of peaceful persons to withhold support
from any or all state activities. All cooperative
activity, he argued, must be founded upon the free
agreement of all those parties whose rightful possessions
Auberon Herbert was by birth and marriage a well-placed
member of the British aristocracy. He was educated
at Eton and at St. John's College, Oxford. As a young
man he held commissions in the army for several years
and served briefly with the Seventh Hussars in India
(1860). On his return to Oxford he formed several
Conservative debating societies, was elected a Fellow
of St. John's, and lectured occasionally in history
and jurisprudence. In 1865, as a Conservative, he
unsuccessfully sought a seat in the House of Commons.
By 1868, however, he was seeking a parliamentary seat,
again unsuccessfully, as a Liberal. Finally, in 1870,
Herbert successfully contested a by-election and entered
the Commons as a Liberal representing Nottingham.
Most notably, during his time in the House of Commons,
Herbert joined Sir Charles Dilke in declaring his
republicanism and Herbert supported Joseph Arch's
attempts to form an agricultural laborer's union.
Although, through hindsight, many of Herbert's actions
and words during the sixties and early seventies can
be read as harbingers of his later consistent libertarianism,
he actually lacked, throughout this period, any consistent
set of political principles. During this period, for
instance, he supported compulsory state education—albeit
with strong insistence on its being religiously neutral.
In late 1873 Herbert met and was much impressed
by Herbert Spencer. As he recounts in "Mr. Spencer
and the Great Machine," a study of Spencer led
to the insight that
thinking and acting for others had always hindered,
not helped, the real progress; that all forms of
compulsion deadened the living forces in a nation;
that every evil violently stamped out still persisted,
almost always in a worse form, when driven out of
sight, and festered under the surface. I no longer
believed that the handful of us—however well-intentioned
we might be—spending our nights in the House,
could manufacture the life of a nation, could endow
it out of hand with happiness, wisdom, and prosperity,
and clothe it in all the virtues.1
However, it was even before this intellectual transformation
that Herbert had decided, perhaps out of disgust with
party politics or uncertainty about his own convictions,
not to stand for reelection in 1874. Later, in 1879,
he again sought Liberal support to regain a seat from
Nottingham. But at that point his uncompromising individualist
radicalism was not acceptable to the majority of the
Central Council of the Liberal Union of Nottingham.
In the interim, 1877, he had organized the Personal
Rights and Self-Help association. And in 1878 he had
been one of the chief organizers of the antijingoism
rallies in Hyde Park against war with Russia. Along
with other consistent classical liberals, Herbert
repeatedly took anti-imperialist stands. He called
for Irish self-determination. He opposed British intervention
in Egypt and later opposed the Boer War.
In 1880 following his rejection by the Liberals
of Nottingham, Herbert turned to the publication of
addresses, essays, and books in defense of consistent
individualism and against all forms of political regimentation.
Even in 1877 he had been disturbed by "a constant
undertone of cynicism" in the writings of his
mentor, Herbert Spencer, and had resolved to do full
justice to "the moral side" of the case
for a society of fully free and voluntarily cooperative
And while Spencer grew more and more crusty, conservative,
and pessimistic during the last decades of the nineteenth
century, Herbert, who continued to think of himself
as Spencer's disciple, remained idealistic, radical,
and hopeful. And though he refused to join, he willingly
addressed such organizations as the Liberty and Property
Defense League which he felt to be "a little
more warmly attached to the fair sister Property than
. . . to the fair sister Liberty."3
Similarly, Herbert held himself separate from the
Personal Rights Association, whose chief mover, J.
H. Levy, favored compulsory taxation for the funding
of state protective activities. With the exception
of the individualistic "reasonable anarchists,"
Herbert thought of himself as occupying the left wing
of the individualist camp, that is, the wing most
willing to carry liberty furthest.4
In 1885 Herbert sought to establish the Party of
Individual Liberty and under this rubric gave addresses
across England. The title essay for this collection,
The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State,
was written as a statement of the basis for, the character
of, and the implications of, the principles of this
party. Again with the aim of advancing libertarian
opinion, Herbert published the weekly (later changed
to monthly) paper Free Life, "The Organ
of Voluntary Taxation and the Voluntary State,"
from 1890 to 1901. Free Life was devoted to
"One Fight More—The Best and the Last,"
the fight against the aggressive use of force which
is "a mere survival of barbarism, a mere perpetuation
of slavery under new names, against which the reason
and moral sense of the civilized world have to be
called into rebellion."5
Also during the 1890s, Herbert engaged in lengthy
published exchanges with two prominent socialists
of his day, E. Belfort Bax and J. A. Hobson. Herbert
continued to write and speak into this century, and
two of his best essays, "Mr. Spencer and the
Great Machine" and "A Plea for Voluntaryism,"
were written in 1906, the last year of his life.
In all his mature writings Auberon Herbert defended
a Lockean-Spencerian conception of natural rights
cording to which each person has a right to his own
person, his mind and body, and hence to his own labor.
Furthermore, each person has a right to the products
of the productive employment of his labor and faculties.
Since each person has these rights, each is under
a moral obligation to respect these rights in all
others. In virtue of each person's sovereignty over
himself, each individual must consent to any activity
which directly affects his person or property before
any such activity can be morally legitimate. Specifically,
each must forgo the use of force and fraud. Each has
a right to live and produce in peace and in voluntary
consort with others, and all are obligated to respect
In The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State,
Herbert is anxious to point out that there is a potentially
dangerous confusion between "two meanings which
belong to the word force."6
Direct force is employed when person A, without his
consent, is deprived, or threatened with the deprivation,
of something to which he has a right—for example,
some portion of his life, liberty, or property. Anyone
subject to such a deprivation or threat is, in his
own eyes, the worse for it. His interaction with the
wielder of force (or fraud) is something to be regretted,
something to which he does not consent. In contrast,
if B induces A to act by threatening (so-called) merely
to withhold something that B rightfully owns and A
values, then, according to Herbert, we can say that
B has used "indirect force" upon A. But
such indirect force is radically different from direct
force. In the case of indirect force, A does not act
under a genuine threat. For he is not faced with being
deprived of something rightfully his (his arm or his
life). Instead he is bribed, coaxed, induced into
acting by the lure of B's offer of something
which is rightfully B's. No action endangering rights
plays any role in motivating A. A may, of course,
wish that B had offered even more. But in accepting
B's offer, whatever it may be, A indicates that on
the whole he consents to the exchange with B. He indicates
that he values this interchange with B over the status
quo. He indicates that he sees it as beneficial—unlike
all interactions involving direct force.
The employer may be indirectly forced to accept
the workman's offer, or the workman may be indirectly
forced to accept the employer's offer; but before
either does so, it is necessary that they should
consent, as far as their own selves are concerned,
to the act that is in question. And this distinction
is of the most vital kind, since the world can and
will get rid of direct compulsion; but it can never
of indirect compulsion....7
Besides, Herbert argues, any attempt to rid the
world of indirect force must proceed by expanding
the role of direct force. And "when you do so,
you at once destroy the immense safeguard that exists
so long as [each man] ... must give his consent to
every action that he does."8
The believer in strong government cannot claim, says
Herbert, that in proposing to regulate the terms by
which individuals may associate, he is merely seeking
to diminish the use of force in the world.
What, then, may be done when the violation of rights
threatens? So strong is Herbert's critique of force
that, especially in his early writings, he is uncomfortable
about affirming the propriety of even defensive force.
Thus, in "A Politician in Sight of Haven"
the emphasis is on the fact that the initiator of
force places his victim "outside the moral-relation"
and into "the force-relation." Force, even
by a defender, is not "moral." The defender's
only justification is the necessity of dealing with
the aggressor as one would with "a wild beast."
Indeed, so pressed is Herbert in his search for some
justification that he says, in justification of his
defense of himself, "The act on my part
was so far a moral one, inasmuch as I obeyed the derived
moral command to help my neighbor."9
In The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State,
Herbert starts by identifying the task of finding
moral authority for any use of force and the task
of finding moral authority for any government. He
declares that no "perfect" foundation for
such authority can be found, that all such authority
is a usurpation—though "when confined
within certain exact limits . . . a justifiable
In his later writings, Herbert seems to have fully
overcome his hesitancy about defensive force. Possibly
his most forceful statement appears in the essay "A
If you ask us why force should be used to defend
the rights of self-ownership, and not for any other
purpose, we reply by reminding you that the rights
of self-ownership are . . . supreme moral rights,
of higher rank than all other human interests or
institutions; and therefore force may be employed
on behalf of these rights, but not in opposition
to them. All social and political arrangements,
all employments of force, are subordinate to these
universal rights, and must receive just such character
and form as are required in the interest of these
According to Herbert, each person's absolute right
to what he has peacefully acquired through the exercise
of his faculties requires the abolition of compulsory
taxation. The demand for "voluntary taxation"
only is a simple instance of the demand for freedom
in all human interaction. An individual does not place
himself outside the moral relation by merely retaining
his property, by not donating it for some other person's
conception of a worthy project. Such a peaceful individual
is not a criminal and is not properly subject to the
punishment of having a portion of his property confiscated.
Herbert particularly urged those in the individualist
camp to reject compulsory taxation.
I deny that A and B can go to C and force him
to form a state and extract from him certain payments
and services in the name of such state; and I go
on to maintain that if you act in this manner, you
at once justify state socialism. The only difference
between the tax-compelling individualist and the
state socialist is that while they both have vested
ownership of C in A and B, the tax-compelling individualist
proposes to use the powers of ownership in a very
limited fashion, the socialist in a very complete
fashion. I object to the ownership in any fashion.12
It is compulsory taxation which generates and sustains
the corrupt game of politics—the game in which
all participants strive to further their aims with
resources forcefully extracted from those who do not
share their aims. Compulsory taxation breaks the link
between the preferences of the producers and peaceful
holders of resources with respect to how those resources
(their property, their faculties, their minds and
bodies) should be used, and the actual use of those
resources. For instance, compulsory taxation
gives great and undue facility for engaging a
whole nation in war. If it were necessary to raise
the sum required from those who individually agreed
in the necessity of war, we should have the strongest
guarantee for the preservation of peace....Compulsory
taxation means everywhere the persistent probability
of a war made by the ambitions or passions of politicians.13
Herbert's demand for a "voluntary state,"
that is, a state devoted solely to the protection
of Lockean-Spencerian rights and funded voluntarily,
combined with his continual condemnation of existing
state activities led to Herbert's being commonly perceived
as an anarchist. Often these perceptions were based
on hostility and ignorance, but Herbert was also regarded
as an anarchist by serious and reasonably well-informed
prostate critics like J. A. Hobson and T. H. Huxley.
Similarly, J. H. Levy thought that to reject the compulsory
state was to reject the state as such. And while,
for these men, Herbert's purported anarchism was a
fault, the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker
always insisted that, to his credit, Auberon Herbert
was a true anarchist.14
Of course, there can be no question of whether Auberon
Herbert was an anarchist of the coercive collectivizing
or terrorist sort. Nothing could be further from his
own position. For as Herbert points out in his "The
Ethics of Dynamite," coercion, systematic or
random, is nothing but a celebration of the principles
on which the coercive state rests. Whether Herbert
was an anarchist of the individualist, private property,
free market sort is another and far more complex question.
Herbert himself continually rejected the label; and
although he maintained cordial relationships with
men like Benjamin Tucker and Wordsworth Donisthorpe,
he insisted that his views were sufficiently different
from theirs in important respects to place him outside
the camp of "reasonable" anarchists.
In what ways did Herbert's views differ from those
of the individualist anarchists as represented by
Tucker? Tucker had tied himself to a labor theory
of value. It followed for him that such activities
as lending money and renting property were not genuinely
productive and that those who gained by such activities
advanced themselves improperly at the expense of less-propertied
people. Thus, Tucker took the laboring class to be
an exploited class, exploited by the holders of capital.
And he duly sympathized with, and often shared the
rhetoric of, others who were announced champions of
the proletariat against the capitalist class. Herbert
did not accept this sort of economic analysis. He
saw interest as a natural market phenomenon, not,
as Tucker did, as the product of state enforced monopolization
of credit. And Herbert saw rent as legitimate because
he believed, contrary to Tucker, that one did not
have to be continually using an object in order to
retain just title to it and therefore morally charge
others for their use of that object.15
I suspect it was these differences—differences
not actually relevant to the issue of Herbert's anarchism—along
with Herbert's desire not to grant the political idiots
of his day the verbal advantage of tagging him an
anarchist, that sustained Herbert's insistence that
what he favored was, in fact, a type of state. But
other factors and nuances entered in. Herbert argued
that a voluntarily supported state would do a better
job at defining and enforcing property rights than
would the cooperative associations which anarchists
saw as taking the place of the state and protecting
individual liberty and property. Unfortunately, in
his exchanges with Tucker on this matter, the question
of what sort of institution or legal structure was
needed for, or consistent with, the protection of
individual life, liberty, and property tended to be
conflated with the question of the genuine basis for
particular claims to property.16
Finally, Herbert's considered judgment was that individualistic
supporters of liberty and property who, like Tucker,
favored the free establishment of defensive associations
and juridical institutions were simply making a verbal
error in calling themselves anarchists. They were
not for no government, Herbert thought, but for decentralized,
scattered, fragmented government. Herbert's position
was that, although it would be better to have many
governments within a given territory (a republican
one for republicans, a monarchical one for monarchists,
etc.) than to compel everyone to support a single
individuals, if given the choice, would converge on
a single government as their common judge and defender
within a given territory.18
How we ultimately classify Herbert depends upon our
answers to these two questions: (1) Does the fact
that Herbert would allow individuals to withhold support
from "the state" and to form their own alternative
rights-respecting associations, show him to be an
anarchist? (2) Does the fact that Herbert thought
that it would be unwise for individuals to form such
splinter associations, and unlikely that they would
form them, show that the central institution which
he favored was a state?19
No sketch of Herbert's views could be complete,
even as a sketch, without some mention of Herbert's
multidimensional analysis of power—"the
sorrow and the curse of the world."20
Following Spencer's distinction between industrial
and militant societies, Herbert continually emphasized
the differences between two basic modes of interpersonal
coordination. There is the "way of peace and
cooperation" founded upon respect for selfownership
and the demand for only voluntary association. And
there is the "way of force and strife" founded
upon either the belief in the ownership of some by
others or the simple reverence of brute force.21
It is difficult, however, to summarize Herbert's
analysis of these modes since it involves a great
number of interwoven moral, psychological, and sociological
insights. One of course must look to his writings,
but chiefly his two last essays, "Mr. Spencer
and the Great Machine," and "A Plea for
Voluntaryism." Insofar as there is a division
of labor between these two essays, the former focuses
on the inherent dynamic of political power—the
ways in which the great game of politics captures
its participants no matter what their own initial
intentions—while the latter essay focuses on
the corrupting results of this captivity within those
participants. According to Herbert, no man's integrity
or moral or intellectual selfhood can withstand participation
in the battle of power politics.
The soul of the high-minded man is one thing;
and the great game of politics is another thing.
You are now part of a machine with a purpose of
its own—not the purpose of serving the fixed
and supreme principles—the great game laughs
at all things that stand before and above itself,
and brushes them scornfully aside, but the purpose
of securing victory....When once we have taken our
place in the great game, all choice as regards ourselves
is at an end. We must win; and we must do the things
which mean winning, even if those things are not
very beautiful in themselves.22
Progress is a matter of the development of human
individuality, not the growth of uniformity and regimentation.
Progress depends upon a great number of small
changes and adaptations and experiments constantly
taking place, each carried out by those who have
strong beliefs and clear perceptions of their own
in the matter....But...true experimentation is impossible
under universal systems ....Progress and improvement
are not amongst the things that great machines are
able to supply at demand.23
Progress, then, is part of the price we all pay
for power. But the possessors of power pay a further
price. For, according to Herbert, power is a "fatal
If you mean to have and to hold power, you must
do whatever is necessary for the having and holding
of it. You may have doubts and hesitations and scruples,
but power is the hardest of all taskmasters, and
you must either lay these aside, when you once stand
on that dangerous, dizzy height, or yield your place
to others, and renounce your part in the great conflict.
And when power is won, don't suppose that you are
a free man, able to choose your path and do as you
like. From the moment you possess power, you are
but its slave, fast bound by its many tyrant necessities.24
Ultimately, therefore, it is in no one's interest
to seek power over others. Such an endeavor simply
generates a dreadful war of all upon all which, even
when momentarily won, makes the victor the slave of
the vanquished and which robs all contestants of their
dignity as selfowning and self-respecting beings.
It is necessary to emphasize that, according to Herbert,
liberty and respect for all rights are, ultimately,
in each individual's interest. For Herbert often couched
his appeals in terms of self-denial and self-sacrifice.
This was especially true of his appeals to the working
class, which he envisioned as forming electoral majorities
for the purpose of legislating downward redistributions
of property. In fact, it seems that Herbert's calls
for self-denial were calls for the discipline to withstand
the temptations of (merely) short-term political windfalls
and to appreciate the long-term moral, psychological,
and economic importance, for each person, of respect
for all individual rights. Thus, on the moral and
psychological level, Herbert rhetorically asks,
If you lose all respect for the rights of others,
and with it your own self-respect; if you lose your
own sense of right and fairness; if you lose your
belief in liberty, and with it the sense of your
own worth and true rank; if you lose your own will
and self-guidance and control over your own lives
and actions,...what can all the gifts of politicians
give you in return?25
And on the tactical level he adds, "In the
end you will gain far more by clinging faithfully
to the methods of peace and respect for the rights
of others than by allowing yourselves to use the force
that always calls out force in reply...."26
The skepticism of Herbert's contemporaries about whether
they would have to live with such long-term consequences
was, for them, no virtue, and, for us, no favor.
New Orleans, La.
Auberon Herbert, "Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine,"
p. 260. For additional bibliographic information see
the bibliography. Page citations for material reproduced
here are to pages in this volume. All other page citations
refer to items listed in the bibliography.
S. Hutchinson Harris, Auberon Herbert: Crusader
for Liberty, p. 248.
Auberon Herbert, "The Rights of Property,"
Ibid., p. 39.
S. Hutchinson Harris, "Auberon Herbert,"
Herbert, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the
State. p. 144.
Ibid., pp. 144-45.
Ibid., pp. 145-46.
Herbert, "Politician," p. 101. Italics added.
Herbert, Right and Wrong, p. 141.
Herbert, "A Voluntaryist Appeal," p. 317.
J. H. Levy, ed., Taxation and Anarchism, p.
3. For a discussion of the views of J. H. Levy, Herbert's
antagonist in the exchange reprinted as Taxation
and Anarchism, see Liberty, vol. 7, no. 14, p.
Herbert, "The Principles of Voluntaryism and
Free Life," p. 398.
See J. A. Hobson, "Rich Man's Anarchism";
T. H. Huxley, "Anarchy or Regimentation";
Levy, ed., Taxation and Anarchism, p. 7; and
Tucker's announcement of Herbert's death in Liberty
(vol. 15, no. 6, p. 16)—"Auberon Herbet
is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but
name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an
anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist
in name only!"
Whereas Herbert grounded his views in a belief in
moral rights and obligations Tucker came to espouse
a purportedly postmoralistic egoism, and whereas Herbert
was at least sympathetic to theism, Tucker was aggressively
antireligious. But these differences seem never to
have beenfactors in their disputes.
Liberty, vol. 7, no. 6, p. 5.
See Levy, ed., Taxation and Anarchism, pp.
Herbert, "A Voluntaryist Appeal," p. 329,
and "Principles," p. 383.
See Liberty, vol. 10, no. 12, p. 3. For a portion
of the contemporary version of this dispute, see Robert
Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York:
Basic Books, 1974), Tibor Machan, Human Rights
and Human Liberties (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1975),
and the essays by Eric Mack and Murray Rothbard in
Anarchism, ed. J. W. Chapman and J. R. Pennock
(New York: New York University Press, 1978).
Herbert, "A Plea for Voluntaryism," p. 316.
Ibid., p. 358.
Herbert, "Mr. Spencer," p. 267.
Ibid., pp. 300-01.
Herbert, "A Plea for Voluntaryism," p. 321.
Ibid., p. 341.
Ibid., p. 358.
Works by the Author
From Eric Mack's Introduction:
"The Canadian Confederation." Fortnightly Review, 1867.
"Address on the Choices between Personal Freedom and State Protection." Delivered
at the annual meeting of the Vigilance Association for the Defense of Personal
Rights, March 9, 1880. London: Vigilance Association, 1880.
"State Education: A Help or Hindrance?" Fortnightly Review, 1880.
"A Politician in Trouble About His Soul." Fortnightly Review (in
five parts) 1883, 1884. The last sequel bore the separate title, "A Politician
in Sight of Haven." The whole work was reprinted as A Politician in
Trouble About His Soul (London: Chapman & Hill, 1884). "A Politician
in Sight of Haven" was serialized in Benjamin Tucker's Liberty in
1884, and published by Tucker in Boston in 1884 and 1890.
The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State. London: Williams & Norgate,
1885—based on a series of articles in and on letters to the Newcastle
"The Rights of Property." The proceedings of and Herbert's address
at the seventh annual meeting of the Liberty and Property Defense League, December
l0, 1889. London: Liberty & Property Defense League, 1890.
Free Life. Edited by Herbert (weekly, later monthly). London, 1890-190l.
"'The Rake's Progress' in Irish Politics." Fortnightly Review, 1891.
"The True Line of Deliverance." In A Plea of Liberty. Edited
by T. Mackay. London: John Murray, 1891.
"Under the Yoke of the Butterflies." Fortnightly Review (in
two parts), 1891, 1892.
"A Cabinet Minister's Vade-mecum; a Satire." Nineteenth Century 1893.
"Is the Hope of Our Country an Illusion?" New Review, 1894.
"The Ethics of Dynamite," Contemporary Review, 1894.
"Wares for Sale in the Political Market." The Humanitarian:
A Monthly Review of Sociological Science (in two parts), 1895.
"State Socialism in the Court of Reason." The Humanitarian: A
Monthly Review of Sociological Science (in two parts), 1895.
"The Principles of Voluntaryism and Free Life." Edited by E. E.
Krott. Burlington, Vt.: Free Press Assoc., 1897. Second edition, 1899.
"A Voluntaryist Appeal." The Humanitarian: A Monthly Review
of Sociological Science, 1898.
"Salvation by Force." The Humanitarian: A Monthly Review of
Sociological Science, 1898.
"Lost in the Region of Phrases." The Humanitarian: A Monthly
Review of Sociological Science, 1899.
"The Tragedy of Errors in the War in Transvaal."Contemporary
"How the Pot Called the Kettle Black." Contemporary Review, 1902.
The Voluntaryist Creed (consisting of "Mr. Spencer and the Great
Machine" and "A Plea of Voluntaryism"). London: W. J. Simpson,
Taxation and Anarchism. With and edited by J. H. Levy. London: Personal
Rights Assoc., 1912.
Works about the Author
From Eric Mack's Introduction:
E. Belfort Bax. "Voluntaryism Versus Socialism."The Humanitarian:
A Monthly Review of Sociological Science, 1895.
Dictionary of National Biography. Second Supplement. London: Smith,
Elder & Co., 1912.
S. Hutchinson Harris. Auberon Herbert: Crusader for Liberty. London:
Williams & Norgate, 1943.
_______. "Auberon Herbert." Nineteenth Century and After, 1938.
J. A. Hobson. "Rich Man's Anarchism." The Humanitarian: A Monthly
Review of Sociological Science, 1898.
T. H. Huxley. "Government: Anarchy or Regimentation." Nine-teenth
Liberty. Edited by Benjamin Tucker. Boston and New York, 1851-1908.
Reprinted by Greenwood Press (Westport, Conn., 1970).
Some of the relevant material appears in Tucker's Instead of a Book (New
York: Tucker, 1893), reprinted by Arno Press (New York, I972).