John Stuart Mill

The richer you are, the less equally rich or richer people. The richest is only one (=unique). Maximization of richness or leisure (=classic utility), maximizes the uniqueness (=improbability) that can be maximized also by: extreme sport, suicide, tattoo, count of views... The richest seem unique as the poorest, but the rich can easily become poor, while the poor can hardly get rich. So the aim of maximization reflects IQ and options. Few options increase irrationality, regardless of IQ. I also present (...) the law of values' equality, Utility of Suicide, motivation to support the better, and overview the economics as such. Presented as PhD thesis at CERGE-EI, 2000, exhibited in Holland Park, W8 6LU, 2013, presented at conferences in Santorini 2016, Daejon 2016, Adelaide 2016. (shrink)

This article compares and contrasts the reception of Comte’s positivism in the works of William Whewell, John Stuart Mill and Franz Brentano. It is argued that Whewell’s rejection of positivism derives from his endorsement of a constructivist account of the inductive sciences, while Mill and Brentano’s sympathies for positivism are connected to their endorsement of an empiricist account. The mandate of the article is to spell out the chief differences between these two rival accounts. In the last, conclusive section, Whewell’s (...) anti-positivist argument is briefly assessed, and rebutted. (shrink)

This new work from Agora Publications renders the words of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty in a form that brings a living presence to ideas vital for life itself. Mill's thinking about freedom in civic and social life examines fundamental principles shared among conservative, liberal, and radical politicians, and seeks the political wisdom necessary for a good life in any age. Mill's philosophical presentation and analysis of those principles stand alongside the reflections of Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (...) Mill's On Liberty serves as an effective antidote to the poisonous excesses of government efforts to regulate individual liberty or manipulate public opinion about what individuals should say or do.The present edition is specifically designed to employ the dual nature of rhetoric - oral and written language - and to utilize electronic technology to open Mill's text to contemporary listeners and readers. Language changes over time, and some aspects of Mill's 19th century English prose have shifted in meaning, leading to confusion and misunderstanding. His frequent use of long and indirect sentences distorted the clarity and precision of his ideas, and the sexist language that was customary in his day violated one of the fundamental principles he developed so forcefully in The Subjection of Women . This revision seeks to capture the spirit and meaning of Mill's philosophy while overcoming these difficulties. The text is unabridged. (shrink)

Effective Altruism is a rapidly growing and influential contemporary philosophical movement committed to updating utilitarianism in both theory and practice. The movement focuses on identifying urgent but neglected causes and inspiring supererogatory giving to meet the need. It also tries to build a broader coalition by adopting a more ecumenical approach to ethics which recognizes a wide range of values and moral constraints. These interesting developments distinguish Effective Altruism from the utilitarianism of the past in ways that invite cooperation and (...) warrant a fresh look from Thomists. Nonetheless Effective Altruism’s fundamentally consequentialist and aggregative model for ethics precludes more foundational agreement with Thomistic ethics in ways that limit the extent of practical cooperation. (shrink)

This draft entry is an overview of John Stuart Mill's moral and political philosophy, with an emphasis on his views on religion, for the Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion (Wiley-Blackwell).

Dominic Wilkinson’s defence of identity-relative paternalism raises many important issues that are well worth considering. In this short paper, I will argue that there could be two important differences between the first-party and third-party cases that Wilkinson discusses, namely, a difference in associative duties and how the decision relates to the decision maker’s own autonomous life. This could mean that identity-relative paternalism is impermissible in a greater number of cases than he suggests.

Mill wrote in the 1849 edition of Principles of Political Economy that Fourierism presented “in every respect the least open to objection, of the forms of Socialism”. Why did he think this? If we look at Mill's earlier engagements with the Saint-Simonians and Comte side by side a striking pattern of agreements and disagreements emerges: Comte and Mill were anti-utopians, but the Saint-Simonians were not; Mill and the Saint-Simonians were feminists, but Comte was not; and the Saint-Simonians and Comte sought (...) government by industrialists, but Mill did not. To understand this pattern is to highlight just how much common ground Mill did indeed share with the Fourierists and makes his verdict that they were less “open to objection” than any of the other socialists not so much surprising but practically over-determined. (shrink)

McCabe's interpretation of Mill as a socialist is convincing but does not render his writings any less available to liberals. The term ‘socialism' was a slippery one in nineteenth-century Britain. For the likes of Arnold Toynbee, even self-proclaimed Tories could become socialists if they embraced the right policies. The existence of such ‘Tory socialists’ serves as a reminder of the hybridity of political identity at the time Mill was writing (hyphenated socialists were socialists nonetheless). Several aspects of Mill's socialism – (...) his rejection of class antagonism, his discomfort with revolutionary change, and his focus on small-scale socialist experiments rather than achieving a socialist state – will reassure liberal readers that his socialism did not overwhelm his more liberal commitments. McCabe's book might thus be best read as supplementing the liberal reading of Mill rather than supplanting it. I conclude by suggesting that a Liberal-Socialist hybrid inspired by Mill could prove useful to the effort (begun recently by Axel Honneth) to re-found socialism on a non-Marxian basis. (shrink)

One unanticipated pleasure of writing a book has been seeing how intelligent and learned people respond to it. This roundtable is no exception. I’m very grateful to Hugo Drochon for suggesting and...

Scholars of many stripes will profit from Helen McCabe’s John Stuart Mill, Socialist: not only specialists in Mill or the nineteenth century, but all who are interested in considering perennial que...

In the pantheon of liberal political thought, John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, with its defence of freedom of thought, conscience, speech and private property, takes pride of place. So why did Mill c...

Early on in Parliament: The Mirror of the Nation, Gregory Conti criticises what he sees as a ‘too-exclusive’ focus on John Stuart Mill when considering the political thought of Victorian Britain (7...

This response must start with thanks to all those who offered comments. It is a great pleasure to read such thoughtful engagements with my book, especially as this is a project on which I have been...

Mill’s Principle of Utility: Origins, Proof, and Implications (Leiden: Brill, 2022) is a scholarly monograph on John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism with a particular emphasis on his proof of the principle of utility. Originally published as Mill’s Principle of Utility: A Defense of John Stuart Mill’s Notorious Proof (Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi, 1994), the present volume is a revised and enlarged edition with additional material, tighter arguments, crisper discussions, and updated references. The initiative is still principally an analysis, interpretation, and defense of (...) the controversial proof, which has yet to attract a scholarly consensus on how it works and whether it succeeds. Well over a century and a half after Mill’s contribution, the subject matter continues to figure prominently in classroom discussions, where the principle and its proof are presented and debated in connection with the critical baggage of logical problems and conceptual confusions wrongly attributed to Mill from the beginning. The overarching aim of the book, now supplemented by a comprehensive historical background and salient philosophical implications, remains the vindication of Mill’s reasoning in pursuit of what he promises as a proof of the principle of utility. (shrink)

This essay offers a revisionist defense of classical utilitarianism from an infamous objection to it, which is derived from American science fiction writer, Ursula Le Guin’s, short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.” To that effect, the reply takes inspiration from Le Guin and John Stuart Mill in appealing to the natural law theoretical concept of conscience. I argue that a conscientious utilitarian ethic can escape Le Guin’s objection more satisfactorily than other popular utilitarian ethics. Along the way, (...) this essay discusses at length conscience and its place in moral epistemology, both as it occurs in the natural law tradition and in Mill. The natural law account of conscience is defended and Mill’s account is critiqued. Consequently, this paper also provides an interesting synthesis of utilitarianism with natural law ethics. (shrink)

In the literature on toleration, epistemic arguments are commonly equated with John Stuart Mill's fallibilism according to which toleration of opinions is a necessary means to the attainment of truth. This conflation does not capture the variety of those arguments and it results from the fact that a proper analysis of epistemic arguments for religious toleration and a systematic account of their different types are still lacking. The purpose of this article is to provide such an analysis and to argue (...) that those arguments come in four different types, which I name fallibilism, religious belief-forming process, epistemic parity, and differentiated access to religious truth or divine message. I also offer a mapping of those different types of arguments using the standard epistemic notions of justification, truth, and belief coupled with a distinction of focus in the epistemological approach – whether individually or socially focused. (shrink)

It is possible to distinguish between empire, as a form of political order, and imperialism, as a process of aggressive expansion. Mill's liberalism allows for a legitimate empire, in which a civilized state rules a less civilized foreign people paternalistically to prepare them for liberal democratic self-rule. However, it rejects paternalistic imperialism, in the sense of aggression designed to establish such an empire. Apparent textual evidence to the contrary really demonstrates Mill's commitment to three distinct theses: that imperialism may benefit (...) those subject to it, and this can mitigate its evil; that it is easier to justify non-aggressive, empire-creating wars of conquest in response to aggression by barbarian powers; and finally, that civilized states are justified in engaging distant uncivilized peoples non-aggressively, even though the latter's aggressive tendencies mean that such engagement renders empire-justifying wars more likely. (shrink)

This book characterizes Mill as a political instrumentalist and an epistemic democrat, analyzing the epistemic arguments he uses to support his political proposals. Exploring his endeavor to resolve the conflict between political and epistemic values, it sets the epistemic criteria as a basis for unifying Mill's political thought.

ABSTRACT This paper offers an integrated account of maturity and the requisites of individuality in the political thought of John Stuart Mill, bridging his writings on the individual and society. To do so, it focuses on Mill's account of the relationship between civilization, democracy, class, individuality and custom in his later political thought. Mill draws on these concepts to flesh out his account of maturity in both individuals and societies. Mill's conception of custom, in particular, bridges the individual and society. (...) Maturity, simply defined, is the ability to be self-governing. For Mill, only mature individuals and societies are entitled to be self-determining. In offering a unified account of maturity in Mill, this paper is departing from two different views of maturity in Mill that have become popular in recent scholarship. It also offers interpretations of the relationship between civilization and democracy, and class and custom in Mill. (shrink)

An original, unified reconstruction of Mill’s moral and political philosophy—one that finally reveals its consistency and full power Few thinkers have been as influential as John Stuart Mill, whose philosophy has arguably defined Utilitarian ethics and modern liberalism. But fewer still have been subject to as much criticism for perceived ambiguities and inconsistencies. In Completely Free, John Peter DiIulio offers an ambitious and comprehensive new reading that explains how Mill’s ethical, moral, and political ideas are all part of a unified, (...) coherent, and powerful philosophy. Almost every aspect of Mill’s practical philosophy has been charged with contradictions, illogic, or incoherence. Most notoriously, Mill claims an absolute commitment both to promoting societal happiness and to defending individual liberty—a commitment that many critics believe must ultimately devolve into an either/or. DiIulio resolves these and other problems by reconsidering and reconstructing the key components of Mill’s practical thought: his theories of happiness, morality, liberty, and freedom. Casting new light on old texts, DiIulio argues that Mill’s Utilitarianism and liberalism are not only compatible but philosophically wedded, that his theories naturally emanate from one another, and that the vast majority of interpretive mysteries surrounding Mill can be readily demystified. In a manner at once sympathetic and critical, DiIulio seeks to present Mill in his most lucid and potent form. From the higher pleasures and moral impartiality to free speech and nondomination, Completely Free provides an unmatched account of the unity and power of Mill’s enduring moral and political thought. (shrink)

Nel 1884 usciva l’articolo What is an Emotion?, con il quale William James, nel clima scientifico influenzato dalle idee di Darwin, provava a dare una risposta ad un interrogativo oggi ancora aperto. Le emozioni, infatti, sono attualmente un campo di ricerca interdisciplinare dove c’è ancora molto da scoprire. Questo libro intende offrire un contributo dal punto di vista filosofico, trattando la questione delle emozioni attraverso un percorso che parte dall’empirismo associazionistico di J. S. Mill, transita per i risultati dell’opera di (...) W. James e termina con la teoria delle emozioni di J. Dewey, lasciando emergere intersezioni con istanze contemporanee, in particolare affini alla fenomenologia. (shrink)

John Stuart Mill commented on the relationship between equality and liberty in general terms, and he also discussed the relationships between equality and four more concrete social goals: equality vs. diversity and individual spontaneity, equality vs. freedom of trade and entrepreneurial activity, equality vs. economic incentives for workpeople, and equality vs. welfare. In his more general statements he wrote off potential conflicts between equality and liberty, claiming that only those liberties that can be enjoyed by all are real liberties—or at (...) least they are the only ones worth defending. However, in several of his more concrete discussions he gave higher priority to various liberty-related goals than to equality. This seeming contradiction can be resolved if we assume that he distinguished between valuing a liberty per se and valuing it as a means to achieve something else. (shrink)

This paper examines John Stuart Mill’s ‘psychological theory’ of the mind, as he set it out in his Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy. After outlining Mill’s theory and the problem he finds with it, the paper discusses four different interpretations that have been suggested, before proposing a new alternative reading. The matter is of intrinsic interest to anyone who sees value in trying to get to the bottom of tricky texts about puzzling questions by great philosophers, but I argue (...) also that the investigation may help us with another vexed interpretative issue relating to an even more famous philosopher, David Hume, and that it may hold lessons for the philosophy of mind today. (shrink)

El objetivo de este artículo es reconstruir la recepción de Mill en las costas rioplatenses, señalar en qué momentos y desde qué espacios su nombre y sus ideas fueron invocados y qué obras suyas circularon por estas latitudes en las últimas décadas del siglo XIX y comienzos del XX. Se detiene particularmente en la lectura que, sobre sus contribuciones políticas, ofreció Florentino González (jurista colombiano a quien se encomendó la inauguración de la cátedra de derecho constitucional en la Facultad de (...) Derecho de la Universidad de Buenos Aires) por cuánto ella inaugura la senda y los límites dentro de los cuales habrán de recogerse la mayoría de las referencias locales que aparecen en las siguientes décadas. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper explores the background to Mill’s feminist thought by relating his Subjection of Women to his early piece ‘On Marriage’ and three contemporary essays that were written among the radical Unitarian community of South Place Chapel by Harriet Taylor Mill, William Bridges Adams, and William Johnson Fox. It seeks to demonstrate that Mill’s Subjection of Women still has close ties with the earlier feminist thought of the South Place Chapel circle. Specifically, it will show that key arguments like (...) the characterisation of marriage as slavery, the pernicious moral effects of gendered education, and the social benefits of women’s liberation feature in the early essays by Mill himself, Harriet Taylor Mill, William Bridges Adams, and William Johnson Fox as well as in Mill’s Subjection. (shrink)

Mill didn't resolve this puzzle: if prostitution must be tolerated according to his principle of liberty as it doesn't non-consensually harm others, why punish the accessory – the pimp? Yet in On Liberty's passage on pimps (CW 18:296–7) Mill seriously considers restricting pimps’ speech for reasons other than preventing harm: pimps’ speech undermines decisional autonomy for purposes the state regards as immoral, and in response the state may use coercion to counteract such immoral influences. In light of this, I argue (...) that we need to rethink the standard view that Mill opposes restrictions on speech that does not harm others. (shrink)

Helen McCabe’s excellent book builds a patient, detailed, nuanced case for thinking of Mill as a socialist. The depth of her scholarship, and the care with which she constructs the argument, make t...

Cet ouvrage est une étude sur les influences que la pensée de John Stuart Mill a subies, sur la causalité des phénomènes sociaux et sur le caractère pluridisciplinaire des phénomènes économiques qu’il décrit ainsi que la façon dont il analyse une réalité économique complexe avec un arrière-plan philosophique.

The passage of Mill’s Utilitarianism that sets out the condition in which one pleasure has a superior quality than another stokes interpretive controversy. According to the Lexical Interpretation, Mill takes one pleasure, P1, to be of a superior quality than another, P2, if, and only if, the smallest quantity of P1 is more valuable than any finite quantity of P2. This paper argues that, while the Lexical Interpretation may be supported with supplementary evidence, the passage itself does not rule out (...) qualitative superiority without lexical dominance, as it only requires P1 to be more valuable than any quantity of P2 that it is possible for someone to experience. Some will object that this concession to opponents of the Lexical Interpretation still renders Mill’s condition for qualitative superiority too demanding to be plausible. However, if Mill’s qualitative rankings apply to higher-order pleasures taken in modes of existence as such rather than to the pleasures of different activities chosen from within these modes, the objection loses much of its force. One upshot is that Mill may have more to contribute to debates in contemporary population axiology than is usually acknowledged. (shrink)

Mill defines utilitarianism as the combination of a “theory of life” and a moral claim: only pleasure and freedom from pain are desirable as ends, and the promotion of happiness is the sole goal of moral action. So defined, utilitarianism is open to ad hominem pessimistic objection: a “theory of life” which entails the impossibility of happiness fits poorly with a morality centered on its promotion. The first two challenges Mill confronts in Utilitarianism share this pessimistic structure. Interestingly, however, these (...) challenges paint inverted pictures of the best utilitarian life: one suggests this life is satisfying but ignoble, the other that it is noble but unsatisfying. I explain Mill's treatment of both challenges as genuinely pessimistic interpretations of utilitarianism's “theory of life.” Read through the lens of Mill's engagement with pessimism, these challenges point to distinctive conceptions of dignity and satisfaction that play a significant role in Mill's ethics. (shrink)

Bei Tocquevilles fast gleichaltrigem Zeitgenossen John Stuart Mill Umfang und Richtung der intellektuellen Einflussnahme zu klären, ist ein komplizierteres Unterfangen. In direkter Manier hat wohl keener von beiden den jeweils anderen wirklich significant geprägt. Andererseits ist es durchaus auffällig, wie sehr sich beide wenigstens zeitweilig mit den gleichen Fragen der modernen Demokratie beschäftigt und im Ergebnis auch beide einen aristokratisch-elitär geprägten Liberalismus vertreten haben.

ZusammenfassungIn diesem Aufsatz wird zunächst das klassische Theodizee-problem dargelegt und eine Typologie seiner möglichen Lösungsarten (apologetische Konzeptionen, Atheismus, begriffliche Modifikationen an der Gottesvorstellung, Agnostizismus) entworfen. Nach einer zusammenfassenden Erörterung dieser Strategien wendet sich der Verfasser einer reizvollen, bislang kaum beachteten Stellungnahme von J. S. Mill zu, die er dann innerhalb der weiteren Ausführungen zu berücksichtigen sucht. Im zweiten Teil des Aufsatzes wird die apologetische Lösung der Theodizee durch F. v. Kutschera systematisch rekonstruiert und kritisch beleuchtet. Diese Lösung hebt hervor, der (...) letzte Sinn des Leidens sei zwar für uns nicht erfassbar, wir könnten aber im Vertrauen auf die Vorsehung Gottes annehmen und uns im Rahmen der Gemeinschaft mit Gott darauf verlassen, dass Heilsgeschichte zugleich Leidensgeschichte sei. Hierbei sollen wir im Glauben mit Gott den Weg zueinander gehen – wohin er auch führt. Nach einer partiellen Infragestellung dieser Lösung, stellt der Verfasser die Frage, ob unser Vertrauen zu Gott unter allen denkbaren Umständen bedingungslos bleiben sollte. Dabei wird auf die Risiken eines blinden und fanatischen Glaubens hingewiesen. Demgegenüber wird das Bedürfnis danach bejaht, unseren Glauben doch an die positiven Aussichten für die Erfüllung gewisser menschlicher Fundamentalerwartungen (keine Vernichtung von Menschheit sowie anderer Lebewesen, kein sinnloser und umfassender Weltuntergang, die Anerkennung und Bewahrung der Schöpfung etc.) zu binden. (shrink)

El presente artículo muestra, dentro del pensamiento filosófico de John Stuart Mill, su enfoque de sociedad avanzada, apoyada en la libertad del individuo como soporte básico, en el marco de estados democráticos, y que se desarrolla y avanza gracias a la educación. Las implicaciones beneficiosas para la humanidad, que se siguen, de ello son relevantes.

This is the second volume, following the well-received edition of Mill's writing essential to understanding the liberal tradition. His commentary on a full spectrum of issues gives further insight into the strengths and vulnerabilities of liberal democratic theory in practice. Rare and difficult to locate material is here brought to attention and made available. The contribution of Mill's most authoritative biographer, Nicholas Capaldi, is a singular and unmatched highlight. The tenor of St. Augustine's Press volumed on Mill is distinct in (...) its intention to place his work in the framework of political philosophy and the conversation of the viability of liberalism as a tradition of thought. (shrink)

The guise of the good doctrine is the view that whatever we desire, we desire it under the guise of the good, i.e. it appears good to us in some way. In this paper I first clarify the role that the doctrine of the guise of the good plays in the first step of J. S. Mill’s proof of the principle of utility (in which he shows that one’s happiness is desirable as an end). Then I provide textual evidence in (...) favour of ascribing the doctrine to Mill, arguing that he commits to it to the extent that he equates finding something pleasant and thinking it desirable. Finally I counter two potential sources of evidence against ascribing the guise of the good to Mill: apparent desires based on ‘fixed ideas’, and those habitual desires which are no longer associated with finding their objects pleasant. I argue that ‘fixed ideas’ do not feed actual desires, and that the habitual desires which seem to escape the guise of the good, even if not uncommon, have a secondary status as desires. (shrink)

Janelle Pötzsch ABSTRACT: This paper discusses Mill’s early essay on marriage and divorce and gives two possible sources of influence for it: Plato’s arguments on the appropriate scope of the law in book IV of his Republic and Unitarian ideas on motherhood. It demonstrates that Plato’s Republic and Mill’s essay both emphasize the crucial ….

In The Community of Advantage, Robert Sugden reconstructs and defends an account of the liberal tradition in normative economics in the light of the findings of Behavioural Economics. In...

Es dürfte kaum möglich sein, die Bedeutung des Werks von John Stuart Mill für das politische Denken der Gegenwart zu übertreiben. Insbesondere die Schrift Über die Freiheit ist unbestritten ein Hauptwerk liberalen Denkens und ein unerlässlicher Referenzpunkt für gegenwärtige Debatten über Ziele und Grenzen staatlicher und gesellschaftlicher Machtausübung. Das 19. Jahrhundert in Großbritannien wird heute häufig gedanklich mit der Dominanz des Manchester-Liberalismus verbunden.

Two prejudices have hampered our understanding of John Stuart Mill’s central argument for free speech. One prejudice is that arguments for free speech can only be made in terms of values or rights. This prejudice causes us to miss the depth of Mill’s argument. He does not argue that silencing speech is harmful or violates rights, but instead that silencing speech is a uniquely self-undermining act; it undermines the ground upon which it is based. But even if we overcome this (...) prejudice and appreciate the self-undermining character of Mill’s argument, the prejudice that epistemic justification is a completable task blinds us to the role of open-mindedness in his argument; and failing to see this leads us to wrongly conclude that his argument is invalid. It is only once we have overcome both prejudices that we can appreciate the depth and power of Mill’s argument for free speech. (shrink)

Why must we respect others’ rights to dispute scientific knowledge such as that the Earth is round, or that humans evolved, or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the Earth? In this paper, I argue that in On Liberty Mill defends the freedom to dispute scientific knowledge by appeal to a novel social epistemic rationale for free speech that has been unduly neglected by Mill scholars. Mill distinguishes two kinds of epistemic warrant for scientific knowledge: 1) the positive, direct evidentiary (...) warrant that scientific experts construct for their knowledge by applying the methods Mill had set out in his A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, and 2) a social testimonial warrant that the non-expert “public” has for what Mill refers to as their “rational[ly] assur[ed]” beliefs on scientific subjects. Mill does not argue that scientific claims can never be proven true with complete practical certainty to scientific experts, nor does he argue that scientists must engage in free debate with critics such as flat-earthers in order to fully understand the grounds of their scientific knowledge. Instead, Mill argues that in the absence of the freedom to dispute scientific knowledge, non-experts cannot establish that scientific experts are credible sources of testimonial knowledge. To establish the credibility of scientific expert speakers, non-expert audiences must have a rational assurance, Mill argues, that experts have satisfactory answers to objections that might undermine the positive, direct evidentiary proof of scientific knowledge. But since non-experts cannot distinguish objections that undermine such expert proof from objections that do not, censorship of any objection — even the irrelevant objections of literal or figurative flat-earthers — will prevent non-experts from determining whether scientific expert speakers are credible. Hence, while censoring irrelevant objections would not undermine the positive, direct evidentiary warrant that scientific experts have for their knowledge, doing so would destroy the non-expert, social testimonial warrant for that knowledge. The asymmetry between how expert scientific speakers and non-expert audiences warrant their scientific knowledge is what both generates and necessitates Mill’s social epistemic rationale for the “absolute” freedom to dispute it. (shrink)

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1972.