^{page 159 note 1} Dommanget, Maurice, Histoire du Premier Mai (Paris, 1953), pp. 223–224.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 2} Statistiques des Grèves, 1904, p. v; ibid., 1905, p. v, and Bulletin de l'Office du Travail, 13e année, no 5, Mai, 1906, p. 454.

^{page 159 note 3} Statistiques des Grèves, 1906, pp. v-vi and 777.

^{page 159 note 4} Statistiques des Grèves, 1906, pp. v-vi.

^{page 159 note 5} Statistiques des Grèves, 1906, pp. x-xi.

^{page 160 note 1} Quoted by Dommanget, op. cit., p. 226.

^{page 160 note 2} Dommanget, op. cit., pp. 223–225.

^{page 160 note 3} Statistiques des Greves, 1906, pp. 781–783.

^{page 161 note 1} For the best discussion of the eight-hour day movement see Maurice Dom-manget, op. cit.; also useful is Brécy, Robert, La Greve Generale en France (Paris, 1969).Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 2} Dommanget, op. cit., p. 155.

^{page 162 note 1} Brécy, op. cit., p. 26.

^{page 163 note 1} Dommanget, op. cit., pp. 198–200.

^{page 163 note 2} Dommanget, op. cit., p. 178.

^{page 163 note 3} Stearns, Peter, “Against the Strike Threat: Employer Policy toward Labor Agitation in France, 1900–1914”, in: The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 40, No 4, December 1968, pp. 474–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 163 note 4} Ibid., p. 485.

^{page 163 note 5} Ibid., p. 498.

^{page 164 note 1} Dommanget, op. cit., p. 190.

^{page 164 note 2} Dommanget, op. cit., p. 202.

^{page 164 note 3} The information on Merrheim's life can be found in Papayanis, Nicholas, “Alphonse Merrheim and Revolutionary Syndicalism, 1871–1917”, a thesis at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1969.Google Scholar The author is currently preparing a biography of Merrheim.

^{page 165 note 1} Willard, Claude, Les Guesdistes: Le Mouvement Socialiste en France, 1893–1905 (Paris, 1965), p. 91.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 1} Merrheim, Alphonse, “Dans le Bassin de Longwy: Cynisme capitaliste”, in: La Voix du Peuple, no 262, 5e année, October 29 – November 5, 1905, pp. 2–3Google Scholar; and idem, “Le Mouvement Ouvrier dans le Bassin de Longwy”, in: Le Mouve-ment Socialiste, He Série, Vile année, no 168–169, December 1 and 15, 1905, pp. 425–482.

^{page 166 note 2} Confédération Generale du Travail, XIVe Congrès National Corporatif (Bourges, 1904), p. 205–207Google Scholar (for the committee's proposal); pp. 204–220 (for the full debate); pp. 219–220 (for the results of the voting).

^{page 167 note 1} Archives Nationales (hereafter referred to as AN), F7, 13267, Paris, December 11, 1905, M/1919.

^{page 167 note 2} Merrheim, Alphonse, “A Bourges”, in: L'Ouvrier Métallurgiste, 14e année (2e Série), no 154, October 1, 1904, p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 3} La Voix du Peuple, no 219, 4e année, December 25 – January 1, 1905, p. 2. He also went to the Centre, a trip which prompted a spy to write that Merrheim was a “good orator, prudent in word and deed, but all the more dangerous”. See AN, F7, 13267, Paris, December 11, 1905, M/1919.

^{page 167 note 4} See “Congres Régional des Ouvriers Métallurgistes de la Région du Nord, tenu à Lille, le 19 Mars 1905, Compte Rendu”, in: L'Ouvrier Métallurgiste, no 160, March 1, 1905, p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 5} The manifesto is in L'Ouvrier Métallurgiste, 15e année (2e Série), no 161, April 1, 1905, p. 1.

^{page 167 note 6} Union Fédérale des Ouvriers Métallurgistes de France, XHe Congrès National des Ouvriers Métallurgistes (Paris, 1905), pp. 288–295Google Scholar (report of the Commission on the Eight-Hour Day); pp. 296–297 (the resolution calling for the eight-hour day and for propaganda for May 1, 1906).

^{page 167 note 7} For instance, on December 25, 1905, a typical day, he conducted a two-hour meeting at Vichy and immediately went to the next town for another. See “Les Meetings des Huit Heures”, in: La Voix du Peuple, no 273, 6e année, January 7–14, 1906, p. 3; also ibid., no 272, January 1–7, 1906, p. 3.

^{page 168 note 1} AN, F7, 12890, January 19, 1906, 4,656.

^{page 168 note 2} Conférence des Fédérations. Journées des 5 et 6 Avril 1906 (Brochure 8°, 40 pp., n.d.).

^{page 168 note 3} Ibid., pp. 11–13.

^{page 168 note 4} Ibid., pp. 18–19.

^{page 168 note 5} Ibid., pp. 27–28; p. 31.

^{page 168 note 6} Ibid., pp. 6–7; pp. 8–9.

^{page 168 note 7} Ibid., pp. 19–20.

^{page 168 note 8} Ibid., pp. 33–34.

^{page 168 note 9} Ibid., pp. 39–40. See also “Résolutions de la Conférence des Fédérations”, in: La Voix du Peuple, no 287, 6e année, April 15–21, 1906, p. 1.

^{page 169 note 1} The first formal study of this strike was by Merrheim, Alphonse, “Un Grand Conflit Social: La Grève d'Hennebont”, part I, in: Le Mouvement Socialiste, IIe Série, VIIIe année, no 180, November, 1906, pp. 194–218Google Scholar; part II, ibid., no 181, December, 1906, pp. 347–379. Hereafter cited as “Un Grand Conflit Social”, I and II.

^{page 170 note 1} “Un Grand Conflit Social”, I, pp. 197–198.

^{page 170 note 2} Ibid., pp. 202–207.

^{page 170 note 3} AN, F7, 12765, Hennebont, December 11, 1905 (dossier “Morbihan”).

^{page 170 note 4} AN, F7, 12786, April 4, 1906 (dossier “Lorient”).

^{page 170 note 5} Ibid., April 10, 1906.

^{page 170 note 6} This information is contained in a letter, dated April 9, 1906, Giband sent to the commissioner of police of Hennebont. Since Giband feared trouble, he requested forces to maintain public order. The letter is in AN, F6, 12786, April 11, 1906 (dossier “prefects reports”).

^{page 170 note 7} For just a few examples of leaders going back and forth between Lorient and Hennebont before the strike see: AN, F7, 12786, April 17, 1906, April 24, 1906, and especially April 18, 1906 (dossier “Lorient”). The last report deals with a Lorient meeting at which a delegate of the CGT, Pommier, spoke. He had toured the area and reported on Hennebont. The workers there, he said, could not strike until they received a final response to their demands from the company. A local leader, however, reported that the Hennebont workers had already voted to support the Lorient workers and had formed an entente for that purpose.

^{page 171 note 1} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, April 15, 1906.

^{page 171 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 171 note 3} See p. 170, note 7.

^{page 171 note 4} AN, F7, 12786, Lorient, April 17,1906. Also see AN, F7, 12886, Lorient, April 22, 1906. The latter report states that Jacoby, a CGT delegate, and Crainac, a militant, have left Lorient for Hennebont to confer with the workers of the forges. The report predicts that the Hennebont workers will strike on April 23 at 6 a.m. There was another more precise report on this meeting: see AN, F7, 12786, April 22, 1906 (Paris, “prefect to Interior cabinet”, Dossier “prefect”). This note stated that Jacoby addressed a meeting of about 600 workers where demands were read. Jacoby, a woman, also persuaded the women of Hennebont to take part in the strike. Then Crainac followed and called for a general strike. The workers, however, decided to wait until the following day, April 23, in order to receive Giband's final answer. The report concluded that a strike appeared imminent.

^{page 171 note 5} AN, F7, 12786, April 22, 1906 (“prefect”). Two reports in this dossier discuss this meeting.

^{page 171 note 6} There is a series of reports which deal with this meeting, some more detailed than others. See, for example, AN, F7, 12786, April 23, 1906 (from “préfet à Commerce et Intirieur”), and Hennebont, April 23, 1906. The most satisfactory and detailed reports, however, are those of Vannes, April 26, 1906.

^{page 171 note 7} Although the strike broke out before May 1, there is no doubt that it was part of the CGT's eight-hour day movement. See Union Fédérate des Ouvriers Metallurgistes, XI He Congrès National des Ouvriers Métallurgistes – Compte Rendu des Travaux du Comité Fédéral (Bourges, 1908), pp. 22–23.

^{page 171 note 8} AN, F7, 12786, Vannes, April 28, 1906.

^{page 171 note 9} For Sélaquet's first meetings see AN, F7, 12786, Vannes, April 30, 1906 (two reports with the same date); Hennebont, April 30, 1906, and Hennebont, May 1, 1906.

^{page 172 note 1} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, May 2, 1906.

^{page 172 note 2} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, May 3, 1906.

^{page 172 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 172 note 4} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, May 4, 1906.

^{page 172 note 5} To trace these events see AN, F7, 12786. This goldmine of information contains daily police reports on events.

^{page 172 note 6} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, May 17, 1906.

^{page 172 note 7} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, May 26, 1906. Merrheim did not arrive on time and the next few meetings were taken over by others. See Hennebont, June 1, 1906.

^{page 172 note 8} Merrheim, Alphonse, “A Hennebont”, in: L'Ouvrier Métallurgiste, 16e année, no 176, July 1, 1906, p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 9} L'Ouvrier Metallurgiste, 16e année, no 177, August 1, 1906, p. 3.Google ScholarMerrheim, Alphonse, “A Hennebont”, in: La Voix du Peuple, no 301, 6e année, July 15–22, 1906, p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 1} For the report and information on Kerbastard see AN, F7, 12786, Lorient, April 27, 1906.

^{page 173 note 2} Merrheim, Alphonse, “Au Pilori!: Kerbastard transfuge”, in: L'Ouvrier Métal-lurgiste, 16e année, no 177, August 1, 1906, p. 2.Google Scholar See also Merrheim, Alphonse, “La Grève d'Hennebont”, in: La Voix du Peuple, no 303, 6e année, July 29 – August 5, 1906, p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 3} The process by which the company instituted this tactic was drawn out. The idea to open the factory to those who wished to return was first mentioned early in July. During the rest of the month Giband issued letters and manifestoes, the union answered him, and several strikers began returning to work. For much of this information which I have pieced together, see the following: AN, F7, 12786, Rapport, Lorient, June 6, 1906; AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, July 13, 1906; Alphonse Merrheim, “A Hennebont”, in: La Voix du Peuple, loc. cit.; AN, F7, 12786, June 9, 1906; and AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, June 12, 1906.

^{page 173 note 4} See AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, June 15, 1906.

^{page 173 note 5} The reader's attention is called to AN, F7, 12786, where the prefect of Hennebont issued daily reports to his superiors in Paris on the local situation. Follow the reports from July 15 on to trace the count of men returning to work.

^{page 173 note 6} Homes of some of the strike breakers were set afire. In another instance the wife of one man on the job was attacked by the wives of two strikers. Also, a strike breaker's child was hit by strikers. See, for example, AN, F7, 12786, Vannes, July 20, 1906; Hennebont, July 20, 1906; Hennebont, August 6, 1906; Hennebont, August 7, 1906; and Hennebont, August 8, 1906.

^{page 174 note 1} AN, F7, 12786, Vannes, June 24, 1906; Lorient, July 6, 1906; Vannes, July 9, 1906; Hennebont, July 10, 1906; and, also found in ibid., the journal Action for July 13, 1906. The suspension was lifted on August 10, when the strike was almost over.

^{page 174 note 2} XIIIe Congrès National des Ouvriers Métallurgistes, op. cit., pp. 226–227.

^{page 174 note 3} Details of this meeting, which is better covered than most, are in AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, June 5, 1906 (from the Commissioner of Police of Hennebont to the Prefect of Morbihan).

^{page 174 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 174 note 5} Ibid. Moreover, Merrheim answered a charge about receiving as a CGT functionary a large monthly wage, 250 francs, while directing the strike by stating that he would have received 300 francs per month if he had remained a practicing copper worker. He continued, somewhat apologetically, that he had no children, his wife earned three francs a day, and he paid all his debts. He could not deny receiving high wages while others were unemployed, however. He presented the argument that the overall interests of syndicalism required that leaders get paid and that strikers, too, would ultimately benefit.

^{page 175 note 1} Le Nouvelliste du Morbihan, June 7, 1906.

^{page 175 note 2} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, June 2, 1906 (from the Commissioner of Police of Hennebont to the Prefect of Morbihan at Vannes).

^{page 175 note 3} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, June 2, 1906 (from the Prefect of Morbihan to “Intérieur, Cabinet et Sûreté, Paris”).

^{page 175 note 4} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, June 2, 1906.

^{page 175 note 5} When Merrheim arrived in Hennebont, he indicated that since the strikers had modified their demands, the company would probably accept them within two weeks. See note 2.

^{page 176 note 1} AN, F7, 13771 (le mouvement syndical dans la métallurgie (historique), n.d.).

^{page 176 note 2} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, June 10, 1906. The same report went on to offer an explanation for this violence. “One attributes his violent language to his anger: he has alluded to his arrest several times.” It makes no sense to say, as the report does, that Merrheim was more violent because he hoped for amnesty. This also does not take into consideration the effect he would have produced on his audience, something of which he was aware. His possible arrest was a real threat, however, as the reader shall see in the rest of the narrative.

^{page 176 note 3} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, June 19, 1906.

^{page 176 note 4} Another report along the same lines is rather revealing. It is in the Police Archives and is a biographical sketch of Merrheim up to 1907. Concerning his Hennebont activities the report said, “He [Merrheim] is considered at the Bourse du Travail and in workers' organizations as a militant syndicalist and he is often picked to conduct conferences in the provinces. Thus, last year in April, he went to Denain for several meetings. A little later in June, he went every fifteen days among the Hennebont strikers to exhort them to continue the strike. His language is rather violent and he called himself a partisan of direct action.” See Archives de la Préfecture de Police de Paris, B/a 1686, March, 1907 (“Au Sujet de la Confédération du Travail – Ses Effectifs – Son Comité – Renseigne-ments sur les Principaux Membres de ce Comite”, Dossier 1).

^{page 176 note 5} Merrheim's only comment when in Hennebont was to excuse himself for being late because, he said, the government accused him of being mixed up in a plot and he could not leave Paris. See AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, June 2, 1906.

^{page 176 note 6} AN, F7, 12786, Vannes, June 22, 1906.

^{page 176 note 7} AN, F7, 13772, Paris, June 28, 1906, M/1268.

^{page 177 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 177 note 2} This information is from the secret report of “A Correspondent”, found in AN, F7, 12786, June 14, 1906.

^{page 177 note 3} Not only would Merrheim have to negotiate with capitalists to end the strike, but syndicalists sought the active cooperation of socialists. Syndicalists did not agree with socialists on many social issues but could use the latter's help. See AN, F7, 12786, July 2, August 9 and August 10, 1906. The last two reports state that because the socialists intervened, the Minister of War granted a reprieve of twenty-eight days to all strikers being called for military instruction. He did this because he acknowledged that the strike resulted in hardship for the workers. A socialist deputy was instrumental in the reprieve, but syndicalists did not revise their negative estimation and distrust of all political parties.

^{page 177 note 4} Merrheim, “Un Grand Conflit Social”, II, p. 355.

^{page 177 note 5} There are several sources for this meeting. See L'Humanité, no 808, July 4, 1906, p. 2, and no 809, July 5, 1906, p. 2; AN, F7, 12786, July 5, 1906; Merrheim, “Un Grand Conflit Social”, II, pp. 359–361; and especially Le Nouvelliste du Morbihan, July 8, 1906, which is more detailed than the other sources.

^{page 177 note 6} See Le Nouvelliste du Morbihan, July 8, 1906, and Merrheim, “Un Grand Conflit Social”, II, pp. 360–361.

^{page 177 note 7} L'Humanité, no 809, July 5, 1906, p. 2.

^{page 177 note 8} Merrheim never mentioned his meeting with Clemenceau in his formal study of the Hennebont strike, and there is not much information on precisely what he and the minister talked about. However, during one trip to Paris he did apparently talk to Clemenceau about “police brutalities” in Hennebont. This very fragmentary information is contained in two telegrams sent by Merrheim from Paris to Hennebont. One is dated July 24, 1906, and the other July 25, 1906; both are in AN, F7, 12786. Merrheim went to Paris frequently to attend to federation business during the strike. However, he also tried to help the Hennebont strikers from Paris; Clemenceau was in Paris and so was the headquarters of the Compagnie Française des Cirages. Shortly after the above meeting he was called back to Hennebont, where he urged that the strike continue because the workers had gained nothing from the company yet. See Merrheim, “Un Grand Conflit Social”, II, p. 367; and AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, July 29, 1906, and July, 31, 1906.

^{page 178 note 1} Merrheim's account in “Un Grand Conflit Social”, II, pp. 367–373, agrees in all its essentials with police reports being filed during the events. Moreover, Merrheim admitted that his call for an end to the strike was unpopular with many workers.

^{page 178 note 2} For a reprint of this letter, see Alphonse Merrheim, “A Hennebont”, in: La Voix du Peuple, no 304, 6e année, August 5–12, 1906, p. 2, and “Un Grand Conflit Social”, II, p. 368.

^{page 178 note 3} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, August 2, 1906.

^{page 178 note 4} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, August 2, 1906, Hennebont, August 3, 1906, and Hennebont, August 4, 1906.

^{page 178 note 5} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, August 5, 1906.

^{page 178 note 6} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, August 5, 1906 (two reports with the same date); AN, F7, 13772, August 5 [1906] (Dossier - Union Federate des Ouvriers Metal-lurgistes, 1906, pp. 12–26).

^{page 178 note 7} AN, F7, 13772, August 6 [1906] (Dossier – Union Federate des Ouvriers Métal-lurgistes, 1906, pp. 12–25).

^{page 179 note 1} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, August 4, 1906.

^{page 179 note 2} Merrheim, , “Un Grand Conflit Social”, II, pp. 368–369Google Scholar, and L'Humanité, August 9, 1906, p. 1.

^{page 179 note 3} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, August 6, 1906.

^{page 179 note 4} Full details of the meeting at which these terms were agreed upon are in AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, August 9, 1906. A full list of the terms of the settlement is given in Merrheim, “Un Grand Conflit Social”, II, pp. 369–370.

^{page 179 note 5} For a copy of this poster, entitled “Avis Aux Ouvriers des Forges d'Hennebont”, see AN, F7, 12786 (n.d., in the dossier from the prefect of Morbihan to the Minister of the Interior, dated August 12, 1906).

^{page 179 note 6} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, August 10, 1906.

^{page 179 note 7} AN, F7, 12786, see the meetings for August 10 and 11, 1906.

^{page 179 note 8} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, August 12, 1906.

^{page 179 note 9} Ibid., and Merrheim, , “Un Grand Conflit Social”, II, pp. 371–373.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 10} AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, August 12, 1906.

^{page 179 note 11} Merrheim, , “Un Grand Conflit Social”, II, p. 372.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 180 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 180 note 3} This speech is in AN, F7, 12786, Hennebont, August 12, 1906.

^{page 180 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 180 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 180 note 6} Ibid.

^{page 180 note 7} Ibid.

^{page 180 note 8} Merrheim, , “Un Grand Conflit Social”, II, pp. 377–378.Google Scholar For the overall conclusions, see ibid., pp. 375–379.

^{page 180 note 9} Levine, Louis, The Labor Movement in France (New York, 1913), p. 169Google Scholar; see ibid., pp. 375–379.

^{page 181 note 1} “Les Policiers dans les Syndicats”, in: La Voix du Peuple, no 294, 6e année, May 27 and June 3, 1906, p. 1.

^{page 181 note 2} Cf. de Grèves, Clemenceau Briseur: L'Affaire de Draveil-Villeneuve-Saint-Georges, présentée par Jacques Julliard [Collection Archives] (Paris, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 3} “Confédération Générate du Travail – Section des Fédérations – [Procès-Verbal de la] Séance du 23 Décembre, 1907”, in: La Voix du Peuple, no 400, 8e année, May 31 and June 7, 1908, p. 4.

^{page 181 note 4} Merrheim, Alphonse, “La Crise Syndicaliste”, in: Le Mouvement Socialiste, nos 215 and 216, November-December, 1909, pp. 291–299.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 5} XIIIe Congrès National des Ouvriers Métallurgistes, op. cit., pp. 23–25.

^{page 181 note 6} Merrheim, Alphonse, La Métallurgie (Paris: Edition de la Fédération des Métaux, 1913), p. 405.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 1} For his most important articles on Cluses see the following issues of La Voix du Peuple: no 200, August 14–21, 1904, pp. 1–2; no 204, September 11–18, 1904, pp. 1–2; no 208, October 9–16, 1904, p. 1; no 209, October 16–23, 1904, p. 1; no 212, November 6–13, 1904, p. 1; no 213, November 13–20, 1904, pp. 1–2; and no 216, December 4–11, 1904, p. 2. See also his articles on the strike at Cluses in the following issues of L'Ouvrier Métallurgiste: no 154, October 1, 1904, p. 4, and no 158, January 1, 1905, p. 1.

^{page 182 note 2} Delaisi, Francis, “Le Règne de l'Acier”, part I, in: Pages Libres, no 245, September 9, 1905, pp. 217–227Google Scholar; part II, ibid., no 246, September 16, 1905, pp. 237–247; part III, ibid., no 247, September 23, 1905, pp. 265–277.

^{page 182 note 3} Merrheim, , “Le Mouvement Ouvrier dans le Bassin de Longwy”, cited above, p. 166, note 1.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 4} XIIIe Congrès National des Ouvriers Métallurgistes, pp. 162–164.

^{page 182 note 5} Dolléans, Edouard, Histoire du Mouvement Ouvrier, Paris, 1957, p. 171Google Scholar; also Dolléans, Edouard, Alphonse Merrheim (Paris, 1913), pp. 13–14.Google ScholarMontreuil, Jean(Georges Lefranc) has the same information in his Histoire du Mouvement Ouvrier en France, des origines à nos jours (Paris, 1946), p. 300.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 1} See Merrheim, Alphonse, L'Organisation Patronale: Syndicats, Comités Ré-gionaux, Ententes et Comptoir, Assurance contre les Grèves (Paris: Imp. La Libératrice, n.d.), 29 pp.Google Scholar; Merrheim, Alphonse, “L'Organisation Patronale en France”, in: Le Mouvement Socialiste, IIe Série, 10e année, no 200, July 15, 1908, pp. 5–25Google Scholar; no 201, August 15, 1908, pp. 81–95; no 202, September 15, 1908, pp. 178–197; no 203, October 15, 1908, pp. 270–277; no 204, November 15, 1908, pp. 339–362; no 205, December 15, 1908, pp. 408–425; no 209, April, 1909, pp. 284–289; no 211, June, 1909, pp. 431–448; nos 215 and 216, November-December, 1908, pp. 321–346. See also Gras, C., “Merrheim et le Capitalisme”, in: Le Mouvement Social, no 63 (April-June, 1968), pp. 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar