Politics and international peace issues, particularly World War I and the concept of order in the postwar world, were compelling for members of the British intelligentsia, including figures associated with the influential literary and political circle known as the Bloomsbury Group - and especially political activist Leonard Woolf, one of the founding members of the League of Nations Society.⁽³⁾ The League activities of Lord Robert Cecil and the prominent feminist Ray Strachey, who were Woolf's associates, are indicative of the complex working relationship of such activists. While much is known of Cecil's work on the League, partly acknowedged through a Nobel Prize in 1937, little is known of Strachey's work, and nothing has been published on their 1923 American tour in support of the League. Cecil was also accompanied on the tour by Philip Noel- Baker who had been on Cecil's staff as part of the British delegation at the Versailles Peace Conference and later served as Cecil's private secretary on League matters. Like the Cecils and Stracheys, Noel-Baker and his wife, Irene, were good friends of Leonard and Virginia Woolf. Perhaps the Stracheys were most closely connected to the Woolfs, since Ray's sister, Karin, was married to Virginia's brother, Adrian Stephen. In any case, Cecil's tour emphasizes political cooperation between American and British pro-League groups and also illustrates the complex nature of Bloomsbury political and social relationships.

As the British Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs during the war, Lord Cecil was among the first to read the Fabian Society report, written by his friend Leonard Woolf, advocating the creation of a league of nations. In 1915, Woolf's report was published in special supplements of The New Statesman and was subsequently transformed into a book, entitled International Government: Two Reports (1916).⁽⁴⁾ Into the 1920s, Cecil and Woolf continued to discuss matters raised by this book. In a letter of April 4, 1921, for instance, Cecil began a dialogue with praise: "I read your book on International Government, and I need not say that I read it with great pleasure and admiration. It sets out one of the main arguments for the League with unanswerable force." Much of Cecil's discussion centered on his very perceptive observation that cooperation among social classes was essential in order to promote international cooperation. Cecil wrote in part: ...I do not quite understand why you insist so strongly on the one hand that common interests of different nations are much greater than their hostilities and, on the other, that precisely the opposite is true of the different classes in the nations themselves. I know you have the authority of the Prime Minister [David Lloyd George] in support of your point of view, but that does not recommend it to me! Surely, the whole of your powerful argument in favour of international cooperation applies equally to class cooperation. In other words, is not class war and class consciousness and all the rest of it really only another form of the same vice as underlies extreme nationalism?⁽⁵⁾

In his lengthy response of April 11, Woolf agrees that cooperation on all levels is desirable but, perhaps, more difficult to achieve at the national level for economic reasons. He describes in some detail the economic differences of classes at the national level, particularly since the Industrial Revolution, and then observes: This is a completely different situation from that which exists in the world of nations. There is nothing in the organization of the society of nations which assumes and makes inevitable such a conflict of interests, although of course, as I said, some of the interests of some nations are in conflict with some of the interests of other nations.

I am afraid that I have written at terrible length about this, and I am not sure that I have made myself clear. But I feel that the point is of enormous importance at the present day. Personally I think that the class war and the conflict of class interests are the greatest curses, and that the first thing that one should aim at is to abolish this conflict and class war. I think you want exactly the same kind of cooperation between individuals and classes in a nation as you want between nations, but that you cannot possibly get it so long as society is organized as it is today.⁽⁶⁾

Woolf closes by promising to send Cecil his latest book on the subject, Socialism and Cooperation (National Labour Press, 1921).

Cecil continued to explore ways to promote the kind of cooperation that he and Woolf discussed in this exchange of letters. Indeed, advocating the League of Nations in a speech that he delivered in Toronto during his North American tour a couple of years later, Cecil used language reminscent of Woolf's 1921 letter:

[The] theory might perhaps be called the family theory of nations. That recognizes that there is no distinction between nations and individuals, from the ethical point of view; that they are all members one of another, that they all rise and fall with one another; that if misfortune happens to one of them it depresses all the rest; if prosperity comes to one of them it helps all the rest. That is the true theory; that is the theory which is in accordance, as I read it, with all the best economic and historical teachings; and that is the theory which lies at the base of the League of Nations.⁽⁷⁾

Woolf's report of 1915 had so favorably impressed Cecil that he had much of it included in the British draft proposal of the League and then passed it on to President Woodrow Wilson. Cecil also participated in the Versailles Peace Conference where he, Wilson, and General Jan Smuts played key roles in drafting the League Covenant. Thus, both Cecil and Woolf were very much a part of the League movement, although Woolf had a less public role than Cecil did as an "idea man" for the Labour Party and as a publicist for the League.

After the U.S. Senate rejected, in 1920, the Versailles Treaty with its provision for American membership in the League, European League members still hoped that the United States might become a member. American internationalists, like their British counterparts,⁽⁸⁾ not only shared this hope, but many of them worked through organizations to create a broad-based public education program designed to generate popular support for the League. The Foreign Policy Association, for example, adopted a program which provided for publications, citizens' meetings, and a series of public speeches by prominent individuals.⁽⁹⁾ Because of his League activities, American organizations, especially the Foreign Policy Association and the Non-Partisan Association, invited Lord Cecil to give a series of speeches in the U.S. promoting the League of Nations in 1923.⁽¹⁰⁾ Ray Strachey, the wife of Oliver Strachey (a mathematician and cryptographer in the Foreign Office), was a prominent feminist and political activist who had met Cecil through League organizations in London a few years before, and so she agreed to do the advance work for his tour. Indeed, Cecil, Strachey, and Leonard Woolf were all members of the League of Nations Union, an influential organization formed across party lines in 1918; Ray served as its political secretary.⁽¹¹⁾ She also intended to advance her own projects, as she noted in a letter to her mother, Mary Berenson, on December 20, 1922: "I have practically decided to go to the USA, chiefly for the purpose of getting journalistic work, and to see about the novel [Marching On - book on the suffragist movement]."⁽¹²⁾ Ray traveled to New York in February 1923 to arrange Cecil's schedule and to ensure that he arrived "amid a blare of trumpets" - an objective that was partly ensured through a February 14 meeting with Colonel Edward M. House, who served as special advisor to President Woodrow Wilson during the war.⁽¹³⁾ Meg A. Meneghel explains that Ray readily chose to advance feminist politics and League politics in the United States because of her on-going work for both causes. And Ray used important family ties in the United States to make speaking engagements for Cecil at Bryn Mawr and elsewhere - a practice she probably borrowed from her mother and from her stepfather, Bernard Berenson. The Berensons had most likely used family connections in their successful business venture of collecting art for American patrons.⁽¹⁴⁾

Ray succeeded on all counts. Robert Cecil and Philip Noel-Baker arrived in New York on March 27 to spend about five weeks in the U.S. and Canada. During this time, Cecil delivered some fifty speeches in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and elsewhere; he also met with various groups and notables, including political leaders such as President Warren Harding and former President Wilson.

In her March 30 letter from New York to family members, Ray provides a sketch of daily preparations for Cecil's meetings and appearances:

My actual programme this week is to go to the [Thomas W.] Lamonts (where Ld R is staying) at 10 AM, collect all the letters dealing with his movements here, consult with him & Philip Baker over the days programme, & then, about 11:30 go by taxi (at public expense) to the office of the Foreign Policy Assn. where W. MacDonald & I send off cables and telegrams & talk by telephone to Canada & and see important visitors who come hundreds of miles to try & arrange secret interviews between such men as [Henry?] Ford, or [Senator William] Borah and Ld R. This is really the important side of the thing: but the social frills & the radio messages & all that take up more actual time. Well, then I lunch, spend the afternoon writing all the letters consequent on the decisions & at tea time return to Lamonts, when Ld R usually has a little time off for gossiping. Then he is driven to work on preparing his speeches & Philip settles down to the labour of preparing memoranda & heavy material for serious people, and I take the days ceremonial letters and answer them. We keep 2 typists working 12 hours a day at Lamonts, & two more at the office; its a terrific job. But I actually enjoy it.⁽¹⁵⁾

Cecil first met Thomas Lamont at the Versailles conference where he served as a financial expert. Lamont had a partnership in J. P. Morgan & Co., was a Republican, a member of the League of Nations Association and the Foreign Policy Association. He hosted Cecil and Philip Noel-Baker during their stay in New York.⁽¹⁶⁾

Ray Strachey's work on feminist issues was equally successful. Harcourt and Brace agreed to publish her novel Marching On; she was commissioned to write a number of articles by newspapers and magazines such as the New York Evening Post and the Ladies Home Journal, and she earned hundreds of dollars in lecture fees.⁽¹⁷⁾ On March 15, Ray reported to her family that she expected to cover all of her travel expenses through her work in the United States and that the Foreign Policy Association would pay for her passage back to England.⁽¹⁸⁾ Ray's 1923 lectures on women's rights were, in many ways, a continuation of the work she began in 1909, when Ray accompanied her friend Ellie Rendel and Anna Howard Shaw, president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, on a lecture tour of the United States.⁽¹⁹⁾ Indeed, the New York Times of April 8, 1923, described Ray Strachey as: "[o]ne of the first women in England to stand for a seat in Parliament....[She] has been in the political game since the age of eighteen [and] was an early and hard worker for suffrage in England." In that same newspaper article, Ray credited Lord Robert Cecil with having done "more than any other one man for woman suffrage in England." Thus, Lord Robert, who had encouraged and supported Ray Strachey in her parliamentary campaigns, joined forces with her on a number of issues.⁽²⁰⁾

For his part, Cecil also pronounced the American tour a success - though it had been a project he undertook with mixed feelings. He admitted in his autobiographies, A Great Experiment and All the Way, that, because Conservative Party policies on many issues (especially on the League) had changed so much, it was impossible for him to accept, in 1923, a position in the government headed by Conservative Party leader Stanley Baldwin. By 1920, Cecil had decided to devote his political energies to the League, and by that time he found himself out of step with his own party. Moreover, the Liberal Party was so badly split that it could not function as the opposition party, leaving that role to the Labour Party, which he could not join.⁽²¹⁾ In All the Way, Cecil describes his decision to devote himself to the League:

On the whole, therefore, I thought I could do a better job for the League outside all Parties. To be honest, I must add that definitely to go into opposition to the [Conservative] Party which had been so victoriously led by my father [Robert Cecil, the Marquis of Salisbury] and which was supported by my brother [Lord Hugh Cecil] and my much-loved cousin - Arthur Balfour - was so distasteful that I could not have done it unless I had been quite certain that it afforded the only chance for peace.⁽²²⁾

Thus, the American tour seemed to him the best means of furthering League interests at the time.⁽²³⁾

Many Americans were in awe of Cecil's family tradition of government service - a tradition that dated back to Queen Elizabeth I.⁽²⁴⁾ Cecil's sincerity, passion for politics, especially the League, and his humility won over audiences regardless of their views on the League of Nations. A New York Times editorial on his first speech in the United States described Cecil as "A Practical Idealist" who had come here for a "free exchange of ideas" and to gain more information about Americans' perceptions of the League.⁽²⁵⁾ In a series of retrospective articles which appeared in May in different versions in the New York Times and the London Times, Cecil announced that he had fulfilled both of these objectives. He reported that he had had contact with a large number of people. (His speeches were well-attended, and they were often broadcast over the radio; in addition, his visit was given extensive coverage in the New York Times). Cecil observed that American audiences were always inquisitive and were, at the same time, courteous to a fault. During the question-and-answer sessions that Cecil conducted after his speeches, audiences usually regarded questioners as being disrespectful to the speaker if they were critical of the League. Nevertheless, Cecil correctly attributed widespread opposition to League membership to traditional American foreign policies which avoided involvement in international affairs and, hence, the kind of obligations required of League members, and to partisan politics that divided support for the League along party lines during the most recent presidential election.⁽²⁶⁾

The Ruhr crisis, which was brought on by the French and Belgian invasion of the Ruhr valley in January 1923, at a time when Germany was unable to make its war reparations payments, was very much on the minds of Americans during Cecil's visit; and, therefore, he spent a good deal of time discussing the crisis. He agreed with Americans that "the Ruhr was the greatest existing obstacle to American membership of the League." He conceded, in that same London Times article of May 10, 1923, that "...French action [in the Ruhr] is altogether irreconcilable with the spirit of the League, and [he] found it an almost impossible task to convince even those who were otherwise well disposed that there was any really effective reason other than the opposition of France why the League should not intervene."⁽²⁷⁾ To be sure, the Ruhr crisis moved Cecil's Bloomsbury associates and fellow League of Nations Union members Leonard Woolf and Professors Gilbert Murray and Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson, who were influential publicists in the British League of Nations movement, to write, in 1923, a number of articles for periodicals such as The Nation & Athenaem (edited, at the time, by Leonard Woolf), and The New Republic, calling for a peaceful solution to the crisis. Cecil believed that this crisis could be resolved through negotiations undertaken by all parties involved, including Germany; he optimistically predicted that the whole matter would be put before the League of Nations.⁽²⁸⁾ However, he rejected the use of force to resolve such crises - a position opposed by Dickinson and Woolf. In his August 1923 Empire Day lecture, which he delivered a few months after returning to London, Cecil maintained that "The League...has proved that public opinion and international co-operation are and have been weapons against war, and that peace can be secured by their means."⁽²⁹⁾ Dickinson insisted that unless the League forced great powers, like France, to comply with its policies, there was "no hope for the League."⁽³⁰⁾

Cecil had read International Government as well as other works by Woolf, so he was well aware that his friend was one of the early proponents of the use of force as a last resort to preserve peace when Cecil wrote Woolf about this issue years later.⁽³¹⁾ He reluctantly admitted to Woolf that he had underestimated the importance of force. In a letter of October 12, 1940, Cecil stated: "Public opinion was not robust enough for peace in the interval of (19-) 39 [i.e., 1919-1939] and the advocates of the League - inluding myself - were not insistent enough on the requirement of force as the ultimate necessity for the restraint of agression [sic]."⁽³²⁾ His conviction that the League should have responded more forcefully to events such as the Japanese aggression in Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930s motivated Cecil to continue his work for international cooperation through organizations such as the League of Nations Union and the London International Assembly.⁽³³⁾ By the 1940s, he had obviously modified his views on the efficacy of public opinion and international cooperation as the primary guarantors of international peace.⁽³⁴⁾

After the American tour of 1923, Lord Robert Cecil, Ray Strachey and Philip Noel- Baker continued their political activities. The tour did promote greater understanding of the League of Nations, even though the United States never did join the organization, and the League became a casualty of crises brought about by Japan, Germany, and Italy during the 1930s. Nevertheless, Cecil, Strachey, and Noel-Baker remained active in politics and worked with Leonard Woolf in some way. After he returned to England in May 1923, Cecil accepted the post of Lord Privy Seal in Stanley Baldwin's cabinet partly in order to work on League issues.⁽³⁵⁾ From 1926 to 1927, he represented Britain on the Disarmament Commission at Geneva, and then, in 1931, Leonard and Virginia Woolf's publishing company, the Hogarth Press, printed Cecil's A Letter to an M.P. on Disarmament. Ray Strachey, who is best known for "The Cause": A Short History of the Women's Movement in Great Britain (1928) and Millicent Garrett Fawcett (1931), also edited a book of feminist essays, Our Freedom and Its Results (1936), for the Hogarth Press. She returned to her post as Lady Nancy Astor's parliamentary secretary in 1931.⁽³⁶⁾ Moreover, Ray wrote essays for The Nation & Athenaeum and the Political Quarterly during Leonard's tenure on the editorial boards of both periodicals.⁽³⁷⁾ Philip Noel- Baker and Leonard Woolf served on the Labour Party's Advisory Committee on International Affairs. In 1929, Noel- Baker won a seat in the House of Commons on the Labour Party ticket and remained in Parliament until the 1950s; he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1959. Noel-Baker's book Disarmament (1926) and pamphlet "Disarmament and the Coolidge Conference" (1927) were published by the Hogarth Press.⁽³⁸⁾ Leonard Woolf remained active in politics until shortly before his death in 1969. He became secretary of the Labour Party Advisory Committee on Imperial Questions in 1924; he helped found the journal The Political Quarterly (1930), and he became a director of the New Statesman in 1942. He also wrote numerous books, articles, and pamphlets on politics; naturally, he was a staunch supporter of the United Nations and author of such books as Empire and Commerce in Africa (1920), Quack, Quack! (1935) (on fascism), and The War for Peace (1940).

     ³ Leonard Woolf, Beginning Again: An Autobiography of the Years 1911 to 1918. 1964. Reprint. (London: The Hogarth Press, 1972), 191-2. Approximately three years after it was established, the League of Nations Society merged with the League of Nations Association to form the League of Nations Union.
     ⁴ See Wayne K. Chapman and Janet M. Manson, "Carte and Tierce: Leonard, Virginia Woolf, and War for Peace," in Virginia Woolf and War: Fiction, Reality and, Myth, ed. Mark Hussey (New York: Syracuse U.P., 1991), 62-4.
     ⁵ Robert Cecil to Leonard S. Woolf, Henry W. and Albert A. Berg Collection, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations; hereafter cited as Berg Collection, NYPL. Permissions to quote from the unpublished correspondence of Cecil and Woolf, respectively, were granted by A. K. S. Lambton and Mrs. Trekkie Parsons, their literary executors.
     ⁶ Leonard S. Woolf to Robert Cecil, Berg Collection, NYPL.
     ⁷ Robert Cecil, "Education and the New Era: The League of Nations," in Education and Life: Addresses Delivered at the National Conference on Education and Citizenship, Held in Toronto, Canada, April 1923, ed. J. A. Dale (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1924), 259.
     ⁸ Ibid., 257. Cecil discussed at some length the role of the League of Nations Union in publicizing and promoting the League in Britain through the Ministry of Education and the school system, private organizations such as the Girl Guides, and by providing articles and speakers for organizations that requested them.
     ⁹ Warren F. Kuehl and Lynne K. Dunn, Keeping the Covenant: American Internationalists and the League of Nations, 1920-1939 (Kent: Kent State University Press, 1997), 64-7.
     ¹⁰ London Times, 22 February 1923, 10. Cecil returned to the U.S. to repeat his performance on at least one other occasion. Kuehl and Dunn, Keeping the Covenant, 79-80.
     ¹¹ New York Times, 8 April 1923, sec. 8, 11; The New Republic, 28 March 1923, 122; E. M. Forster, Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1962), 168-70; George W. Egerton, Great Britain and the Creation of the League of Nations: Strategy, Politics, and International Organization, 1914-1919 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1978), 90-92. Sir Edward Grey became president of the League of Nations Union, serving alongside David Lloyd George, Arthur Balfour, and Herbert Asquith who lent support as honorary presidents.
     ¹² Hannah Whitall Smith Papers, Manuscripts Department, Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. For permission to quote from Ray Strachey's papers in this collection, I am indebted to her daughter, Barbara Strachey Halpern.
     ¹³ Ray Strachey to Family, 15 February 1923, Smith Papers.
     ¹⁴ Meg A. Meneghel, "_Dear Mother': Ray Strachey's Role in Feminism and the League of Nations as Seen from the Lilly Library," in Women in the Milieu of Leonard and Virginia Woolf: Peace, Politics, and Education, eds. Wayne K. Chapman and Janet M. Manson (New York: Pace University Press, 1998), 90-1.
     ¹⁵ Smith Papers; Meneghel, "Dear Mother," 92. Cecil was sought out by a number of people including Salmon O. Levinson who used the opportunity to advance his views on the outlawry of war when Cecil was in Chicago. Robert H. Ferrell, Peace in Their Time: The Origins of the Kellogg- Briand Pact (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953), 35. Apparently, consultations of one sort or another were not uncommon among American and British political figures. For example, the Labour Party Advisory Committee on International Affairs invited peace activist Professor James Shotwell of Columbia University to attend a few of its meetings when it discussed disarmament issues in early 1924. Shotwell's visit occurred during Leonard Woolf's tenure as secretary for the committee. University of Sussex Library, Manuscripts Section, Leonard Woolf Papers, I.D. 1. c.
     ¹⁶ New York Times, 28 March 1923; Robert Cecil, A Great Experiment: An Autobiography (New York, 1941), 143; Kuehl and Dunn, Keeping the Covenant, 155. Lamont became an early supporter of the League of Nations, in part, because he understood the interdependence of international economic and political policies. Since he believed that a strong League depended on stable international financial relationships, he helped bring about several agreements, including the 1924 Dawes and the 1929 Young plans, which promoted financial stability.
     ¹⁷ Ray Strachey to Family, 15 February 1923; Ray Strachey to Family, 15 March 1923, Lilly Library; Meneghel, "Ray Strachey's Role," 92; Robert Cecil, A Great Experiment: An Autobiography (New York: Oxford University Press, 1941), 143.
     ¹⁸ Smith Papers.
     ¹⁹ Barbara Strachey Halpern, "Ray Strachey - A Memoir," in Women in the Milieu of Leonard and Virginia Woolf: Peace, Politics, and Education, eds. Wayne K. Chapman and Janet M. Manson (New York: Pace University Press, 1998), 78. Ray Costelloe Strachey became acquainted with the Strachey family through her friend Ellie Rendel who was a niece of Oliver Strachey. Many of the Strachey women were political activists in the women's suffrage movement - a cause that Ray's maternal grandmother, Hannah Whitall Smith, had also embraced.
     ²⁰ New York Times, 8 April 1923, sec. 8, 11. See Halpern, 83; Constance Rover, Women's Suffrage and Party Politics in Britain 1866-1914 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), 113, on Cecil's woman suffrage work.
     ²¹ Cecil, Experiment, 101; Robert Cecil, All the Way (London: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1949), 179-80. Cecil interpreted the Balwin government's extreme sensitivity toward even the slightest involvement on Cecil's part in international issues such as the Ruhr crisis of January 1923 and most especially the government's handling of the Corfu incident, when Italy attempted to annex Corfu in August, to mean that many Conservatives had never intended to utilize the League as an integral part of British foreign policy. See David Cecil, The Cecils of Hatfield House (London: Constable & Company Limited, 1973), 294-6, 305. David Cecil observes that Robert Cecil, like his father the Marquis of Salisbury, felt compelled to take principled stands on important political issues regardless of Conservative Party policies. However, this sort of independent action served to isolate Robert Cecil politically--a problem not experienced by his father. See also Hugh Cecil, "Lord Robert Cecil: A Nineteenth- Century Upbringing," History Today 25 (1975): 118-9, 124-5.
     ²² Cecil, All the Way, 192.
     ²³ Cecil, Experiment, 143.
     ²⁴ "Lord Robert Cecil: His Background and His Championship of the League of Nations, a Personal Sketch," Outlook 18 April 1923, 703-5.
     ²⁵ New York Times, 3 April 1923, 22.
     ²⁶ Robert Cecil, "The League of Nations: Lord R. Cecil in America," London Times, 10 May 1923, 15-16.
     ²⁷ Ibid., 16.
     ²⁸ New York Times, 28 April 1923, 2.
     ²⁹ Lord Robert Cecil, The Moral Basis of the League of Nations (The Essex Hall Lecture 1923) (London: The Linsey Press, 1923), 38.
     ³⁰ Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson, "Can These Bones Live?" The New Republic, 24 October 1923, 228-30.
     ³¹ For Leonard Woolf's views on the use of force see International Government, 82, 233, 255. See also Chapman and Manson, "Carte and Tierce," 62-7; Leonard and Virginia Woolf working together and the hitherto unpublished manuscript `In.L Re.ns.' Edited and Introduced by Wayne K. Chapman and Janet M. Manson. The Bloomsbury Heritage Series, No. 15 (London: Cecil Woolf, 1997), 4-6.
     ³² Robert Cecil to Leonard Woolf, 12 October 1940, Berg Collection, NYPL.
     ³³ Robert Cecil, "The London International Assembly," The Contemporary Review, April 1943, 193-4.
     ³⁴ For an explanation of his early views on these issues see Cecil, The Moral Basis, especially pages 37-8.
     ³⁵ Cecil, Experiment, 145-47.
     ³⁶ Lady Astor became the first woman elected to serve in Parliament. Halpern, "Ray Strachey," 82.
     ³⁷ J. H. Willis, Jr., Leonard and Virginia Woolf as Publishers: The Hogarth Press, 1917-1941 (Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 1992), 248.
     ³⁸ Ibid., 121, 136, 222-23.