Abstract
I now wish to turn to the suggestions for studying the history of political thought offered by W. H. Greenleaf, but subscribed to in varying degrees of explicitness by a number of other historians and philosophers. W. H. Greenleaf has been widely acknowledged as a significant contributor to the gradual development of a more historically sensitive attitude to the study of political thought. Pocock and Skinner, for example, while disagreeing with some of Greenleaf’s ideas, pay tribute to his efforts to change the character of the discipline.1 J. G. Gunnell has asserted that much of what Skinner has to say about history echoes what Greenleaf had said as early as 1964.2 However, when Greenleaf is mentioned in methodological discussions he is given very little consideration. I know of only one article that devotes more than a few sentences to his prescriptions for the study of the history of political thought, and even that article draws only upon Greenlea’s Order, Empiricism and Politics and neglects his subsequent theoretical development.3 One reason why Greenleaf’s methodological theories have never attracted the attention they deserve is because their author tends to present them in connexion with other intellectual pursuits. Therefore, the theory comes in fragments and nowhere appears in a comprehensive form. Thus, one of the aims of this chapter will be to construct a detailed account of the theory from Greenleaf’s scattered statements, and to relate it to the sources of its inspiration. Greenleaf, in this study, represents the first stage in the move away from traditional assumptions about, and ways of studying the history of political thought. However, he also represents a step back in time. Through British idealism he looks to Hegel for guidance in organizing the subject matter into a coherent whole. Hegel presents past philosophy as a system in development, and Greenleaf selectively appropriates some of Hegel’s ideas and develops Oakeshott’s brief remarks on the composition and organization of past philosophy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
J. G. A. Pocock,’“The Onely Politician”: Machiavelli, Harrington and Felix Raab’, Historical Studies: Australia and New Zealand, 12 (1966). 267; J. G. A. Pocock, Politics, language and Time (London, Methuen, 1972), 10; Q Skinner, ‘On Two Traditions of English Political Thought’, Historical Journal. 9 (1966). Passim;, Q. Skinner. ‘Some Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought and Action’. Political Theory. 2 (1974), 282 and 288.
J. G. Gunnell. ‘Method. Methodology and the Search for Tradition in the History of Political Theory: A Reply to Pocock’s Salute’, The Annals of Scholarship. 1 (1980), 32.
Andrew Lockyer, ‘“Traditions” as Context in the History of Political Theory’. Political Studies. XX VII (1979). 204–205; W. H. Greenleaf, Order. Empiricism and Politics: Two Traditions of English Political Thought 1500-1700 (Oxford. Published for the University of Hull by the Oxford University Press, 1964).
R. N. Berki, The History of Political Thought. 1–41; B. Parekh and R. N. Berki, ‘The History of Political Ideas: A Critique of Q. Skinner’s Methodology’ Journal of the History of Ideas. 34 (1973). Cf. R. N. Berki, Socialism (London. Dent. 1975). 1–38. and D. J. Manning, Liberalism (London. Dent. 1976); Germino, Beyond Ideology: The Revival of Political Theory. 14. 80. 131–139, 232; Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx. 4–6; B. A. Haddock. ‘The History of Ideas and the Study of Politics’. Political Theory 2 (1974), 420–431; Lockyer,’“Traditions” as Context in the History of Political Theory’, 202–217.
M. Oakeshott, ‘The Study of “Politics” in a University: An Essay in Appropriateness’ in Rationalism in Politics. 321–322; M. J. Oakeshott, ‘Political Laws and Captive Audiences’ in Talking to Eastern Europe: A Collection of the Best Reading From the Broadcasts and Background Papers of Radio Free Europe ed. with an introduction by G. R Urban (London. Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1964), 292; W. H. Greenleaf, ‘The World of Politics: Inaugural Lecture’ ( Swansea, University College of Swansea, 1968 ). I.
Oakeshott, ‘The Study of “Politics” in a University’. 328.
M. Oakeshott . ‘Learning and Teaching’ in The Concept of Education ed. R. S. Peters (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970 ). 166–167.
M. Oakeshott. On Human Conduct ( Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1975 ), 57.
W. H. Greenleaf . Methods of Political Reasoning In the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: The Argument by Correspondence and Historical Scientific Empiricism (Ph.D. thesis. University of London, 1954).
W. H. Greenleaf. Oakeshott’s Philosophical Politics (London, Longmans, 1966); W. H. Greenleaf. ‘Idealism. Modern Philosophy and Politics’, and ‘A Bibliography of Michael Oakeshott’ in Politics and Experience: Essays Presented to Professor Michael Oakeshott on the Occasion of His Retirement ed. Preston King and B. C. Parekh (Cambridge, University Press. 1968). 93–124 and 409–417 respectively.
When asked about his view on British entry into the European Economic Community Oakeshott is reported to have replied, ‘I do not find it necessary to hold opinions on such matters’. Quoted by Joanna Mack, ‘The L. S. E., A Monument to Fabian Socialism?’ New Society, 15 June, 1978, p.589. Cf. ‘I can understand someone giving up his soul to gain the whole world of academe: but to influence Mr. Crossman or his ilk… What sort of ambition is that?’ W. H. Greenleaf. review of Bernard Crick. Political Theory and Practice in Political Studies. XXI (1973), 225. Greenlcaf also suggests that even if there are practical lessons to be drawn from his work he docs ‘not want to stress them or draw them out as it is in… (his] view academically irrelevant, not to say pernicious, for a university teacher in his professional capacity primarily to conoern himself with such things’. W. H. Greenleaf. ‘The Character of Modern British Politics’. Parliamentary Affairs, XXVIII (1975), 368. Cf. Greenleaf’s earlier concern to ‘preserve the peaoe of the world and to prevent the resurgence of another Hitler’. W. H. Greenleaf. ‘Imperialism and Geopolitics’. World Affairs (N. S-). I (1947), 188.
W. H. Greenleaf, ‘Theory and the Study of Politics’. The British Journal of Political Science, 2 (1973), 467–477, and passim.
Greenleaf makes this criticism in two places, Oakeshott’s Philosophical Politics, 95; ‘Idealism, Modern Philosophy and Politics’, 109.
Greenleaf. Oakeshott’s Philosophical Politics, 95; Oakeshott, Experience and Its Modes. 72–3.
Greenleaf, ‘The World of Politics’, 20.
Ibid, 22; W. H. Greenleaf, review of G. A. Kelly, Idealism. Politics and History: Sources of Hegelian Thought and J. N. Shklar. Men and Citizens: A Study of Rousseau’s Social Thought in History, LV (1970), 273; Greenleaf. ‘Theory and the Study of Politics’, 469.
W. H. Greenleaf. review of J. D. B. Miller. Politicians: An Inaugural lecture in Political Studies. VII (1959), 310.
Greenleaf, ‘The World of Politics’, 22.
W. H. Greenleaf, ‘The History of Political Thought: How to do it’ (unpublished paper, 1974 ), 17.
W. H. Greenleaf, ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’ in Hobbes and Rousseau ed. Maurice Cranston and Richard Peters (New York, Doubleday Anchor, 1972). 27. fn. 56.
John Bowie. Western Political Thought. 9.
Greenleaf. Order. Empiricism and Politics, 12–13; Greenleaf. ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’. 33.
Greenleaf, Order. Empiricism and Politics, 3–4.
Greenleaf, Oakeshott’s Philosophical Politics, 28.
W. H. Greenleaf, ‘The Divine Right of Kings’, History Today. 14 (1964), 642; Greenleaf, ‘James I and the Divine Right of Kings’. 38 and 47.
Greenleaf, ‘The History of Political Thought’, 21.
Quoted in C. H. Mcllwain. ‘The Historian’s Part in a Changing World’, The American Historical Review. XLII (1937). 212. Greenleaf quotes part of this phrase in Order, Empiricism and Politics, 4.
Greenleaf. ‘Theory and the Study of Politics’, 470; W. H. Grecnleaf. ‘How Should a History of Political Thought be Organized?’ (unpublished paper. 1969), 2. This view is quite common. See. for example. H. Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (Harmondsworth, Penguin. 1973). 16 and 96; G. R. Elton, The Practice of History (London, Collins-Fontana. 1976). 86; Oakeshott, ‘History and the Social Sciences’, 77.
Greenleaf, Order, Empiricism and Politics, 2–3.
See. for example. Greenleaf. ‘Theory and the Study of Polities’, 468.]
Oakeshott. Experience and Its Modes, 93; Croce. Logic, 258. Cf. Oakeshott, On History. 80. Here he says the histonan is engaged in ‘constructing a past which has not survived’.
Carl Becker, ‘Everyman His Own Historian’, American Historical Review. 37 (1932), 221–236; Charles Beard, ‘Written History as an Act of Faith’, American Historical Review, 39 (1934), 219–229; B. Croce, My Philosophy trans. E. F. Carrit (London. Allen and Unwin. 1949). 198. He says, for example. ‘Histories stimulated and guided by no practical problems would be at best virtuosities or fairy-tales, not serious history’. Also see Croce. Theory and History of Historiography, 12.
W. H. Greenleaf, ‘Biography and the “Amateur” Historian: Mrs. Woodham-Smith’s “Florence Nightingale”’. Victorian Studies, III (1959- 1960). 202; W. H. Greenleaf. rev»ew of K. D. Brown (ed). Essays in Anti- Labour History: Responses to the Rise of Labour in Britain in Political Studies. XXIII (1975). 117; Grecnleaf. ‘Theory and the Study of Politics’, 471; Greenleaf. ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’. 28. Greenleaf calls these intrusions into the world of history ‘modal irrelevancics’, ‘Theory and the Study of Politics’, 471.
Oakeshott. On History, 98.
John Grier Hibben, Hegel’s Logic: An Essay in Interpretation (New York. Charks Senbner’s Sons. 1902), 151–152 and 299. Cf. T. H. Green. Works ed. R. L. Nettleship (London. Longmans. 1885–1888), vol..III, 225.
Bradley. Appearance and Reality. 307 and 107.
Ibid., 307.
Greenleaf. Order. Empiricism and Politics, 156.
Oakeshott. On History, 114 and 70. Cf. Oakeshott, Experience and Its Modes. 141.
G. W. F. Hegel. Reason In History trans. Robert S. Hartman (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merril, 1953), 68–70. Also see George Dennis O’Brien, Hegel On Reason and History (Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 1975), 47–53. Cf. Hegel. Lectures On the History of Philosophy trans E. S. Haldane (London. Kegan Paul. Trench. Trübner. 1892 ), vol. I. 32.
Greenleaf. ‘Theory and the Study of Polities’, 470–471; Oakeshott, Experience and Its Modes. 143.
Greenleaf, ‘How Should A History of Political Thought Be Organized’. 2; Grecnleaf, ‘Theory and the Study of Politics’. 471.
Oakeshott. On History, 90.
Oakeshott, On Human Conduct, 105.
See, for example, Greenleaf, ‘The World of Polities’, 8. Here he makes reference to M. Oakeshott, ‘The Idea of “Character” in the Interpretation of Modern Politics’ (unpublished, presented at a P. S. A. meeting, 1954 ).
Greenleaf, ‘The World of Politics’, 7.
W. H. Greenleaf . The British Political Tradition, vol. I, The Rite of Collectivism (London, Methuen, 1983), 11. Cf. ‘The problem of characterization is thus one of making a feasible unity out of a range of varying tendencies and to do so without ignoring any ambivalences, differences, or alterations that the evidence to hand may suggest’. Ibid, 9. Also see Greenleaf. ‘The Character of Modern British Politics’, 374 and W. H. Grcenleaf. ‘Laski and British Socialism’. History of Political Thought, II (1981), 575.
W. H. Greenleaf, ‘The Character of Modern British Conservatism’ in Knowledge and Belief in Politics eds. R Benewick, R. N. Berki and B. C. Parekh (London. Allen and Unwin. 1973), 177–212. ‘We must accept and somehow embody in our characterization the fact of diversity and contrast, the recognition that an ideology is not a single thing at all but a range of ideas and reactions. And this scope can only be identified by indicating the extremes of which it is capable, by describing the “cardinal antitheses” of this political disposition as revealed in modem Britain’. Ibid, 179. Also see W. H. Greenleaf. The British Political Tradition, vol. II. The ideological Heritage ( London. Mcthuen. 1983 ), 189–346.
Greenleaf, ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’, 27; Greenleaf, ‘Theory and the Study of Polities’. 471.
See, for example, the remark Greenleaf makes in ‘Idealism. Modem Philosophy and Politics’, 109; ‘a linked series of forms is surely involved…’
Greenleaf. ‘The World of Politics’. 23.
Greenleaf. ‘Theory and the Study of Politics’, 471–472.
W. H. Greenleaf, review of A. J. M. Milne, The Social Philosophy of English Idealism in Political Studies, X (1962), 323–324; Greenleaf. ‘Approaches to Freedom’. 251–254; M. Oakeshott. Hobbes On Civil Association ( Oxford. Basil Blackwell. 1975 ). 5.
Greenleaf. ‘Laski and British Socialism’, 576.
See. for example, Greenleaf, ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’, 24–33; W. H. Greenleaf, review of G. N. Sarma, The Political Thought of Harold J. Laski, and R. Singh. Reason. Revolution and Political Theory in Political Studies, XVI (1968), 456–457.
Greenleaf, ‘The Character of Modern British Politics’. 374. Cf. Greenleaf. Oakeshott’s Philosophical Politics, 5.
Greenleaf . ‘Hume. Burke and the General Will’, Political Studies. XX (1972). 140. fn. 1; Greenleaf. ‘How Should A History Of Political Thought Be Organized?’ 3. par. 6. In both these articles Grcenleaf recognizes only two types of tradition, implicit and explicit.
Greenleaf. Order. Empiricism and Politics, 13.
Greenleaf, ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’, 28.
Hegel. Lectures on the History of Philosophy, vol. I, 50.
Greenleaf. ‘Theory and the Study of Politics’, 475. Cf. Oakeshott, Hobbes on Civil Association, 8.
Greenleaf. ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’. 28; Greenleaf. ‘How Should a History of Political Thought Be Organized?’ 3, par. 6.
Greenleaf, ‘Locke Studies’, Political Studies, XVII (1969), 370.
F. H. Bradley. ‘What is the Real Julius Caesar?’ in Essays on Truth and Reality, 422.
Greenleaf, ‘Hume, Burke and the General Will’, 139–140; Greenleaf, ‘The History of Political Thought’, 20. Cf. Hegel’s criticism of histories of philosophy; ‘as in so many histories of philosophy there is presented to the vision devoid of idea, only a disarranged collection of opinions’. Lectures on the History of Philosophy, 31.
Hegel, Reason In History, 68; Hegel. Lectures on the History of Philosophy, 32.
GreEnleaf. ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’. 26.
Hegel. Lectures on the History of Philosophy. 29 and 31.
Greenleaf. Order. Empiricism and Politics, 1–2; Greenleaf. ‘How Should A History of Political Thought Be Organized’, 3, par. 6.
Greenleaf, Order. Empiricism and Politics, 10.
Allen. Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, xix.
Ibid.. XV. 132. 272, 367 and 515.
Ibid.. 443.
Ibid., 37, 444. 349 respectively.
ibid, 250.
Greenleaf, Order. Empiricism and Politics, 59 and 67.
Greenleaf. ‘Hobbes the Problem of Interpretation’, 28.
See. for example. J. G. A. Pocock. ‘“The Onely Politician”: Machiavelli, Harrington and Felix Raab’. 269.
Grecnlcaf. Order. Empiricism and Politics, 157 and 151-152 respectively.
Ibid., 153.
Lockyer, ‘“Traditions” as Contexts’, 205.
See. for example. Skinner. ‘On Two Traditions of English Political Thought’. 138; T. D. Campbell, review of Order. Empiricism and Politics in Philosophy, 41 (1966). 275.
Greenleaf, Order. Empiricism and Politics, 275.
Greenleaf, ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’. 26.
Greenleaf. ‘The Divine Right of Kings’. 646. and Greenleaf. ‘James I and the Divine Right of Kings’, 43.
W. H. Greenleaf . ‘The Thomasian Tradition and the Theory of Absolute Monarchy’, English Historical Review, I.XXIX (1964), 747 and 759–760.
Greenleaf, Order. Empiricism and Politics, 145, 157, 160. 164–166. 199–200, 206 and 208.
For accounts of the different interpretations of Hobbes see Greenleaf’s own account, ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’, and K. R. Minogue, ‘Parts and Wholes: Twentieth Century Interpretation of Thomas Hobbes’, Anales De La Cathedra Francisco Suarez: Hobbes, 14 (1974), 77–108.
I have in mind two reviews which demonstrate this interest, Greenleaf. review of Milne, The Social Philosophy of English Idealism. 323–324; Greenleaf. ‘Approaches to Freedom’.
Grcenleaf. Oakeshott’s Philosophical Politics.
Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, vol. I. 92.
Quoted by Michael Ermarth, Wilhelm Dilthey: The Critique of Historical Reason ( Chicago and London. The University of Chicago Press. 1975 ). 344.
Dilthey, Selected Writings. 133–154. For a clear summary of Dilthey’s thoughts on these matters sec H. A. Hodges. The Philosophy of Wilhelm Dilthey (London. Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1952), 84–95. For Dilthey, ‘each world-view expresses within its limitations one aspcct of the universe. In this respect each is true. Each, however, is one-sided. To contemplate all the aspects of their totality is denied to us. We see the pure light of truth only in various broken rays’. W. Dilthey, ‘The Dream’, appendix to William Kluback, Wilhelm Dilthey’s Philosophy of History ( New York. Columbia University Press. 1956 ), 107.
Green, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation, 60–67.
This is a common observation which is substantiated in A J. M. Milne. The Social Philosophy of English Idealism (London. Allen and Unwin. 1962), passim; T. H. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics (Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1906), ii-viii; K. R. Minoguc, ‘The Boundless Ocean of Politics’ in Contemporary Political Philosophers, ed. A. de Crespigny and K. Minoguc (London, Methuen, 1976), 136-137; Joseph Carmelo d’Oronzio, Idealistic Humanism: An Historical Study of the Political Thought of English Idealists (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Syracuse University, 1965 ).
Oakeshott, Hobbes on Civil Association. 7, 56–57 and 144; M. Oakeshott, The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe (New York, Macmillan. 1947), xix and 45.
Oakeshott. Hobbes on Civil Association, 7 and 58.
Idem. Oakeshott. Rationalism in Politics, 291.
Oakeshott. Hobbes on Civil Association 145.
Ibid., 57.
Ibid., 7.
Greenleaf, ‘How Should a History of Political Thought Be Organized’, 3; Greenleaf. Oakeshott’s Philosophical Politics, 6.
W. H. Greenleaf . ‘Burke and State Necessity: The Case of Warren Hastings’ in Staatsräson ed. R. Schnur (Berlin, Duncker and Humblot. 1975), 565. See, for example, ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’, 27–28; Greenleaf. ‘Hume, Burke and the General Will’, 133. Cf- Oakeshott, ‘The Concept of a Philosophical Jurisprudence’. 359.
Oakeshott, Hobbes on Civil Association. 13. Cf. Greenleaf. ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’, 21–24 and 36.
Greenleaf. Oakeshott’s Philosophical Politics, 38.
Greenleaf. ‘How Should a History of Political Thought he Organized?’ 5, par. 9: T. D. Weldon. The State and Morals (London, John Murray, 1947), passim. Ernst Cassirer. The Myth of the State (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1961), 81 and 220 fol.
A. O. Lovejoy, The Great Cham of Being (Cambridge. Mass.. Harvard University Press, 1974), 20, 24–31; Germino, Beyond Ideology 17–37; Dante Germino, ‘The Contemporary Relevance of the Classics of Political Philosophy’ in Handbook of Political Science, vol. I. Political Science: Scope and Theory, ed. F. I. Grecnstein and Nelson W. PolSby (Reading. Mass., Addison Wesley, 1975), 238-250; Germino. Machiavelli to Marx. 15–17. David Cameron, The Social Thought of Rousseau and Burke ( London. Wcidcnfcld and Nicholson. 1973 ), 17–40.
Greenleaf. Oakeshott’s Philosophical Politics. 7.
see, for example, Greenleaf. ‘Burke and State Necessity’, 566.
Greenleaf, ‘Hume, Burke and the General Will’, 132.
Ibid., 132–133; Greenleaf, ‘How Should a History of Political Thought Be Organized?’ 4. sect. 3. sub-sect. (b).
Hegel.Lectures on the History of Philosophy, vol. Ill, 400–402; Bosanquet. The Philosophical Theory of the State, 79–115.
Greenleaf. ‘Hume. Burke and the General Will’.
Oakeshott. Hobbes on Civil Association. 7.
Dante Germino, ‘“Modernity” in Western Political Thought’. New Literary History, I (1970). 300–301.
Germino, ‘The Contemporary Relevance of the Classics’, 229–281; Dante Germino, ‘Preliminary Reflections on the Open Society: Bergson, Popper, Voegelin’ in The Open Society in Theory and Practice ed. Dante Germino and Klaus von Bcyme (The Hague. Martinus Nijhoff. 1974), 1–25; Germino, Machiavelli to Marx. viii.
Germino, Beyond Ideology, 30.
Germino. Machiarelli to Marx, 17.
Ibid, 15.
Green leaf, ‘Idealism. Modern Philosophy and Politics’. 93–124.
Dilthey, Selected Writings, 147 and 140; Cameron. The Social Thought of Rousseau and Burke, 17; Michael Oakeshott, in a letter to the author dated 24 October, 1977; Greenleaf. ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’, 22.
Hegel. Lectures on the History of Philosophy, xv, 5 and 31.
Dilthey. Selected Writings. 147. Cf. Kluback. Wllhelm Dilthey’s Philosophy of History, 102; ‘The types for Dilthey were only artificial structures imposed upon the history of intellectual creativeness to make it more understandable to the historian’.
Green leaf, ‘Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation’, 22; Greenleaf, ‘How Should a History of Political Thought be Organized?’ 5
Germino, Machiavelli to Marx. 52, 89. 95.96. 98. 117, 119. 120 fol. and 300 fol. Germino. ‘The Contemporary Relevance of the Classics’. 238.
Greenleaf, ‘How Should a History of Political Thought be Organized?’ 5, par. 9. sect. (ii).
Greenleaf, ‘Hume. Burke and the General Will’. Greenleaf suggests that Burke appeals ‘to a divine or natural law as the ultimate standard of judgement’, p. 138. Greenleaf subsequently seems to intimate that perhaps Burke’s place is rightfully in the third tradition. Greenleaf. ‘Burke and State Necessity’, 566–567. Cameron. The Social Thought of Rousseau and Burke, 25.
W. H. Greenleaf . ‘Bodin and the Idea of Order’ in Jean Bodin: Proceedings of the International Conference on Bodin in Munich ed. Herausgegeben von Horst Denzer (München, Verlag C. H. Beck. 1973 ). 38.
Greenleaf. ‘Laski and British Socialism’, passim.
Croce, Theory and History of Historiography, 69.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1985 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boucher, D. (1985). Philosophical History: W. H. Greenleaf and the Study of the History of Political Thought. In: Texts in Context. Martinus Nijhoff Philosophy Library, vol 12. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5075-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5075-7_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8745-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-5075-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive