sign in sign up
<<
Home , Francis Neilson, The Freeman

American political journalism and the tradition of

The Freeman, 1920-1924 Charles H Hamilton

AhIERlCAN.5 FACED THE 1920s with conflicting man proposed “to meet the new sense of emotions. The war and the failure of Wd- responsibility and the new spirit of inquiry sonian idealism reduced many intellec- which recent events have liberated, es- tuals to despair. Reformism had largely pecially in the fields of economics and run its course. A mechanistic business politic^."^ ethic and a sterile social conformity bore The Freeman helped to shape intellec- heavily upon creative impulses. But there tual opinion in America for four years. It was also a sense of excitement, for a fresh forcefully presented another thread in and free inquiry into the meaning of Amer- liberalism, claiming a classical liberal and ica now seemed possible. As Lewis Mum- Jeffersonian heritage that The Freeman ford remembered: “Despite the disillusion proclaimed as “radical.” free- that set in after the First World War,we be- dom and voluntary cooperation-what is lieved that we might give a more humane called “social power” and “economic shape to American culture before our means”-were presented as the only con- molten desires had cooled. These latent sistent way to progress and freedom. This hopes tempered even our postwar cyn- was starkly contrasted with the inherently icism.’” invasive and exploitative nature of the The task of reviving a usable past and state and “political means.” building a new future was taken up by At the end of 1919 had three important journals of opinion: The written Francis Neilson that “the sane radi- New Republic, , and The Dial. cal is up for his turn at the bat and is in the These journals, in different degrees, ex- right mood to make a hit . . . .”4 The idea for pressed the dominant thread in American The Freeman originated with Nock and liberalism. This form of liberalism had came to fruition through conversations found the war instructive and sought to with Francis Neilson and Helen Swift Neil- apply aspects of wartime collectivism to son earlier that year. Both the classical domestic problems. It was eager to experi- liberal Francis Neilson and the Jeffersonian ment with America’s newly found inter- liberal Nock were dismayed by liberalism’s national power. Liberals focused es- turn toward state socialism. Through The pecially on the political sphere, exhibiting Freeman they confronted the liberal jour- what Randolph Bourne decried as a “cult nals and other brands of political mes- of politics. . . inherent in the liberal in- sianism. But they especially excoriated tellectual’s point of view long before the liberals for their war recently concluded WX.”2 and prophesied that “far worse than a On March 17,1920,theseliberal journals liberal’s war is a liberal’s pea~e.”~The were joined by a serious rival. The Free- Freeman was to speak for the great tradi-

52 Winter 1987

LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED

tion of classical liberalism, which both men most of his writings unsigned. Something were afraid was being lost, and for the from his pen appeared in all but eight ofthe economics of , which both two hundred and eight weekly issues, and Nock and Neilson shared. With the help of he often contributed as much as twenty Helen Swift Neilson’s meat-packing for- percent of the material in an issue. But it tune, the publishing venture was made would be a mistake to think that The Free- financially possible. man was solely Albert Jay Nock. Its small Francis Neilson, born in in 1867, staff was one of the most competent and had been the leader of the British Liberal professional in the 1920s. Benjamin W. Party’s “young radicals” and was a Mem- Huebsch, who was generally acknowl- ber of Parliament until he resigned in 1915 edged to be one of the most cultivated in protest against the war. He moved to the book publishers in America, was publisher. United States. Neilson’s knowledge of Eng- Van Wyck Brooks became literary editor. A lish constitutional radicalism and his per- brilliant critic and a leader of the so-called sonal contacts were important advantages literary radicals, Brooks had previously for The Freeman. Though he did not often worked for The Dial and Seven Arts. Even write for it, his influenceis readilyapparent with his vague socialist politics, his literary in his self-described role as “a feeder of and essentially individualistic point of view ideas.”6 complemented The Freeman’s general Albert Jay Nock is best known for his sensibility. Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, a brilliant Another addition to the staff was Su- discourse on libertarian sensibilities. His zanne La Follette. She left The Nation at writings in the 1930s and 1940s were to Nock’s request. He thought she was one of have a profound influence on many of the the best editors in the business. Ceroid major conservative figures in the post- Tanquary Robinson, a former editor at The World War I1 period. As Henry Regnery Dial, joined the staff while continuing to wrote: “There can be no doubt that he teach at Columbia University. Walter C. contributed substantially to the develop- Fuller (who left in the spring of 1922), ment of modem conser~atism.”~ Harold Kellock (who joined in early 1923), Born in 1870, Nock started his journalis- Lucy Taussig, and Emilie McMillan corn- tic career in 1910 with the muckraking pleted the regulars. periodical American Magazine and later There were a number of others who spent time at TheNation.It was only when, were at various times closely associated at the age of forty-nine, he helped found with The Freeman. They contributed un- The Freeman, that he came into his own as signed editorials as well as signed articles. a polished essayist, a gifted writer, and an Lewis Mumford, William MacDonald, and important political essayist. Nock provided Frank W. Garrison were among the better- The Freeman with the unique framework it known. More than two hundred con- applied to politics, international affairs, tributors wrote articles and reviews. manners, literature, and the “good life.” The journal discovered or developed writ- Despite his sometimes eccentric ways, ers like , Constance Nock’s special skills as an editor made the Rourke, Newton Arvin, and F,dwin Muir. journal, in the words of Van Wyck Brooks, Other writers who covered a wide range of “a wonderfully good school for us all.’” cultural and political opinion included When Nock himself protested that he did Walter Pach, , William nothing to make The Freeman such a good Henry Chamberlin, Robert H. Lowie, Mary journal except to leave its writers alone, a and Padriac Colum, , Er- friend replied, “Yes, I understand, but if nest Boyd, Howard Mumford Jones, and someone else had been letting them alone, Charles Beard. The result was a journal it would have been a very different with a special fullness that knew no ideo- St0l-y.’~ logical boundaries and yet attained a sur- Nock wrote extensivelyin The Freeman, prisingly coherent whole.

Modern Age 53

LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED

The weekly contained twenty-four The Freeman within “the main tradition pages. Each issue began with two unsigned of American . . . individualist sections written by staff members or other radicalism.”1*More than any other periodi- writers close to the journal. “Current Com- cal of its time, and perhaps ever since, it ment” had three pages of paragraphs con- was concerned with freedom-with the cerning international affairs and the foibles preservation and extension of individual of domestic politics and politicians. The freedom in all its forms. next section, “Topics of the Day,” consist- A few years after The Freeman ceased ed of five pages of editorials covering publication, Nock wrote to a close friend political, economic, and social issues in that he was “enormously impressed al- greater depth. The major, signed articles most daily with the fact that The Freeman followed, as well as columns on art, the- never died-and never will.”*3Indeed, the atre, and music, in addition to letters to the spirit and the example of The Freeman editor. One page was devoted to “Mis- have often been claimed by conservatives cellany,” a column of incidental para- and, rather more emphatically, by liber- graphs on the manners and mores of the tarians. The older Freeman, for example, times, signed by “Journeyman” (and most was a model for the New Freeman that often written by Nock). began in 1930, for The “Books” section included a few Human Events in the mid-l940s, and for a longish reviews and a number of one-par- newer Freeman begun in 1950 and still agraph “Shorter Notices.” Frank Luther published monthly today. Less directly, it Mott concluded that “some of the best served as a guide for the Freeman pub- book-reviewing done in any American lished by the Henry George School of So- journal in the twenties appeared in The cial Science in in 1937, for Frank Freeman.”’OThe last page and a half was Chodorov‘s analysis in 1944, for Liber- devoted to “A Reviewer’s Notebook.” This tarian Analysis in 1970, and for Fragments, was Brooks’s distinguished and idiosyn- which has been publishing sporadically cratic column on the state of America’s since 1963. literary past, present, and future. (Nock The first issue of The Freeman was wrote this column for the last seven welcomed to the fraternity of liberal jour- months of 1922.) The back page was left nalism by both The New Republic and The for Huebsch, who contributed very good, Nation. There was, however, no opening alternately urbane, humorous, and exhort- statement of position. This absence dis- ing advertising copy for the magazine. tressed some readers who were used to Wile there was agreement that The explicit political programs. But beneath its Freeman was generally “brilliant,” there sometimes pretentious aloofness, Lewis has been little agreement about exactly Mumford saw some hints that led him to what The Freeman was-a fact, no doubt, write a letter to the editor: “Obviously that must have pleased Nock, who reject- behind these brief generalizations a whole ed labels. It has been called liberal, conser- sociology lies, and I can conceive of your vative, Bolshevik, anarchist, revolutionary, performing no better service during the and Georgist. Readers were constantly next few years than by slowly building up, asking where The Freeman stood in the clarifying, limiting, and relating the ideas of political spectrum, to which question the social development that are therein im- publisher responded that “TheFreeman is plied.”14 That “sociology” was never hlly less concerned with making its own ideas articulated. prevail in the realm of mental power than In the fourth issue Nock proudly and with the clarificationof thought which per- firmly denied any connection with modern pits people to choose their own road to liberal journalism: “TheFreeman is a radi- freedom.”” In fact, Lillian Symes and cal paper; its place is in the virgin field, or Travers Clement were probably closest better, the long-neglected and fallow field, when, in their Rebel America, they placed of American radicalism. . . ..’I5 He went on

54 Winter 1987

LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED

to identify two distinguishing features of This was not a call for anarchism, how- The Freeman’s radicalism. First of all, ever. There was an admitted need for beyond a basic commitment to laissez some vaguely defined form of a decen- fake, radicals believed in “fundamental tralized “adminstrative government” of economics.” There was an additional fac- strictly limited negative prohibitions. The tor in the production of wealth besides state was an institution to be protected labor and capital, Nock maintained, and against, and not some form of magical that was land and natural resources. Until benefactor or neutral umpire. Within that the monopoly on land and natural re- context The Freeman was a strong cham- sources was broken, all other reforms, pion of civil ,which it saw as a mat- while perhaps ameliorative, would not ter largely of keeping the state out of affairs solve the world’s problems. essentially individual. By no means was the magazine simply a For The Freeman, the truly valuable Georgist or single-tax journal as some things in life were outside of the political critics have suggested. Nock was to ex- realm. The individual had the right and re- plain later that the view on land monopoly sponsibility to make his or her life as crea- and some form of land tax was merely a tive as it could be. It was important to un- “simple statement of a . . . and derstand, Nock pointed out, “that the in- the suggestion that one is a propagandist stincts for freedom, for beauty, for a grace- in such premises is perhaps rather flat.”16 ful social life, are true primary instincts and The Freeman was deeply steeped in the that our business is to follow them.. . . Georgist ethical, economic, and philo- What matters is that, for life to be truly sophical perspective; but the magazine fruitful, life must be felt as a joy; and that had much broader concerns. where freedom is not, there can be no The other, crucially important, feature joy. . . . ’m In this the literary, political and of the radical perspective was its total re- artistic diversity of The Freeman all a- jection of the great faith liberalism placed greed. in the state. Statism quite simply meant, Looking at contemporary life in Ameri- wrote Ceroid T. Robinson, “a mechanistic ca, The Freeman saw neither freedom nor civilization at home and militarism the good life being nurtured. Nock, how- abroad. . . .”17 The radical, by contrast, ever, expressed his belief that a higher “believes that the state is fundamentally civilization was virtually certain: anti-social and is all for improving it off the No civilization can be permanent except that face the earth.. .”I* Often paraphras- of . which satisfies dl the claims of the human ing The State, by Franz Oppenheimer, The spirit-the claim of workmanship or expan- Freeman consistently made the point that sion, the claim of knowledge, social lie and political government and the use of politi- manners, religion, beauty and poetry, all cal means merely enforced the expropria- held in the perfection of harmony and bal- tion and exploitation of people for the ance. Our civilization satisfies the first claim benefit of a given privileged class. Every quite well, the second tolerably, and the recourse to political means-whether others not at all. Is it not inevitable, then, through political parties and platforms, that a civilization which satisfies more of political agitation, or revolutions-was these claims, held in better balance, will su- doomed to failure, it claimed. Those means persede ours even though itself be not final?21 were inherently coercive and never changed essential and underlying eco- A major shift in paradigm was neces- nomic and social conditions. Articles in sary to assist that change. The Freeman of- every issue returned to this theme, cul- fered its own “sociology” based on the minating in 1923 in Nock’s five-part series principles and application of English classi- on “The State,” which was later expanded cal liberalism. It rested on natural rights, into his biting critique of centralized gov- unlimited individualism, and equal oppor- ernment, Our Enemy, the State. l9 tunity. It was often enough, in The Free-

Modern Age 55

LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED

man’s view, to refer to the older concept of Versailles, the League of Nations, and freedom presented by such writers as foreign imperialism were attacked at every Turgot, Quesnay, Smith, Cobden, George, opportunity. Similarly, every attempt to Oppenheimer, Mill, and Bohm-Bawerk. curtail freedom domestically was assailed. The basic contrast between its rejection The propensity of liberals to view prob- of political methods of change and its pro- lems as a matter of finding the right person motion of the freedom, diversity, and cre- to put in command was subject to ridicule. ativity of everyday life devoid of political Any attempt to break out of totalitarian coercion was perhaps the telling dif- regimes was applauded, even as The Free- ference between The Freeman and other man cautioned that a worse dictatorship journals of opinion of the times, whether might rise in its stead. (The Russian Revo- liberal, socialist, or “Tory.” It was at this lution was supported precisely on these point that readers often became confused grounds.) , civil liberties, “fun- as to where The Freeman stood, For to a damental economics,” and, above all, in- radical libertarian conception of society dividual freedom were set forth as answers and of the state Nock and Neilson added to all social, economic and ethical issues. an essentially conservative conception of The Freeman had no particular love for social change and of the importance of the status quo or for tradition. It actively principles. As Neilson put it, “Radicals seek advocated necessary change, not for its not to destroy. Their desire is to restore own sake but in accordance with those the old, and they are indeed.. . ‘the true ageless principles that gave its radicalism conservatives.’”22 substance. This joining together of tradi- The Freeman sought solace from and a tion and principle with change and irrever- solution to state socialism through “the ence gave excitement and direction to historical process of strengthening, con- most of The Freeman’s political and liter- solidating, and enlightening economic or- ary writings. Huebsch gave voice to this at- ganization.”a It constantly held up the titude when he wrote: “The Freeman is at tradition of laissez faire as a means to the once an incentive to hasten the new world good life. Contrary to H. L. Mencken’s of ideas and a steadying influence in pre- cynicism about political democracy, The serving the everlasting truths that are es- Freeman optimistically pointed out that sential to a society worth living in.”26 true “democracy is an affair primarily of When The Freeman did make sugges- economics, not of politics, that democracy tions about how one could work for the has not failed, for it has never been tried idea of freedom, it based its views on social . . . .‘r24 Indeed, was the power, free competition, and cooperation. most important freedom, and if attained, The basic point was to leave people alone no other freedom could be withheld. to find their own solutions through peace- The slow advance of society over the ful social interaction. While praising the state would eventually lead to the disap- multitude of voluntary associations in pearance of the state (in a formulation China, Ceroid T. Robinson went on to more internally consistent than Marx’s no- write: “The task of the practical anarchist, tion of the withering away of the state). as we see it, is the withdrawal of all desir- This would not happen through the force able functions from political control, and of arms. In the normal, long-term course the arrangement for the performance of of events people would just stop thinking these functions by non-political agen- in terms of the state: “The whole fun- cies.”n damental structure of the State will crum- Eschewing governmental action, The ble and dissolve through the persuasive Freeman often called for various forms of power of the direct social action. In a letter in April 1921, Invariably The Freeman took its rad- Amos Pinchot acknowledged that The icalism seriously. Specific issues were dis- Freeman, “perhaps more than any impor- cussed, often passionately. The Treaty of tant weekly journd in America, has be-

56 Winter 1987

LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED

come the advocate of direct action. . . .’*= supply a ‘technique of organization’ for the The Gandhian movement of non-coopera- producer.”32The Freeman, for all its admit- tion and passive resistance was often ted aloofness, avoided and countered both favorablymentioned. Direct action did not the elitism of intellectuals and political usually mean the industrial strike, but soothsayers and the cynicism often ex- rather opposition to the government on pressed, for instance, by Mencken. the basis of the classical liberal principle An editorial in the February 6,1924 issue that the government was the chief men- announced that the issue of March 5 ace. There were often calls for tax resis- would be the last (completing four full tance. Voting was rejected in favor of what years of The Freeman). It would retire “at it called the “economic ballot”: of acting the highest point of its circulation”-prob- within the economic and social means. ably around 10,000, which was near to the Whiie much of the cooperative movement, respective circulations of The Nation, The for instance, did not deal with the land New Republic, and The Dial.33The Neil- question, The Freeman still regard- sons had lost their enthusiasm, at least in ed “it as the most significant movement of part, because the magazine was losing be- all time.”29 tween $70,000 and $80,000 every year.% Despite The Freeman’sforays into prac- Nock, Huebsch, and Brooks all exhibited tical suggestions and a tendency to rely on and expressed great weariness. They were its wit and criticism, these thiigs were ready to move on to new things. basically secondary to its self-appointed A few supporters of The Freeman in- task. The most practical suggestion The quired about the possibility of continuing Freeman wanted to give, and one that the magazine. Nobody on the staff was in- served as a credo for its work, was, “Get terested, least of all a tired Nock, who wisdom, get understanding . . . . And this is stepped aboard the Volendam on his way precisely the point.. . of much that we to Brussels the day after the staff bade one publish. . . . to discuss fundamental prin- another farewell. And so what Huebsch ciples and not to peddle nostrums.”3o had described in the farewell editorial as “a Robinson crystallized a common opin- fellowship of fine minds” faded away ex- ion of The Freeman when he complained hausted and depres~ed.3~ in a pseudonymous letter that “the radi- There was a strange irony in the life of cals tend to confine their attention to the The Freeman in that it left an essentially gay business of destructive criticism.” non-political ideology undeveloped, opt- What radicals needed to do, instead, was ing instead for the easy and heady world of to present “a detailed plan for reconstruc- political criticism. In its perceptive editor- tion which meets every test of reason . . . ial on the vassing of The Freeman, The [a] technique of organiktion necessary for New Republic poked out that “‘Radical- the establishment and maintenance of this ism’ of the Freeman brand is not a Dolitical fundamental .”31 staple . . . . It is properly a relish to’go with Neilson pointed out the terrible as- plenty of non-political meat.”36By placing sumption implicit in that call: that “there is so much emphasis on the political and in every generation a select few endowed devoting so much space to politics, The with special powers of directing and super- Freeman had allowed itself to be distract- vising millions of their less fortunate breth- ed. ren in the work of producing food, fuel, As true as this criticism obviously was, clothing, and shelter.” He continued, “We The New Republic was at least partially have been nearly organized out of exis- disingenuous. The whole world of serious tence by the ‘technique of organization’ social thought at that time was political. It devised by these gentlemen” who hold to was more concerned with personalities “the whole of the precious theory that men and expediencies than with principles or can not get a living unless some Tory or “disinterested thought.” To take part some Socialist or some Liberal is there to meant dealing with the political assump-

Modern Age 57 LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED

tions of the world. The Freeman’s view of I have been reading the 8 bound volumes of the world focused on and vol- The Freeman with astonishment at all the untary social cooperation instead of on the good things I find there. The history of those coercive monopoly of the state. It turned four years, 1920-1924, seems to me as- out to be a view much more foreign to sembled there as one could find it nowhere else . . . and more than once they say the readers than even Nock and Neilson had last word . . . . [I]n preparation for any book, feared. Most commentators failed to ap- concerned with any phase of modern preciate the positive and non-political un- thought, one could not do better than run derpinnings of the magazine and tried through The Freeman.39 vainly to put it in some political camp. Nock had assumed that The Freeman An assessment of The Freeman’s place was written for an audience of indepen- in the history of American conservative dent thinkers. One purpose in publishing it, journalism is muddled by continually he wrote in his Memiors, had been to “give changing ideas on exactly what the Amer- us some sort of rough measure of the ican right has to offer. Certainly The general level at which the best culture of Freeman has been evoked by numerous the country stood.. . .Any one who re- post-World War 11 conservatives and lib- members the state of the public mind in ertarians, but they have only caught var- the early ’nineteen-twenties does not ious aspects without touching the full need to be told that we launched our ex- spirit. periment under as unfavorable cir- For the entire Freeman staff the main cumstances as could well be im- currents of progress did not flow through political channels, where they would be agined . . . .”37 This tone was often taken as severely elitist. constantly obstructed. Rather, progress The Freeman was, in part, an attack on was the function of channels of individual the elitism inherent in all political ideol- initiative, social power, and the free mar- ogies. Its failure proved to Nock that in- ket-as revealed by classical liberal and tellectuals had little interest in freedom or American radical principles. The editors in disinterested thought. His early op- valued the past for those principles and for timism was turning to disillusionment. The the actual legacy of freedom given to the authoritarian mentality that The Freeman present. But they were not afraid to advo- had sought to forestall seemed to have the cate risks in the name of freedom. They upper hand in 1924. As a result of his later eagerly advocated necessary change while reading of Ralph Adams Cram’s 1932 es- always placing it within the context of the say, “Why We Do Not Behave Like Human old truths. In one sense, then, The Free- Beings,” Nock‘s idea of social and eco- man can suggest to contemporaryreaders nomic freedom and a free life would be- ways to work out the complicated rela- come lodged with what he called “the tionship between tradition and change. remnant.”% The Freeman is unique in at least one As a literary and cultural journal, The other way. As John Chamberlain has ob- Freeman captured much of the vitality and served, The Freeman stands in American disillusionment of the period in a way that political journalism as “a great liberator the more programmatic and political jour- . . .the great conservator of the idea of nals could not. For all of its critical presen- voluntari~rn.”~~It fits well into the history tations, it represented a special combina- of American conservative and libertarian tion of careful thought and creative au- political jounalism because it never lost thors. These authors infused the pages of sight of the importance of freedom. And it The Freeman with a love of culture, the still has much to say to contemporary con- arts, and the spirit of the “good life.” As servatism for precisely that reason. As Van Wyck Brooks wrote to Lewis Mumford Nock wrote on one occasion: “Of all things in 1936: that human beings fear. . .the one that strikes them with abject and utterly de-

58 Winter 1987 LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED

moralizing terror is freedom. . . which of discovering to be the only thing that some day they will have the happy surprise really

‘Lewis Mumford, Sketches From Life (New York, 1923), 368-69; (July 4, 1923), 393-94; and (July 11, 1982), p. 248. qaul F. Bourke, “The Status of Politics 1923), 416- 17. ALSO see Albert Jay No&, Our Enemy, 1909-1913: The New Republic, Randolph Bourne and the State (New York, 1973), and Franz Oppenheher, Van Wyck Brooks,” American Studies 8 (August The State (New York, 1975). %’Our Pastors and Mas- 1974). 199. 3“A New Weekly, The Freeman,” fib- ters,” [Albert Jay Nock], The Freeman 2 (January 26, lishers Weekly96 (December 20,1919), 1620. Susan J. 1921), 461. 21“CurrentComment,” [Albert Jay Nock], Turner’s book-A History of The Freeman (New The Freeman 8 (November 21, 1923), 243. %eco- York, 1963)-concentrates on the literary con- nomicus, “Too Much Technique of Organization,” tributions of The Freeman. 4SelectedLetters ofAlbert rancis Neilson], The Freeman 1 (Jul 7,1920), 398. Jay Nock (Caldwell, ID, 1962), p. 96. %merit Com- hnthe Vein Of Intimacy,” p. 52. 2zThe Liberal‘s ment,” [Albert Jay Nock], The Freeman 5 (June 7, Rabbinism,” [Albert Ja Nock], The Freeman 5 (Sep- 1922), 289. All editorials and many shorter pieces in tember 6,1922), 604. 2Albert Jay Nock, “The State,” The Freeman were unsigned. However, G. Thomas The Freeman 7 (July4,1923), 394. ’%ck Page$. W. Tanselle has attributed authorship using several Huebsch], The Freeman 7 (May9,1923), 216. The marked staff copies. Names listed in brackets after WBdom of the East,” [Geroid T. Robinson], The Free- the article title refer to that listing. G. Thomas Tan- man 7 (March 28,1923), 55. %Amos Pinchot, “Direct selle, “Unsigned and Initialed Contributions to The Action,” The Freeman 3 (April 20,1921), 136. 29“Cur- Freeman,” Studies in Bibliography 17 (1964), 153- rent Comment,” [Albert Jay Nock], The Freeman 4 756Francis Neilson, “The Story of The Freeman,” The (October 19,1921), 122. D‘AProgramme of Action,” American Journal ofEconomicsand Sociology 6 (Oc- [Albert Ja Nock], The Freeman 3 (April 13, 1921), tober 1946, Supplement), 31. For information on 100, 101. z“Gallerius,” “A Challenge to Radicalism,” Neilson, see his My Life in Two Worlds, two vols. (Ap- [Geroid T. Robinson],The Freeman 1 (June 16,1920), pleton, WI, 1953). Neilson came to dislike Nock very 328. 320economicus “Too Much Technique of Or- much, so his remarks on The Freeman must be read ganization,” p. 397. d“A Last Word to Our Readers,” very carefully. 7Henry Regnery, “AN An Apprecia- [w. B. Huebsch], The Freeman 8 (February 6,1924), tion,” Modern Age 15 (Witer 1971), 25. See Nock’s 508. Different sources estimate The Freeman’s sub- Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (New York, 1943). scription size from 7,000 to 10,000.B. W. Huebsch said Two biographies of Nock are: Robert M. Crunden, in the mid-1950s that “The circulation never got up The Mind and Art ofAlbertJay Nock (Chicago, 1964), over 10,000.It was somewhere around there, maybe a and Michael Wreszin, The Superfluous Anarchist: little more.” The Reminiscences of Benjamin W: Albert Jay Nock (Providence, 1971). aThe Van Wyck Huebsch (New York, 1965), p. 71. The figures in Frank Brooks-Lewis Mumford Letters, ed. Robert E. Spiller Luther Mott’s A History ofAmerican Magazines for (New York, 1970), p. 18. gAlbertJay Nock, Snoring as the other three magazines are not entirely compara- a Fine Art (West Rindge, NH, 1958), p. viii (Introduc- tive but they are suggestive. For The Nation see Mott, tion by Suzanne La Follette). ‘‘Frank Luther Mott, A vol. 3, 350; for The Dial see vol. 3, 542; and for The History ofAmerican Magazines, vol. 5 (Cambridge, New Republic, seevol. 5,213. ?3usan J.Tumer,A His- MA, 1968), 96. ”Back Page [B. W. Huebsch], The tory of The Freeman (New York, 1963), p. 30. 35 “A Freeman 7 (May 2, 1923), 192. ‘2Lillian Spes and Last Word to Our Readers,” p. 508. 36“ThePassing of Travers Clement, RebelAmerica (New York, 1934), p. The Freeman,” The New Republic 38 (March 5,1924), 128. I3Letters From Albert Jay Nock (Caldwell, ID, 34. 37Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, p. 167. 1949), p. 20. 14Lewis Mumford, “Constructive Criti- %ee Ralph Adams Cram, “Why We Do Not Behave cism,” The Freeman 1 (March 24,1920), 34. ‘“In the Like Human Beings,” Convictions and Controversies Vein of Intimacy,” [Albert Jay Nock], The Freeman 1 (Boston, 1935), pp. 137-54; and Albert Jay Nock, (March 31, 1920), 52. ‘“The Formula of the Single “Isaiah’sJob,” Freespeech andPlain Language (New Tax,” [Albert Jay Nock], The Freeman 4 (November York, 1937), pp. 248-65. %The Van W ck Brooks- 23, 1921), 247. 17“The Blessings of Government,” Lewis Mumford Letters, pp. 131-32. syJohn Cham- [Geroid T. Robinson], The Freeman 4 (Febru 22, berlain, “A.J.N.: Man of Letters,” The Freeman 12 1922), 558. ‘”‘In The Vein of Intimacy,” p. 52TSee (November 1962), 59. 41Joumeyman,“Miscellany,” Albert Jay Nock, “The State,” The Freeman 7 (June [Albert Jay Nock], The Freeman 8 (October 3, 13,1923), 320-21; (June 20,1923), 344-47; (June 27, 1923), 79.

Modern Age 59 LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED