SCANDIA : Tidskrift for historisk forskning

(1)

The

I

n the year 816, at the Counci! of Aachen, it was decided to introduce condi-

3

tions similar to those at the Benedictine monasteries for priests serving at ca- thedrals. The result was the b l e ofiaachen, Institurio canonicorurn Aquisgranen- sis.' This Rule, however; was very liberal, and by that time the reiigioils life at the chapters had decayed. This circumstance prompted the reform of canons in the 1 Irh and 12'h centuries, m~hich attempted to restore the ancient ideals of witu ago- stoLica and uita c~mnzunis from the early Christian Church. The earliest reform centre came into being in 1033 X St Ruf, near Avignon in Southern Fraa~ce.~ Other reform centres were: Marbach in the diocese of Base1 founded in

1083;'

Rottenbuch in Freising, 1092; 'Springiersbach in Trier, 1 4 07;

'

and the Chapter of Salzburg in the 12'" c e i a t u ~ ~ ~ " rule, normally the Rule of St Augustine, was the normative basis for these reform centres. In addition, there were the Customs or consueiudines. T h e Customs of St Ruf'

had

great influ-ence oc the later reform movement. They were the basis for the Customs of MarbachS and the so-called Customs of Springiersbach-TUosterra~h.' F i ~ m Scandinavia 1x0 customary ma-

nuscripts have survived: one is ro be found at the University Library in Lund, lula 6; the other is at the University Library in Uppsala, C 222. in this paper we shall deal with the customs in Lund, the so-called Consuetudines canonice (CC).

The

Consuetudines canonice

and

the scholars

The inanuscript M h 6 from the University Library in Lund, which is one of its greatest treasures, is a composite manetscript. The Rule of Aachen and the CC plus some related theological treatises make up the greater part of this manuscript, but the scholariy interest is due to the fact that it contains a necrology for the Cathedral of Lnnd.. VVhile the hisroricd parts ofthe manuscript have been edited over the centuries,'' the C C were firs: published by A. Hammar in 1868-S3.11 In 1908, E Jmgensenl' was able to demonstrate that the C C were based on the Customs of Marbach and that these in turn were based on the tradition of Chiny J~rgensen, however, only had access to <he edition of the Custorns of DAxbach by

E.

Marthe,'? which is based on a defective manuscript from the Benedictine monastery of Murbach in Alsace. In 1923, L. WeibuBii4 edited almost the whole composite manuscript, calling it Necrologium Lundense. Weibuli's edition con-

(2)

tains the C C with reference to ~Martkne's edition. The Rule of Aacherm and the theological treatises were not edited, however, since they were well-icnown and had been edited either in Monuments Germanicae Kistorica oi in Migne's Patro- Bogia Latina. In 1960, Weibuli's edition was fo'ollowed

by a facsimile edition of the

complete manuscript with an introduction bp E. fioman.I5

The C C are only briefly discussed in WeibuIP's voluminous introduction ro Necrologium Lundense. This is a pity, since the C C are a valuable source materid regarding life at the Czrhedrd of Lund. Weeihull emphasised, howevet that the chapters about the election of the bishop and provost have no basis in the Customs of Marbachi6 Later, in

1946,

Weib~lil" quoted several chapters of the Cast-oms of Lund, especially concerning intercessory prayers and the special efec- sion regulations for the bishop and provost ac Lund. Two years earlier, T. SScmidls had discussed the part of the Customs dealing with the liturgy of the death of a canon. Schmid put forward the thesis that the CC were based on the Customs of Marbach md on those of ClunY the larter being mediated via the monastery of

P91

Saints at kund, which was influenced bp Cluny. Schmid :ried furthermore to demonstrate that the C C were origindly compiled for the Augustinian house of Ddby, near L u n ~ l . ' ~

in

1945, J.

Siepvart edited a new critical edition of the Customs of Marbach, based on the famous Guta-Sintram manuscript from !

154.'"

The edition contains a iengthy introduction, with the CC as a variant in the apparatus under the sign L. Siegwart developed the thesis put forward by Schmid. According to Sieg- wart, the CC vvere copied for the Augustinian house of Ddby and were adapted in B

140145

by the Chapter of Eund in connection with a change of rule from Salz- burg to Marbach. Siegwart dso mentions that a certain Herman of Hosterrath made the Chapter of Lund acquainted with the Customs of M a r b a ~ h . ~ '

Thanks ro Siegwarr's edition, E. Buus" edited a critical edition with a Sulky introduction. Sevenry years had to pass from Jargenseds identification of the C C as being based on the Customs of Marbach to Buus' study of r-he CC and their characteristic features. Buus condudes that the

CC constitute an independent

version of the Customs ocMarbach, modelled exclusively on them, rather rhan on

a combination of the Customs of Mzrbach and of Ciuny as scholars have believed." Buus was also obliged to reject the Augustinian thesis advanced by Schmid- Siegwart. The CC were copied for the Chapter o f L u n d . ' ~ ~ e t h e r r n o r e , they are anti-A~gustinian,~~ and are therefore not associated with the Rule of St Augustine but with the Rule of Aachen.

The

Gonsuetudines

canonice

md

h e

dating

On palaeographical criteria Weibull corrcludcd that the C C must have been drawn up in the period from 1423 ro 1 436.'%n the other hand, Siegwart has demonstrated thar the Customs of Marbach were d r a m up bemeen c. 1122 and

(3)

P

124 at the latest.'- Buus believed this dating to be correct, adhering to IGorna~ds hypothesis rhat the composite manuscript Necroiogiurn Lundense had been copied in 1123 in connection with the coilsecration of the crypt in Lund. Since it took time to draw up the controversial C C , Buus assumed rhat they had been copied as early as c. 1122. Thus the Customs of Marbach must also have been copied around 1122.2S The CC apparently became the earliest version of the Cus~orns of Marbach, some

30

years younger nhan rhe farnlous Guta-Sintram manuscript from 11 54." h e n without Buus' new dating, the CC would be the earliest version of the Customs of Marbach, but in an indeper~dent version.

In a review of Buus' edition, G. Constable expressed doubts about Buus' early dating of the CC, and them to be later than 1 123.3@In a new paper on the Necrologium Lundense, iauus responded to this by reverting to Wreibull's dating - between i 123 acd 1 136.31 In a footnote, Buus also mentions that the later

bishop Esidl was provost in Lund c. 1131-34 and that the C C may have been drawn up before, after or during his term of o f 5 ~ e . ~ ' Here again, we have a vague dating of the CC. From h e paper by his co-author, B. Ahiers Mdler, howeven; the

CC appear unquestionably to have been drawn up c.

1 130.'3 The English snm- n a r y bears this o ~ ~ t . ~ W a y b e B u s had the C C in mind when on the title-page he and his co-author dated the composite manuscript Wecrologium Sundense to c. 1130 without support from the manuscripr itself or from their own writings. In dating the C C , Buus steers a middle course: c. 1 P30 is approximately mid~vay benveen 1 123 and ! 136.

As mentioned, the Customs of Marbach are dated to c. 1 122-1 124, but by rule-of-thumb we must assume that at leaso five years pass from the birth of a text to its diffusion and copying. If this is so, the Customs of M,arbach wouPd have come to Lund around i l30 at the earliest, not including <he time required to draw up and copy the CC. In other words, the CC couid not have been copied until the first haif of the 1130s. But no rule without an exception, especially ifvre can spot a person who might have introduced the new text, Can we identify someone in the Lundensian milieu in the early 1130s wlro could have brought the Customs of Marbach to Lund? Indeed .eve czn: Herman of t&Gterratkh.

Herman was the son of Ernbrico and Adeleida. As a young man he was admit- ted to the foundation of regular canons at Wosterrath, near Aachen, in the diocese of liege. In I P24 and again in 1128 Xerman tried in vain to be elected leader of Hosterrath. Thanks to archbishop Frederik of Cologne, Herman succeeded in becoming leader of the newly established foundation of canoias at DiEnewdd near Cologne. But here too, Herman encountered resistance. Disappointed, he left D i i n e t d d and went to Denmark, where, as stated in the Annds of Klosterrath, he entered the service o f a b i s h o ~ . ~ j

Herman presumably came to Denmark c. 1130, to take up service with archbishop Asser of Lund. Sometime before 1 133, E s l l was appointed provost at rhe

(4)

Cathedral o f L ~ n d . ~ ~ In 1134 Eskil left Lund to become bishop o f kloskilde. Me was no doubt accompanied by Herman, since mention is made o f a certain Her- man, capellanus to Eshi, in 1 135.37

In I i37 archbishop Asser died and was succeeded by his nephew, Eskrl, who was familiar with the milieu at the Cathedrd o f Lund from his time there as pro- vost. According to the Annals o f Hosrerrach, Herman negotiated the purchase o f a pdlium for archbishop Eshl in 1 138.38 In connection ~ ~ i t h the election o f Eskil to bishop, there was a minor reshuffling which !eh the bishoprlc o f §&hieswig vacant. Herman succeeded in getting himself appointed,39 but the inhabitants o f SchPeswig would not accept him and elected someone else.*OThe bishop designate thus ended his days as a canon at Lund." He attended the consecration o f the cathedral in 1 14542 and died not later than the year 1 15 P . The day o f his death is entered in the necrology o f the Cathedral of Lund under the iGrh o f January.43

The Consuetudines canonice

m d

the

hand

of

h e scribe

The

CC

(ff. 5v-5771)

are written by one and the same hand: by Weibull called hand

f

(Kroman hand 4). This hand dso wrote orher parts o f the composite ma- nuscript o f Necrologium Lundense including she religious treatises

(E.

83r-123v) and the list o f prebends

( E

2 v 4 r ) which follows the copy o f §t Canute's deed of gift from 1085. Weibull argued (hat the r'nrst part o f the list ofprebends

(ff.

2v-3v) was written in 1123 at the latest, the second part

(ff.

3 v 4 r ) afier 1145." This dating, however, is based exclusively on internal criteria that are open to question. Furthermore, hand

f

is responsibie for some ofrhe entries in the necrology.

A

few o f these are datable - to the second half o f the 1

Y

30s. Finally, hand

f

has also written: the entry o f the deacon Benedict in the list o f deacons

(E,

177v), dated

by

LVeibull-Mroman to 1145 at the earlist; the rubric that prefaces the fraternity bonds between the brethren at Lund and those at Viborg

(L

1 8 2 ~ ) ~ dared by Weibull-Goman ro 1136. According to VVeibuiB-K-oman, hand fwas active for a

long period, from c. 1120 until some time after 1 145.4i

Weibull characterised the individual hands in the necroiogy. Hand

f

was the book-scribe's hancV6 which comes as no surprise since it also wrote the

CC

and the reiigious treatises.

It appears that the iigature & is significant for hand f, with its soft turn to the left in the down-stroke below the line. Precisely this iigarure is characteristic o f diploma hands from the region o f Litge," which means rhat hand fwas penned

by

a person coming from this region. In my opinion hand

f

is identical with the hand o f Herman o f Hosterrach, himself a native o f the region o f Litge. Hand

S,

shen, is active from c. i 130 to c. 1 15 1. AccordingPy, Weibuil's dating o f the first part o f the list o f prebends must be rejected, and the

CC

must have been drawn up in the 1130s, prior to 1134 when Herman follo\ved Eshl to Rosicilde, i.e. in the first half o f the 1130s.

(5)

In this context it must be mentioned that hand f also wrote liturgical books. III the Danish iyational Archives P have been able to find two smdi fragments of a lectionary (LE 23),'8 or more likely fragments of a missal, written by hand

E,

perhaps from the Cathedral of Lund.

The

Consuetaadines arsonice

m$

their origin

The rnanuscripr Trier, Stadtbibliothek 226212208, contains the customary manuscript from Springiersback from 1158." It was discovered by E Pauly, \vho mentions it for the first time in 1958, and later in his dissertation on the reform

OF

Spri~~giersbach.50 According to Siegvvart, we have here a copy of manuscript fragments from the 12' century.jl As It contains parrs of the Customs of Marbach, it is included in Siegwart's critical edizion under the sign

T. Furthermore, it is inclu-

ded in Buus'critical edition under the sign M-T.

The manuscript in the Stadtbibliothek in Trier is especially interesting since, according to Buus, it contains common variants of the C C 5 T e have no intbr- macion about concacts or relationships berween Springiersbach and Eernd; on the other hand, we h o w chat Lund and Ravengiersburg in the diocese ofFrier had fraternity bonds.j3 How do we explain the introduction of a text from Springiers- bach to Lund? Again, Merman of Wosterraeh looms into vievii.

Mlosterrath (Wold~c)~%was founded in the year 1104, close to Qurg Herzogen- rath, north~vest ofAachen, in the diocese of Liege, by priest Ailbert o f h t o i n g on land made available by count Albert von ~affenberg. Alberr was ieader of the foundation until 11 11 d e n , owing to internal strife, he was obliged to leave. The convent elected Xcher Srom Rottenbuch in the diocese of Freising 2s his succes- sor, a position he retained until his death in 1122. Archbishop Frederik of Coiog- ne most certainly arranged the contact with Rottenbuch. Giselbert, a priest, was elected new leader, only to be dismissed the following year. The convent rhen sent for BertoPf from Springiersbach, but he too Pasted only a year, returning to Springiersbach in 1124. One of the canons - our Herman - then competed f3r

the posidon, but again the convent preferred a canon from Springiersbach, by the name of Borno. In 1126 and agair, in 1127 Borno rried to introduce the customs _- used at Springiersbach, but was opposed by the elder members of the convent. They brought the matter before the Pope, who ruled that the convent should use their o m customs. Borno resigned and went to bishop Bucco of Worms. By this time the convent desired a leader that was content with things as they were. Her- man again competed for the leadership, but the convent sent for Frederik, a bro- ther of Richer of Rottenbuch, who was neveriheiess dismissed in B 134. For the second time, the convent appealed to Borno from Springiersbach, who had in the meantime taken charge of the foundation of Lonning. He led Klosterrath until his death in 1137.

(6)

terrelated. In the period

122-

1137 the convent of mosterrath sent for a leader from Springiersbach on three occasions. We also learn that some customs which Borno wanted to introduce to Klosterrath were found in Springiersbach in 11261 27. Later on, however, the convent must have accepted these customs, the so- called Customs of Springienbach-SUo~terrath.55 These were based on the Customs of Marbach, which were drawn up c. 1122 or at the latest 1124.

A scholar, S. 1Yeinfurter,j6 has discussed how the Customs of Marbach may have come to Hosterrath. A manuscript of the Customs may have come to Klo- sterrath in 1123: provost Bertolf of Hosterrath

(4

123-24) had previously been leader of Frankental which was influenced by IMarbach. Connections berween KJosterrath and Marbach may dso have been arranged via Retcenbnch since the Srst provost at Marbach, Manegoid (c. 1034-aker i 103), was a former dean at Rottenbuch, and Richer, the second l e d e r of Hos~erratR, aiso came from there. Perhaps the Customs of Marbach reached Eosterrath in the Past months of &cher's life, i.e. in 1 121122.

We must imagine that, on his arrival in Denmark, Herrnan would have told about the new reform centres in Europe. He was then asked to get in touch with his former foundation of Uosterrath in order to borrow a manuscript of the Customs of Marbach. He may have received a manuscript copied from a manuscript from Springiersbach, or Re may have got a manuscript direct from Sprin- giersbach.

Summary

The Consuetudines canonice of Lund, which form part of the composite manuscript Mh

6 In the University Library of Lund, were drawn up and written in <he

scriptoriurn a,: the Cathedral of Lund in the first half ofthe 1130s. The Customs of Marbach form the basis for the Consuetudines canonice. The person who acquainted the Chapter of Lund with the Customs of Mzrbach was Herman from aosterrath, a foundation of regular canons in the diocese of Liege. Herman is presumed to have arrived in Denmark c. 1 130, where he ended his days as a canon of Lurid. The Consuetudines canonice were penned by a scribe from the region of Likge. It is probable that Herrnan dso copied the Consuetudines canonice. The origin of rhe Consuetudines canonice is a manuscript from Springiersbach in the diocese of Trier, which Herrnan may have acquired in

hs

former Co'oundation of Wosterrath or in Springiersbach,

Noter

l A. Werminghoff, "Die Beschiiisse des Aachener Goncils im Jahre 816", i\kues Archiv der

Gesellscha$$rdlte~e deutscbe Geschichtjkunde 27, Hannover 8r Leipzig 1302, pp. 605-675. J. Semmler, "Die Beschliisse des Aachener Konzils im jahre 816", Zeitscbrz$ji~Kirchen~e- schichte 74, Stuttgart 1363, pp. 15-82.

(7)

2 A. H. Duprac, "Un joyau de l'6glise &Avignon", La uita communc7 del clero nei secoli X l e XI1: Atti della Settimana di studio; A4endola settnnbre 1959, Milano 1962, vol. I1 pp. 1 15-

128 (Miscellanea del Centro di Studi iWedioevali 3). A rtsumi of Y. kebrigand's dissertatioil of St: Ruf is now accessible, see

Y.

iebrigand, "Origines et premikre diffusion de l'Ordre de Saint-Ruf", Le rnonde des chanoines (XI'-XIVC ss.), (Cahiers de Fanjeaux24), Toulouse 1989,

pp. 167-179.

3 F. X. Goehlinger, Hiitorie de h b b a ~ e de Marbach, Colmar 1954.

4 J. Mois, Da Stz$ Rotteizbuch in der Kzrchenrforin des X-XII. Jarbuizderts. Ein Beitlztg zur Ordem-Geschichte der Augr~stiizer-Chori3erren, Miinchen 1953 (Beitrage zur altbayerischen Kirchengeschichte III. FoLge. Bd. 13).

j J. Pauly, Spriizgie~sbach. Geschichte des Kanonikerstzjs u~zd seiner irochtergiindungen im Erz- bisa~in 7vier uon den Anfiizgeelz bi~. zunz Ende des 18. Jahrbu7zderts, Trier 1962 (3,iei.e~ Thee- logische Studien 13).

6 S. CVeinfurter, Salzburger Bistumsr~i~nz zlnd Bistz~mspolitik inz 12. ,khrhundert Der h b i - schof l(onrad I, uovz Salzbuig (11061147/ und die Regularkanonikel; Koln 81 Wien 1075

(I<olner Hirtorische Abhandlu~zgeeiz 24).

7 A. Carrier, Coutz~miel. du XSi2cle de 1'3rdre de Sairzt-Ruf en usage 2 [a cath!drzzle de iVIague- lone, Sherbroke en Qutbec 19 j0 ( ~ t u d e s et Documents szrr I'Odrede St.-Ruf8). The manus-

cript however is nor from the 11'" century as mentioned by Carriei; but from the 14'" century. See moreover D . Misonne, "La ltgislation canonicale de Saint-Ruf d'Hvignon B ses origines. Rkgle de Saint Augustin et coucumier", Annales du ~VIidi 75, Toulouse 1963, pp.

471-489.

8 J. Siepvart, Die Consuetudines des Azlgustiner-Choi~her~eizsttJZs M a h c h im ElsaJ? (12. Jahr- hundert), Freiburg 1965 (Spicilegiz~m fiburgense 10).

9 S. Weinfurter, Consuetudines caizonicorum regularium Springieabacenses-Rodenser, Tui-nholt 1978 (Colpus Christiarzorum. Giztinuatio Mediaeualis XWII).

10 See the scholarly survey by L. Weibull (footilote 14).

1 1 A. Hammar, "Consuetuditles Canonicz, Lunds domkapitels ddsta statute?. Samlingnr till Skznes hictoria, fo rnkuizskap och beskrzfiing. Edskrz$ utg. nu Foreningen for Skznesfirvzi?zin- neiz och historiagenoin M. Weibull, 1,und 1868-69, pp. 1-28.

1 2 E. Jorgensen, fiaemmed lizdjJtdelse under den danske Kirkes tidligste Luuikling, Copenhagen 1 908 (Get Kgl. Damke Kderzskabel*ize~- Selskabs Skn$er 7. R. Hist. og Fil. Afd. I . 2), pp. 146- 47,179-8 1 .

13 E. Martkne, De Antiquis Ecclesi'e Kitibus, h t u e r p i z 1737, pp. 843-888, or the edition of Venise from 1788. -The manuscript used by bfartkne is now lost, seeA.-G. Martimort, La documentation liturgique de Dam EdmondMarti.ne, CitrB del Vaticano 1978, p. 512 No.

1 13 5 (Studi e test; 279). Supplement in Eccbia O~ans 3, Roma 1986, pp. 8 1-105. 14 ~'l'ecrolo~ium Lundense, ed. L. Weibull, Lund 1923.

15 ~Vecrologium Lundense, ed. E. Kroman, Copenhagen 1960 (Coupus Con'icum Daaicoru~n

vol. I). Also edited with an English introduction. 16 Weibu11 1323, op. cit., pp. XIII-XI\/:

17 L. Weibull, ''Skbes Kyrka fr5n ddsta tid till Jacob Erlandsens d6d 1274", Lunds Domkyr- kas Hirtoria, vol. I . 1145-1536, Stockholm 1946, pp. 143-356, especially pp. 182-1 86.

(8)

18 Z Schmid, "Beitrage zum mittelalterlichen Kultleben", Ephemerides Liturgicae 58, Romae

1944,50-87. 19 Schmid, op. cit., p. 54.

20 Sie,wart, op. cit.

21 Siegwart, op. cit., p. 89.

22 Consuetudines Lutzdenses. Statuttrr for kannikersamfindet i Lund c. 1 123, ed. E. Buus. Mit

einer deutschen Zusammenfassung, Copenhagen 1978.

23 Buus, op. cit., p. 102.

24 Buus, op. cit., pp. 1 I sqq., 103 sqq. 25 Buus, op. cit., p. 39-40.

26 Weibull 1923, op. cit., p. XTV.

27 Sie,wart, op. cit., p. 30-31.

28 Buus, op. cit., p. 26.

29 Buus, op. cit., p. 26.

30 Review by G. Constable in Speculum 54, Cambridge, Mass. 1979, p. 874.

31 E. Buus, "Necrologium Lundense", B. Khlers Moller 81 E. Buus, Herw - vasker du mine @dder? Marzdatumliturgien i Marbach og Lund Studiev i h2nd-krzjet lVecrologzum Lundeizse

(Q. 1130). With English Summary, Copenhagen 1987, pp. 7-83, epecially p. 33.

32 B. Ahlers Mmller 81 Buus, op. cit., p. 71 footnote 119.

33 B. Ahlers Mmller, "Mandatumliturgien i Marbach og L u n d , Ahlers Mmller & Buus, op.

cit., pp. 84-202, especially p. 94. 34 Ahlers Moller 81 Buus, op. cit., p. 203.

35 Ch. Dereine, Les Cha?zoines re'guuliers au diockce de Liige avant saint Norbert, Mcademie Roy-

ale de Belgique. Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques. Me'moires. Collection in- 8". Tome 47. Fasc. l ) , Bruxelles 1952, pp. 198-201.

36 Diplomatarium Daniculn I R 2, Copenhagen 1963, No. 56.

37 Diplomatarium Danicum, op. cit., No. 64.

38 Diplomatarium Danicum, op. cit., No. 72.

39 Diplomatarium Danicum, up. cit., Nos. 77, 88, 89.

40 Diplornatarium Danicum, op. cit., No. 91.

41 Weibull 1923, op. cix, p. 114.

42 Diplomatariurn Danicum, op. cit., Nos. 88, 89.

43 Weibull 1323, op. cit., p. 52.

44 Weibu11 1923, op. cit., p. XXXV.

45 Weibull 1923, op. cit., pp. XCVII-XCVIII. Kroman, op. cit., pp. m-XXVI.

46 Weibull 1923, op. cit., p. LVIII.

47 J. Stiennon, L'e'ccriture diplomatique ddns le diockse de Likge du X e au milieu du XlIe sikle.

Reflet d t n e civilisation, Paris 1960 (Biblioth>que de la Faculte' de Philosophic et Lettres de l'liniversite'de Liige. F a .

v,

Fig. 197-199 pp. 198-200.

48 E. ALbrectsen, I\Iiiddeelallderlige H2ndsknfiagmenter. @ a p e fiagmenter. Omslag om lens-

~epzskabei; Copenhagen 1976, p. 52.

49 E Paulp "Die Consutudines von Springiersbach", Tvierer theologischc Zeitschrzj5 67, Trier 1958, pp. 106-1 11.

(9)

50 Pauly 1962, op. cit.

51 Siegwart, op. cit., p. 95.

52 Buus, op. cit., p. 40.

53 Weibu11 1923, op. cit., p. W I I .

54 See Weinfurter 1978, op. cit., pp. VII-X. W. Gartner, "Das Chorherrenstift Klosterrath in der Kanonikerrefor~n des 12. Jahrhunderts", Zeitsclmj? des Aachener Gescbichtsve~eins 97,

Xachen 1991, pp. 33-220.

55 Weinhrter 1978, op. cit., pp. XVI-XVII. 56 W'einfurter 1975, op. cit., pp., 265-266.