Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:41:36.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anna Comnena’s account of the First Crusade: History and politics in the reigns of the emperors Alexius I and Manuel I Comnenus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

R. D. Thomas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Anna Comnena’s history the Alexiad has been accorded a high honorary status by Byzantine historians. Her pioneering efforts in philosophy and the thoroughness of her historical methodology are admired, although there is a distinct reluctance to analyse her historical writing. On a superficial level the Alexiad is a straightforward text: an historical panegyric in its organisation, frequently eulogistic in tone, in the manner of court orations, and rhetorically strongly influenced by conventional Byzantine pastiches of Homer.

Type
Articles:
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 15 , 1991 , pp. 269 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. Dieten, I.A. Van (Berlin 1975)Google Scholar. There is a translation by Magoulias, Harry J., O City of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniates (Wayne State University, 1984)Google Scholar. The particular passage which refers to Anna’s sexual harassment is in Nicetas Choniates, Historia: I ‘The Reign of John Comnenus’, chapter X.

2. Anna’s ability to rewrite and omit important, but controversial events is outlined in Leib, B., ‘Les silences d’Anne Comnène ou ce que n’a pas dit l’Aléxiade’, BS 19 (1958) 1–11 Google Scholar. Another prominent omission in the Alexiad is the trial of Eustratios, bishop of Nicaea. Anna was his patron. Angold suggests that the bishop’s condemnation is likely to have been a defeat for the Empress Irene and Anna in their struggle with John Comnenus, Angold, M., The Byzantine Empire 1025–1204 (London 1984) 151–2.Google Scholar

3. The Alexiad of Anna Comnena, translated by E.R.A. Sewter (London 1969). The best edition is Anne Comnène, Aléxiade, ed. B. Leib, 3 vols (Paris 1937–45, repr. 1967).

4. This point is also mentioned by Kazhdan — ‘The same could be said of the “Alexias” by Anna Comneni whose aim was not only to glorify her father but also to criticize, in a more or less disguised way, the reigning Emperor Manuel I’ ( Kazhdan, A.P., Constable, G., People and Power in Byzantium [Washington D.C. 1982])Google Scholar. Kazhdan refers to the work of Lyubarskij on Anna Comnena: Lyubarskij, J.A.N., ‘Mirovoz-reniye Anny Komniny’, Učeniye Zapiski Velikolukskogo Pedagogičeskogo Instituta 24 (1964)Google Scholar; Lyubarskij, J.A.N., Anna Komnina Aleksiada (Moscow 1965).Google Scholar

5. For Peter the Hermit see Blake, E.O. and Morris, C., ‘A Hermit Goes to War: Peter and the Origins of the First Crusade’, in Monks, Hermits and the Ascetic Tradition (= Studies in Church History 22, 1984) 79–107 Google Scholar; Alphandry, P., Dupont, A., ‘La Croisade populaire de Pierre l’Ermite’, in La Chrétienté et l’idée de Croisades: les premières croisades (Paris 1954) 57–79 Google Scholar. Albert of Aix begins his account in Jerusalem at the Holy Sepulchre, where Peter the Hermit has a dream-vision in which Christ urges him to rouse the faithful for the purpose of cleansing the Holy Places, Aquensis, Albertus, Historia Hierosolymitana, in >Recueil des historiens des Croisades: historiens occidentaux IV (Paris 1879) 272.Google Scholar

6. Pope Urban’s Letters number II and III in Hagenmayer, Heinrich, ed., Die Kreuz-zugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100: Epistutae et Chartae (Innsbruck 1901) 140–1, 152–3.Google Scholar

7. Munro, D.C., ‘Did the Emperor Alexius Ask for Aid at the Council of Piacenza?’, American Historical Review 27 (1922).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Cowdrey, H.E.J., ‘Pope Urban II’s Preaching of the First Crusade’, History 55 (1970) 177–188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Riley-Smith, J., ‘Crusading As An Act of Love’, History 65 (1980) 177–192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Pope Urban’s Message’, (chapter 1) in The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London 1986); Blake, E.O., ‘The Formation of the Crusade Idea’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 21 (1970) 11–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cowdrey, H.E.J., ‘The Gregorian Papacy, Byzantium, and the First Crusade’, in Byzantium and the West c.850-c.1200, ed. Howard-Johnston, J.D. (Amsterdam 1988) 145–169.Google Scholar

9. Ganshof, F.L., ‘Recherches sur le lien juridique qui unissait les chefs de la Première Croisade à l’empereur byzantin’, in Mélanges offerts à P.E. Martin (Geneva 1961) 49–63 Google Scholar. Note the comments of Le Goff on the ritual of vassalage: ‘Thus the first act, the first structure of the system creates an unequal relationship between lord and vassals…. the second act of faith noticeably alters things… the essential point is that the texts stress mainly the conjuncture of attitude and equality in the physical gesture… Finally investiture is clearly related to the practice of the gift-counter gift. After the inequality-equality phase the system is completed with a genuinely mutual bond, a reciprocal contract… Finally, it should be noted that if homage, the oath, and investiture of the fief constitute a single complete system, the significations of the successive symbolic rites do not destroy but rather complement one another.’ Goff, J. Le, ‘The Symbolic Ritual of Vassalage’, Time, Work and Culture in the Middle Ages (Chicago-London 1980) 237–287.Google Scholar

The first princes’ letter written from Antioch states that ‘The Emperor in the middle of May pledged his faith and security on oath, giving likewise hostages, namely his nephew, and his son-in-law. In addition to this he added that he would not further attempt to molest any pilgrims on their way to the Holy Sepulchre. He also sent his protopatron with orders throughout the Empire even to Durazzo threatening the death penalty through hanging for those who attacked pilgrims’. Letter XII, in Hagenmayer Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, 153–5. Albert of Aix records that Alexius’s heir, John, was pledged as a hostage in his negotiations with Count Godfrey: Aquensis, Albertus, Historia Hiersolymitana, in Recueil des historiens des Croisades: historiens occidentaux, IV (Paris 1879) II.Google Scholar

10. Daly, W.M., ‘Christian Fraternity, the Crusades and the Security of Constantinople, 1097–1204’, Medieval Studies 22 (1060) 43–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. E.R. Sewter The Alexiad of Anna Comnena, X 308–313.

12. Alexiad, X 310–1.

13. Alexiad, X 313.

14. Alexiad, X 313–15.

15. Alexiad, X 315–18.

16. Alexiad, X 318–23.

17. No mention is made in Albert of Aix’s chronicle, or in the Gesta Francorum, that fighting occurred during Holy Week. Aquensis, Albertus, Historia Hierosolymitana II: Gesta Francorum et Aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, ed. Hill, Rosalind (London 1962) 6 Google Scholar; Runciman, S., History of the Crusades, I: The First Crusade (London 1968) 152 Google Scholar. In an excessively brief footnote he writes that ‘Anna’s account is far more convincing than Albert’s and may be accepted as true’, and then refers the reader to Chalan-don’s Histoire de la Première Croisade (Paris 1925). This author merely states ‘that in Anna’s account there is a precision that is not found in Albert’s. Moreover, Anna was a witness’. However, H. Hagenmeyer dates the warfare on January 13th, the ceremony of the hostages on January 20th, and the agreement with the army January 21st: H. Hagenmeyer Chronologie de la Première Croisade 1094–1100 (Paris 1902) 53–54. Since Anna was merely thirteen years old at the time of these incidents her recollection ought to be considered to be questionable. A subsequent rewriting carried out towards the end of her life probably reconstituted these events into a more polemical mode.

18. Alexiad, X 322.

19. Godfrey of Lorraine’s forces arrived two days before Christmas 1096. Their activities proved to be repeatedly difficult to contain. The Lorraine crusaders lost their market rights on several occasions as the imperial authorities attempted to pressurise Godfrey into taking the oath and then into moving his army across the Hellespont. Both sides exchanged hostages; Alexius must have been fairly desperate to resolve the matter since his son and heir, John was the Byzantine hostage. This sustained struggle with the Lorraine army alerted Alexius to the danger the crusader armies might pose to Constantinople itself. Hence he encouraged the subsequent leaders, especially Bohemund and Raymond, to leave their forces, and to journey independently with a small retinue of personal retainers to the capital in order to take the oath of fealty. The whereabouts of the other crusader armies is uncertain. Robert of Flanders and his force arrived in Constantinople after Godfrey but before Bohemund. This reinforces Albert’s account of Godfrey’s sojourn in Constantinople since there is scarcely any time to allow Robert to come after Godfrey’s oath taken on April 10th, and Bohemund’s arrival, which is dated April 15th. But there is in Albert’s chronology of events which stretches from late January to April. Both Raymond of Aguilers and the author of the Gesta Francorum record that Robert Count of Flanders was present at the meeting between Raymond Count of Saint Gilles, the princes and Alexius. The joint army of Robert Count of Normandy and Stephen Count of Blois is also thought by some historians to have arrived in mid May. However, their route indicates that this army travelled quickly along the via Ignatia and may have been much nearer to the Provençal and South Italian troops than is usually assumed. Alexius would be very clearly worried by the possibility of the union of two Norman armies. The South Italian Norman and Provençal troops were both in the Constantinople area on April 26th and 27th. The last major crusader army, that of Robert Count of Normandy and Stephen of Blois, might have been less than a week behind. Duby has drawn attention to the turbulence that the youth, ‘juventus’, younger sons created amidst the feudal aristocracy in terms of their recklessness, their provocative and warlike attitudes and their shorter life expectancy. The activities of Tancred and Baldwin, Godfrey’s younger brother, appear to be consistent with these ingrained social habits. Both were impatient, turbulent and adventurous, even reckless when warfare was involved. Their frequent aggression created a serious problem for the Byzantine officials and troops. Duby, G., ‘Les jeunes dans la société aristocratique dans la France du nord ouest au XII siècle’, in Duby, Georges, ed., Hommeset Structures du Moyen Age (Paris 1973) 213–276.Google Scholar

20. Alexiad, X 325–6, and book XI 341.

21. Alexiad, X 326–29.

22. Alexiad, the Treaty of Devol, 1108, book XIII 424–34.

23. Yewdale, R.B., Bohemund I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton 1924)Google Scholar; Krey, A C., ‘A Neglected Passage in the Gesta’, in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to D.C. Munro, ed. Paetow, L. (New York (1928) 57–78.Google Scholar

24. Alexiad, X 329–331; Hill, J.H. and Hill, L.L. ‘The Convention between Alexius Comnenus and Raymond of Saint Gilles’, American Historical Review 58 (1953) 322–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; a similar viewpoint is expressed in Hill, J.H., ‘Raymond of Saint Gilles in Urban’s plan for Greek and Latin Friendship’, Speculum 26 (1951) 255–276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Hill, J.H. and Hill, L.L., Raymond IV Count of Toulouse (Syracusa University Press 1962).Google Scholar

25. Raymond of Aguilers writes: ‘At this juncture, following consultation with his Provençals, the Count swore that he would not, either through himself or through others, sully the life and honour of the Emperor. When he was cited concerning homage, he replied that he would not pay homage because of the peril to his rights. We may add that Alexius gave him little of worldly goods because of his intransigence’. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: historiens occidentaux III (Paris 1866) 141. The most modern edition is Le Liber de Raymond d’Aguilers, ed. J.H. Hill and L. Hill (Paris 1969).

26. Krey, A C., ‘Urban’s Crusade — Success or Failure?’, American Historical Review 53 (1948) 235–250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brundage, J.A., ‘Adhemar of Puy: the bishop and his Critics’, Speculum 34 (1959) 201–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hamilton, B. ‘The First Crusade and the Eastern Churches’, in The Latin Church and the Crusader States (London 1980)Google Scholar and France, J., ‘The Crisis of the First Crusade: from the Defeat of Kerbogah to the Departure from Aqra’, B 40 (1970) 276–308 Google Scholar. Patriarch Simeon’s letters, nos VI, XI, in Hagenmayer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, (Innsbrück 1901) 141–2, 146–9.

27. Runciman, S., The Eastern Schism (Oxford 1955) 61–2, 71–2, 76–9 Google Scholar; Holtzmann, W., ‘Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios I und Papst Urban II im Jahre 1089’, in Beiträge zur Reichs-und Papstgeschichte des Hohen Mittelalters (Bonn 1957) 79–105 Google Scholar; Leib, B., ‘Les Patriarches de Byzance et la politique religieuse d’Aléxius Ier Comnène (1081–118)’, Recherches de Science Religieuse 40 (1952) 201–221 Google Scholar; Hamilton, Bernard, The Latin Church in the Crusader States (London 1980)Google Scholar; Leib, B., Rome, Kiev et Byzance à la fin du XI siècle (Paris 1924).Google Scholar

28. Shepard, J., ‘Aspects of Byzantine Attitudes and Policy Towards the West in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, in Byantium and the West c.850-c.1200, ed. Howard-Johnston, J.D. (Amsterdam 1988) 114–115.Google Scholar

29. Alexiad, XI 333–41. The first letter of the crusader princes written from Antioch refers to an agreement the Emperor made with them in mid-May. This probably refers to a meeting at Pelakanum before the siege was completed. Once Nicaea was captured Alexius distributed generous gifts to the knights, including gold, silver, robes and horses, while alms and food were given to the foot soldiers and poor.

30. Caesar John Ducas’s campaigns, Alexiad, XI 346–348.

31. Alexiad, XI 348–50.

32. Stephen of Blois’s letter to his wife, Adele, written from Nicaea, June 24th 1097. His letters are numbers IV and X in Hagenmayer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, 138–40, 149–52. ‘… that coward Stephen, count of Chartres whom all our leaders had elected commander-in-chief pretended to be very ill, and went shamefully to another castle which is called Alexandretta. When we were shut up in the city, lacking help to save us, we waited each day for him to bring us aid’, Gesta Francorum, IX, xxvii, 63 (ed. Hill) and Raymond of Aguilers Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, VIII, in Receuil des historiens des Croisades: historiens occidentaux III (Paris 1866), chapter XI.

It is likely that Stephen had been sent to achieve a rendezvous with the main Byzantine army, which the council of Princes assumed was marching on Antioch. The crusaders used Alexandretta and Lattakiah to maintain links with Byzantine Cyprus. Food supplies came from the island, as did information on Byzantine activities. The papal legate Adhemar might have also visited the island. Raymond of Aguilers records that at the siege of Arqua Count Raymond of Saint-Gilles sent William Hugh of Monteil, brother of Adhemar, Bishop of Le Puy, to Lattakiah, where Adhemar’s cross and hood had been left. This raises the question as to why they were there in the first place. Raymond gives no clues as to how this came about. Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, in Recueil des historiens des Croisades: historiens occidentaux III; XI.

33. Alexiad, XI 349.

34. Gesta Francorum, ed. Hill, pages 63–5 (for Stephen’s flight, and the intervention of Guy at Philomelium on behalf of his half-brother, Bohemund). Guy was a mercenary knight in the Byzantine army. It is also likely that these passages accompany the earlier interpolation identified by A.C. Krey. Both passages relate to the crucial matter of Bohemund’s oath to the Emperor Alexius and the Emperor’s obligations to his vassal. The legality of the Norman claim to Antioch depended on demonstrating that Bohemund was released from his oath. The popularisation of the text of the Gesta Francorum was associated with Bohemund’s recruiting tour of France and the subsequent crusade against Byzantium. For Tatikios’s earlier departure from Antioch see France, J., ‘The Departure of Tatikios from the crusader Army’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research (November 1971) 137–147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and also Skoulutos, Basile, Les personnages byzantines de l’Aléxiade: analyse prosopographique et synthèse (Louvain 1980).Google Scholar

35. Symeon’s letters are numbers VI and IX in Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, 141–2, 146–9.

36. Alexiad, XIII 430–1.

37. ‘Bohemund, Raymond Count of Saint Gilles, Godfrey, Duke of Lorraine, Robert, Count of Normandy, Robert, Count of Flanders, and Eustace, Count of Boulogne to Pope Urban II’, written from Antioch, September 11th 1098. Letter XVI in Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, 161–5; Hamilton, B., ‘The First Crusade and the Eastern Churches’, in The Latin Church in the Crusader States (London 1980) 6–9.Google Scholar

38. Alexiad, XI 358.

39. Angold, M., The Byzantine Empire 1025–1204 (London 1984) 164–173.Google Scholar

40. Alexiad, XIV 460.

41. Browning, R., ‘An Unpublished Funeral Oration on Anna Comnena’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philogical Society 188 (1962) 1–12 Google Scholar, also reprinted in Studies in Byzantine History, Literature and Education (London 1977). For the full text see Tornikès, Georges, ‘Éloge d’Anne Comnène’, in Darrouzès, J., Georges et Démétrios Tornikès, lettres et discours: introduction, texte, analyses, traduction et notes (Paris 1970) 220–323 Google Scholar. In more general terms see Browning, R., ‘Enlightenment and Repression in Byzantium in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’, Past and Present 69 (1975) 3–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Browning, R., Church, State and Learning in Twelfth Century Byzantium (lecture, London 1981) (Friends of Dr. Williams Library).Google Scholar

42. Nicetas Choniates, Historia, chapter 60. For a careful analysis of Choniates’ criticism of Manuel’s rule see Magdalino, Paul, ‘Aspects of Twelfth Century Byzantine Kaiserkritik’, Speculum 58 (1983) 326–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. Nicetas Choniates, Historia, chapter 42–49.

44. Magdalino, Paul, ‘Isaac Sebastokrator (III), John Axouch and a Case of Mistaken Identity’, BMGS 11 (1987) 207–214 Google Scholar; and Browning, R., ‘The Death of John II Comnenus’, B 31 (1961) 228–35.Google Scholar

45. Smail, R.C., ‘Latin Syria and the West 1149–1187’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 19 (1969) 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. These were Menander of Laodicea’s categorisations: Kazhdan, A.P., ‘The Social Views of Michael Attaleiates’, in Kazhdan, A.P., Franklin, S., Studies in Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Cambridge 1984) 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. For a succinct outline of the Emperor Manuel’s ‘renovatio imperii’, see Magdalino, P. and Nelson, R., ‘The Emperor in the Byzantine Art of the Twelfth Century’, Byzantinische Forschungen 8 (1982) 169–177 Google Scholar, and Magdalino, Paul, ‘The Phenomenon of Manuel I Komnenos’, in Byzantium and the West c. 850-c. 1200, ed. Howard-Johnston, J.D. (Amsterdam 1985) 171–199 Google Scholar. For an earlier but sustained exposition of these profuse themes see Lamma, P., Comneni e Staufer: Ricerche sui rapporti fra Bisanzio e l’Occidente nel Secolo XII, 2 vols. (Rome 1955–7).Google Scholar

48. It is difficult to clearly describe the warring Comneni factions, but the various clans would include the following figures: Irene, the wife of Andronicus, John Comnenus’ second eldest son, who like Anna was under some form of household arrest between 1143–4, and 1148–9. In 1142 Irene for a few months had been the wife of the heir to the throne, but her husband died in Constantinople soon after returning by sea with his brother Isaac and the body of the first born, the co-emperor, Alexius. Irene was a patron of poetry, literature and philosophy. Some members of her circle of literati had mingled in the Empress Irene Ducas’ circle; a forum that had also included Anna Comnena and Irene’s son, Andronicus. These oppositional groupings, some of whom had opposed the Emperor John’s accession, remained hostile to Manuel’s assumption qf Imperial power. Manuel’s elder brother, Isaac, was the most volatile figure during the early years of his brother’s reign, and he could count on significant support within the church, the imperial court and bureaucracy. The most dangerous conspirator of Manuel’s reign, was Andronicus, son of the Emperor John’s estranged brother, Isaac. John II’s closest confident was John Axouch, the grand domestic and it was his eldest son Alexius Axouch who had married the daughter of the Emperor John’s first born, Alexius, and his Russian wife, Dobrodjeja. As has been already mentioned John Axouch appears to have been sympathetic towards Isaac’s aspirations for the Imperial throne. His eldest son, Alexius Axouch, was subsequently disgraced in 1167 because of his opposition to the pro-Latin group at court, and his known sympathy towards Andronicus, especially for the latter’s opposition to Manuel’s plans for his only daughter Maria and the heir to the Hungarian throne, Bela, renamed Alexius in Byzantium. Cinnamus and Choniates give very different accounts of Alexius Axouch’s disgrace. This familial strife initially originated with the sibling struggles of Alexius’ and Irene Ducas’ children. The infighting was persistently aggravated by the Empress, and Anna Comnena. The feuding was subsequently sustained by a second generation of contenders throughout the reigns of the Emperors John and Manuel. It finally culminated in Andronicus’s butchery of Manuel’s progeny, and their spouses. These murders were carried out in the wider context of a series of terrorist policies which included a brutal persecution of selected families from the military aristocracy and a putschist massacre of westerners.

49. Kazhdan, A.P., ‘Review Article: The Byzantine Empire’, Past and Present 43 (1969) 165–7 Google Scholar. For the wealth of twelfth-century Byzantium, see Hendy, M.F. ‘Byzantium 1081–1204: An Economic Reappraisal’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 20 (1970) 32–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c.300–1450 (Cambridge 1985) 587–9, 600–1.

50. Choniates, Nicetas, Historia, 60 Google Scholar; Cinnamus, , Deeds of John and Manuel, transl. Brand, C.M. (New York 1976)Google Scholar; Odo of Deuil, De Profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem, ed. and transl. V.G. Berry (New York 1948); Lamma, P., ‘I primi anni di Manuele 1143–8, 2: la Seconda Crociata’, Comneni e Staufer, 1 (Rome 1955) 56–83.Google Scholar

51. Alexius’s letter to the Abbot of Monte Casino: letter XI in Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe, 152–3.

52. Alexiad, XI 366–368.

53. Nicetas Choniates, Historia, 60–1.

54. Riley-Smith, J., ‘Crusading As An Act of Love’, History 65 (1980) 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55. Kazhdan, A.P. and Constable, G., People and Power in Byzantium (Washington D.C. 1982)Google Scholar, chapt. IV: ‘Eustathius of Thessalonica: the Life and Opinions of a Twelfth-Century Byzantine Rhetor’, 115–95; chapt. VII: ‘Nieetas Choniates and Otherwise: Aspects of the Art of Literature’, 256–86; Eustathius of Thessalonica’s Funeral Oration of 1180 is in MPG 155, 973–1032.

56. For the commonality of all ‘barbarians’ in the Alexiad see Shepard, J., ‘Aspects of Byzantine Attitudes and Policy Towards the West in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, in Byzantium and the West c.850-c.1200, ed. Howard-Johnston, J.D. (Amsterdam 1988) 97–117.Google Scholar