Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:15:03.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medieval Democracy in the Brandenburg Towns and its Defeat in the Fifteenth Century: The Alexander Prize Essay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

F. L. Carsten
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the time of the so-called German colonisation to the east of the Elbe, German merchants and artisans entered the Brandenburg Mark, whose rivers, woods, and marshes stretched from the Old Mark to the west of the Elbe to the New Mark to the east of the Oder. The immigrants brought with them the economic methods and social organisation of their homeland. Town life, self-government, and trade quickly developed everywhere, whether the new town was established on an uninhabited site, or on the site of a Slavonic village which gave its name to the new settlement, or a walled town or fortress of the Slavs was transformed into a German town.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 25 , December 1943 , pp. 73 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1943

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

* For list of margraves see Appendix.

page 73 note 1 Of more than sixty towns of the Brandenburg Mark over fifty per cent. have Slavonic names, and over twenty-five per cent, were major settlements before the German immigration started, but they were merely fortified places, and not civitates in the German sense, with self-government, special laws and privileges, aldermen and gilds of artisans.

page 73 note 2 Privileges as follows: Stendal, 1215; Prenzlau, 1305; Neu-Ruppin, 1315; Berlin and Cölln, Spandau, Frankfort, Landsberg, 1317; Brietzen, 1319; Wriezen, 1337; all towns of the New Mark, 1340 and 1344; Eberswalde and Bärwalde, 1350; Sandau, 1351; Straussberg, 1354; Alt-Landsberg, 1355; and many other towns: Codex diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, ed. A. F. Riedel (quoted as Riedel), xv, no. 5, p. 7; xxi, no. 22, pp. 104–5; iv, no. 4, p. 284; xii, no. 1, p. 350; xi, no. 32, p. 23; xviii, no. 9, p. 375; xxiii, no. 17, p. 14; ix, no. 11, p. 357; xii, no. 7, p. 417; xxiv, no. 55. P- 30. no. 62, p. 34; xii, no. 23, p. 296; xix, no. 34, p. 20; B ii, no. 951, p. 329; xii, no. 12, p. 74, no. 22, p. 498.

page 74 note 1 Privileges of Berlin and Colin, 1317; Salzwedel, 1343: Riedel, xii, no. 1, p. 350; xiv, nos. 115–16, pp. 82–3.

page 74 note 2 In 1375 the indicium supremum was either sold or pawned in at least sixteen towns, including all the larger ones: Kaiser Karl's IV. Landbuch der Mark Brandenburg, ed. E. Fidicin, pp. 28–32. Cp. Riedel, i, no. 59, p. 155; ix, no. 33, p. 377; xviii, no. 56, p. 36, no. 39, p. 85, no. 22, p. 228, no. 51, p. 308; xix, no. 121, p. 249; xxi, no. 142, p. 197.

page 74 note 3 Privileges of Rathenow, 1295; Brietzen, 1319; Barwalde, 1350: ibid., vii, no. 4, p. 410; ix, no. 11, p. 357; xix, no. 34, p. 20.

page 74 note 4 Privileges of Stendal, 1324; the district of Lebus, 1327; Berlin and Colin, 1328: ibid., xv, nos. 104–5, pp. 77–8 (renewed in 1344: no. 157, p. 118), xx, no. 34, p. 203; Historisch-diplomatische Beitrāge zur Geschichte der Stadt Berlin, ed. E. Fidicin (quoted as Fidicin), ii, no. 22, p. 28.

page 74 note 5 Riedel, xxi, no. 61, p. 134 (1324).

page 74 note 6 The principles of this law were communicated by Berlin to Frankfort in 1253: ‘Consules autem qui nunc sunt sequentis anni consules eligere habent et statuere. … Omnes vero exercentes officia, videlicet pistores, sutores, carninces, seu cuiuscunque operis fuerint, non liceat eis habere quod dicitur Innicghe in civitate, nisi de voluntate et permissione consulum. … Magistri etiam pistorum a consulibus statuantur. …’: ibid., xxiii, no. 3, p. 4.

page 75 note 1 Count Günther von Arnstein granted the law of Stendal to the town of Neu-Ruppin in 1256: ‘Consules consulibus suo tempore substituendis consulant assumtis quibusdam discretioribus civitatis. …’: ibid., iv, no. 2, p. 283.

page 75 note 2 See ibid., iv, p. 224.

page 75 note 3 Ibid., iv, p. 208. Cp. below, p. 78.

page 75 note 4 Privilege of Margrave Lewis the Elder for the town of Pritzwalk of 1335: ‘Unde cum concors electio consulum, per universitatem vestram pronunc facta, ipsi nostrae civitati et nobis … utiliter conveniat, ut denuo consules … secundum civitatis nostrae Sehusen aliarumque nostrarum civitatum ritum et modum communem eligere habeatis, vobis … conferimus … facultatem. …’: ibid., iii, no. 48, p. 367.

page 75 note 5 Since 1258 the Brandenburg Mark had been divided between two branches of the Ascanian house, the Johannine and the Ottonine line.

page 76 note 1 ‘Nos una cum consilio omnium civitatum domini Johannis, marchionis Brandenburgensis, firma fide inter nos quandam fecimus unionem in hunc modum quod si aliqua violentia seu iniustitia alicui praedictarum civitatum insurgeret, tune nos eidem civitati pro nostra possibilitate astare volumus consiliis pariter et expensis. …’: Riedel, xiv, no. 63, p. 50. The documents ibid., ix, no. 10, p. 7, and in Urkundenbuch zur Berlinischen Chronik, ed. F. Voigt (quoted as Voigt), no. 38, p. 25, are slightly different in wording.

page 76 note 2 ‘Si aliqui cives traherentur ad placita terrae, quae in vulgo dicuntur Lantdinc, extunc, sicut exnunc, expensae communes esse debent. Item si aliqua enormitas sive violentia per potentes aliquos fieret in nostra civitate, dummodo consules talem sibi assumerent violentiam, tune iterum expensae communes esse debent. …’: Riedel, ix, no. 14, p. 10; xiv, nos. 64, 66, p. 51.

page 76 note 3 Between Königsberg, Schönfliess, Bärwalde and Mohrin, in the New Mark, in 1320; between the towns of the Middle and Old Mark and those of Lower Lusatia in 1323; between the Old Mark towns before 1323, in 1334, 1344, 1353, 1369, 1393, 1436 and 1478; between Prenzlau, Pasewalk, Angermunde and Templin, in the Ucker Mark, in 1348; between the Middle Mark towns in 1393 and 1399; between Berlin and Colin, Brandenburg, and Frankfort in 1431: ibid., xix, no. 21, p. 184; iii, no. 38, p. 361; xv, no. 103, p. 76; xvi, no. 10, p. 8; xiv, no. 124, p. 88; vi, no. 138, p. 100, no. 17, p. 409; xxv, no. 146, p. 278; vi, no. 168, p. 120; xxv, no. 295, p. 399; xxi, no. 96, p. 161; xi, no. 95, p. 66; xxiv, no. 96, p. 393; Fidicin, iv, no. 123, p. 95; ii, no. 97, p. 123, no. 104, p. 152. Probably many more such unions were formed.

page 76 note 4 Riedel, xv, nos. 104–5, pp. 77–8; xiv, no. 87, p. 65 (1324); xx, no. 34, p. 203 (1327); Fidicin, ii, no. 22, p. 28 (1328); Riedel, iii, no. 71, p. 378; ix, no. 68, p. 43; xi, no. 54, p. 37; xvi, no. 17, p. 13, no. 27, p. 328; xxi, no. 100, p. 164; Supplementband, no. 19, p. 233 (all issued by the ‘false’ margrave Woldemar in 1348).

page 76 note 5 See Riedel, B i, no. 106, p. 80; xiv, no. 13, p. 9; xv, no. 35, p. 24; Hansisches Urkundenbuch, i, nos. 593, 850, 865, pp. 208, 292, 299.

page 76 note 6 In the Old Mark Stendal, Salzwedel, Gardelegen, Seehausen, Tangermünde, Osterburg, and Werben; in the Prignitz Perleberg, Havelberg, Pritzwalk, and Kyritz; in the Middle Mark Berlin and Colin, Brandenburg, and Frankfort: W. Stein, ‘Die Hansestädte; (c) Die Städte der Mark Brandenburg’, Hansische Geschichtsbldtter, 1915, pp. 119–24, 135–7.

page 77 note 1 Thus 1459, 1476, 1482, 1485–6: Riedel, xv, nos. 348, 407, 409, 431, 443, 446, pp. 289–402; xvi, no. 621, p. 176.

page 77 note 2 ‘Af ichteswelke lude unrechte sameninge, twidracht, uplop und vorsturinge der stede in desen steden meynen to makene … to ereme live und gude seal men richten sunder gnade. Worden se ok vorvluchtich, der er seal men in den anderen steden nicht liden. …’: ibid., vi, no. 168, p. 120.

page 77 note 3 Ibid., xxii, no. 3, p. 488 (1438 ?). 4 Hanserecesse von 1256–1430, vi, no. 557, p. 555. Renewed in 1447, 1470 and 1487: Hanserecesse von 1431–1476, iii, no. 288, pp. 177, 186–7; vi, no. 356, p. 332; Hanserecesse von 1477–1530, ii, no. 160, pp. 142–3.

page 77 note 5 ‘Cum in civitate nostra Stendal aliqualis mota fuisset discordia superiure civitatis, dissentientibus divitibus ac pauperiabus. …’: Riedel, xv, no. 42, p. 34.

page 78 note 1 Riedel, xv. 34. For a conflict between the aldermen and gilds of Neu-Ruppin in 1315, see ibid., iv, no. 4, p. 285; and for one between the aldermen and commons of Pritzwalk in 1335, see ibid., iii, no. 48, p. 367; ii, p. 14.

page 78 note 2 Ibid., xv, nos. 167–8, pp. 123–5.

page 78 note 3 In 1346 Margrave Lewis the Elder promised to protect the burghers who were ‘outside the town’ and to help them in again: ibid., xv, no. 175, p. 132.

page 78 note 4 The reconciliation was effected by Archbishop Otto of Magdeburg, the aldermen of the other Old Mark towns, and those of Brandenburg: ibid., xv. nos. 179–80, pp. 135–6.

page 78 note 5 See the privileges given to Berlin and Cölln, Brandenburg, Spandau, Tangermünde, Osterburg, Pritzwalk, and Prenzlau: ibid., Supplementband, no. 19, p. 233; ix, no. 68, p. 43; xi, no. 54, p. 37; xvi, no. 17, p. 13, no. 27, p. 328; iii, no. 71, p. 378; xxi, no. 100, p. 164.

page 79 note 1 In Prenzlau, Pasewalk, Angermünde, and Templin: ibid., Supplementband, no. 28, p. 26.

page 79 note 2 The towns of Soldin and Königsberg: ibid., xviii, no. 25, p. 458; xix, no. 71, p. 215.

page 79 note 3 Berlin, Frankfort, Spandau, and Köpenick each were to occupy one of the margrave's castles: ibid., B ii, no. 891, p. 259 (1349).

page 79 note 4 Reconciliation with Königsberg and Soldin of 1349; with Stendal of 1351: ibid., xix, no. 71, p. 215; xviii, no. 25, p. 458; xv, no. 185, p. 140.

page 79 note 5 At least in the Old Mark: reconciliation with Stendal of 1351, repeated in 1360; with Sandau of 1351: ibid., xv, no. 185, p. 140, no. 201, p. 152; B ii, no. 951, p. 329.

page 79 note 6 Reconciliation with Spandau of 1349; with Rathenow and Sandau of 1351; with the Altstadt of Brandenburg of 1355; with the Neustadt of Brandenburg of 1365: ibid., xi, no. 55, p. 38; vii, no. 16, p. 416; B ii, no. 951, p. 329; ix, no. 77, p. 49, no. 87, p. 55.

page 79 note 7 Ibid., xiv, nos. 175–7, PP. 124–5.

page 79 note 8 Ibid., xv, no. 235, p. 182.

page 79 note 9 Forty-three of the seventy-two aldermen known for the period 1365–1400 came from the families which had predominated in the council before 1345; among the twenty-nine others there were certainly members of the clothiers' gild who had joined it after that year: Götze, L., Urkundliche Geschichte der Stadt Stendal, pp. 174–175Google Scholar. The cloth trade of Stendal was very important: Riedel, xv, no. 360, p. 299.

page 80 note 1 This must have taken place between 1373 and 1378. The only source for these events exists in the form of notes in the oldest town records of Berlin of 1397 (?): Fidicin, i, pp. 176–80. Cp. Fidicin, , Berlinische Chronik, p. 117Google Scholar.

page 80 note 2 In 1382 margrave Sigismund, the son of Charles IV, wrote in favour of the expelled Wardenberg to the aldermen, gilds and commons of Berlin: Fidicin, iv, no. 48, p. 51 = Voigt, no. 24, p. 204.

page 80 note 3 Apparently it was discovered at an early stage. Some details in Riedel, Supplementband, no. 63, p. 269. Cp. Fidicin, i, p. 223.

page 80 note 4 Cp. above, p. 77.

page 81 note 1 Riedel, xx, no. 96, pp. 256–7.

page 81 note 2 Ibid., xxiii, no. 226, pp. 164–5.

page 81 note 3 Ibid., xxiii, no. 229, p. 177.

page 81 note 4 Ibid., ix, no. 86, p. 408.

page 81 note 5 Ibid., xxi, nos. 219–20, pp. 260–2; Die Magdeburger Schöppenchronik, ed. Janicke, K. (Die Chroniken der deutschen Stādte vom 14. bis in's 16. Jahrhundert, vii), p. 374.Google Scholar

page 81 note 6 Priebatsch, F., Die Hohenzollern und die Stādte der Mark im 15. Jahrhundert, p. 61Google Scholar.

page 81 note 7 Riedel, ix, no. 164, p. 129.

page 81 note 8 Deutsche Reichstagsahten unter Kaiser Sigmund, ix, ed. Kerler, D., pp. 238, 261Google Scholar.

page 81 note 9 The margrave expressed his thanks for help against Stendal to the towns of Seehausen and Tangermünde: Riedel, vi, no. 34, p. 365; xvi, no. 60, p. 52.

page 82 note 1 Riedel, xv, nos. 286–8, pp. 230–3; Götze, pp. 192–6.

page 82 note 2 Riedel, xiv, no. 114, p. 245.

page 82 note 3 Ibid., xxiii, no. 240, p. 193 = Fidicin, iv, no. 158, p. 136.

page 82 note 4 Riedel, xxiii, no. 176, p. 125.

page 82 note 5 Prutz, H., Preussische Geschichte, i, p. 145Google Scholar.

page 82 note 6 Fidicin, ii, no. 104, p. 152. According to von Raumer, G. W., Codex diplomaticus Brandenburgensis continuatus (quoted as Raumer), i, p. 155Google Scholar, the Old Mark towns formed a union in the same year.

page 82 note 7 Riedel, xii, no. 38, pp. 510–11 = Fidicin, iv, no. 162, pp. 143–4.

page 82 note 8 Riedel, xxii, no. 3, pp. 487–9.

page 82 note 1 Notes of Berlin's town-clerk: ibid., D i, p. 304 = Fidicin, i, pp. 252–3.

page 83 note 2 Riedel, Supplementband, no. 88, pp. 287–90; Fidicin, ii, no. 126, pp. 180–6. Reports of chroniclers: Das Stadtbuch des alien K61n an der Spree, ed. Clauswitz, P., pp. 43–44Google Scholar; Chronik des Franciscaner Lesemeisters Detmar, ed. Grautofi, F. H., ii, p. 83Google Scholar; A. Krantz, Wandalia, liber xii, cap. x; Angelus, A., Annales Marchiae Brandenburgicae, ed. 1598, p. 214Google Scholar; Hafftitius, P., Microcronicon Marchicum, in Riedel, D i, p. 62Google Scholar; Leuthianger, N., De Marchiaet rebus Brandenburgicis …, ed. Krause, J. G., p. 777Google Scholar. The modern literature on the subject is discussed by Kaeber, E., ‘Die Beziehungen zwischen Berlin und Cölln im Mittelalter und der Konflikt der beiden Städte mit Kurfürst Friedrich II.’, Hansische Geschichtsblätter, liv (1929), pp. 19 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 83 note 3 Raumer, i, no. 67, pp. 207–8.

page 83 note 4 Voigt, note to no. m, p. 387.

page 83 note 5 Fidicin, iv, no. 171, p. 176 = Voigt, no., m, p. 387.

page 83 note 6 Voigt, no. 112, p. 388.

page 83 note 7 Krantz, loc. cit.; Angelus, loc. cit.; Garcaeus, Z., Successiones familiarum et res gestae illustrissimorum praesidum Marchiae Brandenburgensis, ed. Krause, J. G., p. 174Google Scholar.

page 84 note 1 Fidicin, ii, no. 136, p. 197; Berlinische Chronik, p. 172.

page 84 note 2 Riedel, Supplementband, no. 93, p. 294; Fidicin, iii, no. 401, p. 229; ii, no. 141, p. 211.

page 84 note 3 Fidicin, ii, no. 140, p. 208.

page 84 note 4 Ibid., ii, nos. 140–1, pp. 206–12; Hanserecesse von 1431–1476, vii, no. 531, p. 842.

page 84 note 5 Riedel, iv, no. 103, p. 336; xi, no. 28, p. 245; Fidicin, iv, no. 173, p. 177; ii, no. 138, p. 199; iii, p. 330; cp. ibid., iv, no. 174, p. 178.

page 84 note 6 Detailed letter of the aldermen of Neustadt-Eberswalde to those of Berlin and Cölln, dated April 10th: Riedel, xii, no. 67, p. 328.

page 84 note 7 The first proposal to submit the dispute to the decision of such a court had been declined by the two towns: Fidicin, ii, no. 141, p. 211.

page 84 note 8 See ibid., ii, nos. 140–1, pp. 200–12.

page 84 note 9 Raumer, i, no. 68, pp. 209–10, also giving the names of the judges, their large majority being nobles.

page 84 note 10 Ibid., i. no. 69, pp. 211–12.

page 85 note 1 According to the, perhaps incomplete, lists in Fidicin (ii, no. 142, pp. 214–15) four families had to pay 3,000 guilders each, two 2,000 each, five 1,000 each, seven 700 each, one 200, and seven 100 guilders each. Later on, some fines were reduced or remitted: ibid., ii, no. 142, pp. 216–17, no 144, pp. 219–20; Riedel, Supplementband, no. 97, p. 296. As late as 1458 his fiefs were given back to one burgher: Raumer, i, no. 114, p. 243.

page 85 note 2 Fidicin, ii, no. 142, p. 217.

page 85 note 3 Hanserecesse von 1431–1476, iii, no. 649, p. 485, no. 672, p. 512.

page 85 note 4 Ibid., vii, no. 531, p. 842. Later on Berlin became again a member, but did not resume sending delegates to the diets: Hansisches Urkundenbuch, viii, p. 308 n. 4; Hanserecesse von 1431–1476, vi, no. 185, p. 164; Stein, pp. 133–4; Kaeber, pp. 87–8. Cp. below, p. 89.

page 85 note 5 Riedel, xi, no. 37, p. 182.

page 85 note 6 Priebatsch, pp. 82, n. 1, 105. Cp. the later addition in the town's statutes: Riedel, xxv, no. 239, p. 362.

page 85 note 7 Beginning in 1438 in Salzwedel: Riedel, xiv, no. 333, p. 262.

page 85 note 8 Ibid., xiv, no. 420, p. 349. Cp. above, p. 83.

page 86 note 1 For details see Riedel, xiv, no. 420, pp. 350–1; C ii, no. 63, pp. 62–3.

page 86 note 2 8 August 1472: ibid., xiv, no. 426, p. 357.

page 86 note 3 23 February 1473: ibid., C ii, no. 72, pp. 72–5.

page 86 note 4 8 March 1473: ibid., C ii, no. 75, p. 89. In both instances several judges belonging to the towns withdrew before judgment was given, obviously because they disagreed.

page 86 note 5 Reports of the knight Busso von Alvensleben and Bishop Frederick, of Lebus, of 3 and 9 April respectively: ibid., C ii, no. 87, p. 101, no. 91, p. 113. Cp. ibid., xiv, nos. 427–8, pp. 358–9.

page 86 note 6 Ibid., B v, nos. 1939–40, 1945–7, 1950, 1952, pp. 205–33; C ii no. 87, p. 101.

page 86 note 7 In 1476 the Prignitz towns bought their freedom from the new toll for 1,500 guilders, and the Old Mark towns for 6,000: ibid., i, no. 114, p. 194; Priebatsch, p. 144.

page 86 note 8 Raumer, ii, no. 50, pp. 47–8 = Riedel, C ii, no. 196, pp. 245–8.

page 87 note 1 Letter of Margrave John to his father, of 10 August 1480: Riedel,. C ii, no. 205, p. 257. Cp. his correspondence with the Old Mark towns; Raumer, ii, nos. 57, 60, pp. 55, 57.

page 87 note 2 In detail, Raumer, ii, nos. 59, 63, pp. 56–9.

page 87 note 3 See ibid., ii, nos. 58, 63, pp. 56, 59.

page 87 note 4 Ibid., ii, no. 63, p. 60.

page 87 note 5 Ibid., ii, no. 65, p. 62.

page 87 note 6 Letter of Margrave Albrecht to his son, of 10 October 1481: Riedel, C ii, no. 217, pp. 267–8; Priebatsch, pp. 254–63.

page 87 note 7 For his sharp action against the gilds of Perleberg and Wittstock, in the Prignitz, in 1482 see Riedel, i, no. 118, p, 198, p. 291; iii, no. 232, pp, 486–7.

page 87 note 8 Ibid., C ii, no. 265, pp. 333–6.

page 87 note 9 See above, pp. 79–80,

page 87 note 10 Riedel, xv, no, 452, p. 408.

page 88 note 1 Riedel, xv, no. 451, pp. 407–8, nos. 477–9, pp. 429–30.

page 88 note 2 Ibid., xiv, no. 496, p. 422.

page 88 note 3 Ibid., vi, nos. 69–70, pp. 384–5.

page 88 note 4 Ibid., xiv, no. 496, p. 422.

page 88 note 5 Priebatsch, p. 171.

page 88 note 6 A. Krantz, Saxonia, liber xiii, cap. xiv; Garcaeus, p. 240.

page 88 note 7 Riedel, xv, no. 452, pp. 408–10.

page 88 note 8 Krantz, loc. cit., and Angelus, p. 255, simply say that a number were executed. Gotze, p. 237, and Priebatsch, p. 171, give the above number, while Pauli, C. F., Allgemeine preussische Staats-Geschichte, ii, p. 388Google Scholar, puts it as high as eight to twelve.

page 88 note 9 Riedel, xv, no. 459, p. 416.

page 88 note 10 Ibid., xv, nos. 456–7, pp. 413–14; xxv, no. 333, p. 430.

page 89 note 1 Ibid., xiv, no. 496, pp. 419–23.

page 89 note 2 Document built into the steeple of St. Mary's at Salzwedel in 1496: Götze, p. 243.

page 89 note 3 Riedel, vi, no. 212, p. 149, no. 69, p. 384, no. 52, pp. 431–2; xvi, p. 118.

page 89 note 4 Raumer, ii, no. 87, p. 83 = Riedel, ix, no. 314, p. 241.

page 89 note 5 Riedel, xxiii, no. 366, pp. 305–6; Priebatsch, pp. 173–4.

page 89 note 6 Hanserecesse von 1477–1530, vii, no. 39, p. 61, no. 108, p. 176.

page 89 note 7 Ibid., ix, no. 132, p. 260.

page 90 note 1 Only in Stendal and Tangermunde, in the Old Mark, did a minor rebellion break out in 1530 which was easily suppressed by Margrave. Joachim; in Stendal six ringleaders were beheaded: for details see Riedel, xv, nos. 613–15, pp. 526–9; xvi, no. 178, pp. 143–5; Supplementband, nos. 47–8, pp. 417–18; Pauli, ii, pp. 562–5. In 1525, the year of the Peasants' War, everything remained quiet in the Brandenburg Mark: see the letters of Margrave Joachim and the knight von Taubenheimin, ChristophAkten zur Geschichte des Bauernkriegs in Mitteldeutschland, i, 2, ed, Merx, O. and Franz, G., no. 922, p. 573, no. 963, p. 600Google Scholar.