346 Lingard'5 Antiqtdiics of tJie Anglo-Saxon ChnrcJu Oct# 


Art. hi. The Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church. By 
the llev. John L[ngard. Second Edition# 

all the virtues of an historian, impartiality is the most 
rare. Contemporary authors arc exposed to bias by their 
enmities or tlmir affections; and, among general historians^ wc 
meet with none who are entirely exempt from national partial- 
ity, or coinpleleiy divested of the deep-rooted prejudices com- 
municated by sect or party. Even the candid temper and phi- 
losophic mind of f Iiiino were not proof against the influence of 
those passions It would be unreasonable, then, to expect that^ 
a Catholic clergyman, zeabn.Jy attached to his communion, 
should be able to write, with impartiality, the history of a pe- 
riod obscured and perplexed by the controversies of Catholic 
and Protestant. 

Let us do justice, however, to Mr Lingard. His work is the 
fruit of great labour and i*escarch. He has frequently detected, 
and exposed with success, though not without asperity, the er- 
rors of Protestant hi'^torians ; and if has sometimes treated 
his adversaries with flippant and offensive petulance, he has on 
many occasions pointed out and corrected their misrepresenta- 
tions and mistakes. We find no fault with the opinions, ex- 
pressed with freedom and supported with learning, which he 
has advanced and defended in nis history. His subject natural- 
ly led him to topics of discussion between Catholic and Protest- 
ant ; and wc cannot blame him for espousing the interests, and 
maintaining the doctrines, of his own church. The usefijjness 
of confession, the merilh of penance, and the advantages of ab- 
solution, we leave him to .settle with our divines, cannot 

say we feel much interest or curiosity about the form of words, 
in which our barbarous ancestors chose to clothe their ignorance 
of the mystery of transubstantiation ; but we can understand 
that Mr Lingard annexes importance to such inquiries. Wc 
can excuse his adipi» :ition of monks, arid listen with patience to 
bis eulogies of C( lil>;jcy. Wc neither believe in the miracles, 
nor can give our implicit assent to the virtues and merits of his 
saints and confessors ; but we agree with him in reprobating the 
rash and illiberal censures of modern historians, who stigmatize 
them in a body ns a collection of knaves and hypocrites. To 
the clergy of the dark ages, Europe owes much of her civiliza^ 
lion, her learning, and her liberty. But though we admire the 
warmth with which Mr Lingard vindicates the character of 
Uk'sc men from unjust aspersions and indiscriminate abuscj w>e 



1815. Lingard^5 Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church. 34^7 

cannot approve of the artifices he not unfrequently condescends 
to employ, in order to palliate their faults, or throw a veil over 
their crimes. Where it serves his purposes of vindication, we 
find him suppressing or perverting the evidence of our ancient 
historians, and giving a false and partial colouring to the trans- 
actions which they relate. By dealing thus uncandidly with his 
readers, we fear he has excluded his work, which, in its general 
ch{?racter is learned and liberal, from the place it would other- 
wise have justly merited among the best and most valuable of our 
modern histories. The instances we are going to adduce of 
this unfair and disingenuous conduct in Mr Lingard, relate, in 
general, to points of no great importance in themselves, but 
they show the spirit in which^his book is vvritten, and enable us 
to judge of the credit due to his conclusions, and of the confi- 
dence with which we may rely on his work as a safe and sure 
guide to historical twuh. 

The story of Edvvy and Elgiva has been told by Hume with 
his usual felicity of narration ; and no one, we will venture to 
say, has ever perused the history of their misfortunes, in the 
pages of that inimitable writer, without being inflamed with in- 
dignation against the rude violence of Dunstan, and the savage 
ferocity of Odo. We must confess that Mr Lingard has some- 
what dispelled the charm. After the minute investigation he 
has bestowed on the subject, little remains of the romantic sto- 
ry of Edwy and Elgiva that is deserving of credit. The lady 
banished to Ireland by Archbishop Odo, and murdered on her 
return from exile, was the mistress, not the wife of iidwy. Of 
this fact wc can bring evidence more direct and conclusive than 
th«N; produced by Mr Lingard. In the history of St Oswald 
by Eatlmer, there is the following decivivc passage, which seems 
to haveVliuled the researches of Mr Linganl, as it had escaped 
the noticc\f all our former historians. ‘ Edwins, qiii quartus a 
prmfato .telhclstano regni Aiiglorum sceptra tenebat, volup- 
tatuni amator magis quam dei, liixurim quam sobrictalis, li- 
bidinum <juam castitatis, regiani dignilaicru obscoenis operi- 
bus dehonestabat ; ac viros virtutum parvipendeiis, contra 
a'quum exasperabat. Unde beatus Dmi'^tanus tunc temporis 
Abbas Glastoniensis, co quod ad suggestionem et impcriuni 
saepe ftti Odonis ipsum regem illiciiis amplexibus violenter 
abstraxit, e patria pulsus cst ; et deniuin inniimera per An- 
gliani mala ab eodem rege patrata. Contra quern Odo arma- 
tura Spiritus Sancti prajcinctus exurgens, iniquitatum illius 
publicus hostis efFectii^ est ; ncc destitit, donee sopitis incest i- 
bus regnum ab infandje miilieris infamia, cni rex idem omhsa 
cohji/ge 6ua sa'pius cominiscebaUir, cxpmgaret. Earn siqui- 



348 Lingafd^s Antiquities of the Angh*Saxon Church. 0ct. 

* (lem suorum militum manu vallatus, a regali curia in qua 
^ mansifabat vi abdCixit, abductam perpetuo exilio in Hibernia 

* condeninavit. ’ It is true then, as Mr Lingard contends^ 

that it was not the young aud innocent queen of Edw/ who was 
banished to Ireland, but an unworthy rival, that resided pub- 
lickly in the palace with her husband, and shared openly in his 
bed. But though the discovery of this fact materially alters the 
general complexion of the story, it is not the less true 5hat 
Archbishop Odo was guilty of outrageous violence in breaking 
into the palace with his band of ruffians ; and after be got pos- 
session of his prey, it is not the less certain, that he committed 
A wanton and unfeeling act of cruelty on her person, by disfi- 
guring and branding her face with a red-hot iron, before he 
dismissed her to her place of exile. What course has Mr Lin- 
gard taken to vindicate the Archbishop from this charge of out- 
rage, aggravated by cruelty ? • 

He has told us, in the first place, that the great council of 
the nation had attempted in vain to interrupt the commerce of* 
this woman with the king * suspendii comminatione ; * though 
he knew, that this menace proceeded not from the Witenage- 
mote, or from any other judicial tribunal, but from the riotous 
and drunken party of prelates and nobles, whom the king left 
at table, when he retired to his private apartment after his co- 
ronation dinner, f And, in the next place, be would persuade 
us, that, in breaking into the palace, and in branding and ba- 
r.’shing this unfortunate woman, the Archbishop was merely 
the executioner of a judicial sentence pronounced by an assem- 
bly of the nobility and cleigy, in which that prelate had presid- 
ed, in the absence of the king ; though he had before hini«lhe 
life of Odo by Eadmer, in which it is expre.ssly stated, that^ 

‘ Foiiiificali autluqitide nsus {L r. Odo) unam de p^raescriptis 

* mulicribus, missis militibus a curia regis, in qua inansitabat, 

* violenter adduxit ; et earn in facie deturpatam candenti 

* ferrn denotatam perpetua in Hiberniam exiJii relegatione de- 

* trusit. * X We are here distinctly told, that it was by his pon- 
tifical authority that Odo acted, and therefore not in his capa- 
city of president of the Witenagemote. 

The unfortunate woman, banished in this manner to Ireland^ 
having ventured at a subsequent period to return tc^ England, 
the retainers of the Archbishop intercepted her at Gloucester 3 
and, to render her further escape impossible, they had the cruel* 
ty to divide the nerves and sinews of her legs, and to leave her 

* Anglia Sacra, t. ii. p. 192. 
f Anglia Sacra, t. ii. p. 105. t Ib* p* 84. 




181i6. Lingard’^ Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church S4^ 

in that miserable state, to expire by a lingering death in acute 
torments. Mr Lingard is ^ not disposed to justify this murder; 
^ though he believes, that, according to the stern maxims of 

* Saxon jurisprudence, a person returning without , permission 

* from banishment, might be executed without the formality of 
^ a trial ; ’ but he doubts whether the Archbishop was ^ privy to 

* her death*’ What were the stern maxims of Saxon jurispru* 
deqce, that could authorize so atrocious an act of cruelty, we leave 
Mr Lingard to ex|5)ain, when he has discovered them ; but, 
with respect to the participation of Odo in her murder, we have 
only to quote the words of his biographer. Having told us, that 
after the recovery of her beauty, this unfortunate woman re- 
turned to England, he adds, that at Gloucester; ^ ab honiinibus 

* servi dei comprehensa, ct ne mereiricio more ulterius vaga dis* 

‘ curreret, subnervata, post dies aliquot mala morte prsesenti 
^ vitae sublata est. Erat quippe suminus Ppntifex Odo vir vir- 

* tutum robore et grandaevitatis maturitate ac constantia fultus. 
Malmsbiiry, too, informs us, that the Archbishop put an end to 
the intercourse of the King witli his strumpet, * primo expul- 

* sion^ post succisura popiitis:’*f And Gervase tells the same 
atrocious story with the same placid indifference — ‘ beatus Odo 

* missis militibus mulierem fornicariam a curia regis violenter ab- 

* straxit, et in facie candenti ferro deturpatam in exilium misit. 

* Quae cum obducta cicatrice in Angliam rediret, pefr eundem 

* Archiepiscopura iterum rapta et subnervata est. ’ f Mr Lin- 
gard ought to have been aware, that the more antient panegy- 
rists of the worthy prelate not only acknowledge, but exult in the 
deed. 

Mr Lingard imputes the prosecution and banishment of Dun- 
stinHo, the resentment and vengeance of this woman, whom 
he calls Vlihelgiva. But, in the first place, he ought to have 
told us, thOit, according to the testimony of many respectable his- 
torians, Dulristan was exiled, not for his rudeness and violence 
to Edwy, but on a charge of having embezzled the treasures of 
King Edrecft which had been entrusted to his care. Florence 
of WorceswJ, Simeon of Durham, and Roger Hoveden, state 
expressly, thjk • pro justicia ascriptus mare transiit ; ’ and Wal- 
lingford adds, * suhpectus enini erat Eadwino omni tempore 

* Dunstanos eo quod tempore Eadredi thesauros patrum suo- 

* rum custodisset, sub cujus obtentu suspicionjs etiam ipsa^piu- 

* Her impudens liceutiam a rege acceperat omnes facultates et 

* Anglia Sacra, tom. ii« p. 84. 
t De gestis Fontiiicum, lib. i. p. 114. 
j X Scriptores, p. 1646. 

VoT.. xxw NO. 5o. Z 



350 Lingard’5 Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Chureh. Qctr 

* supellectilem S«ancti proscribencli. ’ * This sentence was possi- 
bly unjust, though it does not appear of what private property a 
monk could be possesbcd, that was made tFre subject of confisca- 
tion: But it would have been more candid in Mr Linpard to 
have informed his readers, that, betides resentment for the in- 
terference of Dunstan with the King’s am(>urs, there was ano- 
ther reason alleged for his condemnation. And, in the second 
place, no ancient historian whom we have been able to consult, Im- 
putes the persecution of Du nstan to Ethclgiva; and, on the con- 
trary, every one who names the enemy of that celebrated Abbot, 
calls her Elgiva. According to Mathew of Westminster, it was 
Elgiva, who rebuked Dunstan for his unseasonable intrusion into 
the royal apartment, on the evening of the coronation ; it was 
Elgiva who poisoned the King’s mind against the holy man ; it 
was the same Elgiva who procured liis banishment, and endea- 
voured to put out his eyes ^ and it was the same Elgiva who was 
afterwards separated from the King by Odo, ‘ vel causa con- 

* sauguinitatis, vel quia illam ut adulterara adamavit. ’f Johii 
of Wallingford is in the same story. It was Elgiva whom a for- 
ward tongue, and coofidence in the King’s affection, prompt- 
ed to abuse Dunstan for his intrusion on the evening of the 
coronation; it was * impudens ilia mulicr’ who inflamed the 
animosity of Edwy against Dunstan and the monks; it was the 
hahd of the Queen which Dunstan ibuiid every where raised a- 
gainst him ; it was the hatred of the Queen which stirred up dis- 
cord in the convent of Glastonbury, and excited the greater 
part of the monks against their abbot: And it was the malevo- 
lence of the Queen, as well as of the King, which struck terror 
in his friends, and left him without aid or advice in his afflic- 
tions. X What does Mr Lingard oppose to this evideno^ r He 
takes no notice of it at all; he keeps it entirely ouj'of sight;, 
and boldly assumes the fact Umt Ethelgiva was the wrsecutor of 
Dunstan. In his indignation against her, he calls fi|er contemp- 
tuously * the woman ; ’ and, having prepared his re-iders by this 
phraseology for vvliat follows, he ingeniously quptf^H in illustra- 
tion of bis story, a passage from Wallingford, in wnfeh that his- 
torian says, * prrcntela mulicris prosequens — saned qculos cruere 
disponebat. ’ But he could not be ignorant, in makibg this quo- 
tatibn, that the ‘ mulier ’ of WaUingford was not his'* woman, * 
but the Queen. 

Mr Lingard is confident that * Edwy was not married to El- 
giva at the time of his coronation ; ’ but he is w illing to admits 


Scriptores XV. tom. i. p. 54-2. f p. 196. Edit, of 1601 
X Scriptores XV.. tom. i. p. 543. 




1 S 1 o. twingard V AiiHquiiies of the Ajigto- Saxon Church. 351 

that, * after the banishment’ of Elhelgiva, the King * took 
EJgiva to his bed, as his mistress, or married her withiu thepro- 

J iibited degrees. ’ Of these two positions the first is doubtful; 

nd the second, as far as relates to the date of the marriage; 
certainly erroneous. That Edwy was married At the titne when 
Odo broke into his palace with a band of soldiers, we are ex- 
pressly told by Eadmer, in the passage formerly quoted from the 
life of St Oswald. That he was married before ihe’ exild of 
Ounstan, appears from the narrative of Wallingford, who re- 
})eatedly mentions the Queen among the enemies of that hol^ 
j)ersonage, Malnisbury informs us of his marriage before hp 
gives an account of his coronation; from whichTt seems reasbn- 
able to infer, as modern historians have done, that his marriage 
preceded that event. Mr Lingard, it is true, calls the expres- 
sion ambiguous, which speaks of the marriage ; and finds fault 
with Mr Carte for the boldness of his translation of it. ‘ Pro- 
xime cognatam invadens uxorem, ’ is the phrase of the historian^ 
and Mr Carte renders it, * the King had married a wife nearly 
Jrelated to him. ' We have nothing to urge for the latinity of 
Malmsbury ; but we confess there seems to us no doubt of his 
meaning. The monk of Ramsay had used almost the same 
phrase to express the same marriage. Speaking of Edwy, he 
says, ‘ cujusdam cognata3 suce eximiee speciei jiivencidae illicitum 
invasit matriinonium. ’f We own there are difficulties in the 
supposition of Edwy’s marriage with Elgiva, before his corona- 
tion ; and we must add, that after all the pains bestowed by Mr 
Langard in elucidating this portion of our history, there still re- 
mains great obscurity and uncertainty in parts of it. But we 
think'Sr. clearly proved, that Edwy was married before the ba- 
nishment of the woman sent to Ireland, and before the exile of 
Dunstan ; ‘^ind, from a passage in the history of Ramsay, we 
thiijk it prmablc, that it was the opposition of Dunstan to the 
marriage oil the King with his kinswoman, that converted the 
Queen into }be^ mortal enemy of tho Abbot. The separation of 
Edwy ancJ/T|giva, on the ground of consanguinity, did not take 
place till tly^ee years afterwards ; and, therefore, incredible 
It may ap|:^r to Mr Lingard, ‘ the active and inflexible Odo 
* wailed inree years before he performed that, which he must 
‘ daily have considered as an imperious and indispensable duty. ’ 
But it is not in t!io history of Edwy and Elgiva only, Wherel 
we find Mr Idngard a disingenuous advocate arid partial histo- 
rian, wherever ihc reputation of saints is concerned. We shall 
give a few more example^ of the same spirit from other parts of 
the life of Duiistuii. 


I Gale, tom. i. p. 390. 

Z t 



ioi Lingard’5 Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church. Oct. 

The catastrophe at Caine, which bestowed a final' victory on 
the monks over the secular clergy, has been imputed by Mr 
Turner to the contrivance of Dunstan. Mr Lingard ridicules 
Mr Turner for the discovery, as he is pleased to call it, of * n 

* secret which, during almost eight centuries, had eluded the 

* observation of every historian ; * and, among other objections 
to the charge against the primate, he urges * the impolicy of 
^ involving in the same fate his friends as well as his adversaria. * 
To confirm the impression he wishes to give of this transaction, 
he quotes * the simple narrative of the Saxon Chronicle, the 

* most faithful register of the times. ’ — * This year the principal 

* nobility of England fell at Caine from an upper floor, except 

* the holy Archbishop Dunstan, who stood upon a beam. And 

* some were grievously hurt, and some did not escape with their 
‘ lives. * But why does he suppress the account of Osbern ? “ To 
Christ as judge (exclaimed Dunstan to the assembly) I commit 
the care of his church. " — ‘ Dixit et quod dixit irati dei cen- 

* sura firmavit. Moxenim concussa est domus, cCenaculum sub 

* pedibus solutom, hostes solo prmciphati ac ruentium trabinm 

* pondere oppress! sunt ; uhi vero cum stiis sanctus accubitabaty 

* ibi nulla ruins suflitsio fiebat. ’ * If Osbern is unworthy of 
credit, as an * injudicious biographer, whose anile curiosity col- 
lected and embellished every fatdc, ’ the same objection can- 
not be made to Eadmer, one of the best and most sensible of 
the monkish historians. But Eadmer informs us, that Dunstan 
having concluded his speech against the secular clergy by say- 
ing, * Domino deo cansani ecclesise sum contra insurgentes hos- 

* tes tuendam committo. Dixit ; et ecce solarium sub pedibus 
‘ eorum, qui adversus virum conveiierant, e vestigiu ceciilit.-*om- 
^ nesque pariter prmcipitatos in suo casu non modic^/h Imsit. 

* Ubt vero Dunstanus cum suis consistebat, nulla ruina domus, 

* nuUus emerserat casus. Hoc igitur modo calunin% clcricuruni 

* est sopita. ’ f After reading this account, we must own we 
are inclined to the opinion of Archbishop Parker, who, it seems, 

* ascribed the misfortune at Caln^, ’ as Mr Lingai]4gently terms 
it, * to a conspiracy between the devil and the m^,nk«. ’ 

In a council held at Winchester, * it b said that 'iji v«)icc issued 

* from a crucifix, exclaiming, ** All is well; make ^o change. ” 

* Mr Turner, with his usual fidelity and candour, ’ says Mr 
liingard, * describes this voice as an artifice of the primate: 1 

* would rather say, that the whole history is no more than a 

* popular tale, adopted and perhaps improved by later writers: 

* it was unhtofwn to the more antient hiUoriaus.' Wiio are the 


* Auglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 112. 


Ib. p. 220. 



IS 15. Lingard’j Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Chureh. S5S 


historians whom Mr Lingard has chosen on this occasion to dis- 
tinguish as the more antient, he has left us to guess. The story 
is to be found in Osbern, and is thus related by Eadmer. In 
« council held at Wincliester, to take into consideration a 
fition from the ejected clergyi the king and nobles, moved with 
pity for their distress, entreated Dunstan in their favour. The 
primate was silent, and with his eyes fixed on the ground, rje- 
vr>tvcd in his mind what was best to be done. The assembly in 
suspense waited for his answer. * Tunc subito crUcifixi del 


imago signo crucis in edito domus affixa audientibns cunctis 
dixit, ** Noi\ fiet, non fict. Judicastis bene, mutaretis noif 
** bene. ” Tremefucto in his siinul universp conventu, intulit 

E ater Dunstanus, ct ait : Quid aniplius vultis, fratres Aei f 
>ivina sententia definitum audistis negotium prmsens. Aiunt^ 
audivimus vere. ’ $ Had it been the intention of the historian 


to have exposed Uie credulity of the age, anel knavery of the pri- 
mate, he could not have depicted them in plainer emours. 


Mr Lingard is disposed to triumph over Hume, on account 
of some trifling inaccuracies, into which that historian has fallen, 
in his narrative of an infamous act of sacrilege and brutality, 
perpetrated by Edgar, the great patron of the Monks. That 
prince carried off a lady by force from a convent, and commit- 
ted violence on her person ; for which offences he was sharply 
rebuked by Archbishop Dunstan, and compelled to do penance, 
Hume h.is taken his account of this transaction from Malms- 


bury ; and has very nearly giveo an exact transcript of the words 
of that author. — ‘ But it was his duty,’ says Mr Lingard, * to 
t^have collated the difierent passages; and not to have incauti- 

* ously imposed on himself, and insulted the credulity of hia 

* reJdjrs. The name of the lady, it seems, was not Editha, 
but Wulfrith ; and in this correction, Mr Lingard is in the 
right. — Si e was not a nun, but pupil to the nUns ; but though 
she is so described by Eadmer, and, in one place, by Malms- 
bury, Mrl^ingard is quite aware, that slie is Called by Osbem 

* deo devQ^A Christi ; ’ and that Malmsbu- 

ry, in hii^liistory, speaks of her as being * virginis deo dicaUe.’ 
— Hume tes said, * the king was not obliged, ’ by Dunstan, * to 

* separat^ himself fi'om his mistress ; * to whicli Mr Lingard 
tartly rejflies, ‘ they did separate;’ and refers for the fact to 
Malmsbury. When we look to Malmsbury, we find the follow- 
ing passage, on the separation of the king from bis tsistress— «• 

* ilia quoque ‘partu explicito voluptati frequentandse non inhse- 

* ait ; sed doluit potius et sprevit, sanctaque pro vero asseritur 


^ Anglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 112. 


i Ib. p. 2ld. 



354i Lingard’s Anliquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church . Oct. 

‘ et celebratur j ’ — from which it is quite clear, that the Arch- 
bishop did not scpaiate the king from hii mi-tress, but that Ed- 
gar continued to cohabit with her, or, as Malmsbnry expresses 
it, ‘ Non semel in thoro suo collocavit, ’ till she had brought 
him a child ; after which, she rctiretl of her own accord to a 
convent, like another Soeur Jeanne, to edify or provoke its in- 
mates with her repentance. Tho merit of the separation is, 
therefore, due to the lady, and not to the prelate, who seems to 
have tolerated the senndid for the sake of the penance. Hunic, 
it must be owned, has not related all the particulars of the ex- 
piation prescribed by the Archbishop for this offence. But how 
<loes it happen, that Mr Lingard, who reproaches him with so 
niuch petulance fur his carelessness in that respect, should him- 
self have overlooked, or kept out of sight, one of the most im- 
portant articles of the penance ? — ‘ Clericos etiani male actio- 

* nales de ccclesiis propellcret, monachonim agmina introdii- 

* ccret. ’ * The omission of this clause is the more remarkable, 
because it is tho beginning of a sentence, on the remaining part 
of which, Mr Lingard has not disdained to bestow a note, iii 
order, in the first place, facetiously to claim, and then studious- 
ly to reject, for Dmi-tan, ‘ the honours of a reformer. ’ It was 
surely incumbent on the historian of the Anglo-Sa.\on Church, 
not to have neglected so favourable an opportunity of showing 
how skilfully St Dnnstari could extract good from evil, and build 
on the sins of the king the salvation of his subjects. 

We must now take leave of Mr Lingard. We can safely re- 
commend his book for the curious matter it contains, and the 
agreeable style in which it is written. Its defects are perhaps in- 
separable from the nature of his subject. • Candour and impact' 
tiality are least of all to be expected from ecclesiastical hijitori- 
ans. The contests of theologians have few attractions, /'Their 
disputes, though acrimonious, are unintelligible. Their victo- 
ries, when not supported by fire and faggot, are always dubi- 
ous, Their records arc dull,— their volumes heavy,— ^heir style 
and matter equally repulsive. No one can wade thAnigh such 
dilHculties, and gain a competent knowledge ohll^’ contro- 
versies, who is not impelled and supported by a spjhipof bigo- 
try, which' renders his labours altogether useless ; beftsusc, even 
though k were possible his intentions could be honest^ no con- 
fidence can be reasonably placed in the accuracy of his discern-* 
ment. 


* Anglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 111.