¹ Ernő Czóbel, “Pamflet Marxa i Engelsa prot'iv lid'erov demokrat'icheskoj emigratsii (1852). Vstupit'elnaja stat'ja” [Marx and Engels' Pamphlet against the Leaders of the Democratic Emigration (1852). Introductory Article], in Arkhiv, K.Marxa i F. Engelsa, edited by Ryazanow, David B., Vol. V (Moscow: Gos. Izd. 1930), pp. 261–294;Google ScholarRosdolskyj, Roman, “Karl Marx und der Polizeispitzel Bangya,” International Review for Social History, Vol. II (1937), pp. 229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adoratsky, Vladimir V. (ed.), Karl Marx. Datyj zhizn'i id' ejat'elnost'i 1818–1883 [Karl Marx. Dates of His Life and Activities, 1818–1883] (Moscow: Partizdat, 1934), pp. 119–121,Google Scholar 127–128, 132, and 414.

² Sass, Andreas, “Marx' Beziehungen zu Bartholomäus von Szemere,” Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, Vol. X (1922), pp. 38–48.Google Scholar

³ Kosáry, Domokos, “Marx et Szemere” [Marx and Szemere], Revue d'histoire comparée, Vol. XXIV, No. 4 (1946), pp. 103–116.Google Scholar

⁴ Mailer, Sándor, “Marx és Szemere” [Marx and Szemere], Századok, Vol. XC (1956), pp. 667–708.Google Scholar

⁵ Endre Kovács, “A Kossuth-emigráció és a nemzetközi munkásmozgalom” [The Kossuth Emigration and the International Workers' Movement], in Erényi, Tibor and Kovacs, Endre (eds.), Az I. Internationálé és Magyarország [The First International and Hungary] (Budapest: Kossuth, 1964), pp. 175–176.Google Scholar

⁶ The present paper was ready for publication when my attention was called to Ernst Hanisch's recent book on the Marxist image of Austria: Der kranke Mann an der Donau. Marx und Engels über Österreich (Vienna: Europaverlag, 1978).Google Scholar In his detailed discussion of Marx's relations with the exiles of the 1848–1849 revolutionary movement, Hanisch also surveyed the activities of both Bangya and Zerffi. Although he has referred mainly to the same documents as I have in the present paper, the relevant chapter in Hanisch's study (pp. 221–229) is markedly different in both scope and purpose. Concentrating on Bangya and the story of Die groβen Männer des Exils, Hanisch pays little attention to Zerffi and almost none at all to his varied and conscious efforts, in his capacity as an Austrian agent, to influence Marx. Moreover, some of his biographical details about Zerffi are inaccurate. For instance, Zerffi's original name was not Hirsch, and in all probability he was not responsible for publishing Kossuth's Gesammelte Werke. See my unpublished thesis, “Zerffi Gusztáv az emigrációban (1849–1892). Politika- és eszmetörténeti esettanulmány” [Gusztáv Zerffi in Exile (1849–1892). A Case Study in Political and Intellectual History] (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1978). Nevertheless, in spite of the minor defects in the volume, Hanisch has made a welcome contribution in which he has presented new data and fresh arguments in what is obviously a field of growing importance.

⁷ The present biographical sketch of Zerffi is based on my own research in the archives. Thus far very little has been written about him. Among these few studies, I have found especially useful the articles by József Kiss on “A Nemzeti Dal egykorú fordítói és fordításai” [Contemporary Translators and Translations of the National Song], in Petőfi és kora [Petőfi and His Times], edited by Lukácsy, Sándor and Varga, János (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1970), pp. 434–460;Google Scholar and on “Petőfi in der deutschsprachigen Presse Ungarns vor der Märzrevolution,” in Studien zur Geschichte der deutsch-ungarischen literarischen Beziehungen (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1969), pp. 290–292Google Scholar and passim; and the study by Pá Pándi entitled “Kísirtétjárás” Magyarországon. Az utópista szocialista és kommunista eszmék jelentkezése a reformkorban [The “Phantom” in Hungary. The Emergence of Utopian Socialist and Communist Ideas in the Period of Reform] (2 vols., Budapest: Magvető, 1972), Vol. I, pp. 298, 349, 431, and 496; Vol. II, pp. 48, 57, 199, 218, 353, 372, 408, and 453. In addition, see the pioneering study by Arnaldo Momigliano: “Da G. G. Zerffi a Ssu-ma Ch'ien,” Rivista Storica Italiana, Vol. LXXVI, No. 4 (1964), pp. 1,058–1,069.Google Scholar Zerffi's anonymous, secret intelligence reports are housed in the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (Vienna) (hereafter cited as “Staatsarchiv [Vienna]”), Ministerium des Äuβern, Informationsbüro. Reference to Herzen is made in Zerffi's report No. 1290, Vienna, December 24, 1861, in ibid., Annexe, Carton XXVI (Originalkonfidentenberichte), Fo. 577.

⁸ A person must be cautious in using the information about Zerffi in most encyclopedias. While the account in the Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. LXIII (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1900), pp. 408–409,Google Scholar is fairly accurate, the one in Constant von Wurzbach, Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, enthaltend die Lebensskizzen derjenigen Personen, welche seit 1750 in den öterreichischen Kronlaänder gelebt und gewirkt haben (60 vols., Vienna:Zamarski, 1856–91), Vol. LIX, pp. 337–338,Google Scholar is biased and inexact. The latter has been used as a source by József Szinnyei in his Magyar író k élete és munkái [The Life and Work of Hungarian Writers], Vol. XIV (Budapest: Hornyánszky, 1914), pp. 1,795–1,796;Google Scholar which, in turn, is the source for the entry in the Magyar Irodalmi Lexikon [Dictionary of Hungarian Literature], Vol. II (Budapest: Akadeémiai Kiadó, 1965), pp. 586–587;Google Scholar and the Magyar Életrajzi Lexikon [Dictionary of Hungarian Biography], Vol. II (Budapest: Akadeémiai Kiadó, 1969), pp. 1,069–1,070.Google Scholar

⁹ For Zerffi's activities as an art historian, secular pamphleteer, and historian, see Tibor Frank, “Hungarian Art-Historian in Victorian Britain: Gustavus George Zerffi”, Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae, Vol. XXIII, No. 1–2 (1977), pp. 121–134;Google ScholarFrank, Tibor, “‘Dogma and Science:’ Patterns of Victorian Unbelief,” Studies in English and American, Vol. III (Budapest: ELTE, 1977), pp. 61–95;Google Scholar and Frank, Tibor, “Gustavus George Zerffi, ‘Scientific Historian,’“ Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de R. Eötvös Nominatae. Sectio Historica, Vol XX (1980), pp. 119–155.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Tibor Frank, “Zerffi Gusztáv az emigrációban (1849–1892). Politika- és eszmetérténeti esettanulmany” [Gusztáv Zerffi in Exile (1849–1892). A Case Study in Political and Intellectual History]. Unpublished dissertation, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1978.

¹¹ Czóbel, “Pamflet Marxa i Engelsa prot'iv lid'erov demokrat'icheskoj emigratsii (1852),” pp. 279–281 and 289; Rosdolskyj, “Karl Marx und der Polizeispitzel Bangya,” pp. 229–230 and 236; Kovács, “A Kossuth-emigráció és a nemzetközi munkásmozgalom,” pp. 204–207; Zerffi to Bangya, August 27, September 22, and October 11, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond (fund) 458, opis (inventory) 1, delo (file) I 11289, III 4038, and III 4037. For Zerffi's meeting with Bangya and his wife, see ibid., delo I 11289 and III 4037; Bangya to Szemere, London, August 21, 1852, manuscript collection of the University of Budapest Library, Litterae Originales, 581/26; and Zerffi to Marx, Paris, January 14, 1853, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 608.

¹² Zerffi to Szemere, Paris, April 20, 1852, manuscript collection of the National Széchényi Library (Budapest). Zerffi's first existing letter to Marx was dated Paris, August 30, 1852. I have seen no evidence to support the remark added to a letter from Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer on February 20, 1852, in the German edition of the works of Marx and Engels. It is highly unlikely that Marx referred to Zerffi at that time, or, indeed, at any other time, as “ one of my best and most level-headed friends” (einer meiner besten und versténdigsten Freunde). See Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Werke (39 vols., Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1961– 68), Vol. XXVIII, pp. 492–493;Google Scholar and Szemere's first letter to Marx, sent from Paris on December 30, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 598. As for Zerffi's role as an intermediary between Szemere and Marx, see the Zerffi-Marx and Bangya-Szemere correspondence, passim.

¹³ Szemere's pamphlet was eventually published in Hamburg in 1853.

¹⁴ See Rosdolskyj, “Karl Marx und der Polizeispitzel Bangya,” pp. 239–240. See also Czóbel, “Pamflet Marxa i Engelsa prot'iv lid'erov demokrat'icheskoj emigratsii (1852),” pp. 279–289; the Bangya-Szemere correspondence for the year 1852 in the manuscript collection in the University of Budapest Library, Litterae Originales, 583/7–28; Zerffi to Szemere, Paris, April 20, 1852, in the manuscript collection of the National Széchényi Library (Budapest); Bangya to Szemere, April 22, 1852, manuscript collection of the University of Budapest Library, Litterae Originales, 583/7; and Zerffi to Marx, Paris, August 30, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 1, delo 652. Either Zerffi or Bangya was the probable source of an account from Paris which formed the basis for a Viennese weekly police report dated April 10, 1852, describing the relationship between Szemere and Marx. See Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv (Vienna), Nachlaβ Bach, Carton XXIX (Politische Wochenberichte).

¹⁵ Zerffi's and Bangya's letters to Szemere are, respectively, in the manuscript collections of the National Széchényi and University of Budapest Libraries. Except for his letter to Szemere, which is in Hungarian, Zerffi wrote all his letters in German. Bangya corresponded with Marx in German and with Szemere in German and Hungarian. Szemere and Marx wrote to each other in French, German, and English.

¹⁶ Frank, Tibor, “An Unknown Letter of Karl Marx to Bertalan Szemere,” Science and Society, Vol. XLIV, No. 4 (Winter, 1980–81), pp. 466–473.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Zerffi to Marx, Paris, December 27, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 596.

¹⁸ Zerffi's report No. 423, Paris, June 16, 1852, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Ministerium des Äuβern, A-Akten, 1851, No. 4933/A (enclosure).

¹⁹ Zerffi to Marx, Paris, September 5, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 540.

²⁰ Zerffi to Marx, Paris, September 22, 1852, ibid., delo 552; Zerffi to Bangya, Paris, September 22, 1852, ibid., fond 458, opis 1, delo III 4038; Marx to Engels, September 23, 1852, Marx and Engels, Werke. Vol. XXVIII, pp. 142–143; Marx to Adolf Cluβ, September 3, 1852, ibid., p. 549; Marx to Engels, September 9, 1852, ibid., p. 130. For Häfner's role as an agent, see Häfner to Tausenau, Paris, October 3, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 458, delo I 6967; and Wintersberg to Herzen, London, August 3, 1853, ibid., delo 6052.

²¹ Zerffi to Marx, Paris, September 5, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 540; Marx to Engels, September 28, 1852, Marx and Engels, Werke, Vol. XXVIII, p. 149; [Karl Marx], “Machenschaften Mazzinis und Kossuths—Bundnis mit Louis-Napoleon—Palmerston,” New York Daily Tribune, October 19, 1852, as reprinted in ibid., Vol. VIII, pp. 364–366. See also Lev Golman, Ot Sojuza Kommun' istov k Pervomu Internalsionalu. D'ejat'elnost' Karla Marxa v 1852–1864 gg. [From the Communist League to the First International. Karl Marx's Activities between 1852 and 1864] (Moscow: Mysl, 1970), p. 113; and Lev I. Golman, “Istoricheskie problemy v publitsistike Marxa 50kh-nachala 60-kh godov” [Historical Problems in Marx's Journalism in the 1850's and the Beginning of the ‘60's], in Marx—istorik (Moscow: Nauka, 1968), p. 251.

²² Marx to Engels, September 23, 1852, Marx and Engels, Werke, Vol. XXVIII, p. 143. The passage from Zerffi's letter quoted here was published as part of an article by Marx in the October 19, 1852, issue of the New York Daily Tribune. See [Marx,] “Machenschaften Mazzinis und Kossuths—Bundnis mit Louis-Napoleon—Palmerston,” pp. 364–366. For Zerffi's attacks on Kossuth, see Zerffi to Marx, Paris, December 27 and 30, 1852, and January 14, 1853, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 596, 599, and 608. The lines quoted here are in the letter of August 30, 1852, ibid., opis 1, delo 652. The relations between Zerffi and Szemere and Szemere and Marx were also conceived in a spirit of hostility towards Kossuth, as is attested by their correspondence in the manuscript collections in the National Széchényi and University of Budapest Libraries and in the Central Party Archives in the Institute of Marxism-Leninism in Moscow. See also Maller, “Marx és Szemere,” p. 673. The problematic sources behind the Marxian image of Kossuth during the early 1850's are analyzed in detail by Kovács, who also alludes to “the uncommon speed with which Marx and Engels acquired information about Kossuth's relations with Louis Bonaparte.” Kovács, “A Kossuth-emigráció és a nemzetközi munkásmozgalom,” p. 200. See also pp. 176–177.

²³ For the relationship between Zerffi and Kossuth, see Zerffi to Kossuth, January 28, 1854, and Kossuth to Zerffi, January 30, 1854, as published in Lajos Abafi, “A magyar emigráció történetéhez” [On the History of the Hungarian Exiles], Hazánk, December, 1884, pp. 388–389. I wish to thank Prof. Gyórgy Szabad for calling my attention to this particular publication.

²⁴ Marx's excerpt from a letter dated August (?), 1852, which Zerffi probably sent him from Paris. See Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 1, delo 648.

²⁵ “Zerffi to Marx, Paris, December 30, 1852, ibid., opis 5, delo 599. Marx's criticism of Kossuth's Bonapartism is exhaustively treated by Kovács in his “A Kossuth-emigráció és a nemzetközi munkaásmozgalom,” pp. 194–229. For the 1852–1853 period, see especially pp. 200–204.

²⁶ Zerffi to Marx, Paris, October 21, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism- Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 573. Yet, two-faced as he was, Zerffi showered Kossuth with adulation in a letter to him on January 28, 1854, in which he wrote: “The future of the world is taking a new turn—a turn foreseen by the genius of Your Excellency.” Abafi, “A magyar emigráció törteéneteéhez,” p. 388.

²⁷ Zerffi to Marx, Paris, October 21, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 573; Gesammelte Werke von Ludwig Kossuth. Translated from Hungarian and edited by G. Zerffy, Kossuth's Private Secretary (3 vols., Grimma and Leipzig: Verlags-Comptoirs, 1850–51). See also Lajos Kossuth “A ‘Századok' 1877. 1–4. füzetéről” [On Volume 1877 of Századok], Száadok, 1877, pp. 765–773; and L. L. K., “The Late George Gustavus Zerffy,” Notes and Queries, 9th ser., Vol. VI, 09 8, 1900Google Scholar.

²⁸ Zerffi to Marx, Paris, October 21, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 573.

²⁹ Bangya to Marx, November 3, 1852, ibid., delo 579; Zerffi to Marx, Paris, December 27, 1852, ibid., delo 596. References to the latter letter and to Marx's letter to Zerffi on December 24 can be found in Czóbel, “Pamflet Marxa i Engelsa prot'iv lid' erov demokrat'icheskoj emigratsii (1852),” pp. 285–286; Rosdolskyj, “Karl Marx und der Polizeispitzel Bangya,” p. 240; and Mailer, “Marx és Szemere,” p. 673. Mailer also mentions a reference to this letter by Marx himself in Herr Vogt, but he is not aware that the statement really concerns Zerffi. See Karl Marx, “Herr Vogt,” in Marx and Engels, Werke, Vol. XIV, pp. 574–575. Marx's note alludes to his letter to Zerffi and to the role played by Szemere in the solution of what he calls the “Bangya mystery.”

³⁰ Marx to Zerffi, London, December 28, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 1, delo 710/144. The letter was published in Marx and Engels, Werke, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 567–570. References to it can be found in Czóbel, “Pamflet Marxa i Engelsa prot'iv lid' erov demokrat'icheskoj emigratsii (1852),” p. 280; and Adoratsky, Karl Marx. Datyj zhizn'i i d'ejat' elnost'i 1818–1883. p. 127.

³¹ Zerffi to Marx, Paris, December 30, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 599. For the enclosure to the above letter, see Szemere's note dated December 29, 1852, in the Marx-Engels collection of the Intemationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis (Amsterdam). See also Bangya to Szemere, London, November 1, 1852, manuscript collection of the University of Budapest Library, Litterae Originates, 583/25.

³² Szemere to Marx, December 30, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 598. Also see the reference to this letter in Adoratsky, Karl Marx. Datyj zhizn'i i d'ejat' elnost'i 1818–1883, p. 127. The letter was published in Mailer, “Marx és Szemere,” p. 672.

³³ Bangya to Marx, December 23, 1852, Marx-Engels Collection, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis (Amsterdam), D 130 [D I 26] (also in the Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism [Moscow], fond 1, opis 5, delo 6536); Bangya to Szemere, London, December 29, 1852, manuscript collection, University of Budapest Library, Litterae Originales, 583/28.

³⁴ Zerffi to Marx, London, February 12, 1853, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 615; Marx to Engels, March 22–23, 1853, Marx and Engels, Werke, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 230–231.

³⁵ “Szemere to Marx, February 20, 1853, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 616. Adoratsky has referred to this letter (see his Karl Marx. Datyj zhizn'i i d'ejat' elnost'i 1818–1883, p. 132), but he has dated it erroneously. The letter was published by Mailer in his “Marx es Szemere,” pp. 674–675.

³⁶ ”Quant á Z[erffi], den ich s[ei]t 14 Tagen nicht gesehen, so habe ich ihm allerdings gesagt, wen ich K[ossuth] persöonlich gekant, hätte ich es für meine Pflicht gehalten, ihm vor B[angya] zu warnen. Zferffi] scheint mir schwatzhaft u[nd] etwas indiscret. Ich glaube aber keineswegs, dass er mit B[angya] auf einer Stufe steht, sondern vielmehr ehrlich ist.” See Marx's reply to Szemere, which is housed in the Szemere papers in the Hungarian National Archives, R. 190/2/5, “1852,” No. 15. I have published this letter in my “An Unknown Letter of Karl Marx to Bertalan Szemere,” pp.468–469.

³⁷ ”Zerffi ist ein Schwäzer, hat aber über die ungarischen Verhältnisse selbständigere und richtigere Ansichten, als ich sonst noch von Flüchtlingen von daher gehört habe.” Marx to Engels, March 22–23, 1853, Marx and Engels, Werke, Vol. XXVIII, pp.230–231.

³⁸ Engels to Marx, April 10, 1853, ibid., p. 232.

³⁹ See the Zerffi-Szemere correspondence in general. The reference to Marx is in a letter sent from London on May 11, 1853, in the manuscript collection of the National Széchényi Library in Budapest. For Szemere's views about his allegedly unilateral connection with Zerffi, see his letter to Marx on February 20, 1853.

⁴⁰ Mailer, “Marx és Szemere,” p. 676.

⁴¹ What has survived of the Zerffi-Kinkel correspondence is preserved in the copies in the manuscript collection of the University of Bonn Library. See also the instruction to the Austrian envoy in Munich dated February 4, 1860, entitled: “Die deutsche Emigration in London in ihren Beziehungen zur nationalen, politischen Reformbewegung in Deutschland,” Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Ministerium des Äuβern, Politisches Archiv, 1860, passim.

⁴² Marx to Engels, June 19, July 1 and 12, and August 3, 1861, Marx and Engels, Werke, Vol. XXX, pp. 175–176, 179–180, 188–190, and 193. See also ibid., ns. 22, 203, 209, and 225, on pp. 702, 719, and 721. Hermann Oncken refers to the “MacDonald case” as the “Zerffi case” in his Rudolf von Bennigsen. Ein deutscher liberaler Politiker (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1910), pp. 471–472.Google Scholar

⁴³ See especially Zerffi's intelligence report No. 1290, dated Vienna, December 24, 1861, in Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Ministerium des Äuβern, Informationsbüro, Annexe, Carton XXVI (Originalkonfidentenberichte), No. 577.

⁴⁴ See especially Zerffi to Marx, September 22 and December 27, 1852, Central Party Archives, Institute of Marxism-Leninism (Moscow), fond 1, opis 5, delo 522 and 596; and Zerffi to Bangya, September 22, 1852, ibid., fond 458, opis 1, delo III 4038.

⁴⁵ Bangya to Szemere, July 5, 1852, manuscript collection, University of Budapest Library, Litterae Originales, No. 583/12.

⁴⁶ Police Chief Johann Franz Kempen to Foreign Minister Count Karl Ferdinand von Buol-Schauenstein, Vienna, June 17, 1852, and the enclosure in the letter, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Actes de Haute Police, Fasc. XX (1852), Interna, No. 403/g.

⁴⁷ ”Daß Dreck aufgeworfen wird in Stürmen; daß keine revolutionäre Zeit nach Rosenöl riecht; dass hie u. da selbst allerlci Unrath an Einen anfliegt—ist sicher.” Marx to Freiligrath, Manchester, February 29, 1860, Marx and Engels, Werke, Vol. XXX, pp.491–492. See also Häckel, Manfred, Freiligraths Briefwechsel mil Marx und Engels (2 vols., Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1976), Vol. I, p. 143;Google Scholar Vol. II, p. 193.

⁴⁸ Because of the lack of pertinent documents, historians have not noted Zerffi's spying activities against Marx. His name is not mentioned by Kovács; K. L. Selezn'ev (see his “Novyje istochn'iki dlja biografii K. Marxa” [New Sources for Marx's Biography], Iz istorii German'ii novogo i novejshego vremen'i [From the History of Modern and Contemporary Germany] [Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR, 1958], pp. 69–107) or Ernst Hanisch (see his Karl Marx und die Berichte der österreichischen Geheimpolizei. In Schriflen aus dem Karl-Marx-Haus, No. 16 [Trier: Karl-Marx-Haus, 1976], pp. 1–30).Google Scholar