The Earliest European Firearms (Marco Morin)

MARCO MORIN

The Earliest European Firearms

Venezia 2012

1

The Earliest European Firearms: Some Notes

Marco Morin

It is well known, to all who are interested on the history of firearms in Europe, that information on

the earliest employment of guns and gun powder is scarce, of uncertain interpretation and

sometimes contradictory. The studies on the subject, up to this moment relatively few, do not

seems to be able to furnish completely unequivocal indications. The problems related to this domain

of investigation are enormous: an accurate idea is given by Bert S. Hall1 in the paragraph devoted to

Problems with the History of Firearms.

‘Anyone approaching the early history of explosives and firearms should do so with a

sense of caution verging on outright trepidation. Few subjects have lent themselves to

such misunderstanding as the early history of gunpowder, and few have tempted

historians into such flights of fancy in the search for answers.’

After near a century one significant aspect is still, in our opinion, the one mentioned by

Robert Coltman Clephan at the beginning of his essay2.

‘The early history of ordnance and hand-guns is so intertwined that any very definite

differentiation between the two classes of firearms in the earlier stages of their

development is most difficult – sometimes, indeed, impossible.’

We shall therefore consider here firearms as a broad and inclusive class of weapons, without trying

to distinguish, from a chronological point of view, between bombards and hand guns.

Probably the best way to attain acceptable results is to examine simultaneously the best information

that can be found in three following aspects: history of gunpowder, history of firearms, and military

history of the XIV century.

1 Partington, J.R. “Introduction”, A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder Baltimore, 1999. 2 Clephan, R.C. An Outline of the History and Development of Hand Firearms, from the Earliest Period to about the End of the Fifteenth Century London 1906 – page 3.

2

As far as history of gunpowder is concerned, there are few basic studies of high scientific level. The

most important work is probably that of J. R. Partington, recently reprinted edited by Bert Hall. Of

notable importance, even if the theme is geographically confined, is the book David Ayalon on

Gunpowder and Firearms in the Mamluk Kingdom.

Essays of notable interest have appeared in specialised journals: worthy of note are those by

Zenghelis3 and Rahman Zaky4.

Of great interest is the work carried on by ICOTECH, in particular with the 22nd International

Symposium held in Bath in August 1994. One of the Symposium main themes was indeed ‘The

manufacture and marketing of gunpowder’ : the related papers, edited by Brenda Buchanan, were

published in 1996 as Gunpowder: the History of an International Technology. Of particular interest

for the history of early gunpowder use and production are the essays written by Kramer5 and

DeVries6

The Chinese origin of gunpowder, at least in a low saltpetre concentration version used for

fireworks and ‘fire lances’, is now nearly universally accepted7: Bert Hall8 suggests that ‘China

gave to the Europeans and the Arabic-speaking lands not only the “secret” of gunpowder but also

knowledge of most of the military machines that used gunpowder, …’ and that

‘The transmission must have taken place mainly in the thirteenth century, a period when

Christendom, Islam, and the Orient enjoyed unusually free exchange of people, goods,

and ideas. Gunpowder came across, not as an ancient mystery, but as a well-developed

modern technology, in a manner very much like twentieth-century “technology-

transfer” projects.’

In Europe the interest in gunpowder was concentrated, with considerable success, on military use,

especially on guns. The superiority in this technological field has been observed by Eliyahu

Asthor9 in 1978:

‘The remarkable development of firearms in Italy, since the half of the XIV century, and

the military superiority in respect of the Muslim States that derived was another aspect

of the relationship between the technological ascent on one side and the decline on the

other.’

On the history of firearms we must recall, in German, the fundamental books of Schön, Essenwein,

and Thierbach. Very important are also the numerous essays published in the Zeitschrift zur

3 Zenghelis, C.– Le feu grégeois et les armes to feu des Byzantins–in: Byzantion, tome VII (1932) 4 A. Rahman Zaky – Gunpowder and Arab Firearms in Middle Ages – in: Gladius, Tome VI - Granada, 1967 5 Gerhard W. Kramer – Das Feuerwerkbuch: its Importance in the Early History of Black Powder. 6 Kelly DeVries – Gunpowder and Early Gunpowder Weapons. 7 Needham, J. – Science and Civilisation in China – Vol. 5, Part 7. Cambridge, 1986. 8 Hall, Bert S. – Weapons & Warfare in Renaissance Europe – Baltimore, 1997. 9 Ashtor, E. Aspetti della espansione italiana nel Basso Medioevo, Rivista Storica Italiana XC-1 (1978), p. 21

3

Historische Waffenkunde: of particular interest is Entwickelung und Gebrauch der Handfeuerwaffen

by Major P. Sixl

In English of marked significance are, for the past, the books written by Deanes and Coltman

Clephan. More recent, of great importance for the high academic level, are the numerous works by

Blackmore and Blair. Many interesting essays can be found in the Journal of The Arms and Armour

Society: as an example we like to recall the articles by Williams and by Norman.

On the early military use of firearms, the third point, many important information can be found in

recent excellent books such as Guilmartin’ Gunpowder and Galleys and Cipolla’ Guns, Sails &

Empires. A prominent position, as this theme is concerned, is undeniably deserved by the

remarkable work Weapons & Warfare in Renaissance Europe by Bert. S. Hall.

In any research of this kind the usable data are essentially two: the written sources and the objects

(i.e. weapons) somehow datable.

As far as the written sources are concerns we fully accept the criterions of caution outlined by Marc

Bloch in his work Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien (Paris, 1949) and therefore we

consider with extreme suspicion chronicles, testimonials, and annalses so much utilised in the past.

There is no doubt that reliable, when properly interpreted, information can be furnished only by

documents positively dated or datable and possibly inserted chronologically in coherent archive

series.

A 15° century bombard (from a Mariano di Jacopo called the Taccola Ms.)

Probably one of the earliest known documentation is that given in the famous manuscript by Walter

de Milimete10, an illustration that dates back to at least 1327. There have been instead some

discussion and some perplexities on the Florentine document, dated 11 February 1326, in which

‘pilas seu et cannones de metallo’ are mentioned. It is indeed unusual such an early use of iron

balls: the normal projectiles were actually bolts or, for larger calibre, stone balls and lead balls for

10 De Nobilitatibus, Sapientiis, et Prudentiis Regum–Bodleian Library, Ms. Ch.Ch. Coll. 92.

4

smaller ones11 (Gaier, page 200). There is yet the possibility that ‘palloctas ferreas’ of modest

dimension were already employed for espringales (spingarda = a large crossbow mounted on

wheels, dating from the 13th century) and so they could be used in alternative to arrows with the

earliest firearms.

It also appears strange the employment of the term “canones” that, to denote a complete firearm, it

was used in a much later period. In Italy the two pieces of which were composed the largest part of

the most ancient bombards (barrel and powder chamber) they were called ‘tromba’ (=trumpet) and

‘cannone’. The cannone was also called coda, mascolo and camera. The weapons made in one

piece only, generally the smallest, were just called bombards.

The Dardanelles bombard, now at Fort Nelson.

This Florentine document has been published in Latin by Montù (with the Italian translation) and by

Partington; what follows is an English version.

‘Likewise the said lord priors of the arts and the gonfaloniere of justice together with

the said magistracy of the 12 good men, is to them allowed to name, to elect, to appoint

one or two masters among the officers to make and to have made for the same

commune balls or iron pellets and bronze cannons, cannons and pellets that must be

kept and used by the same masters and officers and other persons in defence of the

commune of Florence and the castles and of lands that are held by this same commune, 11 Gaier, C. L’Industrie et le Commerce des Armes dans les Anciennes Principautès belges du XIIIme à la fin du XV siècle Paris, 1973.

5

and in damage and detriment of the enemies, for that time and term and with that office

and salary to be paid to them by the commune in Florence and with the money of the

same commune from the treasurer of the camera fiscale (= administrative department)

of the said commune in that times and terms and with that immunity and in that way

and form and with that pacts and conditions which will please the prior, the

gonfaloniere and the said magistracy of the 12 good men.”

Montù informs us12 that the task was given to Rinaldo da Villamagna but the designation was

revoked by the Council of Cento the 25 April 1326 as Rinaldo requested what was considered a to

high salary.

The counts da Schio four cast iron bombards.

The counts da Schio estate in Costozza, near Vicenza.

According to the same Montù there are only four documentation, as far as Tuscany is concerned, on

the existence and utilisation of firearms during the XIV century. 12 Montù, C. Storia dell’Artiglieria Italiana Parte I, vol. 1 Roma, 1932

6

Besides the Florentine document of 1326 he lists:

- a document from Lucca of 17 September 1341 in which there is mention of “Unum cannonem

de ferro ad proicendas pallas de ferro.”, of “… Magistro MATHEO de Villabasilica qui fecit et

construxit tronum ad sagittando palloctas…” and of “… uno canone de ferro ad tronum et

pallis de ferro et carbonibus…”;

- the now well known fresco of St. Leonardo of Lecceto, erroneously dated 1343 but actually

painted near a century later;

- a document in Pisa of 14 April 1369 in which we read: “Gaspari Bonaiuncte libras

quinquaginta denariorum pisanorum sine cabella… for pretiis librarum quinquaginta pulveris

for bombardis,....”

The only incontestable document results the last one as the expression “pulveris per bombardis” is

definitely unambiguous. But, as we seen, it is dated 1369 when firearms were at that time utilised,

even if not in wide extent, in the whole Europe. The Florentine and the Lucchese documents should

be studied with attention and it should be verified in incontestable way the peculiar use of the neo-

Latin terms “canones”, “ cannones” and “tronum.” Perhaps an answer can be found in what Coltman

Clephan wrote at page 5:

‘ Ordnance and hand-guns doubtless grew out of those earlier metal tubes, closed at

one end, which were unquestionably used for the propulsion of a preparation of Greek

fire, of a kind possessing some explosive properties, however slight, impelled in

weapons such as are mentioned in the Alexind, by the Byzantine princess, Anna

Comnena, and also in other and later chronicles of mediaeval times.’

The cannones from Florence and Lucca could have been such metal tubes used both for noise

(“tronum” is probably a mediaeval variation or misspelling of “tonitrus”, i.e. “thunder”) and for

shooting balls.

From left to right: drawing and photo of the Morro bombard, X-ray, photo and drawing

of one of the counts da Schio bombards.

7

It is interesting to note that the existence in the past of doubts on the Florentine document is recalled

by some important scholars that, however, didn't dive deeper in the subject. Arne Hoff

(Feuerwaffen I, page 405) writes: ‘Die Echtheit dieser Mitteilung ist fruher sehr diskutiert

gewesen. Ein Spezialist wie Robert Davidsohn, Geschichte von Florenz, III, 758 unds IV, II 21, hat

doch keinen Zweifel.’

Claude Blair (1983) writes:

‘It has been suggested that these records (the February 1226 one and other documents

of the same year) are spurious. For reasons given by R. Davidson in his Geshichte von

Florenz, Berlin, 1896-1927, Vol. III, pp. 758-9; IV, the, p.249¸IV, ii, p.21, they must be

accepted as authentic.’

This last resolute affirmation, although probably correct and by no means expressed by one of the

most illustrious historians of weapons, would deserve more comprehensive justifications.

As far as it concerns the correct dating of the document of Walter de Milimete the same Blair,

furnishes instead, in the same work, punctual, convincing and elegant argumentation.

A classical example of inaccurate interpretation of ancient sources, and indeed as the “spingarde”

are concerned, can be found in Alberto Pasquali-Lasagni and Emilio Stefanelli essay on the ancient

artillery of the Popes. These authors affirms that the most ancient information on papal firearms is

given by two annotations of payments of 1338 and 1348 in the documents of the pontifical

administration. In the first one13 dated 10 November 1338 is recorded a payment in favour of

Jacopo Raynaldi, custodian of the armoury of the Holy Palace, “pro atilhatura cadrillorum

balistarum de turno, spingale et balistarum duorum pedum et unius pedis.”

On 13 October 1348 are recorded14 the expenses of transport of “artelharia” i.e. of “baliste at alia

artelharia”, among which some ‘spingale’. Whatever means “atilhatura”– it could be probably the

stretching of the strings–it appears evident that all the weapons mentioned were of mechanical type.

It serves in fact to remember that the term “spingarda” (=espingale), used in the ‘400 to denote a

light ordnance, in precedence it identified a variety of big siege crossbow.

This truth probably emerges from a Venetian document15 of 1344 in which we read “… Et quia

sunt in dicto castro alique spingarde sive baliste a torno….” : it appears clearly that spingarda was,

in that period, a synonym for stationary siege balista which bow was bent by a fixed windlass.

13 Arch. Vat., Intr. Exit. A.1338, vol. 171, f.89V 14 Ibidem, vol. 250, f. 118V 15 ASV, Senate, Deliberazioni Miste, Reg. 22, 16R, 19 April 1344

8

From Angelo Angelucci Documenti inediti per la storia delle armi da fuoco in Italia (Torino,

1868) the drawing of what the Author presents as a cannon-vase dated 1322 but already lost,

Returning to the Notes of history of the artillery of the State of the Church in the centuries XIV and

XV we come to know that in the year 1350, the day 30 of April, the treasurer pays to Cicchino

Carnerio of Modena 60 gold florins ‘pro cannunibus, ballotis et malleis de ferro et aliis fulcimentis

pro bombardis...’ Also in this case cannunibus leaves some doubts as they are defined, together

with balls and iron hammers, as ‘supporting devices’ (probably in the sense of equipment), of

bombards. The term fulcimentis in fact certainly it derives from the verb fulcio (fulsi, fulsum,

angers) that it means to support, to strengthen. It could be hypothesised that chambers were meant

and this either for the greatest possibility of bursting of this part, or either because the smallest

bombards, in which a permanent connection between the two pieces was not effectuated, often

were equipped with several chambers. In this way it was possible to increase the rate of fire.

Always in the same year are recorded payments to Cicchino ‘pro pulvere pro bombadis’ (12 May),

to Andrew of Donato of Antella ‘pro duobus fascibus ferri pro fieri faciendos ballotas pro

bombardis’ (16 May) and ‘pro ducentis viginti sex ballottis de ferro ad bombardas ponderis centum

octaginta octo librarum’ (23 June)16.

16 Arch. Vat. , Collectanea, vol. 463, a. 1338 ‘Expensae factae in bello Romandiolae’: f.272 ad 277, 280, 289.

9

A siege from a Froissart manuscript: note the breach-loading bombard with two spare chambers.

The absolute certainty that firearms are meant, as far as it concerns the Italian sources, exists only

when the term bombarda is employed. It appears, however, certain enough that the utilisation of

firearms was widely spread in Europe already around the half the ‘300.

In 1844 it was printed in Turin a study written by Luigi Cibrario titled Of the use and of the quality

of firearms in the year 1347. The author, that unfortunately doesn't furnish exact archive indications

of the examined documents, informs that in the bookkeeping registers of Aimone of Challant, sire

of Fenis and lord of the castle of Lanzo in the years 1347 and 1348 results what now follows.

Between 1347 and 25 February 1348 Ugonino of Chatillon in Val of Aosta, in 18 weeks and with

the help of another master had manufactured four bronze guns that had to serve to the defence of

the possessions of the Marquise of Monferrato. For the casting were utilised 238 pounds of bronze:

if the four pieces had been of equal dimensions their weight it would have been between 18.7 and

21.8 kg and this to according to of the type of pound used17. Evidently the four guns were to heavy

to be hand firearms, circumstance confirmed by the presence of “ fusta lignea”, gun carriage in

wood on which the guns were fixed. One of the most interesting aspects is given by the

circumstance that these pieces were destined to fire both lead balls and big bolts with iron wings.

17 The old pound of Turin corresponds to 315 g while the pound of Lanzo, probably used, corresponds to 367 g .

10

The same bolts represented in Walter de Milimete manuscripts and listed in the French document

dated 2 July 1338 quoted by Blair18.

The gun in the Walter de Milimete manuscript.

In the document above reproduced it represents particular interest the term “carrellis”, term that

individualises the big bolts used as missiles. Robert Coltman Clephan writes19:

‘Froissart tells us that at the fight at Pont-de-Comines in 1382–“Et si en y avoient

aucuns qui jetoient de bombardes portatives, et qui traioient grands quarriaulx

enpennés de fer. “

These “bombardes portatives “ were probably the larger hand-guns served by two men, or

small portable cannon, the field artillery of the day.

Quarrel-guns (“quarriaulx gonnes “) are mentioned in the Treasury Accounts of Henry IV of

England (1399-1413). That the missiles “quarriaulx “, “ carreaux“, “ garros”, “ garroks “,

garrots “ (quarrels, bolts, or musket-arrows) were still being employed with firearms up to the

end of the sixteenth century is shown in….’

It is evident that the Latin term ‘carrellis ‘ of the Piedmontese document corresponds to the French

‘carreaux’ and that therefore it was common, in Europe of the epoch, the alternative employment of

balls and bolts in the firearms. It is important to remember what Coltman Clephan wrote that20:

‘Garrots are stated by Ducange to be large shafts thrown by espingales,….

Guillaume Guiart, writing in 1297-1304, refers to their use with espringales, thus bearing out

the statement made by Ducange; but really the nomenclatures used for these arrow-missiles is 18 Blair, Pollard’s History of Firearms, page 28. 19 Clephan, op. cit. pp.13 ff. 20 Clephan, op. cit. p.15

11

to quantity almost as uncertain and confusing as are the names employed for the engines

themselves.

As much interesting, in the Piedmontese document, it is the indication of the material used for the

manufacture (cupri sive bronzes = copper that is bronze) and of the probable weight (approximately

18-20 kg). If their shape was that of the bronze gun from Loshult21, probably the most ancient

firearm known today, it can be hypothesised that a gun was long 35/40 cm and with a bore of about

40 mm–

The hand-bombard of Loshult.

On the contrary it is not likely that said weapon belonged to vase class, i.e. that it was similar to

the small gun dated 1322 published both by Angelucci and Sixl of which yet it isn’t know any

more the location. Known as the “vase of Mantua” it had been manufactured in cast bronze: thank

to the conspicuous diameter of the bore (55mm), in associate to a modest length (164mm), it was

apt to project stone (or iron) balls and not certainly bolts. Bolts that, according to the Piedmontese

document, had to be employed with special wads: ‘… inclusis tachiis necessariis ad idem….’ In

modern Italian the word ‘tacco’ means heel and has a German origin so probably also the latin word

is a mediaeval translation from German. The term has been used to denote a solid wad for mortars

and for XIX century small arms cartridges (for instance in the Drayse and in the Carcano needle-fire

rifles ammunitions22). We can so infer that special wood or leather wads were used to shoot arrows

with the Milimete type guns.

21 For a description see Hoff, op. cit., Blair 1968 and 1983, op. cit. 22 Morin, M. Dal Carcano al Fal Firenze, 1975

12

As much unlikely should be considered the possibility that the four firearms could have been

bombards similar to that of Morro d’Alba (Ancona) now to the Museum of Artillery in Turin23)

Considered, probably with reason, as the most ancient Italian firearm known today, this bombard

was probably made in the second half of the XV century.It is said that the material used was forged

iron and it has a total length of 157 cm with a calibre of 13.5 cm; the chamber has an inclusive

inside diameter between the 7 cm at the top and the 6 cm in the bottom. It presents a certain

similarity with the bombards illustrated in a manuscript24 of Mariano of Iacopo known as Taccola

(Siena, 1382-1458) and it was certainly predestined to shoot balls of stone. Four similar shaped

pieces25 are owned by the counts da Schio in their estate located at Costoza di Longare, near the

town of Vicenza: said bombards, at a X-ray examination, were found to be of cast iron.

It also reminds the siege-gun represented in a French manuscript of c. 1390-141026 .

An ancient barrel from the Bayerarmeemuseum. Ingolstadt.

Apart the Loshult gun, only other two hand firearms, both cast in bronze, that can be dated to the

XIV century are known: the Mörkö gun in Sweden and the Tannenberg gun in Germany.

At this point it is clear that firearms were present in western Europe already in the early part of the

XIV century. By mid-century their use was quite common although Cipolla27 states that

23 Montù, C. op. cit p.174 24 Libreria Nazionale Marciana, Venice, Codex latinus L. VIII-40-2941 25 Morin, M. ‘Morphology and constructive techniques of Venetian artilleries in the 16th and 17th centuries: some notes’ Ships & Guns The sea ordnance in Venice and Europe between the 15th and the 17th centuries edited by Carlo Beltrame and Renato Gianni Ridella – Oxford, 2011. 26 Norman, A.V.B. ‘Notes on some Early Rapresentation of Guns and on Ribadeukins’ The Journal of the Arms and Armour Society viii/3 (1975), plate LXXXVIII. 27 Cipolla, C. Guns, Sails and Empires New York, 1965.

13

‘Guns were effective only in siege operations. In the open field they had only to

psychological effect, and even that could not be guaranteed. At the battle of Aljubarrota

(1385) the Castilians had sixteen great bombards which hurled huge balls of stone, but

the battle was won by the Portuguese who had no artillery.’

Hall (1997), who probably studied the battle in more depth, has, apart the size of the guns, the same

opinion. In the paragraph devoted to Gunpowder battles: From Crécy to Rosebeke he writes:

‘Even if one accepts the presence and the use of firearms at Crécy, one must concludes

with Contermine that ‘the desired end appears to have been chiefly psychological ‘to

frighten the Genoese '. Perhaps much the same could be said of most early battles in

which firearms appeared.

Two generations after Crécy, in 1385, another battle involving firearms shows how

little things had changed, except that perhaps the element of surprise and fright

surrounding firearms had disappeared. The battle of Aljubarrota took place between

Portuguese forces under their elected king, João I, and Castilian invaders……” “…The

Castilians… are known to have had with them 16 lights cannon.”… “To open their

assault on the Portuguese position, the Castilians opened fire with their cannons, but

the results were quite disappointing. Being subject to what later centuries would call to

cannonade caused burdens alarm in the Portuguese ranks, but it did not break them.’

A siege from an illuminated manuscript.

14

A horseman with small bombard and a lighted match in his right hand.

As far as Venice, the principal Italian state of the period, is concerned, the oldest document (not

chronicle) regarding firearms known to this author is a deliberation of the Senate dated 3 Octobers

137628. In this deliberation we read that “De Machinis, vero Manganellis, Bombardis, et alijs

edificiis nostris,…” that were in various places should be taken in to safe place. Venice was then at

war against the duke Leupold of Austria: exactly one month later, a truce was signed and peace

followed.

Another siege from a Froissart manuscript.

28 ASV – Senato – Deliberazioni serie Alfabetica – R – 15V

15

Artillery was extensively used by the Venetian, both on the sea29 and on the land, during the

succeeding war against Genoa: interesting information on their use can be found in the Cronica de

la guerra de veneciani a Zenovesi30 by Daniele di Chinazzo. In 1379 two huge bombards are

mentioned, one made in Treviso shooting stone balls of 195 pounds, the other made in Venice

shooting balls of 140 pounds. In the late afternoon of 22 Januarys 1380 the last shot of the first

bombard hit and partially destroyed the bell tower of Brondolo, a village nearby Chioggia then

occupied by Genoese forces. The falling ruins killed Pietro Doria, admiral of the Genoese fleet.

The first soldier in the ship holds a hand-bombard.

Bombards are mentioned in Senate deliberations of 22 April 138831, 10 February 138932, July 8

139033; 2.000 pounds of saltpetre and 2000 pounds of sulphur, together with armours and crossbow,

29. ASV – Miscellanea codici – Storia Veneta – R. 67, 6R 30 University Library Copenaghen–Ms. Rostgaard n° 38 – printed edition: Venice, 1958 31 ASV – Senato – Deliberazioni serie Alfabetica – R – 15V 32 Ibidem – ibidem – ibidem - 49R 33 Ibidem – ibidem - ibidem – R. 53, 132R

16

were sold to Count of Signa on August 16, 138734. This last information is quite interesting as it is

the first that reveals the existence or, at least, the origin of an important refining industry in the

Venetian Arsenal. On April 1421 the Senate decided an export tax on saltpetre35; on 13 August

1490 a deliberation limited non government refining of saltpetre in the Arsenal only by approval of

the same Senate with 4/5 of positive votes of at least 120 members present. In the same document36

it is stated that in 1486 the king of Portugal was granted the permission to buy twenty thousand

pounds of refined saltpetre every year.

The development of firearms in the first 150 years was slow but constant: the decrease of

gunpowder cost in the late fourteenth century, not only changed their use as noted by Hall37, but

influenced positively their diffusion.

On closing these notes it appears clearly that our knowledge on the earliest European firearms is

still insufficient although noteworthy progress has been accomplished in recent years.

34 ASV – Senato – Deliberazioni Miste – R. 40, 86R 35 Ibidem – ibidem - ibidem – R. 53, 132R 36 Ibidem – ibidem – Deliberazioni Mar – R. 13, 23R. 37 Hall op. cit. p.43