Stephen E. Jones

Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified quotes: April 2009

[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [My TheShroudofTurin blog]

The following are quotes added to my Shroud of Turin unclassified quotes in April 2009. See copyright conditions at end.

2009: Feb, Mar, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec.

12/04/2009
"Perhaps most pertinent of all, however, is a discovery made by the distinguished French medical expert the 
late Prof Jerome Lejeune from studies of a very Shroud-like figure that is one of the illustrations in a 
Hungarian manuscript, the so-called Pray Manuscript of Budapest, datable to c. 1192-5. I had first come 
across this manuscript illustration in the 1960s and had immediately been struck by the figure's very 
accurate Shroud-like pose and similarly Shroud-like total nudity. I had also seen in the `Discovery of the 
Empty Tomb' illustration below this that there was a cloth depicted on the tomb lid, clearly intended to 
represent Jesus' shroud discarded after the Resurrection. But it was Prof. Lejeune who on a personal visit to 
the National Szechenyi Library in Budapest, where the manuscript is housed, spotted several crucial 
features that had escaped me. First, the Shroud-like depiction of Jesus' dead body features four fingers, but 
no thumbs, exactly as on the Shroud. Second, just over the dead Jesus' right eye in the manuscript 
illustration is a single bloodstain in exactly the same position as the distinctive three-shaped one on the 
Shroud. Third, and not least, the `shroud' cloth lying on the tomb lid clearly bears a group of holes that are 
just like the Shroud's so-called `poker holes' - damage marks that, whatever their causation (we noted that Dr 
Mechthild Flury-Lemberg suggested some liquid spillage), would have been the Shroud's most distinctive 
feature prior to the 1532 fire. And another, similar set of marks can be seen on the tomb lid, along with a 
pattern again distinctively reminiscent of the Shroud's herringbone. As a pointer to the Shroud's existence 
as early as the twelfth century, the evidence of the Pray Manuscript is therefore strong." (Wilson, I. & 
Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, 
pp.114,116)

12/04/2009
"The Shroud-like Templar panel painting discovered at Templecombe, England, during the Second World 
War. This represents the prime clue that the Knights Templar may secretly have owned the Shroud during 
the period immediately following the capture of Constantinople and up to their suppression in 1307." 
(Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 
2000, p.116)

12/04/2009
"The Templar Order's two- highest dignitaries, Grand Master Jacques de Molay and Master of Normandy 
Geoffrey de Charny, being burnt at the stake in 1314. It was one generation later that the Shroud as we know 
it today mysteriously emerged in the possession of another Geoffrey de Charny, a French knight whose son 
Geoffrey II de Charny is depicted in the drawing ... of his tombstone at Froidmont, destroyed during the 
Second World War. Geoffrey II de Charny was reported to have exhibited the Shroud with his own hands, 
claiming. it as the true Shroud of Jesus." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated 
Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.116)

12/04/2009
"If, then, the Turin Shroud was indeed the same as the 'face-cloth' of Edessa which, on its passing to 
Constantinople, gradually became revealed as a full-body shroud, then, despite the radiocarbon dating, we 
have a credible history for the Shroud from the death of Jesus around AD 30 to its disappearance from 
Constantinople in 1204. This leaves just the period from 1204 to its appearance in the hands of the de 
Charny family in the 1350s to be explained." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated 
Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.116-117)

12/04/2009
"There are some compelling clues. For instance, during the Second World War a most Shroud-like panel 
painting was found enigmatically hidden in the ceiling of the outhouse of a cottage at Templecombe in 
south-west England. Since Templecombe was a stronghold of the rich and secretive Crusader Knights 
Templar, who are independently credited with having worshipped some kind of bearded male head at secret 
chapter meetings, one inference is that the Shroud had fallen into the hands of this order, and the 
Templecombe panel painting was a copy of the original Shroud which they held, for a period at least, in 
France." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: 
London, 2000, p.117)

12/04/2009
"Buttressing this, when the Templars were suppressed by France's King Philip the Fair on idolatry and other 
charges in 1307, one of their two highest dignitaries is recorded to have been a Geoffrey de Charny, Templar 
Master of Normandy, an individual whom King Philip ordered to be burnt at the stake in Paris seven years 
later, along with the Order's Grand Master, Jacques de Molay. As may be recalled, the Shroud's first known 
European owner, one generation later, was another Geoffrey de Charny. Although surviving records are 
insufficient to establish a definite family link between these two men, certainly an inheritance in such highly 
charged circumstances would explain the relatively humble de Charny family's reluctance to explain exactly 
how they had come to acquire the Shroud. For it cannot be emphasized enough what unlikely owners they 
were. In the thirteenth century King Louis IX of France built the magnificent Sainte Chapelle, Paris, to house 
a very uninspiring twist of thorn branch reputed to have been Jesus' crown of thorns. By contrast, Geoffrey 
I de Charny, the Shroud's first known owner, was the squire of a tiny village who, when captured by the 
English, could not afford to pay his own ransom. And he had to get a grant from his king to fund the 
building of a very modest wooden church that was the Shroud's first known European home. It was unheard 
of for so relatively lowly an individual to own so priceless a relic, hence the utter disbelief - among the 
normally relic-gullible people of the Middle Ages - which the first showings of the Shroud are known to 
have aroused. (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara 
Books: London, 2000, p.117)

12/04/2009
"Overall, then, although the reconstruction just outlined is very far from proven, the Shroud's history before 
the 1350s is hardly the blank that we might expect if it really had been `cunningly painted' some time 
between 1260 and 1390 as indicated by the radiocarbon dating." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin 
Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.117)

12/04/2009
"Templars Charged with Idol Worship The charge of "idol worship" involved the Templars' secret 
worship of a "bearded head" which one of the Templar leaders, Purred, admitted was made of wood. The 
brothers were accused of worshipping this head at secret Chapters. During the efforts to defend the Order, 
one of its members, Jean de Montreal, presented a document in which he spoke of the Order's foundation, 
its great efforts to fight the Saracens, its carrying of the Cross and the Thorns of the Crown of the Savior, 
and the fact that they had been able to acquire a great collection of relics. " [Barber, M., "The Trial of the 
Templars," Cambridge University Press: London, 1978, pp.137-138] Another Templar, Jean Taylafer de Gene, 
told his inquisitors that "on the day of his reception `a certain head' had been placed on the altar of the 
chapel and he was told to adore it... it appeared to be an effigy of a human face, red in color and as large as a 
human head." [Ibid., p.147] (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," 
St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, pp.136-137. Emphasis original)

12/04/2009
"The Templecombe Image What could this wooden, bearded effigy of a human head have been and how 
may it have been related to the Shroud? The answer to this may well have been found in modern times in the 
village of Templecombe in Somerset, England, and a site that was the former Preceptory or C:ommandery of 
the Knights Templar in England. In 1945 a painting of the head of Christ on a wooden panel was discovered. 
It is strikingly similar to the face of the Shroud. Australian sindonologist Rex Morgan indicates that the 
presence of a keyhole and hinge marks on the wooden panel suggest it was the lid to a chest that once likely 
held the actual Shroud - somewhat like the Grail. The Templars, then disbanded in France, took the Shroud 
to England in this chest, where Geoffrey I de Charny acquired the Shroud in 1350 when taken prisoner by 
the English. [Morgan, R., "Did the Templars Take the Shroud to England: New Evidence from 
Templecombe," in Berard, A., ed., "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Proceedings of the 
Symposium, June 22-23, 1991 at St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, The Man in the Shroud Committee 
of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, 1991, pp.205-232] The Templecombe image as a repository of the Shroud 
could well contain on its lid the picture of the wooden, "bearded image" worshipped by the Templars. There 
may have been an actual wooden image of the head, or series of wooden heads, reproducing the face on the 
Shroud which circulated within the Templar communities to remind them that the Order possessed the Holy 
Shroud. After the trials of the Templars were completed, the Order was disbanded. However, the Shroud 
reemerged almost forty-one years later in the possession of Geoffrey II de Charny in Lirey, France." 
(Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 
1998, pp.137-138. Emphasis original)

13/04/2009
"But by far the most direct piece of evidence for the source of the Templar `idolatry' took the form of a still 
extant copy that has hitherto gone unrecognized as such. During a severe gale in Somerset, England, in 
1951, the ceiling plaster collapsed in the outhouse of a cottage belonging to Mrs. A. Topp in the village of 
Templecombe. It revealed in the roof, covered with coal dust, a curious panel painting. The presence of a 
keyhole and hinge marks indicated that at one time it had been used as a door to the cottage coal house. But 
it clearly had an earlier and more illustrious origin. For the Templars had in 1185 acquired property in 
Templecombe and built there a preceptory used for recruiting and training new members of the order before 
sending them off for active service in the East. From its distinct medieval style there seems little doubt that 
the painting was once the property of the order in Templecombe. Above all, from its nature as a bearded 
male head, with a reddish beard, lifesize, disembodied, and, above all, lacking in any identification mark, it 
corresponds precisely to descriptions of the Templar `idol,' of which it may well be the only surviving 
copy." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, 
Revised edition, 1979, pp.184-185)

13/04/2009
"Today the restored painting hangs in the tiny Church of St. Mary, Templecombe. It is important because it 
dispels any idea that the Templar `idol' might have been some form of bust. It conforms, too, to some of the 
most rational Templar descriptions: `a painting. on a plaque,' `a bearded male head,' `lifesize,' `with a grizzled 
beard like a Templar's.' (The Templars cultivated their beards in the style of Christ). Its likeness to the 
Byzantine copies of the Mandylion, although painted in a different (late medieval) style, is, to say the least, 
remarkable. Perhaps most significantly of all, although appearing to be Christ, it bears no halo, which could 
well be the explanation for all the mystery about whom the image represented-the statement of some 
Templars that they thought it was their Savior, the speculation of others, obviously uninitiated, that it might 
have been Hugh of Payens, the founder of the order. It explains, too, why copies of the Templar head were 
never found-without identification marks they were not recognized for what they were. But it indicates 
something more. With the extremes of veneration the Templars paid to their `bearded head,' it can scarcely 
be supposed that their artists ignored a thousand-year-old tradition and omitted the halo out of irreverence. 
Rather, it would have been because of the desire to reproduce directly a special characteristic of the 
`original' object from which the copy was made." (Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of 
Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, 1979, p.184)

13/04/2009
"The reader can now have little doubt where all this is leading-to a working hypothesis that the lost 
Mandylion/ Shroud, with its virtually unique, nonhaloed, `true likeness' of God's assumed form, was the 
original Templar `idol' from which the Templecombe panel and other similar versions in Templar hands 
were copies. That there were such copies is not only indicated by the variety of descriptions of the 
idol-some in jeweled cases, others plain-but also by information that in England alone there were four-
according to a Minorite friar, one in the sacristy of the Temple in London, another at `Bristleham,' a 
third at Temple Bruern in Lincolnshire, and the fourth at a place beyond the Humber. The manner in 
which the image was painted in the Templecombe version suggests that, if indeed the original of the 
Templar idols was the Mandylion/ Shroud, it had retained the stretched-out, face-only form." (Wilson, 
I., "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised 
edition, 1979, pp.185-186)

13/04/2009
"The strongest evidence supporting the theory that copies of the Mandylion had been distributed to 
Knights Templar chapters comes from the discovery in 1951 in a Templar ruin in Templecombe, England, of a 
panel painting ... that matches many of the descriptions of the Templar idol: `bearded male head,' `lifesize,' 
`painting on a plaque,' `disembodied,' `with a grizzled beard like a Templar.' [Wilson, I., `The Shroud of 
Turin,' Image Books: New York 1979, p.184] This painting, with a distinct medieval style, is very similar to 
Byzantine copies of the Mandylion. The discovery of the Templar painting dispels any notion that the 
Templar idol may have been some form of bust. The existence of multiple copies of the original is indicated 
not only by the variety of descriptions-some in gold cases, silver cases, wooden panels, et cetera-but also 
by the information from a Minorite friar that in England alone there were four: one in the sacristy of the 
Temple in London, one at `Bristleham,' another at Temple Bruern in Lincolnshire, and another at a place 
beyond the Humber River." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and 
Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.147)

13/04/2009
"But by far the most direct piece of evidence for the source of the Templar `idolatry' took the form of a still 
extant copy that has hitherto gone unrecognized as such. During a severe gale in Somerset, England, in 
1951, the ceiling plaster collapsed in the outhouse of a cottage belonging to Mrs. A. Topp in the village of 
Templecombe. It revealed in the roof, covered with coal dust, a curious panel painting. The presence of a 
keyhole and hinge marks indicated that at one time it had been used as a door to the cottage coal house. But 
it clearly had an earlier and more illustrious origin. For the Templars had in 1185 acquired property in 
Templecombe and built there a preceptory used for recruiting and training new members of the order before 
sending them off for active service in the East. From its distinct medieval style there seems little doubt that 
the painting was once the property of the order in Templecombe. Above all, from its nature as a bearded 
male head, with a reddish beard, lifesize, disembodied, and, above all, lacking in any identification mark, it 
corresponds precisely to descriptions of the Templar `idol,' of which it may well be the only surviving copy. 
Today the restored painting hangs in the tiny Church of St. Mary, Templecombe. It is important because it 
dispels any idea that the Templar `idol' might have been some form of bust: It conforms, too, to some of the 
most rational Templar descriptions: `a painting on a plaque,' `a bearded male head,' `lifesize,' `with a grizzled 
beard like a Templar's.' (The Templars cultivated their beards in the style of Christ). Its likeness to the 
Byzantine copies of the Mandylion, although painted in a different (late medieval) style, is, to say the least, 
remarkable. Perhaps most significantly of all, although appearing to be Christ, it bears no halo, which could 
well be the explanation for all the mystery about whom the image represented-the statement of some 
Templars that they thought it was their Savior, the speculation of others, obviously uninitiated, that it might 
have been Hugh of Payens, the founder of the order. It explains, too, why copies of the Templar head were 
never found without identification marks they were not recognized for what they were. But it indicates 
something more. With the extremes of veneration the Templars paid to their `bearded head,' it can scarcely 
be supposed that their artists ignored a thousand-year-old tradition and omitted the halo out of irreverence. 
Rather, it would have been because of the desire to reproduce directly a special characteristic of the 
`original' object from which the copy was made. The reader can now have little doubt where all this is 
leading-to a working hypothesis that the lost Mandylion/Shroud, with its virtually unique, nonhaloed, `true 
likeness' of God's assumed form, was the original Templar `idol' from which the Templecombe panel and 
other similar versions in Templar hands were copies." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club 
Associates: London, 1978, pp.159-160)

17/04/2009
"A little more satisfactory is the theory advanced in my 1978 book [The Turin Shroud] that it was 
possibly the Crusader Order of Knights Templars who owned the Shroud during the missing hundred and 
fifty years. This has just that little bit extra going for it, because the Templars had a very special interest in 
the tomb of Jesus and everything associated with it, and when they returned from the Holy Land to France 
in the late twelfth century they were widely rumoured to be secretly worshipping some form of image 
featuring a bearded man's face. During World War II a Mrs Molly Drew, then living in Templecombe in 
Somerset, on the site of a Templar preceptory, had the shock of her life when a fall of plaster in the ceiling 
revealed an old panel painting ... seemingly once having belonged to the Templars, with precisely such a 
face, strangely disembodied, and bearing a close resemblance to the facial area on the Shroud. Was this the 
Templars' copy of the Shroud for their members in England? Radiocarbon dating confirmed the panel 
painting to date back to possibly as early as 1280, certainly the right period, and adding further substance to 
the theory was that a Templar called Geoffrey de Charny was one of the two leaders of the Order burnt at the 
stake, following its suppression by King Philip IV of France in 1307. Since whatever the Templars had been 
secretly worshipping was never found, there must therefore be the possibility that the Shroud secretly 
passed via the Templar de Charny's family to Geoffrey I, this theory having the additional merit that it would 
explain the de Charnys' reticence over how they acquired it." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New 
Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, p.136)

17/04/2009
"Immediately after the General Chapter in Paris in July 1307, Brother Imbert Blancke, commander of the 
province of Auvergne, was sent to England. He was a man of some experience and authority, a Templar for 
thirty-seven or thirty-eight years, during which time he had served in the Holy Land under Guillaume de 
Beaujeu. He was not brought to trial until 1309, and never returned to France. Of the other Templars, fifteen 
in addition to Brother Imbert escaped arrest. The most senior was Gerard de Villiers, the treasurer. He was a 
Burgundian and a kinsman of' both seneschals. The others were junior knights, but all were noblemen. Apart 
from Imbert, who was in England, and another brother, who was in Germany, most of the rest were either 
each other's kinsmen or of the Joinville, Vergy and Charny families. There was Hugues de Chalon and the 
brother Jean, nephews of Hugues de Pairaud, seneschal of' the order; Pierre de Modies, a nephew of 
Hugues de Chalon; Falco de Milly, a kinsman of the former Grand Master, Philip de Milly, and of Jean de 
Milly, a former treasurer; Jean de Chailly, who came from a family whose estates were at Chailly-sur-
Armonçon, near Mont-Saint-Jean, and who may have been a vassal of Jean, Sieur de Charny, but was 
certainly a neighbour; Clerambault de Conflans was a close kinsman of the marshal of Champagne, an office 
that was hereditary in his family. Brother Richard, who fled with Clerambault, came from near Champlitte. Of 
the remainder, Adam de Waillancourt came from near Cambrai; I have been unable to discover the origins of 
Richard de Montcley, Renaud de la Foille, Guillaume de Lins, Hugues d'Aray and Brothers Barans and 
Geraudon. That one or two of those who escaped arrest should have been related to the families who knew 
the secret of the Shroud might be thought coincidental, but that five of them were is rather a different 
matter." (Currer-Briggs, N., "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, 1995, pp.194-
195) 

17/04/2009
"Ten miles from Glastonbury is the Somerset village of Templecombe. It is deep in the countryside far from 
any city, but during the Second World War a German bomber returning from a raid on Bristol dropped its 
bombs in fields on the edge of the village, dislodging tiles from cottage roofs and bringing down the ceiling 
of the coal shed of one of them. Next morning, when the owner was clearing up the debris, she was amazed 
to see a painted oaken panel from which looked out the portrait of a man. She took it to the local vicar, and 
between them they cleaned it with soap and water to reveal the head of Christ. This panel has since been 
carbon dated to between 1280 and 1310. The Templecombe preceptory, founded in 1185, was the Templars' 
principal establishment in the south-west of England." (Currer-Briggs, N., "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a 
Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, 1995, pp.194-195) 

17/04/2009
"Imbert Blancke came to England in July or August 1307, when the threat to the order was being taken 
seriously by men like Gerard de Villiers. ...Why Templecombe? If we suppose that Imbert brought the Grail 
reliquary from France to England during the summer of 1307, he would not have taken it direct to 
Templecombe, an insignificant little preceptory in a part of England where the order was not particularly 
strong or influential. It is much more likely that he took it to the London Temple, and that it was kept there to 
await further events in France. News of the brethren's arrests did not reach London until the end of October 
1307, but the English king took no action till the following January, during which time steps could have been 
taken to remove the order's treasures from London to a safer place, should the English knights suffer as their 
French brothers had suffered. ... Such a hiding place had to be unobtrusive and within easy reach of the 
coast, in the event that the present troubles would blow over and the opportunity arise to reunite the two 
relics. Templecombe was just such a place. It is easy to let the imagination run riot, but the size of the 
Templecombe panel, which measures four foot nine inches x two foot nine inches, appears to be the lid of a 
chest of exactly the right size for one made to contain the Grail reliquary; its dating is to between 1280 and 
1310; the painting on it resembles so closely the head of the man on the Shroud; there was present in 
England such a senior Templar as Imbert Blancke at the critical time; the linking of the Grail to the history of 
Glastonbury, so close to Templecombe; the ecclesiastical and international politics of the time - all seem to 
point in the same direction and to blend into a consistent picture." (Currer-Briggs, N., "Shroud Mafia: The 
Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, 1995, pp.203-204)

25/04/2009
"Which leads us to the third category of injuries visible on the Shroud, the bloodflows as from piercings to 
the hands and feet. First let us take the trickles that can be seen on each forearm ... As various medical and 
other researchers have demonstrated, if these are, projected and painted onto a living model's arms and his 
arms are then moved to the position that their gravitational flow would seem to indicate, it can immediately 
be seen that at the time the blood flowed each arm must have been stretched out sideways at an approximate 
angle of sixty-five degrees, i.e. a crucifixion position ... We cannot see the source of the trickle down the 
right forearm because its wrist and upper hand are covered by the fingers of the left hand. But this is more 
than compensated for by the fact that a `/\'shaped bloodstain is clearly visible on the left wrist, the apex of 
this, at the centre of the bending fold, being obviously the site of the puncture wound from which the blood 
flowed. The `/\' shape to the bloodstain also theoretically seems to indicate the two different positions that 
the man of the Shroud must have adopted while suspended, either denoting his agonising shifting from one 
position to another or, as some have suggested, the position his arms took at death." (Wilson, I., "The 
Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New 
York NY, 1998, pp.34-35)

25/04/2009
"We are now drawn to the wounds of the crucifixion itself. First we must establish that we can be quite 
confident we are dealing with a crucifixion victim. The principal evidence for this lies in the flows of blood 
from the wound in the left wrist. One of the most important aspects is the angle of the two streams of blood 
closest to the hand, flowing toward the inner border of the forearm. Other, interrupted streams run along the 
length of the arm as far as the elbow, dripping toward the edge of the arm at angles similar to the original 
flows. The first two flows are about ten degrees apart, the somewhat thinner one at an angle of about fifty-
five degrees from the axis of the arm and the broader one closer to the hand at about sixty-five degrees. This 
enables us to do two things: (1) to compute that at the time the blood flowed, the arms must have been 
raised at positions varying between fifty-five and sixty-five degrees from the vertical, i.e., clearly a 
crucifixion position; (2) to compute that because of the ten-degree difference the crucified man must have 
assumed two slightly different positions on the cross, that at sixty-five degrees representing full suspension 
of the body, that at fifty-five degrees a slightly more acute angle of the forearm produced by flexing the 
elbow to raise the body. We are enabled to deduce then that the crucifixion forced on the victim an up-and-
down or seesaw motion on the cross-perhaps, according to one school of thought, in order to breathe, the 
arms in that position taking a tension equal to nearly twice the weight of the body, inducing near-
suffocation if there was no crutch support; perhaps, according to another school of thought, by the victim 
attempting to relieve himself of one unbearable agony, the pain in his wrists, by raising himself, at the price 
of yet more pain, on the living wounds in his feet." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: 
London, 1978, pp.25-26)

[top]