The Fantasy Portraits:
Portraits that ARE NOT True likenesses of Elizabeth Bathory
Copyright © 2016 Jozef Borovský. All Rights Reserved.
Only two 'original' portraits of Elizabeth Bathory were known to exist until the 1580 portrait was found only recently. Doubts about the true likeness of Elizabeth Bathory's in either of these two portraits have persisted, and so she remained enigmatic, impossible to really know what she looked like in real life. Elizabeth Bathory was reported to be a very beautiful woman and these two previously known portraits certainly do not bubble with any sort of flattery in this regard, at all. What's more, is that they are very poorly executed. No wonder then that so many different portraits of other women were substituted over the years to represent her. Unfortunately, these two 'original' portraits are no more accurate in depicting the true likeness of Elizabeth Bathory, than the myriad of thousands of fantasy depictions of her, created through the years by artists worldwide! Of these two, one is a fake. The other, a figment of the painter's imagination.
Before we explore what is probably the most popular 'substitute' portrait of another woman for Elizabeth Bathory, let's first examine the two previously known representations of her (portraits #1 and #2 shown below) so that we can, once and for all, discount the claim that these portraits offer any semblance of her true likeness, or that they were even painted while she was alive.
Two Very 'Ruff' Portraits...
"It pains me physically to see a woman victimized, rendered pathetic, by fashion" - Yves Saint Laurent.
Portrait of Elizabeth Bathory. It has been claimed to be the actual likeness of Elizabeth Bathory. Attributed to Benjamin von Block, c.1656.
Portrait of Elizabeth Bathory by unknown artist. Claimed to be painted in 1585.
In the eternal wisdom of Coco Chanel, "fashion fades, only style remains the same." To the uninitiated in the world of seventeenth century fashion, there seems to be nothing at all wrong with the portraits #1 and #2 of Elizabeth Bathory shown above... but there is. These portraits show her completely out of fashion for her time when she was still alive, but very much in fashion for the period after her death. It's easy to tell simply from her neck accessory, the ruff.
The ruff is a projecting starched frill worn around the neck and was in fashion roughly between between the mid-sixteenth to first quarter of the seventeenth century. As a fashion accessory, the ruff is,
without doubt, the most gloriously frivolous accessory in the history of clothing. Impractical, high maintenance and expensive, the ruff was the most immediate way, in the 16th and 17th centuries, to convey that you had loads of money and all manner of staff dedicated to maintaining your appearance.(1) As a fashion accessory, the ruff changed along with contemporary fashion as can be seen in the following two examples of two ladies - Henrietta Maria (left) and Anne of Austria (right) - who were very much in fashion, and very much in style. To put it simply, the ruff, right up to Elizabeth Bathory's death in 1610 was very puffy, elaborate figure-of-eight folds such as the ruff as in the portrait Henrietta Maria, Princess of France, c.1615. By 1621, the ruff began to wane as an accessory, became much simpler in design as seen in the portrait of Anne of Austria, 1621. By the mid 1620's the ruff would disappear altogether.
So, now that we understand seventeenth fashion a little more, from a ruff perspective anyway, let's look at portrait #1 and #2. Notice the ruff. Which ruff does it match closer to? Anne of Austria, 1621, of course! Clearly these two painting were not painted during Elizabeth Bathory's lifetime but much later after her death! Whomever painted the two portraits of Elizabeth Bathory had some painting skills, but absolutely no knowledge of period fashion whatsoever! We could not agree with you more, Mr. Saint Lorent! Two very 'ruff' portraits indeed!
At this point, we could quite easily discount both paintings as having any true resemblance to the Countess, but there's more..
... Two Different Women...
Notice also the difference in the facial features in the two views of the face shown below. Clearly not the same person! Notice also the style of ruff worn by the two subjects. These are of a 1620's style and not earlier!
... And Three Others
Do you notice anything odd about portrait #3, #4 and #5 shown below? Maybe that these portraits have some resemblance to portrait #1, the one said to be the true likeness of Elizabeth Bathory herself? Perhaps a closer examination of portrait #4 will reveal something interesting.
Portrait of Christina Nyary (1604 - 1641). One of her daughters from her second marriage [ portrait #4 ], married Francis Nadasdy (1623 - 1671), grandson of Elizabeth Bathory. Unknown artist.
Portrait of Anna Juliana Esterhazy (1630 - 1669), daughter of Christina Nyary [ portrait #3 ], wife of Francis Nadasdy (1623 - 1671), son of Paul Nadasdy (1598 - 1650) who was son of Elizabeth Bathory. Portrait by Benjamin von Block (1631-1690) painted in 1656.
Portrait of Judith Revay (1590 - 1643), mother of Francis Nadasdy (1623 - 1671), grandson of Elizabeth Bathory. Attributed to Benjamin von Block, c.1656.
In all likelihood, portraits #1 and #5 were painted around the same time as portrait #4, by Benjamin von Block, circa 1656. Hence we have assigned the designation 'attributed to von Block' for these portraits. Portrait #4, was painted by a different, unknown, artist altogether. Portrait #2, is no doubt a fake by an unknown artist and certainly not painted in 1585.
It turns out that Elizabeth Bathory's grandson - Francis Nadasdy - had a desire to paint a series of portraits of his living family, including some of his ancestors whose portraits had gone missing. He chose to hire the artist, von Block, and arranged for him to travel to his home in Hungary to do the work. By 1656, von Block had completed the portrait of Anna Juliana Esterhazy, Nadasdy's wife - portrait #4. One missing portrait was probably that of his own mother, Judith_Revay. Nadasdy surely remembered his own mother. His grandmother's portrait, that of Elizabeth Bathory, was undoubtedly the other missing portraits. But there was a problem. Nobody in Nadasdy's circle knew what his grandmother looked like. In 1656, Francis Nadasdy's grandmother had been dead for forty two years. His father, Paul Nadasdy for six years. His mother, Judith Revay (portrait #5), for thirteen years, and his mother-in-law, Christina Nyary (portrait #3), for fifteen years. Nadasdy, himself, was born nine years after his grandmother, Elizabeth Bathory had died, so he could not have known what she looked like either. As a matter of fact, anyone that may have seen his grandmother - Elizabeth Bathory - alive, and in the flesh, so to speak, was long dead as well.
One possibility is that some semblance of her likeness, an etching in a book or another portrait, was in his possession and it would be a simple matter for von Block to recreate it. This is unlikely, however. The stigma of his grandmother's reputation, still hung thick in Hapsburg Austria and Hungary, and those that knew of her, were careful not to openly discuss her. Nadasdy was, after all, an obedient servant of the Crown. Even before he was born, in 1611, the Hungarian Parliament (Diet) legislated, that her name 'Elizabeth Bathory' be declared illegal and thus, in the view of the state, she became a non-person. It was criminal to speak, write or bear her name anywhere! Legally, Elizabeth Bathory was referred to as the 'Lady Widow Nadasdy.' Even Nadasdy's own father, his grandmother's own son, who's legal name was Paul Bathory Nadasdy, was forced to drop his mother's family name, 'Bathory' from his own, simply becoming a Nadasdy. After her conviction, even objects visibly identifiable with Elizabeth Bathory were to be destroyed if found. Thus, anyone possessing any of her former possessions that wished to preserve them would have either removed or masked her name so as not to run afoul of the law. Whomever possessed her portrait would not have even known that it was a portrait of her as it would have been unidentifiable. Furthermore, if such a portrait existed, which we know it did, it was not in the possession of the Nadasdy family. Why else have von Block create another?
The solution was more than likely found in the portrait of his mother-in-law, Christina Nyary, portrait #3, which is undoubtedly the work of another artist and probably the property of Nadasdy's wife or another member of the Esterhazy family. We can say this because of the fashion style of Christina Nyary is correct for her time, meaning it was painted circa 1620. Having this framework with which to start, and heavily influenced by the style of the recently completed portrait of Anna Juliana Esterhazy, von Block and Nadasdy got to work on the portrait #1 and #5. Von Block, very much like a crime composite artist, had to call upon the depth of his creativity to paint both portraits. The easiest to paint was that of Nadasdy's mother because Nadasdy remembered what she looked like. In the case of Elizabeth Bathory, not so much. Von Block had to rely on a lot of creative license and that of Nadasdy's own fuzzy recollection of what his grandmother may have looked like which were descriptions from his relatives while they were still alive. Everything seemed correct except that neither of the two men had any clue what ladies fashion was in Elizabeth Bathory's time during the late sixteenth to early seventeenth century before her death. This is surprising because all they needed to do was a little research of other period portraits which would not have been that hard to do. But, they did not. Thus the Countess was painted in 1620's garb which explains the similarity of portrait #1 to #3 and #5, handkerchief in hand, the same apron in portrait #1 and #3, and all. From a fashion perspective, at least, they got his mother, portrait #5, correct for her time. Portrait #1, not at all. Therefore, it can be discounted as a true likeness because it was created fully 42 years after her death by von Block and the woman is woefully out of fashion!
It is claimed that this portrait was painted in 1585. It is also a well known fact, recalled by local area residents, that for years it was proudly on display in hallway between the ground floor tavern and the upstairs museum located in the same building as the present-day museum, in Čachtice, Slovakia. We know this from first-hand accounts of people who saw the painting during the communist Czechoslovakian era in the 1960's. What's more, is that they all recall the 'freshness' of the colours, which they found odd for a portrait centuries old. Even stranger, was the location of the portrait, which was in an area just outside of the upstairs museum entrance which was, as it is now, under lock and key in the evenings, and further barred from entry by an exterior heavy wrought gate. It was certainly an odd place to keep a valuable artifact. It remained here until, not surprisingly, it disappeared one day around 1993.
What is also interesting, is that this painting, like Elizabeth Bathory, has a local myth of its own. It was certainly painted after Elizabeth Bathory's infamy was developed in literature of the 1800's, which, prior to that time, was mostly unknown to the world, but flourished as local folklore. Some say that a lovestruck, romantic young man in the Slovakian town of Čachtice, or Nové Mesto nad Váhom area, created it in the 1960's, with his girlfriend's face to impress the young lady, and perhaps to poke fun at the whole myth. This would explain a great deal, especially given that most of the portrait's detail is focused primarily on the face of the young woman, rather than the rest of the portrait, which is somewhat crude and anatomically out of proportion (grotesque even), as if painted as a secondary concern to detail. Still others claim that it was painted by one of the members in a group of students that filmed an on-location, farcical Bathory documentary in the early 1960's, the subject of which was the local townsfolk's gullibility concerning her folklore. It was later released in cinema's across the country - a chapter in Čachtice history preferred to be forgotten these days. Today, the 'lost' portrait #2 still hangs in the museum, but it is a copy of the fake, as it were. In terms of original works, it has been replaced with two newly created portraits, as well as several reproductions, including one of the van Block portrait #1. This time, all portraits are located inside the museum, safe and sound. The myth of Elizabeth Bathory is a major source of tourism revenue for the town of Čachtice, and the von Block image style of the Countess is now also a commercial brand.
Wherever the truth lies, at best, portrait #2 is stylized after a description of her, a sketch, a photograph, of the van Block version in the Hungarian National Museum - painting #1. This artist new nothing about seventeenth century ladies fashion either, neither do contemporary artists who painted the modern day portraits, nor the present day Čachtice museum staff. Suffice it to say, portrait #2 has fooled the world and the joke is on those that believe this portrait #2 to be a 1585 vintage. Suffice it say, if portrait#2 had been painted in 1585, like so many today claim, then it should be said, that Elizabeth Bathory would have been very much alive during its completion, and very much, still very powerful. And if the stories that she murdered 650 young women are true, then contemporary Elizabeth Bathory officianados who peddle her cruelty, torture and mass murder, need to adjust their murder count by +1, from 650 to 651 to include her murder of the creator of this painting because, had she seen it, this mockery of her would not have gone unpunished! Portrait #2 can be discounted as a true likeness of Elizabeth Bathory because it is a known nineteenth or twentieth century stylized portrait copy - a fake, created well after von Block's invention.
It may interest our readers to know, that even the Hungarian National Museum that houses portrait #1, also agrees with our assessment, and state:
The portrait was probably painted in the 17th century, after Báthory’s death. The position and the clothing of the poorly painted figure is almost completely the same as on the 1626 portrait of Christina Nyáry, the wife of Miklós Esterházy I. It may be suggested that the portrait of Elisabeth was painted by one of the Báthory descendents, just to have a fictive image of her in the ancestors’ gallery of the family. The clothing worn by Elizabeth reflects a mixture of traditional Hungarian and Western European fashion. She is wearing a Hungarian dress with a gauze bodice and an apron decorated with lace. The dress is combined with starched Spanish collar, which were supported by stays or wires to maintain their shapes.(2)
It is very sad to see, that what began with an Elizabeth Bathory van Block invention in 1656 (portrait #1), is today the the de facto image of her, as is portrait #2, completely out of fashion, and completely out of style and definitely, fictional in terms of her likeness.
Portraits #1 and #2, have been the best known images of Elizabeth Bathory, and have been featured in many books and documentaries about her. Unfortunately, these are no more accurate in depicting the true likeness of Elizabeth Bathory than the cartoon shown on the right, or any of the thousands of fantasy depictions of her created over the years by artists worldwide. Some Internet authors mistakenly use the portraits of Christina Nyary, Anna Juliana Esterhazy, and Judith Revay interchangeably as images of Elizabeth Bathory. An honest enough mistake for not having done their homework as these portraits do look similar. Without a doubt, portraits #1 and #2 are fantasy portraits indeed!
The Elizabeth Bathory Substitute Portrait
Perhaps no other portrait is used more explicitly, and as often as a depiction of Elizabeth Bathory than this one, both on the Internet as well as in print. Well, using this portrait as a substitute for, or even hint that it is a likeness of Elizabeth Bathory is just plain unethical, and a blatant lie!
|The woman depicted in this portrait is actually Lucrezia Panciatichi (née, Pucci) by the Italian artist Agnolo di Cosimo, known as Bronzino, completed around 1545. If it matters to anyone, the portrait was painted about 15 years before Elizabeth Bathory was even born, and if you want to see this 'Elizabeth Bathory' portrait, it's on display in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy.|
In his book, Painting and the Novel, Jeffrey Meyers, writes:
The most striking aspects of the [Lucrezia Pucci] portrait is the cold, melancholy look of the almost Byzantine severity, and the luxurious red silk gown with violet undersleeves and white guimpe. Lucrezia's splendid red hair is parted in the middle and coiled tightly around her head. She has a fine marble forehead, and full, strong features; and the skin on the long column of her neck is whiter than the pearls that adorn it. A fine golden chain rests on her breast and carries the inscription Amour dure sans fin [Endless Love], and there is another chain around her waist [which resembles a Rosary]. Her slim fingers extend elegantly along the arm of her chair and spread across the open pages of a devotional book bound in red leather. Lucrezia's pallor suggests... fatal disease which the 'love' of the motto enables her to endure, and this loyal love lasts beyond the 'end' and is sufficiently strong to dominate... death. Bronzino's portrait style, which was influenced artists like Valazquez and Van Dyck and had its 'effect in determining the character of Court painting all over Europe, is decorative, sharply observed and severely disciplined; and his erect and immobile subject, thought magnificently detached, has a chilly worldliness.(3)
The Mannerist style, and subject of Bronzino's portrait, however, is an almost haunting and perfect personification of Elizabeth Bathory. Perhaps there is reason for authors to take inspiration from Lucrezia Pucci's portrait when writing about Elizabeth Bathory. Visually, Lucrezia is beautiful and she simply elicits emotion in all that view her portrait. Could this well be why some are drawn to Lucrezia when writing of Elizabeth Bathory? Perhaps there could also be another reason.
Lucrezia, The Heretic Moor
A heretic? A Moor? These are two facts about Lucrezia that are not that easy to find and a bit of an Uffizi secret, one might say.
Lucrezia Pucci, and patron of Bronzino,
as later forced to test her motto, for she and her husband... were accused of heresy,
flung into prison in Florence and compelled to make a public recantation.(4)
The 'motto' that Meyers is speaking about, is that Lucrezia and her husband Bartholomew Panciatichi - a prominent Florentine writer, poet, and politician - whom she married in 1528, had converted to Calvinism, became Huguenots, to be more precise.
Her husband had strong connections to France. He was born in 1507 in France, an illegitimate son to an influential Florentine merchant with business in Lyon. His father arranged for him to stay to be raised in France, and thanks to his political connections, he grew up as a page in the French Court of King Francis I. After he returned to Florence he became a much celebrated Florentine writer and poet, and greatly admired by Cosimo I de' Medici, second Duke of Florence himself. In 1545 he was appointed resident ambassador of Florence by the Duke, and once again, returned to the French Court. It is during this time, it is thought, that he and Lucrezia converted to Calvinism. By 1551, both Lucrezia and Bartholomew were openly promoting their faith in Florence, and in the same year, they were imprisoned by the Inquisition, along with about thirty of their converts until they agreed to recant their faith a year later.
On February 4, 1552, [Bartholomew and others] dressed in black with a yellow gag, torch in hand, made their way to the cathedral to proclaim their solemn renunciation of their heretical doctrines, and then burned their heretical books on a pyre... Ten days later, in secret, they proceeded with the same solemn recantation with Lucrezia Pucci, his wife, ...[which was] conducted from prison in the church of St. Simon.(5)
After his recantation, Panciatichi recommenced his career under Cosimo Medici's protection. He was promoted by Cosimo to senator in 1567, commissar in Pisa in 1568 and, Pistoia in 1578.
He died on Oct. 23, 1582, mourned by all who knew him... [and was celebrated]... for the extraordinary kindness and of ways of generosity of his heart and the great learning and teaching of which it provided.(6)
...AND A MOOR
Lucrezia, in stark contrast, faded into immediate oblivion, her memory preserved only by Bronzino's portrait. Could it be that she died in prison, blamed, because she was a woman, as the cause for her husband's heresy by the Inquisition? Probably. Could it also be a case of racism, because of her family's North African ancestry?(7) Certainly.
She was, after all, the daughter of Sigismondo Pucci hence her maiden name Lucrezia di Sigismondo Pucci. By Florentine standards, the Pucci family, although aristocratic, Catholic, fabulously wealthy, and patrons of the arts, seemed to have a somewhat checkered past. It had nothing to do with anything with any actions of their family members, most notable of whom were three cardinals - Antonio Pucci (1485 - 1544), Lorenzo Pucci (1458 - 1531), and Roberto Pucci (1463 - 1547). It was a small matter of a genealogical blotch on the family name. The Puccis were of North African descent and each Pucci generation worked hard to cover over this family history which, nevertheless, was known in wider circles. The clues to this can be found in the Pucci family coat of arms which bears the 'Moor's head' to this very day, but specifically in their original family motto:
CANDIDA PRAECORDIA ('White at heart'),[which] probably reflects the meaning of the Italian proverbs Viso nero, cuore candido (Black face, white heart) and Il bruno il bel non toglie (Dark skin does not beauty remove).(8)
The 'Moor's Head' is a heraldic work of art representing the armorial bearings of the Florentine patrician family, the Pucci, whose coat of arms is a Moor's head with a head band charged with three Ts. These were interpreted in the seventeenth century as 'Tempore, Tempora, Tempera (time is a great healer); originally there were three hammers (martelli) because the Pucci originated from the carpenter's guild. The coat of arms of the Pucci is often found in Florence and Tuscany, for instance at the Palazzo Pretorio in Poppi where members of the Pucci family, especially in the seventeenth century, often held the position of vicario, representing the grand duke. Their coat of arms can also be seen in important works of art which belonged to them, for instance in the paintings representing the story of Nastagio degli Onesti by Sandro Botticelli and his workshop from 1482-3, today in the Prado in Madrid, and in a private collection, or on the maiolica service made for a member of the Pucci family c.1532-3 in Urbino. Certainly the most striking example... of a Moor bearing the coat of arms of the Pucci painted by Giovanni Mannozzi, known as Giovanni da San Giovanni, in the third of the seventeenth century for the Palazzo Pucci in Florence, and today in the Uffizi. The fresco shows 'una figura d'un moro sedente (a figure of a seated moor), wearing a head-band distinctly decorated with T motifs; furthermore, the Moor is accompanied with the [older] motto of the Pucci: 'CANDIDA PRAECORDIA' (white at heart).(9)
Despite being born into an influential, aristocratic, Florentine family, the Puccis, and despite the fact that her husband was a celebrated poet and writer in Florence, practically nothing else is known of her. It is as if all record of her had been expunged, probably by her inquisitors.
The Similarities Between Elizabeth Bathory and Lucrezia Pucci
The similarities of both women are quite striking in many respects, but especially in terms of persecution for their faith. Like Elizabeth Bathory, Lucrezia Pucci is a beautiful and enigmatic female figure in history. Except for some snippets of information, very little is known of the lives of either woman, despite their high standing and influence in their respective societies.
Lucrezia was born into a powerful noble Florentine family, the Puccis. Elizabeth was born into a powerful noble Hungarian family, the Bathorys. Both women ran into a head-on clash with Catholic elites. Both were practitioners of the Calvinist, Protest faith. Both were imprisoned. Both had their reputations destroyed. And both women, had their lives intentionally erased from the historical record. Search the public record, or even the Internet for their names and the results and content speak for themselves.
Today, at the time of writing this article, search results yield about 300,000 for 'Lucrezia Pucci' and about 30,000 for 'Lucrezia Panciatichi.' The informational context in each of these web pages is almost exclusively three bits of information: First, and most popular, the Bronzino portrait of her; second, that she was wife to Bartholomew Panciatichi whom she married in 1528; and third (if one really digs deep), that she and her husband ran into issues with the Inquisition in Florence. Try searching a little deeper for information on basic details of her life and one gets nothing else. No birth or death date. Nothing about where she was born, or where she died. Nothing about children. Nothing. For this, one needs to scour old books and manuscripts, and even then, the information is scarce!
A little more is known of Elizabeth's personal life than Lucrezia's, but not that much. A search on the Internet for 'Elizabeth Bathory' yields about 473,000 pages. The context in each of these web pages is almost exclusively one thing, folklore and myth in that she is history's most prolific female serial killer, and very little otherwise. There is some, but controversial, detail of her life, but much of it is invented to support her myth and notoriety by those that have little knowledge and understanding of historical facts. After her imprisonment, however, like Lucrezia, she quickly faded into obscurity.
Religious and political motivation extinguished any real memory of the lives of these two women. Lucrezia Pucci was a Catholic who dared to convert to Calvinism in a Medici, Catholic Florence. This made her a heretic. Elizabeth, like Lucrezia, was a Protestant, a Calvin in a Habsburg Catholic Hungary. Elizabeth Bathory's crime was that of woman who simply wanted to, but failed in, liberating her people from a Catholic, Austrian Habsburg rule. This made her a traitor. They lived in world embroiled in almost perpetual geopolitical, religious wars, waged 1524 to 1648, between Catholic and Protestant political elites. One side waged war to maintain political power, the other to obtain it. Tragically, it should be mentioned that it is conservatively estimated, that of a population of about seventy five million, seven million people were butchered, or roughly 10% of the total European population, if not more!(10) Millions more lives, regardless of their social standing, like that of Elizabeth Bathory's and Lucrezia Pucci's, were ruined.
Today, what little remains of each woman's real memory, is preserved through their portraits and the talent of the artists that created them. Perhaps these works of art were spared because of their sheer beauty and elegance. Perhaps because of their value. One will never know for sure except that the world is just that little more enriched for their existence.
It is a sad social commentary, then, that certain individuals substitute the portrait of Lucrezia Pucci for Elizabeth Bathory, be it on the Internet or as a cover for a book. These individuals may claim that its just the employment of 'artistic licence.' In reality, it smacks of dishonesty motivated by greed. Perhaps her portrait is conveniently used because Lucrezia's life is an undocumented void. But even this is no excuse. Nevertheless, her portrait is featured on thousands of Internet websites and no less than three book covers that we know of, probably even more in other media as that of Elizabeth Bathory's likeness.
Sotheby's Magazine, Jan/Feb 2015, Dressed for Excess, by Jonquil O'Reilly.
Hungarian National Museum portrait - Portrait of Elisabeth Báthory (1560?–1614), Google Cultural Institute.
Meyers, Jeffrey. Painting and the Novel. Manchester University Press. Manchester, UK. 1975. p.23-25. Quotes from Levey, Michael. Prince of Court Painters: Bronzino. Apollo. 1962. p 169.
Passerini, Luigi. Genalogia e storia della famiglia Panciatichi. Florence. 1858. p. 70-72
Earle, T.F., and Lowe, K.J.P. Black Africans in Renaissance Europe. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. 2005. p. 185-190.
Article: Africans in Medieval & Renaissance Art: The Moor's Head, Victoria and Albert Museum, for additional information on the Pucci North African connection.
Earle, T.F., and Lowe, K.J.P. Black Africans in Renaissance Europe. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. 2005. p. 185-190.