L'antiquité classique

Εκθεσις and Αποθεσις : the Terminology of Infant Exposure in

Greek Antiquity
Marc Huys

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Huys Marc. Εκθεσις and Αποθεσις : the Terminology of Infant Exposure in Greek Antiquity. In: L'antiquité classique, Tome 58,
1989. pp. 190-197;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/antiq.1989.2267

https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_1989_num_58_1_2267

Fichier pdf généré le 18/12/2018

 ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ AND ΑΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ :
THE TERMINOLOGY OF INFANT EXPOSURE
IN GREEK ANTIQUITY

The two set Greek terms for the exposure of children are εκθεσις (έκτίθημι,
έκτίθεμαι, έκθετος) and άπόθεσις (άποτίθημι, άποτίθεμαι) \ of which the first
is by far the most current. It has been argued more than once that each of these
would indicate an essentially different practice, especially by Marie Delcourt 2,
and again, though on other grounds, by Louis Germain 3. Both have elaborated
a differentiation already proposed "in nuce" by some older authors 4. In the
present paper I intend to demonstrate that these theories should be rejected and
that the evidence we now have at our disposal points to the conclusion that the
two terms were mostly used indiscriminately. Only in exceptional cases can
άποτίθημι or its derivatives be shown to have been used because the specific value
of the preposition εκ- would be in contradiction with the context. But this does
not imply that any basic difference in meaning would be left in common use.
Since the arguments of Delcourt have already been attacked with much success
by Pierre Roussel 5, 1 will only summarize here the main points of her conclusion.
According to her distinction εκθεσις would indicate the actual exposure of
children by their parents for social or economical reasons. Generally the exposer

1 Only when the context is sufficiently clear is the simplex τίθημι (Hdt. 1.1 10, 111,
1 13, 1 17 ; E., Melanipp. Sap. hyp. 1 1 VanLooy) or τίθεμαι (schol. D.P. 426 : schol. Lyc.
206) found, whereas κατατίθεμαι (Paus. 1.38.9 ; Apollod. 2.7.4.1) is rarely used in this
specific sense, which is in fact a variation on the general sense of the verb : "lay down from
oneself, lay aside for oneself, deposit". Sometimes the compounds with τίθημι {τίθεμαι)
are replaced by more crude expressions such as βάλλω (Ε., Ion 899 ; ΙΑ 1285), έκβάλλω
(Ε., Ion 964, 1496 ; P. Oxy. 4.744.10 ; <εκβολος> Ε., Ph. 804 ; Isoc. 12.122), ano-
βάλλω (Lex Gortyni 4.9), and even βίπτω (S., ΟΤ1\9·, schol. Ε., Ph. 28 ; schol. Lyc.
206 ; Cephalion, F. Gr. Hist. 93 F 5 ; Apóstol. 3.1 [Leutsch-Schneidewin, 2, p. 288] ;
EM s.v. Βοιωτός [Gaisford, p. 203]) or εκρίπτω (schol. E., Ph. 26).
2 Delcourt M., Stérilités mystérieuses et naissances maléfiques dans l'antiquité
(Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université de Liège, 83), Liège,
1938, pp. 36-46.
3 Germain L. R. F., Apothesis ou enkthesis (sic) (Problème de terminologie en matière
d'exposition d'enfants), in Μνήμη Γεωργίου Ά. Πετροπονλου (1897-1964), Α., 'Αθήνα,
1984,
4 Cf.
pp.Germain,
387-398. o.e., p. 391.
5 Roussel P., L'exposition des enfants à Sparte, in REA 45, 1943, pp. 7-15.
 ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ AND ΑΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ 191

does not really want the baby to die, but he is forced to this gruesome act by
circumstances exterior to the victim. Άπόθεσις on the contrary would have been
reserved for the elimination of deformed or handicapped children, which was
often imposed by the state for religious reasons. Such monstrosities would have
been considered ill-omened and the άπόθεσις would in such cases be tantamount
to veiled infanticide. Of course, the Spartan habit of casting physically deformed
children down a precipice near Taygetus, a place called Άποθέται (cf. Plu., Lyc.
16.1), is the classic example of such άπόθεσις, whereas an unmarried girl
exposing her illegitimate offspring out of shame or fear would be practicing
εκθεσις. Let alone that the superstitious elimination of "enfants maléfiques" is not
very well attested for ancient Greece and must have been quasi inexistant in the
classical period6, Roussel has analyzed some passages (Arist., Pol. 7.1335 b,
Procl., ad Hes. Op. 497) where άπόθεσις and άποτίθεμαι cannot fit the
definition premised by Delcourt. Roussel's criticism has been backed by Jean-
Pierre Vernant and Nicole Loraux, and even by Germain 7.
Yet the distinction between εκθεσις and άπόθεσις proposed by the latter as
an alternative is reminiscent of that of his predecessor. He contrasted the
presumed meanings of the two terms as follows 8 :
- There is a correlation between the prefix άπο- and the murderous intention
of the exposer. Unlike the compounds with άπο-, έκτίθημι and words of the
same family never refer to the exposure of a baby in a lonely place where death
is inevitable.
— The forms with εκ- are typical for literary texts and for mythological or
legendary events, whereas the use of άπο- is restricted to legal texts and
philosophical texts with ethical prescriptions. Save for the one exception in
D.H. 1.84, where άπόθεσις refers to the exposure of Romulus, compounds
with εκ- are related to historical reality, not to the realm of myth or legend.

6 Cf. Roussel, o.e., pp. 11-14 (does not deny that τέρατα were exposed or killed for
reasons of superstition, but contests that such practices would have been systematically
organized by the community) ; Daly L. in CPh 43, 1948, p. 48 ; Schmidt M., Hephaistos
lebt — Untersuchungen zur Frage der Behandlung behinderter Kinder in der Antike, in
Hephaistos 5/6, 1983/4, pp. 146, 160 η. 106.
7 Vernant J.-P., Mythe et pensée chez les Grecs. Études de psychologie historique 1
{Petite Collection Maspero, 86), Paris, 1965 ; Loraux N., Les enfants d'Athéna. Idées
athéniennes sur la citoyenneté et la division des sexes ( Textes à l'appui, Histoire classique),
Paris, 1981, p. 228 n. 125 ; Germain, o.e., pp. 391, 397. Others have accepted the
distinction defended by Delcourt, but this was done either before Roussel had published
his objections (e.g. Crahay R., Les moralistes anciens et l'avortement, in AC 10, 1941,
p. 10 n. 1), or by authors who seem to have overlooked them (e.g. Brody J., "Fate" in
Œdipus Tyrannus: a Textual Approach (Arethusa Monographs, 11), New York, 1985,
p. 22 [not without reservations as to the superstitious fear for τέρατα in the case of
άπόθεσις]).
8 Germain, o.e., pp. 395-397.
192 M. HUYS

— The compounds with orno- are resonant of public rights and the interest of the
state, whereas ex- marks the acts of the individual or the family.
It is clear that Germain is much indebted to Delcourt as far as the first and
third criterion are concerned. Only the second is really new. But also to this new
"rule" there is more than the single exception acknowledged by Germain. In fact,
all discussions have hitherto been based on an incomplete and misleading sample
of illustrations. Apart from the examples of the use of άποτίθημι and άποτίθεμαι
mentioned by Germain (Lex Gortyni 3.49, 4.16-17; Pl., Tht. 160e-161a;
Arist., Pol. 7.1335 b ; Plu., Lye. 16 9 ; Procl., adHes. Op. 497 = Plu., in Hes.
Op., 496-497 [fr. 69 Sandbach]), one should also take into account the following
passages :
— Plu., Των επτά σοφών σνμπόσιον 163 f- 164 a : δν ... οΰχ εϋρον, εις κυψέλην
ΰπο της μητρός άποτεθεντα (about Cypselus, who, as a newborn baby, was
concealed in a κυψέλη ["vessel, chest, box"] by his mother, Labda, to protect
him from the murderous intentions of the Corinthian embassy). Of course this
is no true exposure, as the child is not abandoned somewhere outside the
parental house, but is kept indoors. Yet this procedure is chosen here only for
want of time, and Gerhard Binder 10 is right to number this legend among the
"Aussetzungssagen", as it contains many ordinary characteristics of this
tale-type : persecution of a new-born child because of a prophecy ; the mother
puts it in safety (in a vessel) ; the child survives in a miraculous way, takes its
name from the events surrounding its birth, grows up and becomes a great
ruler. Nor does Jean-Pierre Vernant n hesitate to call the hiding in the κυψέλη
an exposure. At any rate, άποτίθημι is used here without the slightest
murderous intention and indicates on the contrary a rescue-operation in an
undeniably literary context. I admit that it is not unreasonable to compare, as
Delcourt 12 has done, the murder-attempt by the embassy with an άπόθεσις,
but it is never called that in ancient texts — I refer especially to Hdt. 5.92,
on which the speculations of Delcourt are founded — and this does not
account for the use of άποτίθημι in the passage quoted above, where the action
of the mother is described, not that of the persecutors.

9 Strictly speaking, Plu., Lye. 16 provides no example. But the name Άποθεται is, of
course, closely related to the verb.
10 Binder G., Die Aussetzung des Königskindes Kyros und Romulus (Beiträge zur
klassischen Philologie, 10), Meisenheim am Glan, 1964, pp. 150-151 (§36).
11 Vernant J. -P., From Œdipus to Periander. Lameness, Tyranny, Incest in Legend and
History, in Arethusa 15, 1982, p. 36 n. 25 (= Le Tyran boiteux, d'Œdipe à Périandre, in
Vernant J.-P., Vedal-Naquet P., Mythe et tragédie en Grèce ancienne, 2 ( Textes à l'appui.
Histoire classique), Paris, 1986, p. 61 n. 30).
12 Delcourt M., Œdipe ou la légende du conquérant (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de
Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université de Liège, 104), Liège, 1944, pp. 18-21.
 ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ AND ΑΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ 193

- Nie. Dam., F. Gr. Hist. 90 F 8 : γίνεται τφ Λαιω κόρος, δντινα ενθνς

γενόμενον άηεθετο εν Κιθαιρώνι, δπως αν φθαρείη. It is explicitly affirmed
here that infanticide is the real goal of the exposure, but, contrary to
Germain's second criterion, the exposed, who is of course Oedipus, is a
mythological figure.
— E., Ion 1597 : έηεΐ δ' έτικτες τόνδε παϊδα κάπέθου/έν σπαργάνοιαιν. With
these words Athena ex machina recalls the most tormenting experience of
Creusa's past, the exposure of her new-born Ion, the illegitimate child she had
by Apollo and desperately abandoned in a cave on the north-west side of the
Acropolis. This Euripidean passage is clearly a literary text on a mythological
hero-child that is exposed for purely private reasons. Besides, Creusa did not
want the death of her baby 13. So in every respect the verb άποτίθεμαι here
has the meanings reserved by Germain for its pendant with εκ-. In fact,
elsewhere in the same tragedy Euripides prefers the forms with εκ-, but this
only helps to prove the practical equivalence of both terms. That άπέθου is
synonymous here with έξέθον was already noticed by Frederick Paley 14, who

13 Some students of the Ion have thought that the princess exposed her child
consciously intending to kill it : Wichmann J. O., Commentatio académica qua mos
Graecorum infantes exponendi ex variis scriptoribus antiquis maxime Euripidis lone
illustrator, diss., Wittemberg, 1753, pp. 18-19 ; Burnett A. P., Catastrophe survived.
Euripides' Plays of Mixed Reversal, Oxford, 1971, p. 125 ; Rostvach V. J., Earthborns and
Olympians. The Parodos of the Ion, in CQ 27, 1977, p. 289 n. 6. However, this is not only
contradicted by Creusa's own words at Ion 965, which might seem subjective, but also by
the properties of the act of exposure itself: since Creusa abandoned her child in a
protective basket, with an apotropaic amulet around its neck, and in the cave where she
was compressed by Apollo, it can scarcely be doubted that she nursed at least a gleam of
hope that the exposed would be saved by some divine intervention. Though Creusa herself
evokes her deed with εκτεινά a' (v. 1499) and α' άηέκτεινον (ν. 1544), she deliberately
chooses these hard expressions to associate the far-off εκθεσις with the murder she has
now almost committed against her son, and grammatically they are correctly translated as
"I thought I had killed you" (cf. Schwyzer E., Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage
von K. Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik, 2, vervollständigt und herausgegeben von A.
Debrunner (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2.1. 2), München, 1950, pp. 280-281 ;
Kühner R., Gerth B., Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, in neuer
Bearbeitung besorgt von F. Blass, 2.1, Hannover, 18983, pp. 166-167). Nor is any
murderous intention implied in ώς θανούμενον /-φ (ν. 18, 27). The value of these future
participles introduced by ώς has been accurately paraphrased by W. Biehl in his
Teubner-edition of the Ion (1979, p. 63). One should translate "as unto death" and not
"meaning him to die" (Burnett's translation Euripides Ion, a translation with commentary,
[Greek Drama Series], Englewood Cuffs [N.J.], 1970, p. 24). Therefore, Creusa's fear
that the child has perished does not imply that she wanted to kill it. Psychologically this
would have been very unusual for an unmarried mother for whom exposure is the only way
out. Creusa is no Medea : there is no reason why she would aim at the death of her own
offspring, and exposure is an inherently ambiguous act that always leaves life a chance.
14 Euripides, with an English commentary, by F. A. Paley, 2, London, 18742, p. 1 14.
194 M. HUYS

explained the lemma άπεθου as follows : "έξέθηκας, put away, exposed the
child", but others seem to have misunderstood the verb 15. Still, it is strange
that a locus from a classical tragedy has been hitherto overlooked in the
terminological discussion of άπόθεσις-εκθεσις.
Including the exception discerned by Germain himself (D.H. 1.84), these
examples suffice to prove that the significance of άπόθεσις, άποτίθημι,
was much broader than might appear from the political or legislative texts
used by Germain 16.

15 I quote here the translations of E. Pessonneaux ( Théâtre d'Euripide, traduction ...

accompagnée de notes explicatives ...[Bibliothèque Charpentier], 2, Paris, 1879, p. 57 : "tu
l'eus enveloppé dans ses langes") and H. Grégoire (Euripide, 3 : Héraclès — Les
Suppliantes - Ion, texte établi et traduit par L. Parmentter et H. Grégoire ( Collection des
Universités de France), Paris, 1923, p. 246 : "(l'enfant ...) enveloppé de langes", who
apparently connected the verb with έν σπαργανοισιν. It seems doubtfixl that άποτίθεμαι
may be so colourlessly translated — no comparable example can be found in LSJ.
Moreover, Euripides relates the rescue by Hermes immediately after the quoted Unes
( 1598b- 1599), so that the account of Athena would then skip the central event, that is the
abandonment of the child. Most editors and commentators indeed have rightly interpreted
the verb in its full meaning of "exposing" : e.g. Ausgewählte Tragödien des Euripides, für
den Schulgebrauch erklärt von N. Wecklein, 10: Ion, Leipzig/Berlin, 1912, p. 92;
Euripide. lone, introduzione e commento di L. Volpis, Milano, 1934, p. 182 ; Euripide,
lone, testo, intr. e commento a cura di G. Ammendola (Sansoniana Classica), Firenze,
1951, p. 202 ; Euripides, Ion,met inleiding en aantekeningen door G. Italie (Griekse en
Latijnse schripers met aantekeningen, 4), Leiden, 19682, p. 112 ; Euripide. Elena. Ione,
con testo a fronte, trad, di U. Albini e V. Faggi, note di A. M. Venturini, Milano, 1982,
p. 251.
16 One could regard as a fourth example Euph. fr. 100, 4 van Groningen (δττι βα
πατρφτισι βοών άπεθηκατο κόπροις <scil. "Αρνη Βοιωτόν>), though the verb
is traditionally interpreted here as "lay down (the burden of the womb), bear (a child)"
(cf. LSJ s.v. II.6 ; Euphorion, par B. A. van Groningen, Amsterdam, 1977, p. 169). Yet
other versions let Arne (= Melanippe) expose her child in her father's stable, without
having it born there : cf. hyp. E., Melanipp. Sap. 8-11 VanLooy : ή ôè ... χους γεννηθέντος
εις την βούστασιν έδωκε τχι τροφω θεΐναι ·, D.H., Rh. 9-1 1 : ή ôè Μελανίππη ... έξέθηκε
Ô ' αυτά εις τα του πατρός βονφόρβια ·, schol. D.P. 426 : Βοιωτού ... δν ή μήτηρ "Αρνη
λάθρα τεκονσα περί βοών εθετο κόπρους ·, EMs.w. Βοιωτός (Gaisford p. 203) : "Αρνη
... τεκοϋσα αυτόν λαθεϊν βουλομενη τον πατέρα ερριψεν εις βοώνα. In Euripides' tragedy
the father of Melanippe returns only after the birth of the illegitimate twins, so there cannot
have been a reason for her to hide in the stable at the moment of childbirth. On the other
hand, Euphorion may have followed another, otherwise lost tradition, which identified the
place of exposure with the place of birth, a feature that is well-known in exposure stories
(cf. e.g. E., Ion 948-949 ; hyp. E., Ion 3-5 OCT). It is also true that the traditionally
accepted meaning of άποτίθεμαι in the Euphorion-fragment is attested elsewhere in
Hellenistic poetry : cf. Call., Jov. 15, Dian. 25 (later also Str. 10.5.2). I therefore hesitate
to include this fragment as a fourth passage in which άποτίθεμαι is synonymous with
έκτίθεμαι.
 ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ AND ΑΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ 195

The distinction then between άπόθεσις and εκθεσις is dissolved all the more,
since also the use of the compounds with ex- has been too narrowly defined by
Germain. It is incorrect that intentions of homicide would be excluded in the case
of έκτίθημι. Germain himself referred to Hdt. 1.112 (έκθεϊναι [2*], έκκείμε-
vov) 17 concerning the exposure of Cyrus, which was evidently meant to eliminate
this future successor to the throne (cf. 1.110 : δκως αν τάχιστα διαφθαρείη).
Oedipus and Paris too were abandoned in the wilderness where they were
expected to perish. Yet the usual term for the exposure of both curse-children was
έκτίθημι (about Oedipus : E., Ph. 25 : έκθεϊναι ; Apollod. 3.7.5.2 : έκθεϊναι,
έξέθηκεν ; about Paris : schol. A //. 3.325 : έκτεθήναι, έξέθηκαν ·, Apollod.
3.12.5.3-4: έκθεϊναι (2χ), έκτεθέν ; hyp. Ε., Alex. 5: έκθεϊναι, 10:
εκτεθέντα). If one compares άπέθετο in the above-quoted version of the
Oedipus-myth by Nicolaus of Damascus with the examples of the use of έκτίθημι
for the same mythical event, the interchangeability of the two verbs again becomes
abundantly clear.
Finally there is a passage where έκτίθημι is used in a context which contradicts
all the nuances premised by Germain, namely a law that would have been enacted
by Romulus to limit infanticide, recorded in D.H. 2.15 :
άποκτινννναι δε μηδέν των γεννωμένων νεωτερον τριετούς πλην ει τι
γένοιτο το παιδίον άνάπηρον ή τέρας ευθύς άπό γονής · ταντα δ ' ουκ
έκώλυσεν έκτιθέναι τους γειναμένονς έπιδείξαντας πρότερον πέντε
άνδράοι τοϊς εγγιστα οίκοϋΰιν έαν κάκείνοις
Thus infanticide was forbidden except in the case of lame or deformed children,
who could be exposed if five of the neighbours were willing to testify to the
deformity. There can be no doubt here that this is a text with a legislative
character where the problem is not merely considered a family affair. Besides,
though the historical exactness of Dionysius' testimony has been hotly debated 18,
this is no literary or mythological fiction. Consequently, the only solution for
sticking to the theory of Germain would be to emend έκτιθέναι to άποτιθέναι ;
but this could only be argued if this passage were the only exception 19.

17 In the same story I also read: Hdt. 1.110: έκκείμενον, 116: έκθέσιος, 122:
εκκείμενον.
18 For this question I can refer to : Eyben E., Family Planning in Graeco-Roman
Antiquity, in AncSoc 11/2, 1980/1, p. 26 n. 77 (with exhaustive bibliographical

19 It is really puzzling that Germain (o.e., p. 396) used this passage to support his
theory : "... Denys d'Halicarnasse emploie de (sic) verbe άποτίθημι (sic !) dans un autre
passage relatif à une loi royale atribuée (sic) à Romulus, loi qui aurait ordonné d'exposer
les enfants difformes ou anormaux" (referring in footnote to the passage in question). I
have not found any edition of the text where άποτιθέναι is mentioned as a textual variant
or even as a modern emendation, and Germain did not state that he wanted to emend the
196 M. HUYS

The conclusion has now become inevitable that the distinctions drawn by
several authors between εκθεσις and άηόθεσις rest on quicksand 20. Has the
prefix then become totally irrelevant as the vehicle of a specific meaning ? I think
this is nearly always true, though for some rare examples one understands that
the more ordinary forms with εκ- have been avoided for semantic reasons. The
original difference between the two prefixes has been described as follows 21 :
άπο- pointed to a simple removal ("away ... from"), whereas εκ- implied a move
from the inside of a place or an object to the outside ("out ... from"), thus being
the exact counterpart of είσ-. Considering these original meanings of the prefixes,
it becomes reasonably explicable why in the quoted Plutarch-passage about
Cypselus άποτεθέντα is preferred to εκτεθέντα : the child is hidden in a chest
within the house, and not, as usual, somewhere outdoors. Similarly, when Auge
conceals her newborn illegitimate child in the temple of Athena Alea, where she
serves as a priestess, this is rendered as κατέθετο (Apollod. 2.7.4.1) or εθετο
(schol. Lyc. 206), but never as έξέθετο. Although the action corresponds in
every respect to the traditional practice of exposure out of shame, there is no
movement outwards by the mother nor by the child, and a compound with έκ-
would be rather odd here. These are the only remnants I have traced of a semantic
distinction which naturally must have existed originally on the grounds of the
different basic value of the prefixes, but which has normally disappeared in
everyday use 22.
I would conclude that, apart from the examples just indicated, the ancients
used ατΐοτίθημι simply as a less frequent equivalent for έκτίθημι, probably for the

transmitted text. Marie Delcourt (o.e., 1938, p. 50 n. 1) on her part wrote that in classical
Greek άποτιθεναι would have been preferred here, but this looks again like an artifice to
save the theory at any price.
20 Even theoretically the distinction on the basis of the so-called murderous intention
is questionable, as there always remains a fundamental difference between killing and
exposing, which of necessity includes the possibility of rescue (cf. Sttnton T. C. W.,
Euripides and the Judgement of Paris ( The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies,
Suppl. Paper 11), London, 1965, p. 52 : "There is all the difference between killing and
exposing ; the very practice of exposing is due to just this difference."). If the intention
were simply to murder a child, there would be little point in exposing it. The very exposure
in a lonely place where beasts can devour it need not be a veiled murder, as we have seen
in the case of Creusa. Perhaps this would be seized upon by Germain to explain the
"exceptions" I found in the birth-stories of Cyrus, Paris and Oedipus. However, the
dichotomy he assumed as corresponding with άπο- and έκτίθημι fails to appreciate the
inherent ambiguity of the act, so that even the examples that at first sight confirm this
theory could be questioned in the same way.
21 Cf. Kühner R., Gerth B., o.e., 2.1, p. 456 ; Schwyzer E., o.e., 2, pp. 444-445, 462.
22 That άπο- and έκ- are used indiscriminately in many compounds was also noticed
by the grammarians : cf. Schwyzer E., o.e., 2, p. 461 : "doch hat έξ schon im Beginn der
Überlieferung auch die Bedeutung 'von (aus)' von άπό ... Als Präverb wie als Präposition
zeigen ¿£und άπό sehr ähnliche, oft gleiche ... Gebrauchsweisen".
 ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ AND ΑΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ 197

sake of variation, and that any subtle distinction is due to the quibblings of
modern scholars. Of course this conclusion need not be a definite one, and I
encourage anyone who can find new evidence to put my view to the test and to
discover some logical system in the use of either form. In any event if a verifiable
distinction were to show up, it cannot, I believe, correspond with the semantic
nuances imagined by Delcourt or Germain.

Ridderstraat 33, M. Huys.

Β 3000 Lernen. Senior Research Assistant
at the Belgian National
Fund for Scientific Research.