The Berlin Cabaret & The Neue Frau 1918-1933

Introductory Note

Ever since The Myth of the 1920s and its vision of the Neue Frau (New Woman) have fascinated me. Therefore in my final year project I took the chance to explore these themes in more detail.

In my following essay I have discussed the relationship between the Neue Frau and the Berlin Cabaret of the Weimar Republic. The first section is an examination of the Myth of the Neue Frau and the ‘real’ new woman of the Weimar time (p.4). This is followed by a chapter on the Berlin Cabaret, consisting of three parts: firstly, ‘The Berlin Cabaret & The Woman’ (p.22) which deals with the actual cabaret scene and its active female contributors Rosa Valetti (p.24), Trude Hesterberg (p.27), Dinah Nelken (p.30) and Valeska Gert (p.33) who all founded their own cabaret ventures, secondly, ‘The Cabaret Song & The Woman’ (p.36) which examines some of the chansons of the time and how they represented the new woman and, thirdly, ‘Dance In The Cabaret & The Woman’ (p.47) which gives an abstract of the German dance movement as performed on Weimar’s cabaret stages, featuring its most important dancers Anita Berber (p.48) and Valeska Gert (p.52). This part closes with my conclusion on the Berlin Cabaret in connection with the Neue Frau (p. 59).

My very last chapter is a short outlook on the German cabaret scene of the early 21st century and how this relates to the cabaret of the Weimar years (p.61)

However, by no means, is my discussion exclusive since the complex of cabaret is and was much wider than I could have examined in this piece of work.

Foot- and endnotes (p.67) marked with * signify that the sources I have drawn from were written in German. The given translations are my very own ones and thus not to be regarded in professional aspects.

The bibliography with all used sources can be found from p. 76.

Charlotte Fechner

May 2001

Berlin & The Weimar Woman

Phenomenally frequently the Berlin of the 1920’s was regarded as taking on a female shape. While for the journalist Harold Nicolson

Berlin ^[was] a girl in a pullover, not much powder on her face, Hölderlin in her pocket, thighs like those of Atlanta, an undigested education, a heart which ^[was] almost too ready to sympathise, and a breadth of view which charme^[d] one’s repressions^[i]. ^[O]ne walk^[ed] with her among the lights and the shadows. And after an hour or so one ^[was] hand in hand...Berlin stimulate^[d] like arsenic, and then when one’s nerves ^[were] all ajingle she ^[came] with her hot milk of human kindness; and in the end, for an hour and a half, one ^[was] able, gratefully to go to sleep^[ii],

the playwright Carl Zuckmayer described the capital of the Weimar Republic as

a highly desirable woman, whose coldness and capriciousness were widely known: the less chance anyone had to win her, the more they decried her. We called her proud, snobbish, nouveau riche, uncultured, crude. But secretly everyone looked upon her as the goals of their desires. Some saw her as hefty, full-breasted, in lace underwear, others as a mere wisp of a thing, with boyish legs in black silk stockings. The daring saw both aspects, and her very capacity for cruelty made them the more aggressive. All wanted to have her, she enticed all. ...To conquer Berlin was to conquer the world. The only thing was -and this was the everlasting spur- that you had to take all the hurdles again and again, had to break through the goal again and again in order to maintain your position.^[iii]

As opposed as these views may be -indeed, precisely by their contradictory approaches- they show clearly the tendency of that time of the beginning of the last century, of that decade between the monarchy of Kaiser Wilhelm II and the dictatorship of Hitler which has entered history as the ‘Golden Twenties’. It was a time of great diversities and confusions, changes and excitements, fears and joys, both in public life and in private. And eventually, a time when womankind re-defined herself. In Berlin, the whole world had changed and in some respects had turned upside down. Modernity had taken over. For us today, all of these aspects have become mythical; already my very words in this paragraph transcend notably those precise notions of the 1920s: the Myth of Modernity, the Myth of the ‘Roaring Twenties’ and, last but not least, the Myth of the Neue Frau.

The linguistic philosopher Roland Barthes saw “myth^[as] a type of speech [...], a system of communication, that it is a message“^[iv]. For him

mythical concepts [...] constitute [...] connotative levels ^[and] are evidently cultural through and through: they are fashioned by History, they did not fall fully-formed from the heavens.^[v]

In other words, Barthes understood a myth as a linguistic concept that is formed by the means of language and, in turn, communication. There was and is no myth right from the beginning; every myth only has become a myth by this very system. Consequently, he believed, everything can be a myth^[vi][1].

I think this concept can easily be recognised when looking more closely at our understanding of the era of the 1920s. However, those years have not been mythologised only recently but ever since they emerged. There is a plethora of contemporary texts, may they be literary, journalistic, scientific, which deal with that ‘new’ time. And very many deal with the female who also had become, especially in terms of Berlin, synonymous with the idea of modernity. Never before were there such a vast amount of texts produced on the thematic ‘woman’: “The spirit of the 1920s focused on the woman“^[vii]. Clearly, this can be seen as a sign that, for the first time in history really, the woman was a topic to be taken seriously, a topic which fascinated: it was the Neue Frau. At this stage, however, I have to point out that this new discourse did not and does not reveal anything about the 1920’s woman herself since the majority of the discussions were made by men about the woman and so rather tells some highly interesting aspects about the 1920’s men and their perceptions of the woman, e.g. both the quotations of Berlin as a female given at the beginning of this text.

Thus, what interests me, is Weimar’s ‘real’ Neue Frau or, to be more precise, Neue Frauen, and what they said and did themselves, i.e. who and what the Neue Frauen really were. Despite the common use of the singular term Neue Frau, I think to employ the plural here is more appropriate, since there were so many women who possibly cannot all be defined in the same way. However, as I have described earlier, of course, in the Barthesian sense the Neue Frau as such is a mere (mythical) concept and can therefore be applied to any woman of the 1920s who was different to those women of the earlier Wilhelmian generation, i.e. to her mother.

Although “the German women’s movement [...] emerged most strongly at the turn of the century“^[viii], the First World War was the decisive turning point.

While the war experience confronted men with societal displacement and cultural “castration,“ it had reinforced women’s growing trust in their own abilities and opportunities. While men experienced the postwar years as a time of chaos and loss of individual boundaries, women had to sustain the conflict between defending their new models of self against the onset of societal reconstruction.^[ix]

Thus, “precisely the war, formerly the embodiment of manhood, knocked traditional masculinity off its pedestal.“^[x]

Although, “^[b]y 1925, only 35.6 percent of all women were working, only 0.7 percent more than in 1907“^[xi] and no actual change had set in statistically, with the war working women had become visible “in the public realm [...] as railway guards, postal deliverers, steamroller drivers, etc.“^[xii] and in the public clerical sector, which had grown “by over 200 percent between 1907 and 1925“^[xiii]. That is, there was a mere shift of working women “from countryside into the city“^[xiv], away from the agricultural sector^[xv], away from the domestic service, away from the factories^[xvi], out of the shadow into the public light.

The^[se] young employees were considered as the model of female emancipation: the ‘ Tippmamsells ’ [shorthand-typists], the office and shop girls.^[xvii]

However emancipated this may seem at first sight -and for the time being, it certainly was since it circumscribed such a great difference to the Wilhelmian woman^[2] -, this happened not necessarily voluntarily: millions of women were forced to earn money themselves as their husbands died or became invalid during the war^[xviii]: “we don’t have a profession, we have work“^[xix], many a woman worker said. Further aspects in which work probably was made less appealing were that women in most instances received less training than men and also with the same training^[3] were always waged less. The argument was that the woman only earned for herself while the man needed to feed his family^[xx] or could not be expected to cook and sew and therefore was forced to spend more money on household and clothing.^[xxi] “Although the opposite was true: a woman had to invest a major part of her wage in her outward appearance as the employer expected a nice ‘wrapping’. ‘Silk stockings and waved hair [...] ha^[d] become the weapons in the struggle for survival.’“^[xxii] Also the working woman in most cases had to carry a triple burden, that is work (often a ten-hours day), household and mother duties^[xxiii]; the latter ones, of course, enabling the husband to work as well. However, households with a working wife and mother were considered problematic:

as long as the expansion of production continued to create new opportunities for men, too, the competition for supremacy on the labour market did not become a hot political potato. The long-term male unemployed were alone in perceiving women as threatening competitors and calling for their dismissal. In times of crisis ^[then] married women were the first to be denied the right to a job.^[xxiv]

So it comes as no surprise that “^[i]n 1925, two-thirds of all white-collar workers were single women under the age of twenty-five^[xxv]“. On the one hand, women’s work labour was employed in high numbers as it was very cheap, on the other hand, work was regarded in many circles, such as the social democratic and communist ones, as ‘a storage room’ for girls before marriage and motherhood^[xxvi]; due to the hard conditions the girls, of course, dreamt of a dream match with their bosses as they were shown on the screen of the time:

shop assistants, typists and telephonists [...] were among the keenest and most regular cinema-goers. [...] On the screen the typist or shop assistant appeared young, pretty, sexy and elegant. She could climb the social ladder in two ways: she was either extremely competent and married to her typewriter, thus winning the respect and love of her boss; or she made up for a lack of mental dexterity with physical attractiveness.^[xxvii]

Undoubtedly it can be stated that the 1920’s emancipation as everything else in that time was a rather contradictory movement. And yet despite these contradictions the blood of freedom and independence, though far from being realised, had been tasted.

The Dada artist Hannah Höch said about her entry into the Weimar Republic: “We all had been tied up in a corset and were now released into freedom.“^[xxviii] Not only does this sentence represent metaphorically the change from monarchy to democracy, it was also very true in its literal meaning. Resulting from the new life style, especially the new working and therefore public life of women, a practical mode of clothing was necessary. “Now terms like “simplicity,“ “functionality,“ and “versatility“ began to define clothes in use-oriented terms“.^[xxix]

But the pragmatic sense was not the only reason for that fashion of the 1920s which has become one of the essential characteristics of the Neue Frau. With the breaking out of the Wilhelmian corset an era of a new body cult had set in, an era of ‘naturalness’: the freed (female) body insisted on its rights and wanted to feel itself, i.e. moving in light, air and sun, becoming enraptured with rhythms and speeds, walking, gymnastics, swimming, dancing, riding, cycling, driving.^[xxx] Naturally this new ‘body-ness’ brought a new ideal of (female) beauty with it, that is “tanned fitness instead of distinguished paleness, slim hips and flat breasts instead of voluptuous curves, Bubikopf (pageboy) instead of piled up hair creations“^[xxxi], and eventually a new fashion, that is “Bubikopf, knee-short skirts and flat Jimmy shoes“^[xxxii], perfectly matching this body of the Neue Frau. The Bubikopf in particular had “^[become] the trademark of the emancipated city woman“^[xxxiii]; hence, the new dress code was more than just a fashion, it was almost a philosophy of life, and in any case the confession to be a Neue Frau.^[xxxiv] But, of course, this again walked along with contradictions:

With the disappearance of form-conscious shapes came unstructured bodices and brassieres, which made the fit, slender body an even greater necessity. The androgynous look challenged traditional notions of female beauty, but also forced more voluptuous women to flatten out their curves with the help of girdles and corsets.^[xxxv]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Fig.1 - August Sander, Radiosekretärin (Radio Secretary) (1931)

Thus, another corset was required but into the opposite direction. A further discrepancy to the now androgynous fashion, which became widely known as the Garçonne-style, was

Evening wear ^[which] remained glamorous and ultra-feminine, with low-cut gowns, sleek silhouettes, and accessories like ostrich feathers, fox stoles, and artificial flowers.^[xxxvi]

This trend was also to be employed by the second aspect of fashion, make-up:

Two basic styles predominated, the sporty, tanned look that limited the use of makeup to foundation and rouge and the pale look for the evening, with plucked and penciled eyebrows, dark eye shadow, bright red lips, and heavy perfumes.^[xxxvii]

So that element which has become to embody very crucially the Neue Frau, the legendary 1920’s fashion, can also be regarded in terms of a mere construction of precisely this Neue Frau identity; somehow a certain role in complete costume and make-up was acted out by the Weimar woman in order to be or seem as a Neue Frau:

^[F]ashion played an important role in defining modern femininity: as a marker of economic status and social ambition, as an expression of female narcissism and beauty, and as the focus of consumerist fantasies and commodified versions of the self.^[xxxviii]

Despite the woman’s new activities, appearance and behaviour, “the new fashions still defined woman through the body“^[xxxix]; however, it was of a more playful, performative nature by which “she could realize her desires under the disguise of traditional images and become aware of the artificiality of gender roles.“^[xl][4]

In this context then, I think, the Neue Frau as a myth is easier to understand: precisely by these features which constituted the Neue Frau every woman who wanted to be one could construct herself as one, i.e. employ the performative concept Neue Frau on herself. And so the Weimar woman did. Because, for her, it was a great step out of the shadow of patriarchal society.

However, “the cultural construction of woman [in most, if not all, societies] embodies the projections of male hopes and anxieties“^[xli], in the case of Weimar Germany this became evident indeed. The reactions of ‘man’kind towards the emergence of the modern woman were contradictory: the Neue Frau fascinated and threatened the male being in the widest sense, that is, the (male-defined) society. The now newly-existing woman was received with surprise and confusion, positive and negative at the same time. Clearly the introductory quotations have already shown this ambiguous reception, consisting of “a male desire that simultaneously elevate^[d] and represse^[d] woman as object of allure and as harbinger of danger“^[xlii]. The rise of the Garçonne woman was a challenge to the traditional norm and caused

the fear that along with the disappearance of long hair and restrictions to home and hearth, femininity itself was on the wane or had at least gone underground, becoming harder to discern under the boyish looks and freewheeling behaviour of the so-called New Woman.^[xliii]

The ‘masculinisation’ of the woman was a real threat. Now women seemed seriously capable to perform an act of ‘taking over’, to be true counterparts to men, this, however, in the negative sense: the formerly weak and otherwise non-existing female being undermined male authority and consequently led towards the loss of power while endangering the true female role and so, in turn, human reproduction. The new woman did not need the man anymore, she could survive without being taken care of. During the war she had proved this accordingly and, due to the lack of men, in a sense, she had established a female order, an alternative society.

Additionally during the 1920s in Berlin there was also an increasing emergence of visible homosexuality. “Berlin in the Twenties counted as the most tolerant city of Europe, as the eldorado of homosexuals. They came from every part of the world [...], from England in particular, in order to enjoy a freedom they were denied in their home-countries.“^[xliv] Between 1900 and 1933 around 30 Lesbian Clubs existed; frequently they had already been founded at the turn of the century, then in the disguise of a ‘Bowling Club’ or ‘Lottery Society’. In the Weimar years, however, they became more explicit and rather popular venues for all kinds of (also heterosexual) people, e.g. the elitist club Monbijou des Westens which counted 600 members, most of them being film divas, female singers and actresses, the Violetta-Club with 400 members and the Kegelclub Die Goldene Kugel (Bowling Club The Golden Bowl) with 150 members.^[xlv]

Interestingly Garçonne was not only the new fashion but also a ‘Ladies’ only Pub’ in the Kalckreuthstraße opened by the dancer Anita Berber’s girlfriend in 1931 and the name of a lesbian magazine.^[xlvi] This magazine discussed the issue of the Neue Frau in terms of the Männin (the femalised form of Mann (man): i.e. the masculine/male woman):

By the term Männin a woman with very male attributes is understood, either in the physical or psychological dimension or in both. The Männin is a mixture of woman and manHer counterpart of the other sex is the ... femalised man. The first type of the Männin is the lesbian, the second the (female) transvestite, the third the amazon who is driven to power by a strong will.^[xlvii]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Fig.2 - at the Eldorado: front left, the only woman of the group

However controversial it is that this rather pathologic discussion was written for and published by the leading lesbian magazine, it represents clearly the trend of the time of attempting to classify and define the woman. The new woman was a phenomenon which was new and not quite definable. On the one hand, from the traditional point of view, she was ‘masculinised’, ‘un-feminine’ and therefore putting the man into a position of uselessness, on the other hand she lived her (female) sexuality to an extent which was formerly only permitted to men and unthinkable for women who used to enter marriage as virgins and generally did not know where the babies came from.^[xlviii][5] Resulting from this new sexual liberation, of course, for women, there was now the risk of pregnancy. Contraception was still in its early state; so women frequently used douching, or insisted their partner practised coitus interruptus. Condoms and diaphragms were either unheard of or too expensive, at least for the lower classes[...] If contraception had failed, abortion was often the only answer.^[xlix]

However, abortion was illegal and highly punished. Nevertheless, “in times of economic crisis and high unemployment with falling wage levels, the number of abortions rocketed. Estimates put the figure for 1931 at one million.“^[l] The ‘industry’ of Engelmacher (angel makers) rose; so-called wise women and wise men ‘helped out’; this action had to happen secretly. Naturally this bore many dangers with it for the clients and, in turn, many women died of these ‘treatments’.^[6] At this stage, one might expect that due to the changed lifestyles and attitudes, that is, in particular that men did not feel obliged to marry the ‘pregnanced’ woman any longer, preliminary unmarried women had to consult the Engelmacher, this, however, was not the case. Many married women and already mothers did not want to have another child, i.e. another mouth to feed which was an already difficult task. Thus, in Weimar time, birth control and, in turn, frequently abortion, were just further elements on a long list of issues which all constituted different aspects of the Neue Frau. All of these aspects together then formed that what was threatened by (the male-defined) society: the rise of womankind embodied the loss of control of traditional (male) mastery.

The root-cause of these disturbing tendencies was identified as the ‘boundless egoism’ of women who were betraying their natural vocation and striving for greater personal freedom and independence. More than ever marriage and the family, those two pillars of society [in particular], seemed to be disintegrating because women, whose calling it was to uphold tradition and morals, were aspiring to the individualistic ethic of the modern age and failing to meet their obligation as mothers of the nation.^[li]

What was lacking above all was ‘motherliness’, that great, inexhaustible gift of feminine love and devotion, unrewarded yet infinitely valuable to both the family and society.^[lii]

The rebellion of the woman against her traditional role which found its beginning at the turn of the century and its final and essential outbreak during and after the First World War is what can be understood as the elementary feature of the myth of the Neue Frau. When this took place a new time - a time when nothing was anymore what it used to be, which subverted traditional norms and values, which seemed, due to political and economical conditions, ‘out of control’: it was the time of the Weimar Republic. And modernity had arrived. In a sense, all characteristics describing the Neue Frau can also be applied to the Weimar Republic, especially its capital Berlin, however, of course, including the aspect of the Neue Frau itself. And this is why modernity and the venue of its main action, Berlin, was and still is often regarded as a woman, the Neue Frau herself.

In terms of the dominant point of view this was not quite a positive development. Nevertheless it must be noted that

prominent intellectuals of all political hues expressed their hopes that women, after having conquered traditionally male domains, would not become imitators of male ways but rather develop viable alternative lifestyles. Rather than indulge in promiscuity and careerism, women were asked to maintain their internal balance and use their maternal instinct in the interest of the future of humankind^[liii],

most (male) reactions were far less hopeful towards the new ruling conditions.^[7] Many articles in the popular press tried to define and analyse the Neue Frau in order to assist the man to find a suitable wife and mother of his children, that is, to assist the health of society on the whole which seemed to be declining in the 1920s. For instance, these were pictorial typologies exploring more or less scientifically themes such as ’New Approaches to Character Research: What Leg Position Can tell You’, e.g.

[in a woman, t]he practice of crossing the legs below the knee indicates quarrelsomeness, but ready appeaseability, hot temperament and volatility. Must be led by a strong hand...Legs held in a rigorously parallel position speak for particular suitability for marriage, adaptability, inner restraint^[liv];

‘Female Types Considered Unsuitable For Marriage’ or ‘Take A Look At Your Fellow Human Beings’, e.g.

character or temperament had a biological basis that could be correlated to a physical body type, as both were the expressions of the individual’s genetic heritage. The trained eye could thus identify an individual with a slender, angular physique as a Gedankenmensch [thought person], a person with a tendency toward intellectual preoccupations, just like the muscular type would indicate a man of action, the Tatmensch, and a person with a rounded physique would reveal an uncomplicated and good-natured individual, a Gemütsmensch [soul and heart person] ^[whose] emotionality and passivity [...] practically defined the age-old concept of ideal femininity ^[while] a woman who displayed the physical and psychological attributes of the “naturally masculine“Gedankenmensch or Tatmensch was bound to be dangerously out of balance.^[lv][8]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Fig.3 - "New Approaches to Character Research: What Leg Position Can Tell You."

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Fig.4 - "Female Types Considered Unsuitable for Marriage."

[...]

---

^[1] In his book Mythologies he examines this at length; therefore I will not go into this but simply apply this idea in my further discussion.

^[2] Of course, one has to be careful with these definitions as such because they highly depend on the kind of woman and the class she belonged to. During the Kaiser reign many working-class women worked in the factories while upper middle-class women were ‘kept’ in the golden cage of the ‘home, sweet home’, functioning reproductively, playing the piano but otherwise incapable of living itself. (Scheub 2000, p.14)

^[3] Although women had access to higher education since 1919, most girls were still highly disadvantaged in their education as the Weimar focus remained on the traditional role of housewife and mother. Higher education for girls was seen as a waste of money as “they would be getting married anyhow“. (Vollmer-Heitmann 1993, p.72)

^[4] However, this, of course, was not the only woman type occurring at the times of the Weimar Republic; but the type described is the one which has become crucial in constituting the myth of the Neue Frau. Also I believe that the majority of the Weimar women belonged more or less explicitly to this category. Nevertheless I want to give at this stage an extract of an 1927 newspaper article which -apparently- dealt with all the Weimar women types:

Today three women stand before us. The three types: Gretchen, Girl, Garçonne. The Gretchen type is not only the young naive German girl with braids and a knitting-needle horizon, it is also the heroic and militaristic ranting fascist woman...Sexually powerless, personally passive, this type as a group is a historical hindrance, is the stumbling block of every historically urgent development. Allied with the church and reaction, she has an optimistic attitude towards life, that is not, however, productive...The Girl, originating in America as the child of pioneers and immigrants, is aware from the beginning that you can rely only on yourself, and that getting ahead is the sole guarantee that you won’t rot...A daring athlete, sexy but without sizzle -rather coolly calculating- she succeeds whenever she encounters the sexually bourgeois man of the old school...The Garçonne type cannot be grasped by language...^[Her] combination of fifty to fifty ^[percent] sexual and intellectual potency often gives rise to conflict...^[T]he most significant one in this group: the business- and life-artist. Uniting a sporting, comradely male entrepreneurial sense with heroic, feminine devotion, this synthesis -if successful- often makes her so superior to the man she loves that she becomes troublesome. (Ankum 1997, p.12)

Interestingly, in this quest of the ideal Weimar woman the author M.G. had already difficulties at the very time of the Weimar Republic to come to precise terms with the Garçonne woman, presumably due to all those contradictory elements occurring at the time in relation to the Weimar woman. However, this may be why the Neue Frau has become a myth: it seemed and still seems to be an almost inexplicable mystery.

Further I found it interesting that this article as early as 1927 represents foreshadowingly the later concept of the ‘ideal’ Aryan woman of the fascist ideology, the Gretchen. To discuss this would unfortunately exceed the capacity and topic of my work, so I only wanted to point out this briefly.

^[5] That is, at least the bourgeois and aristocratic woman.

^[6] Cornelie Usborne’s essay ‘Wise women, wise men and abortion in the Weimar Republic: gender, class and medicine’

in Abrams, L. & Harvey, E.:

Gender Relations in German History

power, agency and experience from the sixteenth to the twentieth

century

London; UCL Press; 1996

gives an illuminating insight into this matter which would completely overdraw the thematic of my work.

^[7] Although here again, despite the positive approach, the male insistence on the woman’s ‘natural’ role as mother becomes evident.

^[8] Here once more, the early tendencies of fascist politics can be recognised: in eugenic approaches the ‘true’ woman and, hence, the wife and mother, was sought for. This method was to escalate as Rassenhygiene (racial hygiene) during the Third Reich.

Endnotes

Berlin & The Weimar Woman

^[i] Ankum 1997, p.42

^[ii] Meskimmon 1995, p.155

^[iii] Ankum 1997, p.42

^[iv] Barthes 1993, p. 109

^[v] Leak 1994, p. 21

^[vi] Barthes 1993, p.109

^[vii] Scheub 2000, p.19*

^[viii] Meskimmon 1995, p.145

^[ix] Ankum 1997, pp.5-6

^[x] Scheub 2000, p.15*

^[xi] Ankum 1997, p.4

^[xii] Meskimmon 1995, p.152

^[xiii] Ankum 1997, p.4

^[xiv] Ankum 1997, p.4

^[xv] Ankum 1997, p.4

^[xvi] Meskimmon 1995, p.152

^[xvii] Scheub 2000, p.16*

^[xviii] Scheub 2000, p.16*

^[xix] Vollmer-Heitmann 1993, p.234*

^[xx] Vollmer-Heitmann 1993, p. 232*

^[xxi] Scheub 2000, p.18*

^[xxii] Scheub 2000, p.18*

^[xxiii] Vollmer-Heitmann 1993, p. 234*

^[xxiv] Frevert 1990, p.185

^[xxv] Ankum 1997, p.4

^[xxvi] Scheub 2000, p.18*

^[xxvii] Frevert 1990, p. 182

^[xxviii] Scheub 2000, p.7*

^[xxix] Ankum 1997, p.188

^[xxx] Scheub 2000, p.20*

^[xxxi] Scheub 2000, p.21*

^[xxxii] Scheub 2000, p.21*

^[xxxiii] Ankum 1997, p.187

^[xxxiv] Scheub 2000, p.21*

^[xxxv] Ankum 1997, p.188

^[xxxvi] Ankum 1997, p.188

^[xxxvii] Ankum 1997, p.189

^[xxxviii] Ankum 1997, p.185

^[xxxix] Ankum 1997, p. 199

^[xl] Ankum 1997, p.199

^[xli] Ankum 1997, p.6

^[xlii] Ankum 1997, p.42

^[xliii] Ankum 1997, p.16

^[xliv] Scheub 2000, p.132*

^[xlv]Scheub 2000, pp.141-142*

^[xlvi] Scheub 2000, p.141*

^[xlvii] Scheub 2000, p.141*

^[xlviii] Scheub 2000, p.14*

^[xlix] Frevert 1990, p. 187

^[l] Frevert 1990, p.187

^[li] Frevert 1990, p.186

^[lii] Frevert 1990, p.193

^[liii] Ankum 1997, p.5

^[liv] Ankum 1997, p.15

^[lv] Ankum 1997, p.16