¹ The most notable exception is Ernst Bloch’s existentialist account, Thomas Müntzer als Theologe der Revolution, first published in 1921. Cf. in the modern edition, Frankfurt am Main 1972, 198: ‘Wer sich dazu frei macht, vermag das Rechte auch durchaus zu träumen und zu hören.’

² Elliger, Walter, Thomas Müntzer, Leben und Werk, 2nd edn, Göttingen 1975Google Scholar. His theologising interpretation is even more pronounced in his sketch, Aussenseiter der Reformation. Thomas Müntzer, ein Knecht Gottes, Göttingen 1975Google Scholar.

³ The town priest, Simon Haferitz, however, inclined towards Lutheranism, and there was widespread resentment at the growing exactions of the nearby convent of Walkenried. Nebe, A., ‘Geschichte des Schlosses und der Stadt Allstedt’, Zeitschrift des Harz-Vereins für Geschichte und Altertumskunde, xx (1887), 43Google Scholar.

⁴ Fuchs, W. P. (ed.), Akten zur Geschichte des Bauemkriegs in Mitteldeutschland, Jena 1942Google Scholar (reprint Aalen 1964) ii. 30, no. 1114, 11 April 1524 (hereafter cited as AGBM, ii).

⁵ Ibid., 29–31. Müntzer’s participation is attested in his unforced confession. Franz, G. (ed.), Thomas Müntzer. Schriften und Briefe. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, (Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, xxxiii), Gütersloh 1968, 546Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Franz, GA).

⁶ E.g. to Karlstadt in Orlamünde, ibid., 415–16, 571.

⁷ Förstemann, C. E., ‘Zur Geschichte des Bauernkriegs im Thüringischen und Mansfeldischen’, Neue Miltheilungen aus dem Cebiet historisch-antiquarischer Forschung, xii (1869), 211–13, 215Google Scholar. Also in AGBM, ii. 452–3, 470.

⁸ Bensing, M., ‘Idee und Praxis des “Christlichen Verbündnisses” bei Thomas Müntzer’, in Friesen, A. and Goertz, H.-J. (eds), Thomas Müntzer (Wege der Forschung, cdxci), Darmstadt 1978, 303–4Google Scholar. Bensing supports his argument by reference to Elector Frederick's apparent warning to Allstedt in early 1524 not to withhold payments from Naundorf. Cf. AGBM, ii. 29. He is followed by Dülmen, R. van, Reformation als Revolution. Soziale Bewegung und religiöser Radikalismus in der deutschen Reformation, Munich 1977, 102Google Scholar, and, with reservations, by Elliger, Müntzer, 430.

⁹ Förstemann, ‘Bauernkrieg’, 185. Cf. Müntzer's own testimony. Franz, GA, 421–3, and Rautenzweig’s statement about the league’s aims, AGBM, ii. 453.

¹⁰ The evidence is considered below in section V.

¹¹ Bensing, ‘Idee und Praxis’, 307–9, 311–13; idem, Thomas Müntzer und der Thüringer Aufsland 1535 (Leipziger Übersetzungen und Abhandlungen zum Mittelalter, series B, iii), Berlin 1966, 58Google Scholar. Cf. van Dülmen, Reformation, 103–5, 113–14.

¹² The narrative is based on the documents printed by Förstemann, ‘Bauernkrieg’, 159–65, 184. Elliger, Müntzer, 429, following Zeiss’s later report of 26 June, gives the date of the councillor’s imprisonment as 4 June. His account, ibid., 429–32, which ignores Zeiss’s first report of 19 June, is very wayward.

¹³ Bensing, ‘Idee und Praxis’, 307.

¹⁴ Franz, GA, 241–63. Interpretation in Elliger, Müntzer, 443ff.

¹⁵ Franz, GA, 408–9, 409–10, 411–15. For the dating of the last letter, cf. Elliger, Müntzer, 474.

¹⁶ Förstemann, ‘Bauernkrieg’, 180–1. Cf. Franz, G. (ed.), Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauernkrieges, Darmstadt 1963, 485–6Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Förstemann, ‘Bauernkrieg’, 180–1; Franz, GA, 421–3. The sermon itself is not recorded.

¹⁸ The wording makes clear that it was directed expressly at Catholic persecution. Cf. Förstemann, ‘Bauernkrieg’, 185.

¹⁹ Ibid. The interrogation at Weimar on 1 August, ibid., 182–6, is the principal source of information about the events of both June and July. The mosaic of information from a series of individual responses necessarily makes it difficult to assign events accurately to either June or July. However, on close scrutiny the information on pp. 183–5, line 3 must refer to mid-June, whilst the remainder of p. 185 must relate to July. Failure to distinguish between the items for June and July has been the main reason for the widespread assertion that two separate leagues were formed in mid-1524.

²⁰ AGBM, ii. 453,470. Not, as van Dülmen, Reformation, 104, says, 500 miners and others.

²¹ Franz, GA, 548.

²² Bensing, ‘Idee und Praxis’, 300–1. This appears to be relatively well founded in the sources.

²³ Ibid., 301. He cites in support his own study, ‘Thomas Müntzer und Nordhausen (Harz) 1522. Eine Studie über Müntzers Leben und Wirken zwischen Prag und Allstedt’, Zeitschrifr für Gesckichtswissenschaft, x (1962), 1095–123Google Scholar, but the article mentions no attempt to form a league, merely the existence of a Müntzerite faction. The argument is accepted by van Dülmen, Reformation, 100.

²⁴ Rupp, Gordon, ‘Thomas Müntzer. The reformer as rebel’, in idem, Patterns of Reformation, London 1969, 299–300Google Scholar. In his letter to the godfearing of Sangerhausen, however, Müntzer sought to encourage them by mentioning ‘meher dan 30 anschlege und vorbundnis der auserwelten’ which had previously been formed. Franz, GA, 408. To what these leagues of the elect can refer has continued to puzzle scholars.

²⁵ Bensing, ‘Idee und Praxis’, 312, argues that the broad defensive alliance of 24 July superseded a narrower league of the elect in mid-June.

²⁶ Cf. ibid., 313.

²⁷ Franz, GA, 422–3.

²⁸ Ibid., 413–14. The implications of this letter have been passed over too easily by most scholars.

²⁹ Förstemann, ‘Bauernkrieg’, 185.

³⁰ He is mentioned by Müntzer in his confession under torture. Franz, GA, 548. There is no evidence that Müntzer’s adherents in Sangerhausen formed an offshoot of the Allstedt League there, despite frequent assertions to the contrary. Cf. van Dülmen, Reformation, 104.

³¹ Förstemann, ‘Bauernkrieg’, 186–8; AGBM, ii. 39–40, no. 1125A. This letter refers to events at the interrogation on 1 August, and must therefore be dated thereafter. Ibid., 167–8, no. 1267. This letter is wrongly dated and refers to the hearing in Weimar; probably 2 August 1524.

³² Cf. Franz, GA, 433.

³³ Lösche, D., ‘Achtmänner, Ewiger Bund Gottes und Ewiger Rat. Zur Geschichte der Revolutionären Bewegung in Mühlhausen i. Th. 1523 bis 1525’, Jahrburch für Wirtschafts-geschichte (1960), 138–9Google Scholar; Bensing, ‘Idee und Praxis’, 317–19; idem, Müntzer, 67–8; van Dülmen, Reformation, 127.

³⁴ Cf. Elliger, Müntzer, 691.

³⁶ Jordan, R. (ed.), Chronik der Stadl Mühlhausen in Thüringen, Mühlhausen 1900, i. 179–80Google Scholar. Cf. Franz, Quellen, 490.

³⁶ Gess, F. (ed.), Akten undBriefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen, Leipzig-Berlin 1905, i. 749–50Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Gess, i).

³⁷ Jordan, Chronik, 180, who records that the rioting continued for three days.

³⁸ Gess, i. 749. The albertine official in Sangerhausen, Sittich von Berlepsch, gives no details of the Eleven Articles, referring merely to ‘the foolish priest from Allstedt’, who was urging the commons to withdraw obedience from secular authority, to withhold dues and services and to drive out all clerics.

³⁹ AGBM, ii. 47–9, no. 1128. Copy addressed to Mühlhausen’s village of Horsmar.

⁴⁰ Jordan, Chronik, 180; cf. Franz, Quellen, 490.

⁴¹ Franz, GA 447–8.

⁴² Gess, i. 749; Jordan, Chronik, 180; cf. Franz, Quellen, 490.

⁴³ Jordan, Chronik, 180; cf. Franz, Quellen, 490–1.

⁴⁴ Jordan, Chronik, 181; cf. Franz, Quellen, 491. T h e council ordered its scout to fetch 200 villagers, though all but 60 were sent home again. Some of the peasants apparently went over to the rebels on arrival in Mühlhausen. Cf. Merx, O., Thomas Müntzer und Heinrich Pfeiffer 1523–1525– Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Bauernkrieges in Thüringen, Göttingen 1889, i. 85 n. 1Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Jordan, Chronik, 181; cf. Franz, Quellen, 491. The two preachers were accompanied by many followers.

⁴⁴ Bensing believes that they were forced to leave; Müntzer, 67. Cf. contra, Elliger, Müntzer, 577 n. 39 and 578 n. 42.

⁴⁷ The League is first mentioned in late April 1525 in a report by Berlepsch to Gess, Duke George. F. (ed.), Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen, Leipzig-Berlin 1917Google Scholar, ii. 109, no. 855, 17 April 1525 (hereafter cited as Gess, ii). From the testimony of a member of the Eternal Council that he did not know ‘who had stormed the Felchta gate or where the list of their names was’, Lösche, ‘Achtmänner’, 154, concludes that the attack on the gate must refer to September 1524, and that the list of perpetrators must be identical with the (undated) list of 219 members of the Eternal League, ibid., 152. This argument is accepted by Bensing, ‘Idee und Praxis’, 317–18 and by van Dülmen, Reformation, I27f. Even though Bensing, Müntzer, 67 n. 17 shows that registration of the League took place outside the Felchta gate, there is still no good evidence for dating it to September 1524. Cf. Elliger, Müntzer, 577 n. 39.

⁴⁸ The articles survive as a copy addressed to Mühlhausen’s village of Horsmar, ostensibly issuing from the commons of the suburban parishes of St Nicholas, St George and St Margaret, and the linenweavers of St Jacob and other craftsmen. AGBM, ii. 47. Van Dülmen, Reformation, 128, may be right to state that they were not composed by Müntzer directly, but Elliger, Müntzer, 58if, points to the close parallels between the articles and Müntzer’s letter to the Christians of Mühlhausen on 22 September.

⁴⁹ Bensing, Müntzer, 69, based on AGBM, ii. 49–50, no. 1129, a document entitled by the editor ‘Bedenken des Handwerks der Leinweber...’ A close reading of the document suggests that it was in fact one of the responses taken by the revamped council on 27 September.

⁵⁰ On the differing situation in Mühlhausen’s villages, cf. Lösche, D., ‘Zur Lage der Bauern im Gebiet der ehemaligen freien Reichsstadt Mühlhausen in Thüringen zur Zeit des Bauernkrieges’, in Brendler, G. (ed.), Die frühbürgerliche Revolution in Deutschland. Tagung der Sektion Mcdiävistik der Deutschen Hisloriker-Geselbchaft vom 21.–23. 1. 1960 in Wernigerode, (2 vols., ed. Werner, E. and Steinmetz, M.), Berlin 1961, ii. 64–72Google Scholar.

⁵¹ AGBM, ii. 46–7; Gess, i. 747–50; cf. Bensing, Müntzer, 65.

⁵² Cf. article 11. AGBM, ii. 48–9.

⁵³ Cf. Elliger, Müntzer, 627

⁵⁴ Franz, GA, 544.

⁵⁵ Franz, Quellen, 232, as part of Hubmaier’s articles and confession, 231–4, contained in a report sent by Johann Fabri, the bishop of Constance’s vicar-general, to Duke George of Saxony in March 1528.

⁵⁶ Ibid., 235–6.

⁵⁷ Ibid., 232. The four articles are rendered by Fabri in a tendentious paraphrase.

⁵⁸ The older literature on the authorship and dating of the two documents is reviewed by Elliger, Müntzer, 658IT. His attempt to show that the draft could have been composed during Müntzer’s stay on the Upper Rhine has however been challenged by Blickle, Peter, ‘Thomas Müntzer und der Bauernkrieg in Südwestdeutschland. Bemerkungen zu Walter Elliger, Thomas Müntzer. Leben und Werk...’, Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie, xxiv (1976), 79–80Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ After the Constitutional Draft Fabri appends what purports to be a supplement by Hubmaier denning and elaborating the notion of the temporal ban; this parallels its description in the Letter of Articles. Franz, Quellen, 233 lines 1–12, 235 line 36, 236 line 10. Although Bergsten, T., in Balthasar Hubmaier. Anabaptist Theotogien and Martyr, ed. Estep, W. R. Jr, Valley Forge, Pa. 1978, 216ffGoogle Scholar, argues at length that Hubmaier composed neither Draft nor Letter of Articles, the invocation of the temporal ban so strongly resembles his doctrine of the spiritual ban that Hubmaier’s authorship can hardly be doubted. Cf. Scott, T., ‘Reformation and Peasants' War in Waldshut and environs: a structural analysis’, part II, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, lxx (1979), 147Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Franz, GA, 549.

⁶¹ Contrasting accounts in Elliger, Müntzer, 676f, and Bensing, Müntzer, 76–8; cf. van Dülmen, Reformation, 137–8.

⁶² Gess, II. 79–80. The view that the denunciation of religious objects in the home heralded an attack on private property in accordance with communist principles has been sharply criticised by Elliger, Müntzer, 683.

⁶³ AGBM, ii. 67.

⁶⁴ Gess, ii. 80–1; Jordan, Chronik, 185; cf. Franz, Quellen, 497.

⁶⁶ Müntzer’s sermon is itself further evidence that a league had not previously been formed in September 1524.

⁶⁶ Lösche, ‘Achtmänner’, 157–9. Accounts in Gess, ii. 81, 107; ACBM, ii. 886–7; Jordan, Chronik, 185; cf. Franz, Quellen, 497–8. Cf. Bensing, Müntzer, 79–80.

⁶⁷ Gess, ii. 109.

⁶⁸ Lösche, ‘Achtmänner’, 155–6.

⁶⁹ Cf. the confession of the Eternal Council member, Claus Tuchscherer. Bensing, Müntzer, 67 n. 17; cf. Lösche, ‘Achtmänner’, 154, where he is named as Claus Haldecke.

⁷⁰ Gess, ii. 109.

⁷¹ Cf. i Pet. i. 25, Isaiah, xl. 8.

⁷² Gess, ii. 109.

⁷³ AGBM, ii. 558; Bensing, Müntzer, 83–4, esp. 83 n. 96.

⁷⁴ The uprising began with the formation of a peasant troop in the Werra valley. Cf. ibid., 92f.

⁷⁵ Franz, GA, 454–6. ‘Müntzer an die Allstedter’, 1525 (26/27 April). The wording in fact demonstrates that it was addressed to the principals of his former Christian League, whose names tally with known members of the town hall league. Cf. Müntzer’s confession, ibid., 545, 548; and the petition of Barthel Krumpe and others on 28 December 1525. AGBM ii. 756–7. They were to forward his appeal to the Mansfelders.

⁷⁶ Franz, GA, 457–8.

⁷⁷ Ibid., 455. That Reichart registered both leagues is attested by Senff’s and Rautenzweig’s confessions. AGBM, ii. 452,470. However, Reichart’s activity appears not to square with Müntzer’s condemnation of Reichart for dismissing the Sangerhausen refugees in his letter to Zeiss on 22 July, Franz, GA, 416–17, 419–20, or with Müntzer’s accusation of treachery against Reichart and other councillors after he quit Allstedt, ibid., 433. This discrepancy has been recognised byBensing, ‘Idee und Praxis’, 330–1 n. 32, who suggests that the ductus of Müntzer’s letters to Zeiss may refer to two different Reicharts. This is doubtful. What is now certain, however, is that he was not identical with Müntzer’s printer, as hitherto believed. Cf. Bräuer, Siegfried, ‘Hans Reichart, der angebliche Allstedter Drucker Müntzers’, Zcitschrifl für Kirchengeschichle, lxxxv (1974), 389–98Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ AGBM ii. 452, 470. The context leaves little doubt that the league was formed in the thick of rebellion, for its members then flocked to Müntzer’s army in Mühlhausen.

⁷⁹ It is hard to accept that the violent anticlericalism displayed either here or in the expropriation of Pfaffenrode’s sheep farm by the newly elected Eternal Council amounted to ‘einen revolutionären Bruch des Feudaleigentums’, as maintained by Günther, G., ‘Bemerkungen zum Thema “Thomas Müntzer und Heinrich Pfeiffer in Mühlhausen”’, in Heitz, G., Laube, A., Steinmetz, M., Vogler, G. (eds), Der Bauer im Klassenkampf. Studien zur Geschichle des deutschen Bauernkrieges und der bäuerlichen Klassenkämpfe im Spätfeudalismus, Berlin 1975, 177Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ According to the Mühlhausen chronicle, Franz, GA, 499. Bensing, Müntzer, 110f, argues that Müntzer marched to Volkenroda instead of joining the expedition to Salza, but Elliger, Müntzer, 703f, concludes that after camping overnight at Höngeda on 26 April, Müntzer set off for the abbey the next morning. Van Dülmen, Reformation, 148, ignores Elliger on this point.

⁸¹ This does not imply that all 400 were league members, but it indicates the swell of support for Müntzer’s cause after the initial enrolment.

⁸² Gess, ii. 178–9, 245–6; cf. 523–4. Müntzer’s presence is attested by the statements of captured peasants from Merxleben. Franz, GA, 457.

⁸³ AGBM, ii. 8 4 3 ; cf. Bensing, Müntzer, 113.

⁸⁴ AGBM, ii. 936; cf. Bensing, Müntzer, 113. He alleges that their first intention was to head for the Eichsfeld, ibid., 114–15. Elliger, Müntzer, 709 and n. 61, claims that the evidence for that is very tangential.

⁸⁵ Franz, Quellen, 500. For the debate in Ebeleben, cf. Jordan, R., ‘Pfeifers und Münzers Zug in das Eichsfeld und die Verwüstung der Klöster und Schlösser’, Zeitschrift des Vereins für thüringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde, N.S. xiv (1904), 47ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁶ These demands do not survive in an original list of articles, but can be reconstructed from the demands presented to Count Günther of Schwarzburg when he appeared in the rebels’ camp on 2/3 May (Gess, ii. 336 n. 1), and from Zeiss’s report to Christoph Meinhard on 5 May, AGBM, ii. 202–4; cf. Franz, Quellen, 511–13.

⁸⁷ It is worth noting that Zeiss’s report plays down Müntzer’s role: he h a d not yet arrived at the camp, and there were several other preachers amongst the rebels who adhered to Luther rather than Müntzer. AGBM, ii. 203.

⁸⁸ Cf. the statements of captured peasants from Merxleben, Franz, GA, 457, and Müntzer’s ‘A highly justified apology’, composed in late 1524. Ibid., 322.

⁸⁹ Ibid., 459–60.

⁹⁰ AGBM, ii. 235–6.

⁹¹ Bensing, Müntzer, 170–1.

⁹² Enumerated in van Dülmen, Reformation, 158–9. He includes Ringleben, which in fact appealed to the Frankenhausen army for help on t4 May, not vice versa. AGBM, ii. 284.

⁹³ Cf. Franz, GA, 462–72.

⁹⁴ Engels, Frederick, The Peasant War in Germany, London 1969 edn, 129Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Rupp, ‘Müntzer’, 302.

⁹⁶ Franz, GA, 548.

⁹⁷ Gess, ii. 198–200, no. 953. (Hans and Hartmann von Goldacker, lords of Ufhoven near Langensalza, to Duke George of Saxony, 7 May 1525.) The Goldackers complained that on 30 April their peasant subjects returned drunken and incoherent from the peasant army:’ verlangen verschiedentlich, sie wollen dies oderjenes haben, denn alles sei gemein, wyewols dy artikel nicht mytbringen’. Ibid., 200. That the Twelve Articles are meant is revealed a few lines earlier where the captains demanded that the two Goldackers pledge to defend the Gospel and accept the ‘Twelve Articles which the Black Forest peasants have printed’. The report makes clear that the peasants had heard about the Articles when visiting the Werra troop; there is no connection with the Mühlhauseners’ march to Salza on 26 April.

⁹⁸ For this distinction cf. Scott, ‘Waldshut’, part 11. 166f. Idem, ‘The Peasants' War: a historiographical review’, part 11, Historical Journal, xxii (1979), 957fGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁹ AGBM, ii. 228.

¹⁰⁰ Gess, ii. 164–5, no. 912 abd 167–0, no. 915.

¹⁰¹ The Sangerhausen official rather doubted whether the Twelve Articles did in fact apply much to Thuringian conditions. Ibid., 171–2, no. 919 and 172–3, no. 920.

¹⁰² This is not the only example. On 24 April the ‘Evangelic Brotherly League’ of the Schwarzburg peasants sought to compel the town of Blankenburg to adopt the Twelve Articles. AGBM, ii. 100–1; cf. Franz, Quellen, 504.

¹⁰³ Günther, ‘Müntzer und Pfeiffer’, 180. In his confession Georg Schwertfeger, Pfeiffer’s brother, stated that as far as he knew Müntzer’s and his brother’s plans had been identical. AGBM, ii. 753. Cf. Bensing, Müntzer, 81.

¹⁰⁴ Paterna, E., Da stunden die Bergkleule auff. Klassenkämpfe der mansfeldischen Bergarbeiter im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert und ihre ökonomischen und sozialen Ursachen, Berlin 1960, i. 204Google Scholar; Bensing, Müntzer, 173fT.

¹⁰⁵ AGBM, ii. 891, 230. Cf. Paterna, Bergkleute, 208; Bensing, Müntzer, 174ff.

¹⁰⁶ Paterna, Bergkleute, 208, believes that scores of miners flocked to Frankenhausen, but his sources (AGBM, ii. 378, 738–9) hardly bear him out. Bensing, Müntzer, 182, blames the failure of the Mansfeld miners as a whole to rally to Frankenhausen before Müntzer’s arrival on the ‘gemässigten Kräfte’ in the peasants’ camp. This argument is most unsatisfactory.

¹⁰⁷ A. Laube, ‘Zum Problem des Bundnisses von Bergarbcitern und Baucrn im deutschen Bauernkrieg’, in Heitz el at., Der Bauer im Klassenkampf, 107.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., 105–6.

¹⁰⁹ Cf G. Maron, ‘Thomas Müntzer als Theologe des Gerichts. Das “Urteil”-ein Schlüsselbegriff seines Denkens’, in Friesen and Goertz, Müntzer, 366.

¹¹⁰ Cf. Brendler, G., ‘Zur Bedeutung bürgerlicher Radikalität für Ideologic und Aktion Thomas Müntzers’, in Kossok, M. (ed.), Rolle und Formen der Volksbewegung im bürgerlichen Revolutionszyklus, Glashütten im Taunus 1976, 14–15Google Scholar. Cf. also, idem, ‘Idee und Wirklichkeit bei der Durchsetzung der Volksreformation Thomas Müntzers in Mühlhausen (Februar bis April 1525)’, in Kossok, M. and Laube, A. (eds), Der deutsche Bauernkrieg. Geschichte, Traditionen, Lehren (Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR: Schriften des Zentralinstituts für Geschichte, lvii) Berlin 1977, 86Google Scholar. In a non-Marxist sense, cf. van Dülmen, Reformation, 166.

¹¹¹ Marxists have, however, argued that, in a period of relatively underdeveloped popular consciousness, Müntzer was able to replace the missing hegemonic class (i.e. the revolutionary proletariat). Bensing, Müntzer, 251; Steinmetz, M., ‘Thomas Müntzer in der Forschung der Gegenwart’, Zeilschrift für Geschichtswissenschafl, xxiii (1975), 681Google Scholar. The blame for his failure is consequently shifted on to ‘die unausgereiften objektiven und subjektiven Bedingungen’. Bensing, Müntzer, 249.