Handmaiden of the State? the Church in Imperial Russia Reconsidered

The Journal of Ecclesiastical History

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 1985, Pages 82-102

  Freeze, G L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84974308607     PISSN: 00220469     EISSN: 14697637     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0022046900023964     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Foreign, chiefly Catholic, publications played an important role in shaping this conception of the Petrine church reforms. See, for example, the discussion and references in G. L. Freeze, ‘Introduction’, in Jean Gagarin, The Russian Clergy, Newtonville, Massachusetts 1978 (reprint), pp. i-viii.
2. Most general histories, in fact, hardly mention the Church after the Petrine reform in 1721. See, for example, such typical Western accounts as M. T. Florinsky, Russia: a history and an interpretation, 2 vols., New York 1955, and even the more sympathetically inclined N. V. Riasanovsky, History of Russia, Oxford 1969. This stricture applies no less to Soviet scholarship; typical is the treatment accorded in Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Istoriia SSSRs drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, r-aia seriia (6 vols.), Moscow 1966–8.
3. Igor Smolitsch, Geschichte der russischen Kirche, Leiden 1964.
4. Richard Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime, London 1974, 221–45.
5. To quote the chief conclusion of the classic study of the Petrine reforms: ‘The essence of the Petrine reform consisted. in the fact that Peter deprived the Russian Church of its unique and independent existence as a distinct juridical institution, and brought it into the body of the Russian state structure and administration as an integral component.,. The reform made the Church a servant of the state. ’ P. V. Verkhovskoi, Uchrezhdenie Dukhovnoi kollegii i dukhovnyi reglament, 2 vols., Rostov-on-Donu 1916, 1. 684–5. That view is echoed in subsequent Western literature; see, for example, J. Clarkson, A History of Russia, New York 1961, 368; Riasanovsky, op. cit., 257; and P. Miliukov, C. Seignobos, L. Eisenmann, eds., History of Russia, 3 vols., New York 1968, i. 322. The same interpretation pervades Soviet works; see, for example, the account in N. A. Smirnov (ed.), Tserkov vistorii Rossii (IX v.-1917 g.), Moscow 1967, 162–82.
6. The standard account of the Petrine era is R. Wittram, Peter I, Czar und Kaiser, 2 vols., Gottingen 1964.
7. Verkhovskoi, op. cit.
8. 11Cracraft, op. cit., ix.
9. A. V. Muller, ‘The historical antecedents of the Petrine Ecclesiastical Reform’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington 1973; K. Appel, Die Auseinandersetzung um die kirchliche Gerichtsbarkeit in Moskauer Ruβland 1649–1701, Berlin 1966 (Phil. Dissertation). See, especially, the critique of traditional views in R. Stupperich, ‘ Ursprung, Motive und Beurteilung der Kirchenreform unter Peter dem Großen’, Kirche im Osten, 17 (1974), 42–61.
10. See, in particular, the accounts in G. V. Florovskij, Puli russkogo bogosloviia, Paris 1937, and James Cracraft, ‘Feofan Prokopovich’, in J. G. Garrard (ed.), The Eighteenth Century in Russia, Oxford 1973, 75–105.
11. See A. V. Kartashev, ‘K voprosu o pravoslavii Feofana Prokopovicha’, Sbornik statei v chest D. F. Kobeko, St Petersburg 1913, 225–37.
12. P. Hauptmann, Die Katechismen der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche. Entstehungsgeschichte und Lehrgehalt, Göttingen 1971; Hans-Joachim Härtel, Byzantinische Erbe und Orthodoxie bei Feofan Prokopovich, Würzburg 1970.
13. Pipes, The Old Regime 222.
14. Polnoe sobranie postanovlenii i rasporiazkenii po vedomstvu pravoslavnogo ispovedaniia,, 10 vols., St Petersburg 1869–1916, i. no. 1.
15. Apart from the abundant materials in Polnoe sobranie postanovlenii i rasporiazhenii po vedomstvu pravoslavnogo ispovedaniia, see G. L. Freeze, The Russian Levites: parish clergy in the eighteenth century, Cambridge, Mass. 1977, 37—41.
16. Significantly, the chief procurator's archive for the eighteenth century is indexed in a single volume; in the mid-nineteenth century, when he had a separate chancellery at his disposal, each year his apparatus generated a thick volume to register archival materials (opisi for Kantseliariia Oberprokurora in Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii archiv SSSR [hereafter cited as TsGIA SSSR], fond 797). For the personal difficulties encountered by a conscientious chief procurator, who had to study long and hard to make sense of church law and practice, see the memoirs of Ia. P. Shakhovskoi, Zapiski, St Petersburg 1872, 40–1. For a superficial overview, with references to the literature and limited use of archival materials, see the traditional account in F. V. Blagovidov, Ober-prokurog Sv. Sinoda v XVIII i pervoi polovine XIX st., 2nd edn, Kazan 1900.
17. Clarkson, History of Russia, 214.
18. Quite apart from the fact that the inquisitorss were a short-lived experiment, it was the Synod - not the chief procurator - who made all these decisions: for the actual tenor of relations in the nineteenth century, sec G. L. Freeze, The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: crisis, reform, counter-reform, Princeton 1983, esp. 12–22, 195–200, 298–301, 308–47, 398–448.
19. See, especially, I. A. Bulygin, ‘Tserkovnaia reforma Petra I’, Voprosy istorii, 1974, no. 5, 79-93.
20. I. A. Bulygin, Monastyrskie krest'iane v period pervoi chetverti 18 5., Moscow 1977.
21. N. N. Pokrovskii, Antifeodal'nyi protest uralo-sibirskikh krestian-staroobriadtsev v XVIII v., Novosibirsk 1974, esp. 8–10.
22. N. D. Zol'nikova, Soslovnye problemy vo vzaimootnosheniiakh tserkvi 1 gosudarstva v Sibiri (XVIII v.), Novosibirsk 1981, ch. 1.
23. With few exceptions (such as Kozlov's dissertation on the Petrine church reforms), virtually all Soviet research on the Church has focused upon its landholding and economic relations to ecclesiastical peasants; only rarely and tangentially do such works consider the Church itself. Typical of such research are the following: G. I. Slesarchuk, Khoziaistvo i krest'iane suzdal'skogo Spaso-Evfimieva Monastyria v pervoi chetverti XVIII v., Kandidatskaia dissertatsiia, Moscow 1955; A. I. Shabanova, ‘Klassovaia bor'ba krest'ian v votchine Aleksandro-Svirskogo monastyria nakanune sekuliarizatsii (50-e-nachalo 60-kh godov XVIII v.)’, Vestnik Leningradskogo Gosudarsivennogo Universiteta, Seriia: istoriia, 1966, no. 3; I. A. Bulygin, ‘Krest'iane vologodskogo Spaso-Prilutskogo monastyria v pervoi polovine XVIII v.’ Agrarnaia istoriia Evropeiskogo Severa SSSR, Vologda 1976; and A. E. Cheukonova, Votchinnoe khoziastvo i krest'iane v kontse XVII-pervoi chetverti XVIII v. (Po materialam Donskogo monastyria) Kandidatskaia dissertatsiia, Moscow 1979. For the period between 1764 and 1900 Soviet scholarship has produced virtually nothing, at least of serious intent, on the history of the Russian Church; the backward state of research in this field is painfully evident in the collection of essays published in 1967 (Smirnov, Tscrkov'v Rossii). Only with the onset of the twentieth century is more attention given to the Church; see the discussion and references in G. L. Freeze, ‘A case of stunted anticlericalism: clergy and society in imperial Russia’, European Studies Review, 13 (1983), 177–200.
24. Regrettably, the secularization of Church lands and peasants in 1764 has not been the subject of specialized research even by Soviet historians, who should find the topic compatible with their traditional lines of inquiry. The only monograph is the dated, unsatisfactory study by A. A. Zav'ialov, Vopros 0 tserkovnykh imeniiakh pri Imp. Ekaterine 2, St Petersburg 1900.
25. M. Gorchakov, Monastyrskii prikaz, St Petersburg 1868; Bulygin, Monastyrskie krest'iane, ch. 1.
26. The unsatisfactory state of monastery incomes prior to 1764 had particularly serious repercussions for the seminaries, which lacked secure and regular support. See, for example, N. Malitskii, Istoriia Vladimirskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 3 vols., Vladimir 1900–2, i. 9-24,66-77, 106–8, and D. Agntsev, Istoriia Riazanskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 1724–1840 gg., Riazan 1889, 60–1. By mid-century, moreover, the Church encountered increasing difficulty in its relationship to subordinate peasants; the increasing incidence of peasant disorders on ecclesiastical properties became in fact one of the major motives behind secularisation in 1764. See P. K. Alefirenko, Kreset'ianskoe dvizhenie i krest'ianskii vopros v Rossii v 30-30-kh godakh XVIII v., Moscow 1958.
27. For references to published and archival materials on this issue, in which the Synod's will ultimately prevailed, see Freeze, Parish Clergy, 195, 197, 235.
28. See Freeze, Russian Levitts, 120–36.
29. Conversely, the clergy were spared - in contrast to pre-secularisation times - conflicts with the laity over feudal dues and land ownership. As a result, anticlerical conflicts remained a great rarity in pre-revolutionary Russia. Thus, a study of eight provinces in south-west Russia demonstrated that incidents involving clergy constituted only one per cent of all peasant disorders for the period 1860–90 (N. N. Leshchenko, ‘Osnovnye etapy, napravlennost’ i formy klassovoi bor'by v Ukrainskoi derevne v epokhu domonopolisti-cheskogo kapitalizma, Ezhegodnik po agramoi istorii Vostochnoi Evropy za 1971 god, Vilnius 1974, 223–40). Even in the revolutionary year, 1905, only 350 of the 38,188 parishes in the empire adopted anticlerical resolutions (L. I. Emeliakh, AntikUrikal'noe dvizhenie krest'ian v pervoi russkoi revoliutsii, Moscow and Leningrad 1965, 19; Vsepoddanneishii otchet Ober-Prokrurora Sv. Sinoda po vedomstvu pravoslavnogo ispovedaniia za 1903–04, St Petersburg 1904, appendix 6). Similarly, only 0.5 per cent of all agrarian disorders (33 of 7,165 reported incidents) in 1905 were directed against the clergy (S. Dubrovskii, Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v revoliutsii 1905-oj gg. Moscow 1956, 65).
30. See G. L. Freeze, ‘ Die Kirche, Sittlichkeit und Sozialstruktur in Rußland in der ersten Hälftedes ig.Jahrhunderts’, unpublished paper presented to the colloquium of the Institut furosteuropäischeGeschichteund Landeskunde, Universitat Tübingen, 7 December 1983.
31. The Church's legal status had a profound impact upon its social teachings, which remained singularly underdeveloped until the second half of the nineteenth century. For the crucial change in attitudes at that time, see Julia Oswalt, Kirchliche Gemeinde und Bauembefreiungy Gottingen 1975, and G. L. Freeze, ‘Theologie und Politik in RuBland in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts: Die Laisierung von Archimandrit Feodor (Bucharev)’, forthcoming in Kirche im Osten xxviii (1985). For a substantially different process, involving earlier and more far-reaching secularisation of the Church's theology and functions, see P. M. Zulehner, Säkularisientng von Gesellschaft, Person und Religion. Religion und Kirche in Osterreich, Vienna 1973.
32. This restriction applied both to implementation of existing law (requiring concerted action by the Synod and pertinent ministry) and to modification of existing statutes (requiring approval from the emperor or, in most cases, the State Council). For specific cases of such interaction in the first half of the nineteenth century, see Freeze, Parish Clergy, 73-75, 90.
33. Leskov's analysis, based chiefly upon the memoirs of F. F. Ismailov, underlie the treatment in such works as D. W. Edwards, ‘ Orthodoxy during the reign of Nicholas i: a study in Church-State relations’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Kansas State University, 1967, and idem., ‘The system of Nicholas I in Church-State relations’, in T. Stavrou and R. L. Nichols (eds.), Russian Orthodoxy under the Old Regime, Minneapolis 1978, 154–69.
34. For details, see Freeze, Parish Clergy, ch. 7 and 9.
35. For a summary account, see A. V. Muller, ‘The inquisitorial network of Peter the Great’, in Stavrou and Nichols, op. cit., 141–53.
36. Although the Synod periodically discussed the need for regular inspection (chiefly by another prelate), nothing ever came of such proposals. The single major reform concerned ecclesiastical schools, which in 1808–14 were subjected to a system of regular outside inspection and supervision. See Freeze, Parish Clergy, 105–6, for discussion and references.
37. TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 84, g. 1803, d. 799, 1. 6 ob. (Zapiska Iakovleva, 1803).
38. Proekt preobrazovaniia dukhovno-sudebnoi chasti: obiasnitel'naia zapiska,, St Petersburg 1873; TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 445, d. 409.
39. Anonymous denunciations reached all the chief procurators, yet they were relatively few in number and form a modest part of the official archive. Under K. P. Pobedonostsev denunciations sharply proliferated and form a substantial part of his personal archive in TsGIA SSSR, f. 1574, op. 2.
40. Such sensitivity was especially apparent among Orthodox publicists like A. N. Murav'ev, who tried to rebut Catholic propagandists but admitted that it was sometimes difficult, especially with regard to the question of domination by the state. See, for example, his letter to M. P. Pogodin in 1859 in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 205, d. 603, 11. 1–15.
41. See, for example, ‘Zapiski Kn. N. A. Orlova’, Russkaia starina, 31 (1881), 77–93, and various memoranda by the influential P. A. Valuev, such as that in TsGIA SSSR, f. 908, op. 1, d. 112, 11. 1–4.
42. Freeze, Russian Levitts, 37–41, 182–90.
43. Freeze, Parish Clergy, 164–71.
44. For the resolution on Pugachev, see TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 205, d. 74,1. 7; for the characterisation of Napoleon Bonaparte as foe of peace and apostate, see the Synodal resolution of 1806 in TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 87, g. 1806, d. 677. For the Church's role in preparing the emancipation manifesto of 1861, see: TsGIA SSSR, f. 797, op. 30, otd. 1, st. 2, d. 278; I. Gurskaia, ‘Tserkov’ in reforma 1861 g., Krasnyiarkhivtlii (1935), 182-90: R. Stupperich, ‘Die russische Kirche bei der Verkündigung der Bauernbefreiung’, Jakrbücher für die Geschichte Osteuropas, 13 (1965), 321–30.
45. In 1818 the emperor authorised the Church to report landlords who coerced their serfs to work on Sundays and church holidays; evidently because so many reports and conflicts ensued, the order was soon rescinded (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 99, g. 1818, d. 56). Although Church authorities thereafter were more circumspect, they did not cease to complain-especially in their annual reports-that such practices were highly detrimental to the religious wellbeing of the people. Only in the case of squires in the western provinces, who were Catholic, did the bishops act more aggressively, attributing not only economic but religious motives to such exploitation of the peasantry.
46. ibid.,f. 796, op. 131, g. 1850, d. 571).
47. See, for example, the three-volume set of sermons published by the Synod in 1776 for the clergy to read on Sundays and feastdays: Gavriil (Petrov) and Platon (Levshin), Sobranie raznykh pouchenii na vse voskresnye i prazdnichnye dni, Moscow 1776.
48. For particularly striking examples, see the archival files on Vladimir diocese in 1827 and Velikii Ustiug in 1848 (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 108, g. 1827, d. 345; ibid., op. 129, g. 1848, d. 243).
49. For an exhaustive account of the clergy's role in the Pugachev Rebellion of 1773–5, with abundant evidence culled from archival sources on the parish clergy's support of the insurgents, see I. Z. Kadson, Krest'ianskaia voina 1773–75 gg. i tserkov”, Kandidatskaia dissertatsiia, Leningrad 1963; for a brief analysis based on published sources, see Dorothea Peters, ‘Politische und gesellschaftliche Vorstellungen in der Aufstandsbewegung unter Pugačev (1773-1775) ’, Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte, xvii (1973), 129–32. For the clergy's role in peasant disorders at the outset of Paul's reign, see the pertinent documents (in Polnoe sobranie postanovienii i rasporiazhenii po dukhovnomu vedomstvu: Tsarstvovanie Pavla Petrovicha, St Petersburg 1915, nos. 53, 91, 103, 167, 363) and discussion in Freeze, Russian Levites, 181–2. For a similar eruption at the outset of Nicholas's reign in 1826, see: TsGIA SSSR, f. 797, op. 3, d. 10043; ibid., f. 796, op. 107, g. 1826, d. 460; and Polnoe sobranie postanovlenii i rasporiazhenii po dukhovnomu vedomstvu: Tsarstvovanie Imp. Nikolaia Pavlovicha, St Petersburg 1915, no. 56.
50. See, for instance, Pipes's statement that the clergy were ‘ transformed in the eighteenth century into something very close to chinovniki’ (Pipes, The Old Regime, 243).
51. I. S. Belliustin, Opisanie seV skogo dukhovenstva, Leipzig 1858, 154-155; TsGIA SSSR, fond 804 (Osoboe prisutstvie po delam pravoslavnogo dukhovenstva), op. 1, razd. 1, d. 31, 11. 16-17; d. 55) I. 20ob.; d. 59, 11. 53-7; razd. 3, d. 325, 1. 116 (reform commentaries from diocesan authorities in Nizhnii-Novgorod, Mogilev, Kiev and Riga).
52. See the recent analysis by Erich Bryner, Der geistliche Stand in Ruβand. Sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Episkopat und Gemeindegeistlichkeit der russischen orthodoxen Kirche im 18. Jahrhundert, Göttingen 1982, 30–1, and the older study by K. V. Kharlampovich, Malorossiiskoe vliianie na velikorusskuiu tserkovnuiu zhizn, Kazan 1914, 459 and passim.
53. Bryner, op. cit., 26-66; Freeze, Parish Clergy, 24–7, 393, 442–3.
54. Indicative was the bishops attitude toward ecclesiastical schools and seminaries: although since their inception they were supposed to educate all the clergy's sons, it became increasingly clear that the Church thereby sacrificed quality and standards-it simply lacked the resources to maintain good schools for the entire clerical estate. For the prelate reluctant shift of opinion and their decision to seek smaller but better seminaries, see the candid reform discussions of the 1860s in B. V. Titlinov, Dukhovnaia shkola v Rossii v XIX st.y 2 vols., Vil'na, 1908–9, 2. 300–420.
55. For data on the extremely high frequency of transfer, see Freeze, Parish Clergy, 443n; for service lists of bishops showing such frequent transfers, see Spisok arkhiereev i ierarkhov vserossiiskikh i arkheograficheskikh kafedr Sq vremeni uchrezhdeniia Sv. Sinoda, St Petersburg 1896.
56. Apart from the various medals and honours that the emperor began to confer from the late eighteenth century, the most significant reward was promotion from bishop (episkop) to the higher, more prestigious ranks of archbishop (arkhiepiskop) and metropolitan (mitropolit), which were personal titles and only loosely correlated with the status of a particular diocese.
57. See, for example, ‘Zapiska A. N. Murav'eva o sostoianii pravoslavnoi tserkvi v Rossii’, Russkii arkhiv, 1883, no. 3, book 2, 175–203, and an anonymous memorandum, ‘O peremeshchenii episkopov’, in Otdel rukopisei, Gosudarstvennaia biblioteka im. V. I. Lenina, f. 214, d. 63, 11. 12–19.
58. See, for example, the difficulties encountered by even so imperious a chief procurator as K. P. Pobedonostsev, described in Freeze, Parish Clergy, 440–4.
59. Freeze, Russian Levites, 26-34; Freeze, Parish Clergy, 5–10.
60. For an instructive case study, see John M. Stroup, ‘The struggle for identity in the clerical estate: Northwest German Protestant opposition to absolutist policy in the eighteenth century’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Yale University 1980.
61. For discussion and references, see Freeze, Parish Clergy, 125–33, 199–200, 220–4, 319–29.
62. See, for example, the government's negative response to plans to bestow various medals and honours in the early 1870s (TsGIA SSSR, f. 804, op. 1, razd. 3, d. 473, 11. 1-5).
63. For the clergy's persisting economic difficulties, see the declaration of clerical deputies to the State Duma in 1915 in ‘Pechat’ in dukhovenstvo, Missionerskoe obozrenie, 1915, no. 11, 286–96, and an official report prepared under the auspices of the Synod [E. Petrovskii], Istoricheskaia zapiska kasatel'no sposobov obcspecheniia soderzhaniem pravoslavnogo prikhodskogo dukhovenstva v Rossii za sinodal'nyiperiod upravleniia russkoiu tserkoviu, St Petersburg 1910.
64. For analysis and references, see Freeze, Parish Clergy, 51–101.
65. Thus by 1860 Church records show that 83% of all priests in the empire held a seminary degree; in most central dioceses the proportion was still higher, approaching 100% in some dioceses (TsGIA SSSR, f. 796, op. 142, g. 1861, d. 2379).
66. For the surfeit of candidates by the mid-nineteenth century, see Freeze, Parish Clergy, 164–71.
67. For a good example of this anti-episcopal spirit, see the case of I. S. Belliustin treated in G. L. Freeze, ‘Revolt from below: a priest's manifesto on the crisis in Russian orthodoxy’, in Stavrou and Nichols, Russian Orthodoxy, 90–124.
68. Most indicative was the bishops concerted-and successful-effort to defeat D. A. Tolstoi's plans for reform of ecclesiastical justice; see Freeze, Parish Clergy, 401–4.
69. For the experiment in episcopal councils in 1884–5, see ibid., 444–7.
70. Pipes's assertions-that the clergy ‘showed little interest in educating its flock’, and that it did so in the 1860s only ‘on orders of the state’ (The Old Regime, 243)-are quite erroneous. In fact, the clergy spontaneously developed a broad network of parish schools in the late 1850s and over the next decade began to lose interest, precisely because the state refused to provide the necessary economic support. Only in the 1880s, not the 1860s, did the regime finally commit itself to the support of parish schools. For a thorough discussion, see the older monograph by F. V. Blagovidov, Deiatel'nostrusskogo dukhovenstva v otnosshenii k narodnomu obrazovaniiu v tsarstvovanie imp. Aleksandra II, Kazan 1891.
71. See, above all, the ‘organ of the parish clergy’, Tserkovno-obshchesivennyi vestnik, published in St Petersburg from 1874 to 1886 and distinguished by its enormous popularity among the rank-and-file clergy.
72. The status of episcopal opinion is recorded in documents compiled for a pre-sobor council in 1905–6. These materials have been analysed in a large number of recent studies: J. Meyendorff, ‘Russian bishops and church reform in 1905’, in Stavrou and Nichols, Russian Orthodoxy, 170-82; James Cunningham, A Vanquished Hope: The movement for church renewal in Russia,1905-1906, Crestwood, New York 1981; P. E. Immekus, Die Russisch-Orthodoxe Landpfarrei zu Beginn des XX. Jahrhunderts nach den Gutachten der Diozesanbischofe, Würzburg 1978. For the episcopal role in 1917, see: A. V. Kartashev,‘Revoliutsiia i sobor 1917“1918 gg. ’, Bogoslovskaia mysl' (1942), 75-101; R. Rössler, Kircke und Revolution in Ruβand, Köln 1969.
73. For the best recent account, see John H. M. Geekie, ‘The church and politics in Russia, a study of the political behaviour 1900-1917 of the Russian Orthodox clergy in the reign of Nicholas n’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of East Anglia, 1976, esp. pp. 53–174. Also of value are the following: N. S. Gordienko and P. K. Kurochkin, ‘Liberal no-obnovlencheskoe dvizhenie v russkom pravoslavii nachala XX v.’, Voprosy nauchnogo ateizma, vii (1969), and the older but still useful monograph by John S. Curtiss, Church and State in Russia: the last years of the empire, New York 1940.
74. Pravda Bozh'ia, 1906, no. 1, p. 2.
75. Tserkovno-obshchestvennaia zhizn, 1906, no. 31 (21 July), 1054.