Source catalogue

A letter to the magistrate and residents of Lwów. Khmelnytsky declares that he did not desire the shedding of Christian blood, mentions the defeat of the Crown forces at Gródek, and demands a quick response and submission. The exact wording of several sentences requires further reading.

A renewed call for a declaration and surrender; a promise to preserve freedom and property, a mention of Muscovite troops and previous privileges.

A call for the city to submit and a refusal to hand over hostages to secure the travel of his delegation. A promise to preserve life and health upon showing humility.

Favorable reception of the city's delegation, an initial oral response, and a call for representatives to return the next morning. A discrepancy in the date header in the edition has been noted.

Postponing the response until the next day after a night council with all the military elders; a call for the city's delegation to return as early as possible in the morning.

Confirmation of keeping promises and a call to send envoys the next day.

Surprise at the interruption of negotiations and a request for a clear answer as to whether the city still wishes to talk.

Sending back the temporarily detained envoys and inviting them the next day for a final answer.

Sending back the envoys with written terms and awaiting a response to the submitted declaration.

Confirmation of delivering the declaration and terms to the city's delegates; a demand for a response the next day and readiness to consider requests.

News about the capture of Kraków by the Swedes; assurance of an alliance between the Cossacks, Muscovy, and the Swedes, and information about sending Mikołaj Grodzicki for talks.

Sending men for the agreed ransom ("honorarium"); an order for quick processing and for the city to send a dozen or so people.

The King asks Cardinal Virginio Orsini to obtain a judicial commission from the Pope in a dispute between the Mayor of Lwów and the Franciscans. The dispute arises from the detention of the perpetrator of a fatal wounding and the questioning of secular jurisdiction on charges of violating ecclesiastical immunity.

The King reminds the magistrate of the subsidy enacted by the Sejm and assigned to Lwów by universal. The treasury has not received the due payment, so the King renews the demand for the immediate transfer of 12,000 Polish zlotys, noting that he cannot waive this sum.

The Queen thanks Małachowski for his comments on her intended departure to fulfill her vow of pilgrimage to the Apostolic Thresholds. She promises gratitude at every opportunity. A French postscript speaks of respect and friendship and includes greetings for the addressee's wife.

The magistrate asks its envoys for intervention and advice regarding city forests, duties, Ruthenians conducting retail sales, confiscated fish, real estate, pastures, transport services, the investigation into debts owed to Gdańsk citizens, and Tatar rumors. The second part reports on the dispute over the execution of the ruling regarding the mill, the deposit of the sum of 1500, and the objections of the Hinks and Sieradzki. The authors complain about the conduct of the deputy starosta and the lack of constant legal aid; they announce further documents and send a copy of the letter from the Wisznia sejmik.

The magistrate reports that Mikołaj Wilczek severely wounded the surgeon Lorenc, which caused an uproar among the townspeople. It describes the deputy starosta's reluctance to help in detaining the perpetrator, the nobility's support for Wilczek, and the attempt to calm the situation. It asks for the matter to be presented to the king. It further discusses the non-issuance of the mill trial files, four protests, the dispute over the correct mode of execution, and seeking further legal advice. It mentions damage to herds and lands, the commission on Gdańsk debts, and the death of the old scribe Jan.

The councilors respond to the letter from the envoys dated in Warsaw on January 4. They ask for the matter with Mr. Paczek to be brought to an end, send documents, and 70 zlotys via the city scribe's servant Marcin. They urge the envoys to remain and prevent damage to city interests.

Lwów seeks the voivode's support before the royal court in a dispute with Stanisław Szembek. According to the councilors, the city bought the land for several thousand zlotys from the Crown cupbearer, while Szembek claims rights to it through his wife's predecessor (as defined in the letter). This is the argumentation of one of the parties, not a court verdict.

The councilors thank the marshal for his care of the Lwów envoys and ask him for support before the king in the dispute with Stanisław Szembek over land purchased by the city. They mention the previous rights of Szembek's wife's parents and the payment of several thousand zlotys. This is a parallel submission to letter 190 addressed to the voivode.

The councilors and commonalty of Lwów submit a declaration to the hetman regarding the college. The preserved paragraph mentions royal consent/decision and contains a request regarding the school or schoolmaster (reading uncertain), but not all conditions of the city's position can be read with certainty. A note on the reverse side gives November 16, 1607, and states that the hetman was not satisfied and returned the letter with anger.

Stanisław Kasperinus thanks the addressee for help in city matters. He mentions the death of the city syndic and his successor, support from the royal secretary, and the sending of document files for court disputes. He discusses the dispute against the butchers, in which a widow and Jesuit fathers appear, the appeal related to the Armenians and Kamieniec, and the need to support city matters. Uncertain names and surnames have been left with gaps.

The councilors of Lwów accuse the burgrave of sending castle haiduks, robberies, extorting services in the suburb, and violating city jurisdiction. They ask the starosta to reprimand him, provide satisfaction to the city, and stop these actions.

The councilors of Lwów describe the securing of Wyrzykowski's movable property, efforts regarding the escheat in the absence of proven relatives, and the return of the items after his return from the camp. They recommend using the receipt in defense against a later claim. They also send files for the case with the chapter, concerning the road and the object behind the Halicz Gate, asking for active defense and the return of the documents.

The councilors refer to royal privileges allowing them to present candidates for clergy to churches on city land. They ask the Bishop of Chełm for a pious priest, a supporter of the union, who will take over one of these churches. They want his quick arrival, preferably within two weeks, and promise protection and assistance.

The councilors send Wachlowicz the letter of the Crown instigator and instruct him to follow his advice in the dispute with the starosta of Łomża. They also ask to learn the instigator's opinion on the Tatar sum and to follow up on the lawsuit. Notes mention the delivery of documents and the messenger's costs; part of them remains unread.

The councilors maintain their readiness to provide the king with one hundred thousand zlotys in connection with the contract regarding the lease of the Lwów excise and Ruthenian customs. They explain that the departure of the Wąchock abbot and the enemy's actions delayed the negotiations. They ask the treasury administrator to allocate provisions for the Lwów garrison from this sum, as its lack threatens the city's security.

The councilors ask the royal secretary Jerzy Januszewicz for help at the court. They maintain their offer of one hundred thousand zlotys for the needs of the Republic, provided that the sum is settled by reducing the dues from the lease of the Lwów excise and Ruthenian customs. The dispatch of delegates was delayed by the danger of war. The city awaits a safe route and news about the king's whereabouts.

In view of the enemy approaching the city, the Lwów councilors ask the Grabowiec starosta Marek Matczyński for his support with the Grand Crown Hetman. They desire the arrival of soldiers with prepared means for their maintenance, a good commander, and help in purchasing ammunition and food, including from the city's beer and spirits tax. They also ask for letters to land officials so that they immediately issue taxes for the city's urgent needs.

The Lwów councilors ask the hetman to protect the municipal villages of Zubrza and Sichów and to exempt their subjects from the forced transport of oaks. They claim that the villages have already been devastated by the army and the rest of the inhabitants may leave. They propose using artillery carters who have horses and wagons.

The presidents of the Lwów council assure sub-judge Łoś that in the case of the Osmulska tenement house initiated by the Kaniów starosta, they will not allow any prejudice to his rights. They promise treatment in accordance with justice and the dignity of the addressee; the letter does not contain a resolution of the dispute.

Anikini questions the fines imposed by Lorendowicz on Szmuklerz and the second accused in the case of the alleged pregnancy of the former's daughter by his cousin. He claims that the pregnant woman's account points to another man and asks the voivode to mitigate the proceedings. He explains that he restrained those interested from immediately appealing to the recipient.

Anczewski thanks for the efforts, writes about goods, prices, and money circulation, as well as the stud farm and his domestic affairs. He conveys news regarding the chancellor, the trip to Gdańsk, and court offices. He asks for two pounds of good cinnamon.

The priest has been ill for a week. He reports an improvement but will remain in Lwów until he regains his strength and the roads improve. He regrets not listening to his benefactor; he promises gratitude and prayer.

A request to Forbes to send the remaining goods to Mościska: two chests tied with ropes and a third one requiring securing. The wax is to remain in the shop for now.

Jan Frideryk Becker explains to Artur Forbes the misunderstandings related to the mission of the servant Anton and contacts with Turkish merchants. He clarifies the issue of endorsing and executing a bill of exchange for 150 oxen with the possibility of payment in Świdnica or Gdańsk.

Johann Friedrich Becker thanks Artur Forbes for the dogs sent, discusses financial settlements, corrections to a debt document, and the matter of support for Daniel Zytkower. He also requests information regarding prices and the possibility of ordering and transporting goods from Gdańsk and wine to Jarosław and Stanisławów.

Jan F. Beker informs Artur Forbes about matters of ox trade, the fate of a bill of exchange for Teodor Czernowicz, and the collection of debts from the late Jurik, Daniel, and other debtors. He also conveys thanks for the news received and comments on reports of battles between imperial troops and the Turks and the plans of the Polish king.

Jan Fryderyk Beker informs Artur Forbes about his state of health, financial matters, and the ox trade, and intercedes on behalf of a merchant requesting cloth for the Jarosław fair. He also recommends Mr. Zygmunt Gutryt to finalize the cattle purchase transaction.

Jan Stanisław Bełżecki informs Franciszek Głogowski about the difficulties in matchmaking the Mielnik judge's daughter with Mr. Mikołaj due to her feelings for Mr. Komorzyński. He also reports rumors of a secret wedding in Lwów and advises against this marriage, which is mismatched in terms of age and wealth.

Belli had previously refused to accept the bill of exchange of the merchant Rosenrot from Gdańsk due to a lack of cash during urgent market matters. Now he is trying to collect the sum from local and foreign merchants and declares acceptance and future payment. The postscript concerns the difference/loss on thalers in Gdańsk and the lack of profit, but the exact demand is unclear.

Behm sends reports regarding the harm done to the hospital and asks the addressee for effective help in his interest. In a postscript, he awaits a response to earlier letters.

The hospital administrator complains about the seizure of land called Chmielnik and challenges the basis of the opponent's claims. He points to a contract regarding the field, rent, and legal documents; he asks the addressee to act in the interest of the poor. This is the position of one side of the dispute.

Behm thanks the addressee for taking the hospital's case under his care, sends documents, and announces the delivery of a report from the trial. He asks for actions among people who can represent the hospital, and mentions costs and fees. The letter itself does not contain a resolution of the dispute.

Behm informs about the documents needed in the hospital's dispute with Jędrzejowski. He polemicizes with the opposing party's mandates, which he considers unsupported by evidence, and announces a procedural response.

The author claims that the opponent has seized hospital lands and is forbidding the harvesting of crops. He asks the addressee for intercession with a person of higher rank. This is an accusation from the letter, without independent confirmation.

Behm reminds the addressee of the hospital's interest during the current court term. He writes about documents and a mandate aimed at the opponent, and asks for the urgent conduct of the case because it concerns the goods of the poor. He announces the sending of a further letter.

The author again asks for the protection of the hospital's land and income. He invokes a previously issued mandate and fears the dragging out of the trial; he mentions a summons to the Magdeburg court. A significant part of the text is similar to the earlier letter, but the date is different.

The prior acknowledges the obligation to appear before the assessor's court, but asks for the case to be resolved by the city council court to avoid costs. He wants commissioners appointed to view documents concerning the monastery's lands. Due to a recent urgent departure, he asks for a week to return, exemption from assessor deadlines, and consent for further construction until an amicable resolution, with the buildings to go to whoever is awarded the land.

The author presents grievances resulting from a dispute with the Lwów magistrate and asks the vice-senior to use his influence to settle the matter. He mentions actions against him in Warsaw and Lwów and paradoxically describes his status as both a councilor and a juror, as well as a person deprived of these functions. He asks for a clear response from the magistrate and the addressee, announcing that little time remains to make a decision. If the case goes to court, he reserves the importance of this letter. A later cover links the dispute to Secretary Czechowicz; the text of the letter itself does not allow for a certain determination of his role here.