Source catalogue

The sender addresses the Lviv magistrate and refers to a matter or letter transmitted through the recipients, asking that it be considered. The precise request is uncertain. Dated Warsaw, 22 March 1736.

The sender recommends Godfrey, a resident of Żółkiew, to the Lviv magistracy and asks them to consider his case favorably, appealing to Christian charity and describing his difficult circumstances. Some details are illegible. Dated Żółkiew, 24 April 1738.

The sender acknowledges a letter describing injuries resulting from improper jurisdiction and says these practices continue. Other details about the city remain uncertain. Dated Torczyn, 29 November 1737.

The sender forwards a letter for the Crown Cupbearer and refers to a case of violence or abuse before the civil court in Lviv. Details and final request are unclear. Dated Warsaw, 23 December 1736.

The sender presents to the magistrate a person described as a doctor, astronomer and geometer, and asks that his candidacy or services be received favourably. The recommended person’s name and parts of the grounds are illegible. The letter is dated Warsaw, 12 January 1736.

The sender writes to the proconsul and consuls, thanks them for their goodwill, and asks them to continue dealing favorably with a city matter. The exact request is partly illegible. Dated Żółkiew, 13 April 1738.

The sender responds to a complaint by a widow from Zubria, who says the magistracy has infringed her rights and established custom. He asks for a fair hearing and for the magistracy to prevent an injustice. Some legal details are uncertain. Dated Dresden, 6 August 1738.

The sender discusses a petition concerning the poor hospital at St Stanislaus’s church, its provisions and administration, and the need for action by the magistracy. The damaged page leaves parts illegible. The closing dateline indicates 24 April 1738, probably at Żółkiew.

A reply about a legal dispute, court jurisdiction, and further proceedings, mentioning the castle court and the Tribunal. Names and arguments remain uncertain. Dated Torczyn, 11 February 1737.

The letter mentions the previous week, a bishop, and matters concerning dietines and public affairs. Not all names and actions can be read securely. The closing gives 1 January 1703.

The letter responds to earlier correspondence; its subject remains poorly legible. The closing gives 5 February 1701. Page 44 carries an address.

The letter mentions a bishopric, correspondence, and officials; the rest is too uncertain to reconstruct its substance. The date on p. 3 gives Lublin, 12 April 1696. Page 4 bears folio 2, but its relation to the letter needs further verification.

The text concerns official matters and the Malbork general; references to the Chełmno Voivode and commissioners can be recognized. The notation on p. 32 may give 28 April and Heilsberg, but the year is uncertain.

References to a document and correspondence addressed to the recipient can be recognized, but the substance remains uncertain. Page 35 bears the notation 1699, which is not a dated letter notation.

The surviving text contains references to a Ruthenian matter, military personnel, and officials; some sentences are illegible. The date on p. 18 gives day 28 and probably May, but the year cannot be read.

The letter opens with “Monseigneur”; the remaining text concerns unidentified matters. The closing notes and date are illegible or uncertain.

The writer mentions news or an arrival from Wallachia, public expectations and petitions, and an audience. The brief text contains Latin insertions; not all details are legible. The date is 24 February 1703.

The writer says he lacks nothing, mentions travel and the road to Malbork, and addresses the recipient about further action. The date is clearly 31 January 1703; the place is uncertain.

The writer explains that he cannot stay longer, refers to matters “in spiritualibus et temporalibus,” and asks for the recipient’s continued goodwill. The text continues across pp. 58–59. The uncertain date inscription cannot be established.

The letter mentions a castellan and a case before a court; references to an accusation and evidence are also visible, but details are uncertain. The date appears to be 3 December 1701.

The writer discusses a matter requiring further legal action; the text contains Latin terms concerning proceedings and a reference to testimony or evidence. The details are only partly legible. The closing is dated at Malbork on 20 February 1703.

The text clearly concerns illness and health, but the specific course of events remains partly illegible. The date is 13 January 1703.

References to a cardinal, an instruction, and public affairs can be recognized, but the sentences are too uncertain to establish a specific decision. The date has not been read with confidence.

The writer discusses a general’s case and judicial matters; references to a judgment and law can be recognized, but some sentences are illegible. The date on p. 46 is 9 November 1701.

The letter mentions a commission and matters of the Sejm and administration, but the details of the actions and people remain uncertain. The closing date is 19 April 1696; the place cannot be read with confidence.

The letter to the Ruthenian Voivode concerns public affairs and official actions; references to a tax and the Sejm can be recognized on p. 22. The details cannot be reconstructed securely, and no date was read.

The text contains references to a commission, documents, and official actions, but the surviving sentences are uncertain. The closing date on p. 11 appears to be in April 1696; the day and year require confirmation.

The writer explains that he had no new subject to write about, but incoming reports prompted a reply; he mentions correspondence and the recipient’s affairs. Parts of pp. 70–72 are illegible. The date appears to be 24 July 1700; the place is tentatively read as Heilsberg.

The letter mentions General B(e)ulski/Bulski, the Malbork office, and military and public matters; the exact name and parts of the argument are uncertain. The closing date is 23 April 1701; the place may be Heilsberg, but this reading is uncertain.

The writer addresses the Ruthenian Voivode; the partly legible text concerns an official matter and correspondence. The closing date is read as 18 January 1703; the place is uncertain.

The letter to the Ruthenian Voivode contains references to the Malbork general, offices, and military matters. Details cannot be reconstructed securely; no date was read.

The writer explains that a sudden indisposition prevented him from acting or travelling, and mentions official business and correspondence. The closing date is legible: 19 February 1701; the place is uncertain.

The writer refers to dietines and actions taken in public affairs, and asks or urges the recipient to take further steps. Details are partly illegible. The date is 18 November 1702.

The sender writes that one of the people in his household has a succession case before the court or magistracy of Lviv. He asks the recipients to consider the case fairly and refers to details concerning rights or property that are partly illegible. The dateline begins “Na granicy …” (“At the border of …”), but the place, day and year could not be confidently read.

The sender addresses a Most Illustrious Lord and refers to a matter and a gospodar (estate manager/host), but the damaged, difficult text does not reveal the substance or a specific request. Date and place are illegible.

The sender discusses a contract and accounts and asks the recipient to act on the matter described. References to interest and dues appear, but the accounting cannot be reconstructed with confidence. The dateline gives 2 February 1703; the place is uncertain.

The sender discusses the recipient’s matter, mentioning a contract and obligations or dues. The text is difficult; the amount, parties to the contract, and requested decision cannot be established. The dateline is illegible.

The sender discusses accounts and settlements, mentioning dues and matters between the recipient and third parties. No reliable dateline is visible, and amounts and details of the accounting remain illegible.

The short leaf mentions the Popowicz family, a Jewish tenement in Lviv, and three current matters; their full course cannot be recovered. The dateline reads “in Przemyśl, 14 XI 1695”, and the signature identifies the suffragan of Przemyśl.

The sender addresses a high official and discusses a matter that includes a reference to a contract. The difficult text does not establish the full subject or a specific request. The dateline gives Thorn, 16 February 1702.

The sender presents a matter to the recipient and refers to his requests or prior actions. The long, difficult text mentions obligations and further proceedings, but the details cannot be reliably reconstructed.

The sender refers to correspondence with the recipient and mentions travel or the route from Toruń to Malbork, including distance and road conditions. He asks for a reciprocal reply or account; the details remain difficult to read. Dated 2 February 1703 at a place written “Helberga”.

The sender describes a matter and asks for the recipient’s further attention or help. A benefit or advantage and further handling are mentioned, but the fragmentary text does not establish the specific request.

The sender acknowledges the recipient’s letter and refers to his own return from Königsberg; he discusses a matter involving the recipient and further steps. The remaining text touches on administrative matters but is only partly legible. The dateline on p. 13 gives Elbląg, 11 February 1703 (not 3 February as in the working inventory).

Andrzej Zamoyski informs the Lviv magistracy of the king’s efforts for the common good of towns. He asks the magistracy to list, point by point, the grievances, unlawful acts and oppression suffered by the city, identifying those responsible. The information is to be sent by post so that he can seek remedies. Dated Warsaw, 17 January 1705.

Zamoyski writes to the magistracy about the case of Mr Klimonowicz against the Lipowiczowscy concerning debts owed to them. He says the dispute has remained unresolved and asks the magistracy to take it up and reach a just decision. Dated Warsaw, 29 September 1707.

Zamoyski addresses a matter presented by Bartłomiej Radna and stresses its importance for the welfare of the whole city. He mentions sums, debts or accounts, but the precise subject is partly illegible. The closing dateline gives Warsaw, 26 April 1706.

Zamoyski replies to a petition from the Lviv consuls concerning the city and its rights or magistrate proceedings. He calls for the matter to be presented or organized further; the specific subject of the petition is partly illegible. Dated Warsaw, 9 January 1706.

Zamoyski forwards a complaint by Mrs Bieniewska, who says that although she brought her case concerning a house before the local magistracy, she has been unable to obtain a decision. He asks the Lviv magistracy to investigate and resolve the matter justly. Dated Warsaw, 5 February 1706.

Zamoyski presents a complaint concerning Hilary Siegnio and the management of his estate. The letter speaks of the risk that the property will be squandered and of protecting the wife and children from poverty. The sender recommends appointing guardians to administer the entire estate and requiring them to submit accounts. Dated Warsaw, 26 April 1706.