Dantiscus has replied at length to Maciejowski’s letter of 3 June, addressing the discussions at the last Royal Prussian Diet concerning tax. He sent that letter through his nephew [Simon Hannau]. Provided matters unfold as he described at the time, he remains quite hopeful.

The opinion of the Royal Prussian Council regarding the coinage and the court appeal was not informed by the common good, but rather by current circumstances. Dantiscus is glad that he bears no responsibility, as he has demonstrated his loyalty to the king [Sigismund I Jagiellon]. He elaborates further on the matter in the enclosed leaf.

Dantiscus states that such extensive thanks are undeserved in his case. It is the recipient to whom all [the inhabitants of Royal Prussia] should show greater gratitude. He feels embarrassed that credit is being given to him for something that is in fact owed to the addressee.

Despite the opposition at the royal court, Dantiscus is happy that the king showed appreciation for the addressee by entrusting him with the bishopric of Płock. He expresses a conviction that enemies of righteous men will not escape their deserved punishment.

Dantiscus shares Maciejowski’s opinion that the proscribed Alexander [Sculteti] is heading toward ruin. Although he would prefer [Sculteti] to come to his senses, abandon his impiety, and cease inciting the people, Alexander stubbornly persists in his path to self-destruction. If there remains any piety in Rome, he will surely meet the fate he deserves.

Dantiscus thanks the recipient for the royal edicts that were sent to him. They arrived at just the right moment, as Dietrich von Rheden, an associate of the proscribed man, unexpectedly arrived from Rome. This is the same Rheden whose letters were found in Alexander’s small chest. He stopped in Königsberg and, as a canon of Ermland (Warmia), planned to visit the cathedral in Frauenburg (Frombork), but was discouraged by rumours about the edicts. Dantiscus expresses his indignation that Rheden, a canon, should seek support for the proscribed man from the [Lutheran] duke [Albert I von Hohenzollern].

The edicts have been proclaimed by the voivodes throughout Royal Prussia. The only one to disregard them was the voivode of Kulm (Chełmno) [Johann von Lusian (Jan Luzjański)], who is also derelict in his judicial responsibilities despite the many murders committed in the territory under his authority. One such incident even involved a royal courtier, Jabłonowski. Dantiscus has no doubt that complaints about this situation have already reached the king. He suggests that the king issue a warning to the voivode, perhaps through the son of the Kulm judge [Jerzy Plemięcki], whom Dantiscus recently recommended to Maciejowski. Unless a more diligent person is appointed to the office of voivode of Kulm, Dantiscus expects inevitable unrest, as Prussia is suffering constant incursions from Mazovia and the Dobrzyń Land as a result of the current voivode’s negligence.

Dantiscus was embarrassed to receive thanks from Maciejowski in his letter of 16 June for a gift he had sent him. He wishes the gift had been more lavish and more worthy of the recipient.

Dantiscus thanks Maciejowski for extending the validity of the safe conduct pass for the bearer of this letter, Hans Holsten. He notes that Holsten will likely be unable adequately to repay this kindness as he has been greatly impoverished as a result of legal proceedings. Nonetheless, Dantiscus hopes for Maciejowski’s continued support in Holsten’s inheritance case. In a similar dispute between citizens of Gdańsk (Danzig), he assures him that the parties could be persuaded to reach a settlement, as is customary when conflicting legal rights are invoked. [In this case,] Holsten is supported by the written Magdeburg law, derived from the Kulm law, while the opposing party relies on local custom. Although work is underway to restore the old [Kulm] law, this will not be achieved soon. Therefore, Dantiscus considers it fair that the parties should be compelled to settle their dispute at the [royal] court. He would like Maciejowski to persuade the king to issue an injunction to that effect. He also indicates that Holsten will personally present to Maciejowski his case against the Gdańsk city council. Finally, Dantiscus asks Maciejowski to extend the safe-conduct pass for Holsten further until he is fully cleared of all charges before the Council [of Royal Prussia].

He thanks Maciejowski for appointing Johann Stutte to the office of burgrave [of Gdańsk], as well as for forwarding to the Bishop of Kulm [Tiedemann Giese] the document [a royal letter to Duke Albrecht von Hohenzollern concerning the clarification of Dantiscus’s rights to part of the estate of Georg Langerbein, a priest from his diocese who died as an apostate].

He informs the recipient that [Gulielmus] Gnapheus has reportedly moved from Elbing (Elbląg) to Königsberg. If Gnapheus establishes a school there, Dantiscus believes that a royal mandate will be needed to prevent residents of Royal Prussia from flocking to it.

He thanks for the royal letter, which he delivered to Wolfgang Folder and his wife Barbara, along with his own letter to the Gdańsk city council containing recommendations regarding the announcement of the verdict. He has no further information on the matter but expects it to be successfully brought to a conclusion.

Dantiscus is glad that the king, under the addressee’s influence, did not rebuke his efforts regarding the tax matter. He promises to continue these efforts but wishes he had the same freedom to come and go as the voivodes and other officials of the [Royal Prussian] Council.

Dantiscus expresses satisfaction with Maciejowski’s decision to transfer the prebend in Gołąb, which he once held, to [Stanisław] Hozjusz.

Enclosed letter:

Dantiscus justifies the length of his letters to Maciejowski by the weight and number of issues he has to deal with in his role as president of the [Royal Prussian] Council.

Given that repeated admonitions to the duke have proved futile, Dantiscus’s opinion on the coinage has only had the effect of making everyone in both the Kingdom and Royal Prussia realize that the Hungarian guilder will soon be worth [merely] 50 groschen. As a result, prices are rising, and soon even the duke himself will no longer benefit from the abundance of minted coin because treasury revenues will decline in real terms. The cities [of Royal Prussia], seeing that over fifty mint workers are striking large quantities of bronze and silver coins daily for the duke, have concluded that they too may reopen their own mints once again. Dantiscus sees no other way to compel the duke to abandon this practice than by threatening him with the loss of his fiefdom, but he insists that it remain a secret that this suggestion came from him.

Dantiscus wishes to know the replies given by the duke to the addressee’s letters concerning matters that involve him, especially regarding the issue of appeals. He maintains that since subjects of the king of Poland cannot appeal against the duke’s judgments, then subjects of Duke Albrecht should likewise not have the privilege of appealing judgments passed by royal courts. He recalls that the Treaty of Cracow between the king and the duke [then Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, in 1525] stipulates that members of the [Royal] Council and the duke’s commissioners may be appointed and hold meetings only in matters concerning the duke himself. There was no mention of any matters involving private individuals. These provisions have not changed since the time of the Teutonic Order.

If Bartolomeus Vogt petitions for the appointment of commissioners in the inheritance case, one he has repeatedly lost, concerning the fugitive priest [Georg Langerbein], whose estate, according to the law, rightfully passed to Dantiscus, his demands should be rejected, as Dantiscus already stated in his letter to the addressee dated 15 July.

Dantiscus asks for guidance on what means he should use, consistent with the king’s pleasure, to persuade the participants of the upcoming [Royal Prussia] Diet to approve the taxes. He declares that he is ready to increase the ruler’s revenues and commends himself to both the king and the addressee.

He asks that the money from the inhabitants of Royal Prussia be graciously accepted despite the fact that it is being sent with delay and in instalments – at present, he is forwarding a sum delivered by the Pomeranian voivode [Jerzy Konopacki].

Certain Prussian councillors [Jerzy Bażyński] have informed Dantiscus that the starost of Rogoźno (Roggenhausen) [Jan Sokołowski] has departed for the royal court, having married the widow of the former starost, Lucas von Allen (Łukasz Mełdzyński), in order to retain the estate after her death. Since Sokołowski is not only not a Prussian indigene, but also opposes all Prussian laws and customs, Dantiscus discreetly asks Maciejowski at the request of his informants to safeguard the rights of the inhabitants of Prussia and to sound out the queen [Bona Sforza] whether she might be willing to agree to the purchase of the castle and the estate by the castellan of Gdańsk [Achatius von Zehmen (Cema)]. Von Zehmen promises additionally to secure nearly 6,000 florins on the castle in the queen’s favour and, if the plan succeeds, to give 100 florins as a token of gratitude to Maciejowski.

The bishop of Kulm (Chełmno) [Tiedemann Giese] has pointed out that the document issued by the chancery [i.e. a letter to Duke Albrecht I von Hohenzollern concerning the clarification of Dantiscus’ right to receive a portion of the estate of Georg Langerbein, a priest from his diocese who died as an apostate] is missing a royal signature even though the document itself states that it had been signed by the king. He asks that the document be reissued either complete with the signature or with the mention of the signature removed from the text. Dantyszek encloses a copy of the defective document in case the recipient does not have one in the chancery.

He reports that the citizens of Gdańsk have recently abandoned the solemn celebration of the feast of Corpus Christi. The craftsmen were ready to take part with their banners according to custom, but the city council issued a ban. Only the parish priest [Urbanus Urlici] held a procession inside the church accompanied by his attendants. Dantiscus fears that Gdańsk is following the example of Königsberg, and anticipates the spread of the “fire” [i.e., heresy] unless the rulers of Poland act to halt it.