Letter #2463
[Ioannes DANTISCUS] to [Stanisław HOZJUSZ (HOSIUS)]H[eilsberg] (Lidzbark Warmiński), 1541-[07-19] or shortly after
English register:
Dantiscus expresses his satisfaction with the appointment of the Bishop of Chełm [Samuel Maciejowski] to the Bishopric of Płock, as well as with his resignation from the parish of Gołąb in favour of Hozjusz. He has thanked Maciejowski for that gesture and asked him to continue extending his goodwill towards Hozjusz.
Given his age and fatigue from previous travels, Dantiscus excuses himself from joining Hozjusz on the suggested journey to Rome. He has entrusted the handling of both his own affairs and those of Hozjusz to his nephew Kaspar [Hannau], who is currently residing there.
From Hannau’s letter dated 10 April, Dantiscus has learned that the case against Alexander [Sculteti] has been suspended pending the king’s [Sigismund I Jagiellon] response to the cardinal [Antonio Pucci]. According to Dantiscus, this response, along with the book, has already been delivered by [Bartłomiej] Gądkowski, so he expects to know the outcome soon.
Kaspar [Hannau] has filed a suit in the Roman Curia against Sculteti’s nephew, Alexander von Suchten, who resides in Leuven. A letter from Dietrich von Rheden, found among Sculteti’s papers, reveals that his other nephew, Georg von Suchten, currently in Rome with him, received instructions regarding actions against the addressee.
Rheden arrived in Königsberg to ask Duke [Albrecht von Hohenzollern] for help in restoring Sculteti to the favour [of King Sigismund I Jagiellon]. He also intended to visit Dantiscus but was deterred by rumours of a royal edict. Following the advice of Achatius [Trenck], he was supposed to send Dantiscus a letter regarding a meeting, but so far he has not done so. Dantiscus requests that the recipient, together with the Bishop of Chełm, do what they can to oppose the duke’s intercession and prevent [the king] from issuing a safe-conduct for Rheden. He expects Rheden plans to work towards restoring Sculteti as a canon in Ermland (Warmia).
From Hozjusz letter dated 16 June, Dantiscus learned that he had sent the probate of the will and the grant of probate to the bishop of Kulm (Chełmno) [Tiedemann Giese]. The probate of the will is known to Dantiscus; however, he asks to have the confirmation document (granting of probate) sent to him discreetly. He notes that Giese is sympathetic towards Sculteti.
Dantiscus inquires how the case of Wolfgang Folder, in which he had previously intervened, has progressed.
He explains that he has forbidden his nephew, Simon [Hannau], to visit Hozjusz, fearing a repeat of the situation in which his envoy might cause him trouble. He also reports that he has dismissed that unruly young man.
He asks Hozjusz to deliver to the Bishop of Chełm a sealed purse with money, which Hans Holsten will bring him.
In a postscript, Dantiscus informs Hozjusz that upon sealing the letter, the Allenstein (Olsztyn) administrator [Achatius Trenck] delivered to him a letter from Dietrich von Rheden dated 11 July, containing a request for a meeting to clear himself of accusations. Knowing Rheden’s true intentions, Dantiscus decided to stall. He replied that he is not allowed to receive him without the permission of the king, who is currently holding the letters found in Sculteti’s chest (which is untrue). In this situation, Rheden should obtain a letter of safe-conduct. Therefore, Dantiscus asks Hozjusz to arrange for its issuance, but with a suitably short period of validity, so that the former has time to investigate Rheden, yet Rheden does not have enough time to do much harm. He also asks for news.
Manuscript sources:
Auxiliary sources:
| ||||||||||||
Text & apparatus & commentary Plain text Text & commentary Text & apparatus Excerpts concerning Dantiscus' travels
Venerabilis Domine, frater paper damaged⌈[rater]rater paper damaged⌉ carissime.
Salutem et felicitatem.
Ex litteris Dominationis paper damaged⌈[Ex cf.
Mihi certe non potest esse nisi gratissimum, quod
cf.
Habui ab eo nuper cf.
Nepotem
cf.
De Wolfgango Folder scripsi reverendissimo domino Chelmensi. Existim[o, prout tam] diu ad me nihil refertur, quod res in co(m)posit(i)o(n)e haer[et]. [...] habeo, quod ad meam interpellationem tantum laboris [...] par[...] [...] on the margin⌈De
Quod nepos meus paper damaged⌈[us]us paper damaged⌉
Hunc vero
Cui m paper damaged⌈[
Dat(ae) or Dat(um)⌈Dat(ae)Dat(ae) or Dat(um)⌉
Postscript:
Mi carissime Domine Doctor.
Post has obsignatas applicuit venerabilis dominus
Rogo igitur, Dominatio Vestra efficiet, ut illi salvus conductus ad de[...] paper damaged⌈[...][...] paper damaged⌉ post illius datam unius mensis duraturus obtineatur. Antequam [...] paper damaged⌈[...][...] paper damaged⌉ tot dies transibunt, reliqui restabunt pauci, in quibus parum cum su[...] paper damaged⌈[...][...] paper damaged⌉ operari. Si me convenerit, hoc ipsum, quod ex me expiscari [...] paper damaged⌈[...][...] paper damaged⌉ ex paper damaged⌈[ex]ex paper damaged⌉ eo sum expiscaturus. Det igitur Dominatio Vestra operam, ut per nuntium paper damaged⌈[ntium]ntium paper damaged⌉ [...] paper damaged⌈[...][...] paper damaged⌉ eum salvum conductum et quae apud vos aguntur etc. habeam. paper damaged⌈[beam.]beam. paper damaged⌉ [...] paper damaged⌈[...][...] paper damaged⌉ rem paper damaged⌈[rem]rem paper damaged⌉ faciet in next line⌈facietfaciet in next line⌉ mihi paper damaged⌈[mihi]mihi paper damaged⌉ gratissimam et fratribus meis omnibus commodissimam.
BCz, 245, p. 272