Letter #6189
[Ioannes DANTISCUS] to [Samuel MACIEJOWSKI]Heilsberg (Lidzbark), 1543-01-09
English register:
On 1 January, Dantiscus sent a letter. An envoy of the Gdańsk (Danzig) city council, the royal burgrave and mayor [Johann von Werden] arrived to see him. Dantiscus encloses a copy of his reply to the municipality regarding the matters presented by the envoy. The council explains that, based on an agreement with Denmark, Gdańsk merchants are permitted to conduct maritime trade via the Danish strait [the Sound], but with the exception of transporting grain and war materials to Denmark’s enemies [The text of this paragraph is damaged in many places].
Dantiscus replied that the aforementioned agreements do not apply to the Kingdom of Poland and to other dominions of the king [Sigismund I Jagiellon]. The grain and other goods brought to Gdańsk are going bad, causing significant harm to the inhabitants of the Kingdom. In Dantiscus’ opinion, if the king does not wish to send an envoy concerning this matter to the king of Denmark [Christian III of Oldenburg], whom he had helped to gain the throne, he should at least make a formal protest in writing to demand the lifting of the blockade. This blockade is causing substantial losses to the Polish nobility and stirring their discontent. Dantiscus recalls that he had already pointed out in a previous letter to the addressee how severe the consequences of keeping the straits closed in spring would be for the king’s subjects.
The second part of the diplomatic mission was prompted by the king’s letter to Dantiscus, which he forwarded to the city council of Gdańsk. In the letter, the king requested advice concerning the unrest caused by two defendants [Tiedemann Giese Jr, Barthel Brandt] in connection with the administration of communion under both kinds. Relying only on the council’s written statement, the burgrave responded by making assurances that, as far as is known, communion under both kinds is not being administered to anyone. The council wishes for Dantiscus to intercede with the king in order to clear their fellow citizens of suspicion [The text of this paragraph is damaged in many places].
The justification presented regarding the public administration of communion under both kinds in Gdańsk can easily be rejected by the king, for those who receive communion in this manner usually travel to the Pomesanian diocese. The council permitted the common people to demand such communion for the laity in defiance of royal decrees, a fact which they did not even mention, since it is wholly unjustifiable. Dantiscus had already written earlier to identify the persons responsible for stirring up unrest in this matter. In his view, if the actions of these individuals are curtailed, the situation will calm down, and the unrest and unreasonable demands being instilled in the people to undermine royal authority or the validity of the court summons will not happen again.
In his previous letter, Dantiscus outlined the potential consequences of the king’s failure to respond to such audacity by allowing a person to remain at court and unpunished after being sent to defend it. In doing this, he believes that he has satisfied his conscience and remained loyal to the monarch. It is now up to the ruler to decide what course of action he deems appropriate.
If he has written anything too bold or imprudent, Dantiscus asks the addressee to kindly intercede on his behalf and to instruct him in what way he may have caused offence so that he may act with greater caution in the future.
Manuscript sources:
| ||||
Text & apparatus & commentary Plain text Text & commentary Text & apparatus
Reverendissime in Christo Pater et Domine, ... [obser]vande.
Salutem et fratern[am commendationem].
Prima die huius scripsi ... haud ... [ve]nit ad me missus a magistratu Gdanensi S... [bur]grabius et praeconsul... habuit in pri[mo]... in quo ad illius magistratus ... iunctis litteris scripsi, quarum ipse ... [ex]emplum pro litterisque scriptis gratiam ... me commonefaciens, quod cum Regno D[aniae] ... sibi intercederent, ut tempore belli, si quod illi reg[no] ... civibus Gedanensibus cum navibus merc... per angustias freti Danici, qu... [quor]sum vellent, navigatio permitteretur praeterquam, ne ad hostium es frumenta et haec, quae ad bellicum apparatum sunt necessaria , inferrent, unde magistratus causabatur, quod ea in re cum rege Daniae, secus quam pacta essent confecta, agi non posset.
Respondi, quod ea pacta Regnum Poloniae aliasque serenissimae regiae maiestatis diciones non obligarent, neque ob id frumenta cum aliis rebus, quae inde advehuntur Gedanum, in loco vilescere et cum magno regnicolarum detrimento sic perdi oportere. Quapropter censeo et ex re omnium serenissimae maiestatis regiae subditorum esse puto, quod serenissima maiestas regia, si ob id ad regem Daniae nuntium mittere nolit , saltem serio litteris cum eo rege , qui recens a serenissima maiestate regia beneficio in regni acquisitione fuit adiutus, expostularet, ne frumentis et aliis ex Regno rebus angustias illas maris subditis regiis clauderet, esset enim eiusmodi occlusio senatui, equestri ordini, toti nobilitati omnibusque serenissimae maiestatis regiae subditis intolerabilis nullisque modis ferenda, hincque sibi implacabile odium gravissimasque inimicitias conciliaret, sicut huius rei in novissimis ad Dominationem Vestram Reverendissimam memini, quod si cum rege illo sic non tractabitur, angustiaeque illae pro instante verno tempore occlusae manserint, non obscurum est, quantis damnis regnicolae ceteriquae subditi serenissimae maiestatis omnes afficientur.
Secundam legationis partem litterae ad me regiae extorserunt, quas magistratui miseram, in quibus super commotionem ratione communionis sub utraque per duos istos citatos excitato consilium a me requirebatur. Ad quas quidem litteras, ut esset, quod excusaret m <a> g <ist> ratus per dominum burggrabium, qui tamen hoc ad me nonnisi scripto a magistratu referre voluit, respondit, quod scilicet communio sub utraque specie ... nemini, quod sciretur, concedatur ... maiestati ...visse edoctam, verum in illlis litteris maiesta... [q]uod communio istiusmodi Gedan[i] ... [po]stulatum esse ... [q]uod contra receptum morem sacrosanctae ... [orthodo]xae ecclesiae, ut eiusmodi communio sub utraque det[ur] .... Hoc frivolo lem <m> ate syndicus ... eo, in quo non fuerat accusatio inducturum se putavit ...que a me magistratus domino burgrabio redd...... motus nulli ob hoc negotium audiantur, quod se ... conterraneos meos ex ea suspici[one] apud maiestatem regiam levarem.
Quam de illis, quia serenissima maiest[as] regia non habeat, quandoquidem usus illiusmodi sub utraque communi[onis] publice Gdani nondum conceditur facile serenissima maiestas regia remitt..., nam ad dioecesim Pomesaniensem, qui illa communione utuntur, proficisci solent, quod vero magistratus plebi contra regias constitutiones tal[em] prohibitam laicis communionem postulare permiserit, de eo verbum nullum, excusari enim nequit. Ceterum a quibus postu[la]tio et motus illi exstimulati sint, prius scripsi, qui si coerciti fuerint, reliquum vulgus quiescet nullique deinceps motus aut postulationes adeo temerariae concitabunt <ur> , quae id temporis non nisi in terrorem, quo auctoritas citatioque regia evanesceret, plebi suggestae sunt.
Eam audaci[am] si maiestas regia illumque, qui ad defendendam eandem missus est, ad aulam impune relinquerit, quid sit subsecutur[um], in prioribus meis annotavi. Ego equidem conscientiam et fide[m] meam erga serenissimam maiestatem regiam exoneravi. Quae faciat, quod in oculis suis bonum esse expedireque putaverit.
Apud quam, si quid liberius planiusve a me scriptum consultumque esse incons[i]deratius existimabitur, ut id omne fidei meae imputet, Dominatio Vestra Reverendissima intercessione sua efficere velit, summopere oro, meque edocere, in quo forsan offendi, ut hinc cautior esse possim. Qua in re supra id, quod iam pridem debeo, me Dominatio Vestra Reverendissima sibi devictissimum atque auctoratum perpetuo constringet.
Meque illi commendatissimum esse cupio et precor omnia faustissima.
Datae in Heilsberg, IX Ianuarii MDXLIII.