As for the witnesses, the first of them, Cyprian, metropolitan of Kiev, Halych and all Russia, was actually active at that time. I read, in fact, in A. Schneider's Encyclopedia on Galician touring, the article "Russian Archbishopric of Lviv" (p. 270), that Cyprian died already in 1406, but this information is based, as far as I can see, only on the statement of Iiaramzyn, which cannot be proved yet.
The next two witnesses, Szymon Lichwę, King Władysław's first brother, and Fedor Lubartowicz, Władysław's first cousin, agree completely, they were alive at that time and could have been with the king. As far as I can see from the works of K. Count. Stadnicki, however, we do not have detailed information about them from 1407. I only read about Lichwen (Bracia Wład. Jag. 289) that in 1407 Nowogród obtained permission from Witold for Szymon Lichwen to reside within its walls again, and he actually came to Nowogród. When this will happen, we don't know. From this we see that these two witnesses do not raise any suspicions.
The fourth witness: dominus Chrzisscson Cracoiiiensis and the fifth witness: domimis loannes Tarnowslci et palatitms Sandomiriensis. Therefore, Krystyn was given as the castellan of Krakow, and Jan Tarnowski was given as the voivode of Sandomir, and the combination of the two words Tarnowski and palalinus with et shows that the writer considered Jan to be the castellan of Tarnów and the voivode of Sandomir. The castellan of Krakow, however, is Wr. 1407 Jan Tarnowski odr. 1406, previously he was the voivode of Krakow and before that the voivode of Sandomir until 1403. He held the castellany of Krakow from 1406 until his death, which occurred before May 10, 1409, because on that date we already read about him as "^jic meinor" in Helcio, Pomniki II., 182-
The voivode of Sandomir was Krystyn of Ostrów in 1407, and he was still on March 12, 1409 (A. G. Z. IV., 73); and May 9, 1409 (Helcel II., no. 1222), he was succeeded by Mikołaj of Michałów, voivode of Sandomir, previously the castellan of Wojnice (A. G. Z. IV., 74
of August 20, 1409) Krystyn from Ostrów goes to the Krakow castellany, vacated by the death of the above-mentioned Jan Tarnowski. - Therefore, it follows that in 1407 the castellan of Kraków was Jan Tarnowski, and the voivode of Sandomir was Krystyn of Ostrów, and not the other way around, as was said in our document.
All subsequent witnesses agree as closely as possible.
The castellan of Lublin in 1407 was actually Michael of Jeżów (A. G. Z. V. 34 and 35). It is still the year 1408 (Helcel II., p. 174).
The castellan of Wiślica is Klemens of Moskorzów and he held this position until at least August 23, 1408 (Helcel II., no. 11G8. Compare also R. Maurer, Officials of Władysław Jagiełło's office, p. 19j.
The judge of Sandomir is actually.\lbert. It happens so often that there is no need to provide evidence.
Therefore, all the witnesses agree, except the fourth and fifth, whose titles must be changed. What does this mean? Could this document be considered forged on this basis? I think not. In my opinion, the only person responsible for this confusion is the one who translated this document from Russian into Latin. In my opinion, the witnesses in this Russian original were given as follows: Mr. Jan Tarnowski from Krakow, Mr. Krystyn, voivode of Sandomir. The translator, who considered Jan to be the castellan of Tarnów, could not reconcile these two alleged castellans with each other, so he corrected the original text, rearranging the surnames, moving Krystyna to the first place, Jan Tarnowski to the second, combining the dignity of the voivodeship with him using et. We cannot assume that the date was changed by the translator, because it would be of no use to us, as there was never a Sandomir voivode Jan Tarnowski next to the castellan of Krakow, Krystyn of Ostrów. Therefore, if we present the names of the fourth and fifth witnesses, we will achieve complete agreement among the witnesses.
As for the content of the document itself, it does not speak in any way against the authenticity of the document. Although the bishopric of Przemyśl did not have its own Długosz who wrote down his Liher Benrficiorum, we cannot say for sure whether the estates mentioned in the document were actually in the hands of the ruler of Przemyśl at that time, but we know about some of them with complete certainty, and so the reader will find in this volume below two documents, one from 1422, the other from 1424, proving that two of the properties listed here: the church land of St. Spasa and Kormanice were actually owned by the Lord of Przemyśl at that time; and others, as we see below, it still has today. And in this respect we cannot doubt the authenticity of this document.