Skarb i dziewczyna. O fortunie kasztelana halickiego Mikołaja Gołogórskiego i jego córki Elżbiety

A treasure and a maiden. On the fortune of castellan of Halych, Mikołaj Gołogórski, and his daughter Elżbieta Two hitherto unknown judgements of the Gniezno episcopal officials from 1478 and 1482 mention a treasure worth 10,000 marks left by the castellan of Halych Mikołaj Gołogórski. After his death in 1463, the guardian of the castellan’s daughter Elżbieta, the Archbishop of Lviv Grzegorz of Sanok and his legal successors were said to have seized part of this fortune and to have appropriated the village of Wicyń that belonged to Elżbieta. This new information prompts us to take a closer look at Mikołaj Gołogórski and Elżbieta. The future castellan was most likely the son of Mikołaj of Gołogóry, a town confirmed in 1389. It may have belonged to the Drzewic family. Mikołaj owed his career mainly to his close links to the Odrowąż family from Sprowa. In 1439 he became deputy steward (podstoli) of Lviv, over twenty years later was promoted to the rank of chamberlain (podkomorzy) of Lviv and towards the end of his life was made castellan of Halych. Active in Ruthenian local diets, appointed assessor in Lviv and Halych courts, in 1457 he served as a deputy to the Piotrków Sejm. He also proved himself to be an able steward. By investing in royal estates, buying villages and running settlement campaigns, he expanded the hereditary estates of Gołogóry. A fortified manor, his own clientele and foundation of a church demonstrate his aspirations to the lifestyle of a magnate. He was married to Barbara of Knihynice, with whom he had two daughters: Katarzyna, wife of Andrzej of Sienno, and Elżbieta. After the annulment of her marriage to Mikołaj Odrowąż, Elżbieta married Mikołaj of Ostrów, and mostly likely quickly split up with him. She died childless, leaving her fortune to her nephews, Jan and Wiktoryn Sienieński (Gołogórski). She managed her estates herself, struggling against financial problems and becoming embroiled in lawsuits. The most important among them concerned the rights to Wicyń, which, according to the Lviv court records, was pledged by Elżbieta with Grzegorz of Sanok. The circumstances in which both Gniezno judgements were passed and, especially, the fact that they contradict other contemporary sources raise doubts as to the credibility of the information provided by them, information that must have reflected the contents of the lawsuits. Even if Gołogórski’s treasure did exist, there is no certainty about its real fate.