Page - 70 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 07/01

70 | Christian Wessely www.jrfm.eu 2021, 7/1, 67–93 single documents. Considerably later, probably around 1900, someone tried to organize the documents by writing the date (if applicable) and keywords on the “outside” of the documents, i. e. on the external sheet visible after the document had been folded. This person was probably not a professional and made several grave mistakes, with the documents for this case incorrectly dated. The majority of the documents would have born seals, many of them embossed, some with sealing wax; but they have often been lost as the result of unskilled handling over the course of the last 350 years. Forty-three of the documents are letters, 3 are contracts (#57, #91, #102,) 6 are announcements and rulings concerning affairs of public interest (#8, #41, #79 (probably in connection with #8), #83, #95, #109). The documents #1/2, 7/8, 25/26, 55/56, and 119/120 are not dated. The earliest dated document was written on 24 April 1618, the latest on 1 June 1715. Only eight of the doc- uments are dated after 1700. The state of the documents varies. Few are fully intact; most bear water spots. Damage done by mice and by fungi is severe in places, and the readabil- ity of several documents is thus limited. The sequence of the documents as found was chaotic, with no recognizable system. The documents were scanned and numbered in that original sequence, to keep track of the changes to be applied by re-sorting on issue and date. The dig- italization process was as careful as possible given the status of the documents; the Vestigia Centre of the University of Graz provided know-how and equipment for this tricky part of the process.5 After digitalization, the originals were profes- sionally stored in the air-conditioned climate of the departments archive room. The issues addressed by the documents vary. Some refer to contemporary events, like the threat of invasion of the Holy Roman Empire (#53, 1661, #83, 1704) or political influence on the region (#47, 1689). Some broach pastoral issues like penalties for penitents (#1, 16?7, #5, 1687, or #89, 1703). Others refer to legal transactions (#13, 1708, #41, 1698, or #57, 1640). All are inter- esting sources for historians, but the 22 pages concerning the case of Ludwig Teschler are the focus of this article. The transcription of several documents which were particularly hard to read was undertaken by Veronika Drescher, a palaeographer.6 5 The author is grateful to Univ.-Prof. Dr. Erich Renhart, Vestigia Manuscript Center, University of Graz, for his assistance with the digitalization. 6 In several challenging cases, Prof. Dr. Johannes Giessauf, Institute of History, University of Graz, did not hesitate to lend a hand. We are very grateful for his assistance.