Search

Straipsnyje analizuojamas 1219 m. taikos sutarties tarp Lietuvos ir Volynės kunigaikščių atpasakojimo tekstas Haličo–Volynės metraštyje, apžvelgiami šios sutarties tyrinėjimai. Sutarties atpasakojimas lyginamas su kitomis to meto bei vėlesnėmis sutartimis, pagrindžiama, kad jos originalas turėjo rašytinę formą, aptariama jos struktūra. Ypatingas dėmesys skiriamas pirmųjų 5 kunigaikščių grupei. Remiantis gramatine ir XIII–XIV a. sutarčių formuliaro analize, galima teigti, kad žodis старѣшеи, įrašytas šios grupės pradžioje, taikytinas tik pirmajam įvardytam kunigaikščiui Živinbutui. The peace treaty of 1219 between Lithuanian and Volhynian dukes has received much attention in historiography since the 19th century. No discussion on the formation of the Lithuanian state can proceed without tackling it, because the treaty provides an extensive list of the Lithuanian dukes: 21 people altogether. The treaty provides a valuable insight into the internal structure of the emerging Lithuanian state; therefore, historians struggle to extract as much information out of that as possible. However, the treaty is known only from the relation of the Chronicle of Galicia-Volhynia; the text is short and hard to interpret. The treaty was first published by Nikolay Karamzin in 1816. Publication of the whole Chronicle of Galicia-Volhynia followed in 1843, 1871, and 1908 enabling better understanding of the text. Juliusz Latkowski began the scientific research of the treaty in his study on Mindaugas published in 1892: he was the first to establish its date as 1219. During the interwar period, the most fundamental study on the treaty of 1219 was issued by Henryk Paszkiewicz: he argued that the treaty had reflected the structure of the already formed Lithuanian state. In the Soviet historiography, the treaty was seen as a benchmark of the state formation process; however, according to Edvardas Gudavičius, the treaty reflected pre-state confederation structure, though, according to Vladimir Pashuta, the treaty indicated that this stage had already been passed. Polish historian Marcel Kosman sought to prove that treaties between the Christians and the pagans were only oral, and that the Christians kept only unofficial records. Therefore, the treaty of 1219 has acquired an extensive historiography; nevertheless, it contains many contradictory interpretations which make us address the text once again. The peace treaty of 1219 was not the first international treaty Lithuania entered. Henry of Latvia mentioned a similar peace treaty between Lithuania and Riga in 1201. That same year, peace was also made with the Curonians, and with the Semigallians a year later. All these treaties look to be very similar to the one of 1219; the only difference is that the treaty with Volhynia lists all the Lithuanian dukes involved. Otherwise, in all four cases, first comes the will of God; then it is stated that envoys of the pagans (Curonians, Lithuanians, or Semigallians) arrived to the Christians and/or their ruler(s) to make peace; and finally it is reported that peace has been made. All the reports are very short but they repeat this formula almost word for word. By 1219, the Lithuanians had already made at least two peace treaties with Riga, in 1201 and 1212 respectively. Therefore, they should have got used to this peace treaty formula and could have proposed it to the Volhynian counterparts. The major controversy revolves around the interpretation of the attribute старѣшеи (elder) written before the name of Živinbutas. Grammatically, it is impossible to establish whether this attribute is singular or plural and respectively whether it applies to Živinbutas alone or to the whole group of the first five dukes. However, based on the known formula of the similar treaties, this attribute should be interpreted as singular and apply only to Živinbutas, reflecting standard intitulation Се азъ, кнѧзь старѣши Живинъбоудъ. Many historians tend to break the list of the Lithuanian dukes into 5 groups separated with words се – а – а – а се – а се interpreted as group markers. Regarding се (here [is/are]), it’s worth mentioning that this word is traditionally the first in the intitulations of the Ruthenian acts: Се азъ, кнѧзь – here I, duke – followed by the name. If an act was issued by several dukes, the formula Се азъ, кнѧзь applied only to the first of them; others we added using conjunctions и (and) or cъ (with). The peace treaty with Grand Duke Dmitrij of Moscow of 1372 was concluded on behalf of three dukes from the Lithuanian side: Algirdas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, his brother Kęstutis, Duke of Trakai, and Svyatoslav, Grand Duke of Smolensk. They were listed in the text of the treaty along with their envoys. After stating that these envoys made truce, the treaty listed other allies and vassals of Algirdas and Svyatoslav. Every new group was added with the conjunction a which we also see in the retold text of the treaty of 1219. Therefore, based on this analogue, we can conclude that groups of the dukes separated with a in the treaty of 1219 played different roles and had different status: the first group should represent the main players, whereas others were subordinates. Envoys could have also been mentioned in the treaty of 1219. The group of the first five dukes consists of dukes (the first three) and their brothers (the last two). This implies that the first three dukes were the key representatives of Lithuania, whereas the brothers could have acted as envoys. Afterwards the treaty should have listed the vassals: the Samogitian Dukes Girdvilas and Vykintas, then seven dukes of the house of Ruškys, three of the house of Bulys, and four dukes of Deltuva land. It appears that two groups were territorial (dukes of Samogitia and Deltuva), whereas other two were based on kinship. However, this inconsistency can be easily resolved assuming that the dukes from the Houses of Ruškys and Bulys were just subgroups within the group of the Samogitian dukes.

R. Jasas įrodė, kad tiek vidurinioji, tiek išplėstinė (Bychovco kronikos) Lietuvos kronikų redakcija buvo sudaryta Alberto Goštauto aplinkoje. Ankstyvąjį viduriniosios redakcijos pavidalą parodo Krasińkio nuorašas (jame dar organiškai nesujungtos iš trumpojo kronikų sąvado paimtoji ir naujai parašyta legendinė dalis). Fiziškai seniausiame viduriniosios redakcijos Ališavos nuoraše (1550 m.) jau aptinkame pakeistus kai kurių legendinių kunigaikščių vardus ir Birutės (vėlyvame Jevreinovo nuoraše – ir Algirdo žygio į Maskvą) legendą. Šios dvi pakeitimų kryptys atsispindi ir išplėstinėje redakcijoje, kurioje dar randame intarpų iš rusų Hipatijaus metraščio, Bergomezės ir Miechovitos kronikų. Labai svarbus čia pradininko Palemono “perkėlimas” iš I į V amžių. Bychovco kronikos rankraštis neturėjo pradžios ir pabaigos, todėl apie jo pradžią buvo galima orientuotis iš ją citavusio M. Stryjkovskio teksto. Ten nurodoma, kad Palemonas bėgo ne nuo Nerono (kaip viduriniame sąvade), o nuo Atilos. Savo memoriale dėl I Lietuvos statuto A.Goštautas kalba apie “Lietuvos teisę, galiojančią nuo Atilos laikų”, kas patvirtina M.Strijkovskio citavimą. Visi šie požymiai to meto lygiu susieja Lietuvos praeitį su pasaulio istorija.[autoriaus santrauka] R. Jasas has demonstrated that both the middle and the extended edition (the Chronicles of Bychovc) of the Lithuanian Chronicles were made in the environment Albertas Goštautas. The early version of the middle edition is showed in the copy made by Krasińkis (where the legendary part taken from the brief digest of Chronicles and that written anew are not yet organically joined). Being physically the oldest, the middle edition copy by Ališava (1550) includes already changed names of some legendary Dukes (the late copy by Evreinov), and the legend about Birutė (Grand Duke Algirdas trip to Moscow). These two trends of changes are also seen in the extended edition where insertions from Russian Yearbook of Ipat’ev, and from Chronicles of Bergomes ir Miechovita, are also found. “Transposition” of the initiator Palemon from age I to V is very important here. The manuscript of the Chronicles of Bychovc had neither beginning nor ending, therefore its beginning might have been judged from the texts of M. Stryjkovskyi where they were quoted. Here, it is claimed that Palemon was running away not from Nero (as the middle edition puts it), but from Attila. In its Memorial on the Statute No.1 of Lithuania, A. Goštautas speaks of "the Lithuanian law, being effective from the time of Attila”, what confirms M. Stryjkovskyi‘s quotes. All of these features, on the level of those past times, link past of Lithuania to the history of the world. [summary by the author]