1219 m. taikos sutartis tarp Lietuvos ir Volynės kunigaikščių: teksto interpretavimo problemos

LTStraipsnyje 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. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: 1219 m. taikos sutartis; Diplomatija; Diplomatika; Haličo-Voluinės (Volynės) Rusia; Lietuvos istorija, XII a.; Lietuvos kunigaikščiai; Lietuvos valstybė; Taikos sutartis; Valstybės susidarymas; Volynės kunigaikštystė; Diplomacy; Diplomatics; Duchy of Volynia; Formation; Halych-Volhynian Rus; History of Lithuania, 12th century; Lithuanian dukes; Peace treaty; Peace treaty of 1219; State; State formation; The Lithuanian State.

ENThe 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. [From the publication]

• 1219 metų Lietuvos ir Volynės kunigaikščių sutarties dalyviai / Tomas Baranauskas. Istorija. 2021, Nr. 124, p. 4-35.
• Lietuvių karaliai ir Lietuvos karalystė de facto ir de jure Viduramžių Europoje (literatūrologinė istorinių šaltinių ir istoriografijos analizė) / Algimantas Bučys. Vilnius : Vaga, 2018. 567 p.
• Lietuvos istorija iki 1795 metų / Zigmantas Kiaupa, Jūratė Kiaupienė, Albinas Kuncevičius. Vilnius : Varnas, 2000. 381 p.
• Lietuvos istorija. T. 3, XIII a. - 1385 m. Valstybės iškilimas tarp Rytų ir Vakarų / Darius Baronas, Artūras Dubonis, Rimvydas Petrauskas. Vilnius : Baltos lankos, 2011. 615 p.
• Lietuvos pergalė Šiaulių (Saulės) mūšyje 1236 m.: mūšio tarptautinė reikšmė, atminties tradicija, mūšio laukas ir memorialas / Romas Batūra. Šiauliai : Saulės delta, 2005. 138 p.
• Lietuvos valstybės ištakos / Tomas Baranauskas. Vilnius : Vaga, [2000]. 317 p.
• Senosios Lietuvos istorija 1009-1795 / Alfredas Bumblauskas. Vilnius : R. Paknio l-kla, 2005. 485 p.