Išdavystė ar paprasti nesutarimai? Kazimieras Jogailaitis ir Lietuvos diduomenė 1440-1481 metais

LTEuropos XIV amžių galima apibūdinti kaip naujųjų, arba reformuotų, monarchijų laikotarpį, о XV amžiuje daugelyje Europos šalių atsirado stiprių partikuliarizmo tendencijų, ypač tuose kraštuose, kurie buvo toliau nuo karalystės valdymo centro. Tokioje ideologiškai, administraciškai gerai susiformavusioje karalystėje kaip Prancūzija net buvo bandymų sukurti karaliui nepriklausomas kunigaikštystes (Burgundiją, Flandriją, Akvitaniją). Tose srityse karalius negyveno arba lankydavosi retai, dėl to karaliaus vaidmenį teko vaidinti vietiniams didikams. Burgundų memuaristas, prancūzų karaliaus Liudviko XI patarėjas Pilypas de Commynes, rašęs apie Praguerie (1440), pergyvenęs karą Bendram Labui (Guerre du Bien Public, 1465), suprato, kad vidaus karai, maištai - tai normalus, bet iš nuodėmės kilęs Europos karalysčių gyvenimo būdas.Nėra ko stebėtis, kad Jogailaičių monarchija taip pat pateikia dar vieną politinio partikuliarizmo pavyzdį. Tiek Lenkijos, tiek ir Lietuvos pakraštinėse teritorijose dažnai kildavo rimtų konfliktų ir dažniausiai dėl grynai vietinių reikalų/ambicijų arba dėl Piastų ar Gedi- minaičių pretendavimo į sostą. Čia turėtume prisiminti, kad Anglijoje kilę vadinamieji Rožių karai buvo iš esmės vienos šeimos kova tarp tiesioginių ir netiesioginių Edvardo III įpėdinių, turinčių stiprius ryšius su įvairių atskirų apskričių bajorais. Ten, kur anglai galvoja apie Edvardą, lietuviai gal turėtų prisiminti Gediminą. Nuo XIX a. lietuvių istorikai XV a. sukilimus Lietuvoje bando įvardyti vos ne vien pagal tautinio savarankiškumo kategoriją, kaip bandymą ginti LDK nepriklausomybę nuo „tautinės” Lenkijos. Vadinasi, Vytauto metai - tai savarankiškumo amžius, o po jo mirties nepriklausomybė susilpnėjo. Toks požiūris iš dalies dar tebegyvuoja, tačiau šio straipsnelio tikslas yra: peržiūrėti tas kovas Europos ir vietiniame Lietuvos istorijos kontekste, patikrinant šitos šalies kaip enfant terrible praeities klišę. [Iš straipsnio, p. 45]

ENIn fifteenth-century Central Europe we find strong particularist tendencies in many European kingdoms, especially in peripheral districts. The Jagiellonian monarchy is no exception to this common trend. This paper aims to investigate one aspect of the formation of a „communitas regni”, a noble ruling establishment in the course of the fifteenth century as reflected in rebellions against the grand duke (-king) in the reign of Jogaila's son, Casimir. It seems that the formation of a political nation and the consolidation of its leading group took place over a long period of time. This consolidation was aided considerably by the years of Casimir's minority and the disputes which dominated those times - Długosz notes seven particularly dangerous revolts. The fifteenth-century rebellions were largely a response to local dissatisfaction with central interference or neglect. Local sensibilities demanded respect, especially at the beginning of the reign, as is evident from the Žemaitijan reaction to Goštautas' regime and the maintenance of Kantautas in tandem with Kęsgailą in the government of Žemaitija. These squabbles seem to have been anti-Polish only in an indirect sense. This centrifugal tendency to particularism was no less pronounced in Poland than it was in fifteenth-century Lithuania. On occasion, rebellion in Poland (as in Silesia in 1453) ran in parallel with troubles in the Grand Duchy. However, rebels in various parts of the Jagiellonian monarchy, although aware of events in other districts, do not appear to have made efforts to join forces with other discontented groupings.Casimir successfully avoided increasing kinship involvement/competition in government. Having successfully outlived both Švitrigaila and Michael, he had no intention of allowing his distant kinsmen to return to political power. The declaration made in 1447 that Casimir would appoint no grand duke during his life time was maintained throughout the reign. However, while excluding his kin from government, he (unwittingly) increased the influence of the boiars/magnates. The inner circle of noble politicians was not only constant vertically, with sons following in the service footsteps of their fathers (Goštautas, Kęsgaila etc) but also horizontally - with the intermarriage of Casimirian aparatchiks. Thus, if we look at a list of charter witnesses we find: 1452: Bishop of Vilnius, Yury Semenovich Alšėniškis, Jonas Goštautas, Jonas Mantvidas, Su- diwoj, Onacz; in 1453: Goštautas, Jonas Mantvidas, Sudewoj, Gedegaudas (Senka), Kęsgailą, Kantautas. Sudwoj was Kęsgaila's brother, the Mantvidai were related to the Gedegaudai (and via Anna Vytautienė to the Alšėniškiai). By the end of the century entry into this charmed circle of affines and friends was as difficult as marriage with the Gediminids. Stress should be laid on the importance of family tradition in the consolidation of the political nation, of inherited interest, of a corporate complement to the royal line: hence 16th- century closing of ranks and disgust at dissension (Glinsky, Ostrorog) on Goštautas' part. It is notable that how certain earlier alliances of caln interest did not survive later. Yury Ostrogsky was Jonas Goštautas' ally in 1451, but his indirect descendant Konstantin was Albert Goštautas' opponent; the Alšėniškis alliance with Jonas Goštautas in the 1450s in favour of the Olelkaitis candidacy did not prevent Martin Goštautas from sitting in judgment on the Sluck conspirators of 1481. It may be no coincidence that the Roman Origins myth, which scholars cit.In its framework it reflects the complaint of the Prussian townsmen and nobility against the Teutonic Order, that all came together from overseas and that everyone therefore had a right to share in power. The charmed circle of state officers was consolidated and became able to close its ranks against non-members. May it not be this formed closed circle which is made clear by the lukewarm support for demands for a separate grand duke in the 1460s and the failure of the Olelkaitis revolt in Kiev in 1481? The rebels then had to deal not only with the monarch but also with a satisfied noble political apparatus; the stress on religious differences may be no more important than the established family tradition, the formation of a corporate dynsty to balance the Jagiellonians. Loyalty to the grand duke is stressed by Albert Goštautas in his letter to Bona and tentatively in the First Statute (1529), but this concept of treason and of rebellion against the King's body is not so strong even in 1529 as it will be in 1566. In the 16th century rebellion was no longer an acceptable way of life - the political nation disowned the method as contrary to its own interest. The Jagiellonian belief that ,,l'etat, c'est moi” became modified by grand - ducal/aristocratic confidence as ,,l'etat, c'est nous”. The Appendix contains seven texts transcribed from manuscripts in Berlin and Vilnius.