"Ponai tarėjai" ir Maskvos valstybė: formalieji diplomatinių kontaktų aspektai pirmaisiais tarpuvaldžiais (1572–1576 m.)

ENNew practice of the representation of the state based on the former tradition of diplomatic activity was formed in the first interregnums. State officers of the GDL assumed the functions of the sovereign, on the highest level collectively representing the country in the course of the diplomatic relations with the state of Muscovy. Muscovy maintained both official and semi-official diplomatic contacts with the representatives of the GDL political elite, thus unconsciously acknowledging their prerogative to represent the state. Pre-union practice of parallel diplomatic connections, utilized by members of the GDL Council 84 of Lords and Muscovy barons, served as the formal basis for the abovementioned not regulated diplomatic contacts with the Muscovite Court. However, the diplomatic relations maintained on the highest level not only transcended the tradition of parallel contacts, but also contradicted an important attitude of diplomatic representation, stating that the principle of hierarchy should be followed in intercommunion, strictly observing existing levels of authority in respect of each other. Until the Union of Lublin it functioned as the organizational system of Lithuanian-Muscovian cross-border relationships: the monarch of Muscovy would only contact the sovereign of Lithuania, members of the Boyar D uma exclusively communicated with members of the Lithuanian Council of Lords, Metropolitan of Muscovy cultivated relations with the Bishop of Vilnius, etc. The Court of the Muscovian Monarch decided to allow compromises in the then applicable principles of cross-border relationships when pursuing the implementation of Ivan IV’s plans to become the Monarch of the Republic.Seeking acceptance in the environment of the GDL political elite, the ruler of Muscovites found himself under the necessity to make allowances with regard to the principles of the hierarchical diplomatic relations and maintain direct communication with the Lithuanian political elite. These “allowances” were only valid in the period of the interregnums, as the customary order was re-established after the election of the new Monarch of Poland and Lithuania which prescribed that GDL and Polish officers on their behalf would directly contact representatives of the Court of the Muscovian Monarch of the corresponding rank. With a view to conceal the practice of direct not inter-sovereign connections that was considered disgraceful to the Sovereign on the grounds of diplomatic traditions observed at that time in the State of Muscovy, it was maintained that the contacts were cultivated on the basis of the future subordination of the representatives of the GDL political elite to Ivan IV. The new practice of private or semi-private contacts between individual officials of the GDL and Muscovite diplomatic representatives that had not been sanctioned by the former tradition and that was cultivated in the second interregnum period may be associated with Ivan IV’s dynastic ambitions. Formerly hardly imaginable informal meetings of Muscovite diplomatic representatives delegated on behalf of Ivan IV and representatives of the GDL political elite aimed at the negotiations regarding the preservation of current political status of the representatives of the Polish and Lithuanian political elite in case of the election of the Muscovite Monarch, can also be associated with the process of the establishment of subordination-based relations.However, despite the subordination-based relations projected from the Muscovite side, full-fledged diplomatic communication was maintained in the period of the first interregnums, and the connections between the Muscovite Court and “gentlemen assessors” sustained all essential elements characteristic of the level of cross-border relationships. This fact is confirmed not only by the official authorities of representation bestowed on the diplomatic representatives of both sides, but also by the structure of the diplomatic ceremonial, characteristic of the prior crossborder communication. To tell the truth, state officials of both Poland and Lithuania, due to their lower social status, were viewed as hierarchically unequal partners of diplomatic contacts and thus norms of diplomatic communication as well as accompanying elements of diplomatic ceremonial intended for representatives of the countries of lower rank were employed in their respect.