EN
The object of the article is the career of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis (Jan Jurjewicz Zabrzeziński) (d. 2 February 1508). The analysis focuses on the following three issues: 1) relationship between the Zaberezinskis and the Manvydas (Monwid) families; 2) reasons behind J. Zaberezinskis’ holding the highest offices in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; 3) and whether J. Zaberezinskis was the leader of the group of Lithuanians advocating for the union with Poland? When analysing the first of the abovelisted issues the author of the article points out the fact that data pertaining to the landownership, which in Władysław Semkowicz’s opinion indicated the relationship between the Voivode of Vilnius Manvydas and the ancestor of the Zaberezinskis’ family Rimvydas, have hitherto been insufficiently investigated. Despite the fact that the same place names are listed among the dominions of both families (Deksnionys, Kamenis, Volma), the documents indicate that all the said property was acquired by the Zaberezinskis’ family as the sovereign’s gift rather than by right of inheritance. Taking into consideration the fact that there are no available data on the relationship of the Zaberezinskis’ family from his father’s side with the most influential families in Lithuania and the fact that when J. Zaberezinskis’ father – Jurgis Rimvydaitis – died the former was still a little boy, the natural question arises – how J. Zaberezinskis managed to become one of the highest ranked officials and closest advisors of Aleksandras Jogailaitis (Alexander Jagiellon) in Lithuania? The author believes that the key factor which had significant effect on such exceptional career was the role of J. Zaberezinskis’ fatherinlaw Jonas Nasuta, whose wife was the daughter of Sudimantas Dargaitis. Upon marrying Ona Nasutaitė, J. Zaberezinskis not only acquired vast dominions, but also became related with a number of influential Lithuanian families, including the Radvila (Radziwiłł) and the Kęsgaila families. Another highly important factor was diplomatic relations with Moscow established in the spring of 1484 and reestablished in 1492–1495 which resulted in Aleksandras Jogailaitis marriage to Helena – the daughter of the Duke of Moscow. These successful efforts in particular are believed to be for the most part accountable for the establishment of friendly relations between J. Zaberezinskis and Aleksandras Jogailaitis. In the author’s opinion, the personal contact with the Grand Duke of Lithuania helps understand not only the reasons behind J. Zaberezinskis ascending to the office of the Voivode of Trakai and marshal but also the whole course of his conflict with Duke Mykolas Glinskis (Michael Glinsky). Despite the fact that J. Zaberezinskis together with the Bishop of Vilnius Vajtiekus Taboras (Wojciech Tabor) (who was on J. Zaberezinskis’ side in the posterior conflict between M. Glinskis and Aleksandras Jogailaitis) were in charge of the Lithuanian side in the negotiations with regard to the union (among their achievements was the signing of relevant documents in Mielnik in October of 1501), and the fact that, as the chronicle of Lithuania (Bychowiec Chronicle) has it, Polish noblemen addressed the King Aleksandras Jogailaitis interceding for Lithuanian noblemen (which is an evidence of the utilization of personal contacts when tackling internal disagreements), the author believes that J. Zaberezinskis and Bishop Taboras are misperceived as the supporters of the union. All the more so as neither the better informed chroniclers (chronicles of those times were drawn up in the environments of the Chancellor of the Crown Jonas Laskis (Jan Łaski) and the Chancellor of Lithuania Albertas Goštautas (Olbracht Gasztołd) who had different standpoints) nor the Emperor’s minister Zigmuntas Herberšteinas (Sigismund von Herberstein) (who had the opportunity to get acquainted with both – M. Glinskis’ supporters and opponents) or any other sources offer any information on the topic. And Lithuanians did not revisit the project of the union even when the opponents of the allegedly prounion group lost their influence, retreated or were removed.