Straipsnyje analizuojamas specifinis miesto sociotopografijos aspektas – miestietiškos žemėvaldos pagrindu egzistuojantis miestiečių gyvenimas už miesto, ne tik tradiciniame mūrnamyje. Jis atskleidžiamas remiantis XV a. pab.–XVI a. pirm. pusės Vilniaus miesto valdančiojo elito pavyzdžiu. Duomenų analizė rodo, kad iki XVI a. vid. teisiškai miestiečių žemėvalda nebuvo ribojama, todėl nemažai turtingiausių miestiečių turėdavo įvairaus dydžio ir teisinio statuso žemės valdų, kurios ne tik teikdavo įvairių pajamų, o kartais atlikdavo ir rezidencijų funkcijas – jose trumpiau ar ilgiau buvo gyvenama. Tokie vilniečiai turėdavo dažnai judėti tarp valdos ir Vilniaus. Todėl šios elitinės Vilniaus miestiečių grupės sociotopografija įvairiu mastu peržengia miesto sienas.

This article analyzes the norms and forms of the diplomatic ceremonial that secured and maintained the interstate relations existing between the continuously quarreling Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Muscovy. Attention is paid particularly to the ceremonial‘s mediating function found at various levels of formal interaction – governing the monarch‘s representation and hierarchical communication, ceremonies of festive receptions and meetings accompanying every phase of contact. Thus in the chosen time-frame of Lithuanian and Muscovite diplomatic relations we were looking not for situations revealing the nature and extent of interstate conflicts but for cases exhibiting the mediational function. The diplomatic ceremonial performed the mediating function for differences between the states by first of all creating an order for diplomatic relations in the form of mutually recognized roles for the participants in diplomatic communication through formal interaction, thus ensuring communicational efficacy. This helped the ruler to preserve the positions appropriate to his status in communicating with the representatives of another sovereign, while also helping the latter properly to represent their own monarch. Secondly, the ceremonial softened states of conflict, most often by formally masking existing differences between the two sides or providing opportunities for other forms of contact. Finally, it helped overcome limits of political and social otherness existing between both states and their societies and sanctioned changes in forms of interstate coexistence.