Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
264 part two—chapter one
Kiev), copies of instruments of peace, exchanged between Warsaw and
Baghchasaray can be perhaps located in Istanbul, Moscow, and other
ancient capitals of early modern states, whose rulers carefully watched
the international situation developing in the proximity of their own
borders. So far, no such copies have been located, but they might be
revealed in the course of future thorough research.
For instance, information is known to have been regularly exchanged
between Istanbul and Baghchasaray. In 1623, Sultan Murad IV sent
Mehmed III Giray a copy of his ‘ahdname, granted to Poland-Lith-
uania, and required that the khan should respect its provisions, too.
116
It is therefore not unlikely that also copies of Crimean instruments,
exchanged with Warsaw, were sent from Baghchasaray to Istanbul in
order to keep the Porte aware of the political developments. In anal-
ogy, during the Crimean-Russian negotiations that took place in Bagh-
chasaray in the years 1680–1681, Murad Giray regularly informed
the Porte about their progress. Admittedly, neither of the two cases,
quoted above, can be treated as sucent proof that copies of Crimean-
Polish instruments of peace were sent to Istanbul. Given the unequal
relations between Istanbul and Baghchasaray, the khan was expected
to respect the engagements made by the sultan, but not vice versa, so
the sultan did not need to know in detail what the khan had prom-
ised the Polish king. Moreover, at times the Porte openly dissuaded
the Polish court from negotiating directly with the khan, hinting to
the latter’s non-sovereign status.
117
In these circumstances, sending to
Istanbul copies of loy yarlıqs, in which the khans frequently adopted
the pompous titles that were regarded by the Porte as reserved for the
Ottoman padishahs, would not be a clever move on the part of the
Crimean chancery. e aforementioned Crimean-Russian negotiations
in Baghchasaray in 1680–1681 were untypical, because Murad Giray
was ocially empowered to conclude the peace on behalf of the Porte,
and the agreement, reached in January 1681 between the khan and the
Russian envoys, was then subject to corroboration by the Ottoman
grand vizier, and nally by the sultan. Hence, while it is likely that
the news of the Crimean-Polish embassies and agreements reached
116
See Jan Rypka, “Briefwechsel der Hohen Pforte mit den Krimchanen im II.
Bande von Ferīdūns Münšeāt,” pp. 262 and 269.
117
Cf. n. 218 in Part I.
the language and preservation of documents 265
Istanbul, it does not necessarily imply that the texts of these agree-
ments were in extenso sent and recorded in the Ottoman archives.
Another capital, where the Crimean relations with Poland-Lithu-
ania were observed with lively interest, was Moscow. To be sure, it
was rather unlikely that copies of instruments, exchanged between the
kings and the khans, would reach Moscow by legal channels. Neither
Warsaw nor Baghchasaray were interested in sharing the contents
of their agreements with the tsar as these agreements were usually
directed against the latter. In analogy, if the khans entered agreements
with the tsars, they were typically directed against Poland-Lithuania.
Given the traditional mistrust in the triangle Warsaw-Baghchasaray-
Moscow, an unusual event occurred in 1670. e tsar not only entered
peace with the khan which also included the Polish king, but the Rus-
sian chancery shared with the Polish side the contents of the instru-
ment, negotiated in Moscow with the Tatar envoys, by sending its
copy to Warsaw.
118
e uniqueness of this event is related not only to
the short term rapprochement between Warsaw and Moscow, but to
the unusual fact that this rapprochement did not immediately result
in a joint military action against the Crimea that would render any
tripartite negotiations out of the question.
Such tripartite negotiations and voluntary sharing of information
were yet extremely rare. Usually a rapprochement between two courts
resulted in the estrangement of the third one. Nevertheless, Moscow
could still acquire copies of instruments of peace, exchanged between
Baghchasaray and Warsaw, through spies or “good services” of the
members of the respective courts, whose names would be entered on
the Muscovian payroll. Yet, no such copies have been located so far in
the Russian archives.
118
Cf. n. 515 in Part I.
CHAPTER TWO
THE CRIMEAN INSTRUMENTS OF PEACE
AND THEIR TYPOLOGY
e “donation yarlıq”
In his discussion of the ancient Turkic term yarlıq, Mirkasym Usmanov
critically summarizes the extant literature and proposes to apply this
term only to the following two categories of documents:
a) genuine yarlıqs, i.e., the privileges, grants, orders, appointments,
etc., addressed by the khans to their subjects (including the subjects
of their vassals);
b) yarlıqs-messages (Rus. jarlyki-poslanija), addressed by the khans to
other rulers whom the khans regarded as their vassals.
According to Usmanov, a characteristic trait of these documents was
the formula “my word” (Rus. slovo moe < Tur. sözüm), present in
their initial protocol, and the term yarlıq, present either in their nal
corroboration or within their text. e form and contents of a yarlıq
expressed the binding character of the khan’s will and his suzerainty
over the addressee(s). On the other hand, letters addressed by the
khans to the rulers whom they regarded as their peers or superiors,
as well as the instruments of peace known as şartnames, are classied
by Usmanov as two separate categories which should not be confused
with yarlıqs.
119
Although neat and useful, Usmanov’s categorization does not fully
reect the complex reality. In his own article, the author invokes
yarlıqs issued not by the khans, but by their wives and qalgas, who
apparently had a share in their husband’s, father’s, or brother’s sov-
ereignty.
120
In the 17th century, also the Crimean nureddins referred
119
Mirkasym Usmanov, “Termin <<jarlyk>> i voprosy klassikacii ocial’nyx
aktov xanstv Džučieva ulusa,” in: Aktovoe istočnikovedenie. Sbornik statej (Moscow,
1979): 218–244, esp. pp. 242–243; idem, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI
vv., pp. 7–8 and 271–276.
120
Usmanov, “Termin <<jarlyk>>,” p. 230.
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 267
to their instruments sent to the Polish kings as yarlıqs.
121
Moreover,
it sometimes happened that the very same Crimean document was
referred to within its text as both a yarlıq and an ‘ahdname!
122
Finally,
if the powerful wife of Mengli Giray, Nur Sultan, could issue a yarlıq
even though she was a woman and not of Genghisid descent, would it
really be unrealistic for a powerful ambitious leader, such as Mamay,
to refer to his document as a yarlıq even though it would be contrary
to the custom, which restricted the right to issue yarlıqs to the ruling
members of the Genghisid dynasty?
123
In the Lithuanian chancery language, the term yarlıq could refer
to any letter circulating between the Lithuanian and Tatar courts.
For instance, letters sent by grand dukes Casimir, Alexander, and
Sigismund to Mengli Giray were sometimes referred to as yarlıqs.
124
Usmanov might be right that such linguistic abuse reected the igno-
rance of the proper Genghisid chancery manners, but nevertheless
it remained a fact. His argument that while the Lithuanian chancery
confused yarlıqs with simple letters, the Muscovian one impeccably
dierentiated between the terms jarlyk and gramota (“letter”), is also
unconvincing.
125
For instance, in 1474 Ivan III instructed his envoy to
121
For instance, see Document 56.
122
For instance, see Document 34, issued by Ghazi II Giray in 1592, which contains
the curious phrase “we have stamped this ‘ahdname, our noble imperial yarlıq, with
the golden nişan-like seal” (bu ‘ahdname yarlıġ-i şerif-i haqanimüzge altun nişanlıġ
mührini basub), and is further referred to as “the ‘ahdname, the noble imperial yarlıq”
(‘ahdname yarlıġ-i şerif-i haqani). Usmanov, who is familiar with the above document,
describes it as a šertnyj jarlyk (“oath-yarlıq”) or dogovornyj jarlyk (“agreement yarlıq”)
and concludes that it belongs to the category of agreements and not yarlıqs proper; cf.
idem, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., pp. 279 and 281.
123
Such a hypothesis was recently raised by Feliks Šabul’do, although the author
did not support it by any material evidence; see idem, “Čy buv jarlyk Mamaja na
ukrajins’ki zemli? (Do postanovky problemy),” pp. 301–317. To be sure, the formula
“my word” (or rather its variant “our word”) was adopted by such non-Genghisid
rulers as Timur, Uzun Hasan, and Shah Ismail, the founder of the Safavid dynasty;
for the facsimiles of their relevant documents, see Lajos Fekete, “Arbeiten der grusini-
schen Orientalistik auf dem Gebiete der türkischen und persischen Paläographie und
die Frage der Formel sözümüz,” AO ASH 7 (1957): 1–20, esp. pp. 17–18. In the same
article, Fekete published the facsimile of a letter of the Crimean khan’s mother, con-
taining the same formula, but he misread hazret-i ana biyim sözümüz (whereas ana
biyim is the title of the khan’s mother) as hazret-i ana benim sözümüz that led him
to unnecessary divagations on the redundant double possessive form; see ibidem, pp.
15 and 20.
124
Cf. Usmanov, “Termin <<jarlyk>>,” p. 241; see also Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z
Tatarszczyzną, pp. 224 and 326.
125
Cf. Usmanov, “Termin <<jarlyk>>,” p. 241.
268 part two—chapter two
bring from Mengli Giray a “yarlıq of agreement” (jarlyk dokončal’nyj)
and in the following year referred to the already received document
as an “oath-yarlıq” (jarlyk šertnoj).
126
Yet, when in 1508 Mengli
Giray sent an analogous instrument to Ivan’s son, Vasilij III, it was
recorded in the Muscovian chancery books as a “letter of agreement”
(dokončalnaja gramota) and referred to as “oath-letter” (šertnaja gra-
mota) in Vasilij’s correspondence with the khan.
127
Hence, four dier-
ent terms were used to describe the very same type of document.
Notwithstanding the oen vague and imprecise terminology used by
contemporaries, it is possible to single out a distinct type of document
that was repeatedly issued by the Crimean khans and sent to Lithu-
anian, and later Polish-Lithuanian rulers until 1560. In the present
study, the term “donation yarlıq” will be used because its main con-
tent was the khan’s “donation” of numerous territories to the recipient
(in fact, the territories in question had usually belonged to Lithuania
long before they were “donated” by the khan). e term corresponds
with the Slavic term žalovannyj jarlyk, oen encountered in Russian
medieval chronicles,
128
but here its usage is limited to those yarlıqs that
granted lands and not other privileges.
e Girays, who descended from Togha Timur (Tuqay Timur),
Genghis Khan’s grandson and Batu Khan’s younger brother, were
more “modest” in historical claims than their main rival and distant
cousin, the khan of the Great Horde Sheikh Ahmed, who in 1497
reminded Grand Duke Alexander: “we have lived in brotherhood and
friendship with you since the times of the great khan Batu.”
129
e
Crimean chancery usually went back only to the past alliance between
Tokhtamısh and Vytautas, which was well conrmed by historical evi-
dence.
130
e fact that Tokhtamısh had also maintained friendly rela-
tions with Jogaila, Vytautas’ elder cousin and the king of Poland, was
curiously erased from the Crimean memory to reappear only in the
16th century under the pressure of the Polish chancery. It has been
recently suggested that already Jogaila’s father, Algirdas, might have
received a “donation yarlıq” from Mamay, the de facto ruler of the
126
See Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij, vol. 1, pp. 2 and 9.
127
See ibidem, vol. 2, pp. 20 and 57.
128
Cf. Berežkov, Krymskie šertnye gramoty, p. 1.
129
See Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, p. 237.
130
On the Girays’ genealogy and their pretended descent from Tokhtamısh, cf.
n. 32 in Part I.
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 269
Golden Horde in the second half of the 14th century, or rather from
a Genghisid prince in whose name Mamay ruled, but this question
remains open.
131
In 1506, in a letter sent to the lords of the Lithuanian Council,
Mengli Giray referred to the ancient yarlıqs, by which Tokhtamısh
had donated Kiev, Smolensk, and other towns to Vytautas, and to the
subsequent yarlıqs, by which Mengli’s father and older brother, Hadji
Giray and Nur Devlet, and then Mengli himself, had conrmed this
donation to King Casimir. “Our [past] yarlıqs are in your treasury, just
look [at them]!”—continued the khan.
132
Unfortunately, the “donation
yarlıq” sent by Tokhtamısh to Vytautas is not preserved,
133
but the
“donation yarlıq” of Hadji Giray, sent to Casimir in ca. 1462, is pre-
served in a Polish copy and allows one to reconstruct the contents of
the earlier yarlıqs as well.
Hadji Giray’s instrument perfectly ts the denition of a yarlıq pro-
posed by Usmanov, although the term itself does not appear in the
document, or at least in its extant Polish translation: it begins with the
formula “the word of Hadji Giray Khan” and pronounces the khan’s
will to all those present, both the khan’s Tatar subjects grouped into
the right and le wings of his army, and the Lithuanian notables, cler-
gymen, and commoners, whom Hadji Giray treats as his subordinates
as well. e very fact of donation reects the khan’s conviction that
he had the right to donate the listed lands as their rightful owner, and
hence the suzerain of Lithuanian grand dukes. On the other hand,
the document invokes the beneciaries’ past merit, namely the ref-
uge and assistance given by Vytautas to Tokhtamısh when the latter’s
horse had been “growing sweaty beneath him.” In its major part, the
document apparently reiterates the contents of the now lost “donation
yarlıq” of Tokhtamısh from ca. 1397, granting to Lithuania vast tracts
131
Cf. n. 123 above.
132
Našy jarlyky v skarbe vašom [in the original erroneously written našom] est,
posmotryte; see Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, pp. 292–293. In the Crimean
correspondence, Casimir is oen referred to with his Polish royal title as King Casimir
(Kazimir korol’), although in Lithuania his ocial title was not the king but the grand
duke (velykyj knjaz’).
133
Tokhtamısh’s yarlıq sent in 1393 to Jogaila, which is preserved in the original,
does not list any localities “donated” to Lithuania, but only vaguely stresses the khan’s
suzerainty over the Lithuanian ruler; cf. n. 7 in Part I. A proper “donation yarlıq” must
have been granted by Tokhtamısh to Vytautas around 1397, aer the khan had been
ousted by Tamerlane and needed Lithuanian support.
270 part two—chapter two
of what is today the Ukraine, Belarus, and western Russia (but signi-
cantly, not the “core” Lithuanian lands around Vilnius and Trakai,
which were not mentioned because the khan apparently did not claim
them as the Golden Horde’s heritage). Moreover, Hadji Giray’s docu-
ment contains later “strata” that reveal the subsequent updatings made
aer Tokhtamısh’s death by the following khans:
a) a reference to Tula and several other localities situated in the Duchy
of Rjazan’, annexed by Vytautas in the years 1427–1428, shortly
before his death in 1430; these localities could have been entered
in a “donation yarlıq” of Ulug Muhammed, another ousted khan
of the Golden Horde whom the Girays regarded as their legal pre-
decessor and who enjoyed Vytautas’ support aer 1424, or already
by Hadji Giray, who owed his early career to Vytautas; yet, the
existence of “donation yarlıqs” issued by Ulug Muhammed and/
or Hadji Giray to Vytautas is not certain; to be sure, the aforemen-
tioned localities appear in Hadji Giray’s yarlıq granted to Vytautas’
younger brother and successor, Sigismund (see below);
b) a reference to Sigismund, Vytautas’ younger brother and the grand
duke of Lithuania in the years 1432–1440, whom Hadji Giray
granted his earlier “donation yarlıq” which is not preserved, but
whose text is partly entered in his later yarlıq granted to Casimir;
c) a reference to Pskov and Velikij Novgorod, disputed between
Vilnius and Moscow, and currently “donated” by Hadji Giray to
Casimir, apparently on the latter’s request.
e “donation yarlıq” of Nur Devlet, invoked in Mengli Giray’s letter
from 1506, is not preserved, although Nur Devlet’s treaty instrument
sent to Poland in 1467 is extant in a Latin copy. e following “dona-
tion yarlıq” was issued in ca. 1473 by Mengli Giray. Its extant Polish
translation does not contain the formula “our word” and the term
yarlıq is missing altogether, but its form and contents are almost iden-
tical with those of Hadji Giray’s instrument. Explaining his muni-
cence in granting so many lands to Lithuania, Mengli Giray invoked
the hospitality once extended by Vytautas not only to Tokhtamısh, but
also to Mengli’s father, Hadji Giray.
In the nal years of Casimir’s reign, the Jagiellonian-Giray alliance
dissolved due to Mengli’s rapprochement with Ivan III on the one
hand, and the Lithuanian support for Sheikh Ahmed, the khan of the
Great Horde and Mengli’s archenemy, on the other. By 1503, Mengli
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 271
defeated Sheikh Ahmed, who found refuge in Lithuania, yet this event
paradoxically enabled a shi of alliances. Mengli’s open claim to the
entire heritage of the Golden Horde caused a rising distrust in Mos-
cow, while the khan’s fear that Vilnius might still use Sheikh Ahmed
against him made him better disposed towards Lithuanian peace oers.
e ensuing pacication of 1506–1507 resulted in the drawing of yet
another “donation yarlıq,” issued by Mengli, then over sixty years old,
to Casimir’s youngest son, Sigismund. e instrument, preserved today
in a Ruthenian copy and probably originally composed in Ruthenian,
commences with an invocation followed by the formula: “the word of
Mengli Giray, the great khan of the Great Horde.” Unlike the previ-
ous documents, where the term yarlıq was missing, the instrument of
1507 is explicitly referred to as yarlıq three times within its text. e
“donation” eected by the document comprised of the same territories
as in the former yarlıqs, including the Lithuanian lands lost to Mus-
covy between 1494 and 1503, which neither Mengli nor Sigismund
controlled at that time. Yet, it was precisely for that reason that the
yarlıq was valued in Vilnius since it contained the khan’s recognition
of the Lithuanian territorial claims and his promise to help to restore
the lost lands.
Although valued by both sides as still politically useful, the “dona-
tion yarlıq” of 1507 was yet deemed insucient as an instrument regu-
lating the relations between the two states, because its anachronous
form and contents did not reect the current issues of their political
cooperation. erefore, Mengli Giray separately issued an oath-letter
(prysjažnyj lyst), which was delivered to Sigismund along with the
yarlıq.
134
Another solution was found in 1513, when the pacication
of 1507 was replaced by a new, more stable one. en, a new type of
document appeared that combined the features of a “donation yarlıq”
with those of an oath-letter (hence this type will be tentatively referred
to as a “donation yarlıq cum şartname”). In December 1513, Mengli
Giray issued an instrument that commenced with an invocation fol-
lowed by the formula: “the word of the great khan Mengli Giray.”
Within its text, the document was referred to as yarlıq and the khan
also invoked the previous yarlıqs issued by his predecessors, his own
yarlıq given to Casimir (i.e., the one from ca. 1473), and his recent
pacication with Sigismund of 1507. Yet, having ennumerated the
134
Cf. Documents 8 and 9; on the latter, see below.
272 part two—chapter two
lands “granted” to Lithuania in a way typical for a “donation yarlıq,”
the document’s narration went on and referred to current political
as well as commercial issues, whereas the khan promised to keep his
engagements on his own behalf and on behalf of his sons and his
subjects. A diligent reading of the instrument also proves that even
its rst, seemingly fossilized part, was subject to reediting: the yarlıq
listed three localities that had never before been “granted” to Lithu-
ania, namely Radogošč’, lost to Muscovy in 1503 and still disputed,
as well as Polack and Vicebsk, whose position became vulnerable as
the Lithuanian eastern border moved westward, even before the Mus-
covian conquest of Smolensk in 1514.
In the summer of 1514, Mengli Giray sent a new embassy, pro-
vided with a new, slightly reedited version of his instrument, which
again can be described as a “donation yarlıq cum şartname.” It was
again referred to as yarlıq and contained the formula: “the word of
Mengli Giray Khan,” but, like in the previous document from Decem-
ber 1513, the list of the “granted” lands was followed by references to
current political clauses and the khan’s engagement to observe them.
Apart from the two aforementioned versions of “donation yarlıqs cum
şartnames,” later in the year 1514 the Crimean chancery also issued a
separate instrument of peace, specically referring to Poland, whose
two versions are discussed below.
When Mehmed Giray ascended the throne in 1515, he sent to Cra-
cow a new instrument of peace, whose text is not extant. e decen-
tralized structure of the Crimean politics is well reected by the fact
that not only the khan, but also his oldest son, Bahadır, who did not
even hold the ocial post of qalga, issued a separate instrument of
peace on the request of the Lithuanian side. Bahadır’s document,
whose contents were based on the now lost document of Mehmed
Giray from 1515, was issued in 1517 and contained an unusual “col-
lective” sözüm formula, which reected the prince’s incomplete sov-
ereignty that apparently needed to be supplemented by the authority
of his late grandfather and his reigning father, and in addition was
shared with his younger brother: “the word of my grandfather Mengli
Giray, [also] the word of my father Mehmed Giray, the word of
[mine,] Bahadır Sultan, [and] the word of my brother, Alp Giray Sul-
tan.” Within its text, Bahadır’s document is not specically referred
as a yarlıq, but it invokes “the ancient yarlıqs of the rst khans,” on
whose basis it has been drawn. Like in the previous documents, the
list of lands “granted” to Lithuania is followed by references to current
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 273
political issues. Even though it was issued by a Crimean prince and not
the ruling khan, the instrument can be again classied as a “donation
yarlıq cum şartname.”
Mehmed Giray’s relations with Sigismund deteriorated in the years
1518–1519, when the khan entered an alliance with Moscow, but then
he again changed his mind and designed an ambitious plan to restore
the Golden Horde’s unity under the Giray family. Preparing a confron-
tation with Moscow over the political inuence on the Volga, Mehmed
Giray restored his alliance with Sigismund and in 1520 issued two
separate documents: a “donation yarlıq cum şartname” for Lithuania,
and a separate instrument of peace for Poland. Although the for-
mer document did not contain the term yarlıq, it commenced with
a sophisticated formula: “by the grace of God, Mehmed Giray Khan,
the lord of all the lands of the Kipchak Steppe and the hereditary lord
of the Tatars, this is my word.” e instrument again consisted of two
parts: the “donation” of lands to Lithuania and a detailed list of cur-
rent political engagements. In the rst part, besides Radogošč’, Polack,
and Vicebsk, already listed previously, the khan entered—apparently
on the Lithuanian request—one more town that had been absent in
the earlier donations, namely Trubčevsk on the Desna river, lost by
Vilnius to Muscow in 1503. Interestingly, the second part of the instru-
ment, containing current political issues, is introduced by a formula
that did not appear in the instruments from 1513–1517, namely: “and
this is also our word” (eščo slovo naše to est).
In the turbulent years that followed the death of Mehmed Giray,
no “donation yarlıq” is known to have been issued until 1532.
135
en,
Islam Giray, who had long dreamed of becoming khan, ascended the
throne aer the abdication of his uncle, Sa‘adet Giray, but shortly
aerwards the Porte replaced him with another uncle of his, Sahib
Giray. During the few months of his unstable reign, Islam Giray des-
perately looked for Lithuanian support so he easily consented to issue
a “donation yarlıq cum şartname” modeled on the one given in 1517
by Bahadır Giray. e khan, who resided outside Qırq Yer and appar-
ently lacked the assistance of professional chancery clerks, merely cor-
roborated a copy of Bahadır’s instrument that was presented to him
135
Sa‘adet Giray’s instrument from 1527 is referred to as an oath-yarlıq (Ruth. jar-
lyk prysjažnyj), but it is not a “donation yarlıq;” this document is discussed below.