Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
284 part two—chapter two
document. Nevertheless, he agreed and in the fall of 1514 issued a
separate instrument regarding Poland, extant today in two versions: a
Ruthenian one, dated 29 October and referred to as “letter of agree-
ment” (dokončalnyj lyst), and an Italian one, dated 29 November and
referred to as lectra patente. Having invoked his present oath and
the oaths previously taken on his behalf by his envoys, Mengli Giray
engaged that in return for the royal promise to keep Sheikh Ahmed
in custody and to deliver a yearly gi of 15,000 orins—one half from
Poland and one half from Lithuania, the Polish and Lithuanian mer-
chants were permitted to conduct trade in the Crimea while the Tatars
were to honor the integrity of the Polish Kingdom.
160
Bahadır Giray’s instrument from 1517, which apparently reiterates
the conditions of the now lost instrument of his father, is referred to in
its Ruthenian copy as a lyst dokončannyj, but has been already classi-
ed above as a “donation yarlıq cum şartname.” Like in the analogous
documents of Mengli Giray from 1513–1514, the “donation” of lands,
typical for a yarlıq, is followed by the clauses promising the Crimean
military help against Muscovy, declaring to forget the past wrongs
and send a new Giray prince as a hostage to Lithuania, and allowing
the Polish and Lithuanian merchants to conduct trade in the Crimea.
e instrument is corroborated by the solemn invocation of Bahadır’s
oath, taken in Čerkasy in the presence of Olbracht Gasztołd.
161
In 1520, Mehmed Giray issued two instruments of peace, separately
for Lithuania and for Poland, just as his father had done in 1514. e
document regarding Lithuania, referred to as dokončane, can be again
classied as a “donation yarlıq cum şartname” as it contains both the
“donation” part and a number of clauses regarding current political
issues, conrmed with the khan’s oath. e clauses that follow the
“donation” are more extended and specic than those in the docu-
ments from 1513–1514 and 1517. Although the khan reiterated his
and his father’s former promises to militarily assist Vilnius against
Moscow, the Crimean military assistance was to be paid for by the
160
Cf. Documents 15–16; while the Ruthenian version vaguely describes the Pol-
ish Kingdom as “beginning with L’viv [Pol. Lwów],” the Italian one specically refers
to its two southeastern provinces, mostly exposed to Tatar raids, the palatinates of
Ruthenia and Podolia, and lists “Kamjanec’ [Pol. Kamieniec Podolski] and other cas-
tles” though not mentioning L’viv.
161
Cf. Document 18.
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 285
Lithuanian treasury, while future incomes from the lands recaptured
from Muscovy were to be shared between Vilnius and Qırq Yer. e
article providing that Sheikh Ahmed should be kept in custody until
his death, which was absent from the previous instruments regarding
Lithuania (curiously, in 1514 it was entered in Mengli’s instruments
regarding Poland, although Sheikh Ahmed was detained in Lithuania,
and not in Poland), reappeared in 1520. In turn, Mehmed Giray no
longer promised to send a Giray prince as a hostage to Vilnius. Finally,
the clause referring to trade contained an interesting novelty: the khan
declared the reduction of tolls due from the royal merchants from
seven to only three percent.
Mehmed Giray’s instrument for Poland, issued in 1520, is today
the oldest Crimean instrument of peace preserved in the Arabic-script
original. Within its text, it is properly referred to as şartname. Never-
theless, it also contains the promulgation of the khan’s will addressed
to the general public, including the Tatar as well as the Polish digni-
taries, which is in fact typical for a yarlıq. Like the khan’s instrument
addressed to Lithuania, the “Polish” şartname contains the clauses
regarding the detainment of Sheikh Ahmed, the payment of royal
gis, and the treatment of royal envoys and merchants; yet, unlike the
“Lithuanian” instrument, it does not contain any mention of Muscovy
or the anti-Muscovian alliance, perhaps because in those times Poland
did not even have a common border with Muscovy. Like the “Polish”
instrument from 1514, the şartname from 1520 guarantees the inviola-
bility of the Polish territory, which is described by ennumerating thir-
teen towns situated in the Kingdom’s southeastern provinces. In its
conclusion, the instrument invokes the oath taken by the khan and his
retinue members in the presence of the royal as well as the Crimean
envoys who were to deliver the instrument to the king.
In 1526, Sa‘adet and Islam Girays, who almost incessantly com-
peted for the throne during the turbulent decade following the death
of Mehmed Giray, reached a short term agreement, in result of which
Islam became Sa‘adet’s qalga. In the following year, both Sa‘adet and
his ambitious nephew decided to reconcile with Sigismund and sent
their instruments of peace to Cracow. Both instruments are extant
today in Ruthenian copies. e khan’s instrument is referred to within
its text as an “oath-yarlıq” (Ruth. jarlyk prysjažnyj) and contains the
standard yarlıq formula “our word.” As to the qalga’s instrument, it is
referred to as “oath-letter” (Ruth. lyst prysjažnyj) and also contains the
286 part two—chapter two
formula “my word.” It was not for the last time that the royal chancery
would receive parallel instruments of peace sent separately by the khan
and the qalga.
Sa‘adet Giray’s instrument from 1527 is very unusual: on the one
hand, if we accept Usmanov’s typology discussed above, by referring
to his instrument as a yarlıq, the khan treated King Sigismund as his
vassal; yet, on the other hand, the instrument contained numerous
accusations and complaints that—at least in our eyes today—were not
very tting for the khan’s dignity and his image of an omnipotent
suzerain;
162
the long repetitive narration also seemed superuous for
a solemn instrument of peace, which should merely invoke the past
friendship and—eventually—the reasons of its subsequent breaking,
express the will to restore the peace, ennumerate the political condi-
tions to be mutually observed, and refer to the document’s corrobora-
tion with the khan’s oath.
163
In fact, the instrument of Sa‘adet Giray
contained both typical elements of a treaty, such as the reference to the
khan’s oath to keep peace with Sigismund, and numerous minor issues
and complaints that were usually treated in separate correspondence.
Although much shorter than the khan’s instrument, the oath-letter
of Islam Giray similarly stressed the author’s desire to maintain friend-
ship with Sigismund and referred to the oath taken by the qalga and
his retinue members. Islam Giray also invoked his intention to raid
Muscovy. In return, he expressed the wish to receive royal gis in the
same amount as had been sent to Bahadır Giray, Islam’s late older
brother and the qalga of their late father, Mehmed Giray.
Bahadır’s personage had apparently a strong and lasting appeal to
Islam Giray. In 1532, when Islam at last managed to ascend the throne
(although for a very short time), instead of issuing his proper instru-
ment, he merely reconrmed the contents of Bahadır’s “donation
yarlıq cum şartname” from 1517, whose copy was submitted to him
by a Lithuanian envoy. e text of Bahadır’s instrument, corroborated
by Islam, is recorded in the Lithuanian Register. Curiously, it does
not even contain an actual date. If not for the heading, provided by
162
Cf. the khan’s accusation that Sigismund regarded him as a nobody as if there
had remained nobody in the Crimean state, and as if this state had no foundation,
being reigned by a petty ruler (y vy mene, brata svoeho kak by za nyšto vydjačy, yžby
v perekopskom pan’stve žadnoho čoloveka ne ostalo, any fundamentu net, kak by za
maloho hospodarja majučy, tomu pan’stvu); see Document 22.
163
e above conclusion is drawn from the study of other Crimean documents of
that period, which are not as “expressive.”
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 287
a copyist, and the fact that it is entered among the documents from
1532, and not 1517, one could mistakenly attribute it to Bahadır, and
not Islam.
Two instruments are extant from the times of Sahib Giray (r. 1532–
1551), drawn in the years 1539 and 1542. eir texts, today preserved in
Polish, were apparently translated from Ruthenian, as is evidenced by
the term dokończenie, unusual in Polish, by which both documents are
referred to. e contents of the earlier instrument, issued shortly aer
the Ottoman annexation of Očakiv, reect the rising Ottoman inuence
in the northern Black Sea steppes. Nevertheless, both Crimean instru-
ments are traditionally shaped as “donation yarlıqs cum şartnames,”
in analogy to the earlier documents of Mengli and Mehmed Girays.
Usmanov, who noticed that also Sahib Giray’s yarlıqs, intended for
domestic audience, retained a very traditional form, suggested that it
reected the khan’s conscious strive to emancipate himself from the
Ottoman patronage by invoking the Genghisid tradition, in spite of
the fact that he had owed his throne to Sultan Suleyman.
164
If it was
so, Sahib Giray had a somewhat unexpected ally, who also valued
the traditional form of Genghisid instruments. In the years 1534 and
1535, shortly aer Sahib’s accession, the Lithuanian chancery twice
prepared the ready formulas of the instruments expected from the
new khan. Judged by the formula from 1535, whose text is preserved,
165
they invoked in form and contents Mehmed Giray’s “donation yarlıq
cum şartname” from 1515, which was already invoked by Vilnius in its
negotiations with Bahadır Giray (1517) and Islam Giray (1532).
e latest two “donation yarlıqs cum şartnames” origin from the
times of Devlet Giray (r. 1551–1577) and were sent to King Sigismund
Augustus in the years 1552 and 1560. e rst one, preserved in a
Ruthenian copy, is referred to within its text as both an “oath-letter”
(lyst prysjažnyj) and an “agreement” (dokončan’e). e second one is
preserved in a Polish copy, apparently translated from Ruthenian, and
referred to as dokończenie like the instruments from 1539 and 1542.
As it has already been mentioned, the instruments of peace sent to
Poland-Lithuania by Devlet Giray (1571), Mehmed II Giray (1579),
and Islam II Giray (1585) are not preserved, hence we cannot draw
164
Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., p. 287.
165
See Document 27.
288 part two—chapter two
any conclusions about their shape and contents.
166
As if in compen-
sation, in 1592 the new khan, Ghazi II Giray (r. 1588–1608), issued
simultaneously two instruments of peace addressed to the new Pol-
ish king, Sigismund III (r. 1587–1632). Both documents, composed in
Crimean Tatar mixed with Ottoman Turkish, are today preserved in
the original.
e rst document from 1592 contains the standard yarlıq formula:
“my word,” and its contents are promulgated to all those present.
Invoking the past Crimean-Polish friendship that dated back to the
reigns of Hadji Giray and Casimir, the document yet does not men-
tion the former territorial grants, made by the khans in favor of Lithu-
ania (interestingly, Lithuania is not even mentioned!). Ghazi II Giray
regrets the deterioration of mutual relations during the recent Polish
interregna and formulates the conditions of lasting peace: the timely
delivery of the royal gis and the removal of Cossack brigands from
the Dnieper. In return, the khan oers his military assistance against
Muscovy and conrms the right of the royal subjects to extract salt
and trade in his domains.
e terminology, by which the above document is referred to, is
very interesting. In the corroboration, Ghazi II Giray announces:
“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 again refers to his document in the datatio
as “the ‘ahdname, the noble imperial yarlıq” (‘ahdname yarlıġ-i şerif-i
haqani). As to the term yarlıq, it has been thoroughly described above
so in this place it only remains to be observed that it was still in use in
the late 16th century. Yet, the term ‘ahdname requires an explanation
because at that time it was commonly used in the Ottoman chancery,
but not in the Crimean one. Composed from the words ‘ahd (Arabic
ﺪﻬﻋ, “oath,” “promise,” “pact”) and name (Persian ﻪﻤ, “letter” or “writ-
ing”), the term referred to the ruler’s written engagement conrmed
with his oath.
167
us, in the Crimean document from 1592 the term
‘ahdname evidently substitutes for the term şartname, as the terms
‘ahd and şart were equivalent and both referred to the ruler’s oath.
is is evidenced in the very text of the instrument, where the terms
166
Cf. n. 139 above.
167
For the discussion of the term and its former historiography, cf. Kołodziejczyk,
Ottoman-Polish Diplomatic Relations, pp. 3–7.
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 289
‘ahd and şart are repeatedly paired and treated as synonims: Ghazi II
Giray rst demanded that the king should keep his engagement and
stipulation (‘ahd ve şart üzerine turar bolsalar), then twice referred to
his own oath (ant ve şart ve ‘ahd), taken in the presence of the Pol-
ish and Crimean envoys, and nally concluded that “it is necessary to
keep this engagement, stipulation, and oath” (bu ‘ahd ve şart ve ant
üzerine turulmaq kerekdir).
168
e second document from 1592, referred to within its text as a
yarlıq, has a less formal character and is directly addressed to King
Sigismund III. e khan again invokes the ancient friendship and
blames the Poles for its recent deterioration. He also quotes his
recent correspondence with Sultan Murad III and depicts himself as
the defender and protector of Poland against the Ottoman wrath. In
return for his goodwill, the khan expects that the Cossacks should be
removed from the Dnieper and the royal customary gis should be
delivered on time, not only to the khan, but also to his qalga and the
latter’s twelve retinue members. Like Sa‘adet Giray’s instrument from
1527, which was described above, Ghazi II Giray’s yarlıq is also very
“expressive” and contains so many anecdotic details that one may hes-
itate whether it should be classied as a “treaty instrument.” Yet, on
the other hand it contains the khan’s solemn engagement not to raid
Poland, made “by God, with God, and through God,” and lists several
clauses whose observing is requisite for the peace to last. erefore, it
should be tentatively classied as an “oath-yarlıq,” just like the instru-
ment of Sa‘adet Giray from 1527.
e mixed and confusing terminology, encountered in Ghazi II
Giray’s instruments from 1592, has been already observed by Usmanov.
e Tatar scholar concludes that the syncretism, noticeable in the late
sixteenth-century and later Crimean documents, naturally reected
the process of the amalgamation of the two chancery traditions: the
Genghisid and the Ottoman, and should not be regarded as merely a
passive adoption of the Ottoman models.
169
Unfortunately, the Crimean instruments of peace, sent to the Polish
king in the following three decades,
170
are preserved only in trans-
lations, hence it is hard to draw denite conclusions regarding the
168
See Document 34.
169
Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., p. 283.
170
e agreement of Ţuţora (Pol. Cecora) from 1595 is not regarded here as a
“Crimean instrument of peace” because it was corroborated by the khan on behalf of
290 part two—chapter two
changes in terminology. e instrument of Ghazi II Giray, sent in
1599 to Sigismund III and invoking the khan’s oath to keep peace with
Poland, is referred to in its extant Polish text as a “letter of agreement”
(list przemirny). As in that period the Polish term list przemirny (or
rather list przymierny) commonly applied to Ottoman ‘ahdnames, it
is most likely that the lost Crimean original was termed an ‘ahdname,
though the term şartname was possible as well.
171
e two following instruments, sent by Ghazi II Giray to Sigismund
III in 1601 and 1604, but not accepted by the royal side because their
contents did not match the Polish expectations, are similarly referred
to in their extant Polish translations as list przemirny and przymierze,
respectively. Finally, the last instrument of Ghazi II Giray, containing
his oath and dated in 1607, is referred to in its extant Latin translation
as foedera et pacis litteres.
172
Further on, the instrument of Selamet Giray from 1609, preserved
in a Polish translation, is referred to as pakta, and the instrument of
Djanibek Giray from 1611 again as a list przymierny. e latter term
also appears on the ready formulas of the instruments of peace to be
issued by Djanibek Giray, with which the royal chancery provided the
Polish envoys going to the Crimea in the years 1619 and 1622.
173
As
we remember, both eorts failed and Djanibek did not formally renew
the peace until the end of his rst reign, but in 1624 his successor,
Mehmed III Giray, issued an instrument of peace that is again pre-
served only in a Polish translation. e translation was made by
Samuel Otwinowski, the best translator of Oriental languages in the
Royal Chancery of that time. Not surprisingly, Otwinowski referred
the Ottoman sultan; nevertheless, it is discussed in the following section. Besides, it is
also preserved only in a copy.
171
See Document 37 (a scholar is not much helped by the fact that the term list
przemirny or list przemierny was also used in reference to the royal instrument of
peace, sent by Sigismund III to Ghazi II Giray in 1598; cf. Document 36). It is worth
noting that the instrument issued roughly at the same time (1598) by Ghazi II Giray to
the Transylvanian ruler is referred to as an ‘ahdname; see Ivanics, “Der Bündnisplan
zwischen dem Chan Gazi Giray II. und dem Fürsten Sigismund Báthory,” p. 198.
Yet, one must remember that in the relations with their southern (i.e., Ottoman)
and western neighbors the khans adopted the Ottoman language and forms earlier,
while traditional Genghisid forms longer prevailed in their relations with the northern
neighbors (especially Moscow). Hence, the term ‘ahdname used in a Crimean docu-
ment addressed to Transylvania does not imply that the same term must have been
used in a document addressed to Poland.
172
See Documents 40–41 and 43.
173
See Documents 44–47.
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 291
to the khan’s instrument employing the term list przymierny, the stan-
dard Polish equivalent of the original Crimean term, whatever this
term was.
174
e earliest seventeenth-century Crimean instrument of peace that
is preserved today in the Turkish original, is the one issued in 1632 by
Djanibek Giray, during his second reign. Within its text, it is referred
to as ‘ahdname three times, but also once as şartname,
175
and once as
yarlıq in the introductory formula.
176
Apparently the terms ‘ahdname
and şartname were regarded as equivalent, although the rst one was
already more widely used, at least in the Crimean-Polish diplomatic
context. e following instrument, issued by Djanibek Giray in 1634,
is referred to as yarlıq in the introductory formula, but as an ‘ahdname
in the text proper.
177
e instrument of the next khan, Inayet Giray, issued in 1635, as
well as the instruments of his successor, Bahadır Giray, and the latter’s
qalga, Islam Giray, both issued in 1637, are preserved only in Polish
translations and referred to with the Polish term list przymierny. But
in 1640, as many as three Crimean instruments of peace were sent to
Poland and they are all extant today in the originals. ese instruments
were issued separately by the khan, Bahadır Giray, and his two younger
brothers: the qalga, Islam Giray, and the nureddin, Qırım Giray. Inter-
estingly, Bahadır Giray used the identical term: “imperial ‘ahdname”
(‘ahdname-i hümayun) in reference to both his own instrument and
the one issued three months earlier by the Ottoman sultan Ibrahim,
whose contents the khan invoked. e term yarlıq appears as well in
his document, in the introductory formula,
178
and besides, in reference
to another letter of the khan, sent previously to the king and simulta-
neously referred to as muhabbetname (lit. “friendly letter”).
179
Hence,
174
See Document 48.
175
In one place the khan refers to “this imperial ‘ahdname and perpetual şartname”
(işbu ‘ahdname-i hümayun ve şartname-i mü’ebbed-maqrun); see Document 49.
176
Cf. the introductory formula: “the message of the noble yarliq [. . .] and the
explanation of the transmission of the illustrious ‘ahdname is that:” (i‘lam-i yarlıġ-i
şerif ve iam-i tebliġ-i ‘ahdname-i münif oldur ki); see Document 49.
177
See Document 50.
178
“e message of the noble monarchic yarliq is that:” (i‘lam-i yarlıġ-i şerif-i hani
oldur ki); see Document 55.
179
“We sent to you, our brother, and to your hetmans, our envoy and a number of
our men along with our friendly letter [muhabbetname] and noble yarliq, announc-
ing friendship and brotherly aection” (ėlçimiz ve niçe kişilerimizni muhabbetname
yarlıġ-i şerimiz birle siz qardaşımızġa ve hetmanlarıŋuzġa dostluq ve qardaşlıq içün
292 part two—chapter two
we may conclude that in that period the term yarlıq still applied to any
document that publicly promulgated the will of a Genghisid sovereign
or his co-ruling family member (see below), including, though not
exclusively, an ‘ahdname.
e qalga, Islam Giray, also referred to the khan’s instrument as an
“imperial ‘ahdname” and declared that his own oath (‘ahd) was based
on the instrument of his “prosperous and mighty elder brother, the
khan” (‘ahdimiz sa‘adetlü ve şevketlü aġaçamız han [. . .] hazretleriniŋ
‘ahdname-i hümayunları üzeredir). Nevertheless, he also referred to
his own instrument as “our present ‘ahdname and şartname” (işbu
‘ahdname ve şartnamemiz). Moreover, although he was not the ruling
sovereign, his instrument was referred to in the introductory formula
as “the noble princely
180
yarliq, accompanied by aection” (yarlıġ-i
şerif muhabbet-redif-i sultani).
181
Not to much surprise, we nd that
also the nureddin, Qırım Giray, referred to his instrument as “my
imperial ‘ahdname” (‘ahdname-i hümayunum), “our ‘ahdname” (‘ahd-
namemiz), and “the noble princely yarlıq” (yarlıġ-i şerif-i sultani).
182
While the instrument, issued in 1640 by Islam Giray as the qalga,
is simultaneously referred to by all the three typical terms: ‘ahd-
name, şartname, and yarlıq, his instrument from 1646, drawn aer he
ascended the Crimean throne, is referred to merely as an ‘ahdname.
183
Interestingly, his following instrument, issued in 1649 in a military
camp at Zboriv, does not contain any of these terms, although the term
‘ahd is used when the khan engages not to break his oath (naqz-i ‘ahd
bizim tarafımızdan olmayup). e omission is perhaps not accidental.
At rst sight, judging by its protocol and external form, especially the
presence of the khan’s tuġra appended as its corroboration, the docu-
ment appears to be a unilaterally granted privilege
184
that would t
the classical category of yarlıqs and ‘ahdnames. Nevertheless, it also
contains less usual elements: it was issued not in the khan’s palace but
cibergenmizde); the dierence between an ‘ahdname and a muhabbetname is discussed
below.
180
Contrary to the Ottoman usage, in the Crimean context the title sultan applied
to any prince from the Giray dynasty, but not to the ruling khan; therefore, the adjec-
tive sultani (lit. “sultanic”) is rendered here as “princely.”
181
See Document 57.
182
See Document 56.
183
See Document 58.
184
e fact that the ‘ahdnames were usually exchanged between rulers renders their
unilateral character questionable, yet they still cannot be described as bilateral treaties
typical for our times.
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 293
on the battleeld and its contents stemmed from bilateral negotiations,
whose results were mutually accepted by the plenipotentiaries of the
two sides (although in fact the nal instruments of the two sides con-
tained substantial dierences as well; cf. Part I). e mutual agreement
is recalled in the khan’s instrument, whose contents are referred to as
“the conditions agreed upon between [us]” (mabeyinde mün‘aqıd olan
şurut).
185
By the way, the plural term şurut derives from the singular
term şart, the component of the term şartname, though in the given
context it is used in its primary meaning and refers to a “condition”
(or “stipulation”) rather than “oath.” Notwithstanding all its peculari-
ties, we will nevertheless regard Islam III Giray’s instrument from
1649 as an ‘ahdname.
e instrument of Mehmed IV Giray, sent to John Casimir in
1654, is again referred to as ‘ahdname, while the terms şartname and
yarlıq are missing, just like in Islam III Giray’s instrument from 1646.
Interestingly, in the Crimean instrument from 1654 also the royal
instrument of peace, brought to the khan by a Polish envoy, Mariusz
Jaskólski, is referred to as ‘ahdname.
186
By referring to the royal instru-
ment with the same term as to the khan’s one, the Crimean chancery
apparently departed from the concept of unequal relations, embodied
by the Genghisid term yarlıq. is development ran counter to the
development in the Ottoman chancery, witnessed in the same peri-
od.
187
Hence, one may conclude that the process of unilateralization,
typical for the seventeenth-century Ottoman chancery, ran in parallel
with the bilateralization in the Crimean chancery, which adopted a
more realistic and less megalomaniac attitude towards its Christian
neighbors.
185
See Document 60.
186
See Document 64. For the text of the royal instrument, brought to the Crimea
by Jaskólski and extant today in a copy; see Document 61.
187
In the 16th century, the Ottoman agreements with Poland-Lithuania used to
be conrmed with royal instruments, to which the Ottoman chancery referred to as
‘ahdnames, using the very same term that applied to the instruments issued by the
sultans. On the contrary, in the 17th century the Porte no longer expected that the
peace “granted” to indels by the omnipotent padishah be conrmed by indel rulers;
if the former insisted on sending their instruments to Istanbul, they were no lon-
ger referred to as ‘ahdnames. Simultaneously, Ottoman instruments of peace sent to
Warsaw, Venice, and other European capitals assumed the form of nişans—diplomas
granted unilaterally by the sultan. On the term nişanization, coined by Hans eunis-
sen in reference to the development in Ottoman-Venetian relations, and adopted in
the context of Ottoman-Polish relations, see Kołodziejczyk, Ottoman-Polish Diplo-
matic Relations, pp. 75–78.